Developed Countries

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 Today’s equity risk premium of 1.6 percent makes equities the preferred long-term asset-class versus bonds at the current level of bond yields. The caveat is that this conclusion would quickly change if bond yields were to rise significantly. German equities are offering a more attractive risk premium of 3.7 percent versus German bunds. We closed our tactical short in equities at its 4 percent profit-target, and are now tactically neutral. Fractal analysis suggests that bonds are now technically overbought… …but developments in the coming weeks warrant a degree of caution. With trade tensions still simmering, the Italian government in chaos, the ECB likely to unveil new stimulus in September, and the no-deal Brexit deadline looming at the end of October, there is too much event risk to short bonds with high conviction right now. Feature Chart of the WeekStocks Set To Return 3 Percent, Bonds Set To Return 1.4 Percent Bonds Set To Return 1.4 Percent This year’s rally in bonds has dragged down bond yields to unprecedented lows. Indeed, in many markets, the term ‘bond return’ should more truthfully be called ‘bond penalty’. For example, with the German 10-year bund now yielding -0.7 percent, buying and holding it for its ten year life will lose you 7 percent of your money.1 Or will it? Unlike in most jurisdictions where the currency cannot disintegrate, euro area bond yields are complicated by ‘redenomination’ discounts and premiums. If you were certain that the euro was going to break up within the next ten years, and that the German bund would pay you back in new deutschmarks worth 7 percent more than euros, then the currency redenomination gain would more than cancel out the cumulative loss from the negative yield. For this reason a better measure of the euro area bond yield comes from the single currency bloc’s average yield – because in a break up, the expected currency gains and losses for the average euro area bond yield must sum to zero. To avoid the onerous calculation of this euro area average yield, a useful proxy turns out to be the French OAT yield. While not as depressed as the German bund yield, the 10-year OAT yield, at -0.35 percent, still constitutes a bond penalty (Chart I-2). The global bond yield has reached a new record low. Meanwhile, although the global 10-year bond yield is still positive, it recently fell to an all-time low of 1.40 percent – breaking the previous record low of 1.43 percent set in the aftermath of the 2016 shock vote for Brexit (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The French OAT Is A Good Proxy For The Average Euro Area Bond Chart I-3Bonds Set To Return##br## 1.4 Percent Stocks Set To Return 3 Percent    The long term prospective return from most asset-classes is well-defined: for the bond asset-class it is the yield to maturity, now at 1.4 percent;2 for the equity asset-class it comes from the starting valuation, which tends to be an excellent predictor of the long term prospective return. But which valuation metric? Equity valuations based on earnings are problematic – because valuations appear deceptively attractive when profit margins are structurally high, as they are now (Chart I-4). The problem is that earnings will face a structural headwind when margins normalise, depressing prospective returns. Some people suggest adjusting the earnings to derive a cyclically adjusted price to earnings multiple (CAPE), but by definition this only corrects for the cycle and does not correct for any structural trend. Chart I-4Structurally High Profit Margins Flatter Equity Earnings Equity valuations based on assets are also problematic. Nowadays, such assets comprise intellectual capital or intangibles or ‘virtual’ assets, which are extremely difficult to quantify accurately. Hence, our preferred long-term valuation metric is price to sales – because sales are quantifiable, objective, and unambiguous. Indeed, the starting price to sales multiple of the global equity asset-class has been a near-perfect predictor of its prospective 10-year nominal return (Chart I-5). The method is to regress historic starting price to sales with (the known) prospective 10-year returns. Then apply the established relationship to the current price to sales to predict the (the unknown) prospective return. Chart I-5Stocks Set To Return 3 Percent On this basis, today’s prospective 10-year annualised return from global equities is 3 percent.  Is The 1.6 Percent Excess Return Enough? So the prospective 10-year return from equities, at an annualised 3 percent, is 1.6 percent more than that from bonds, at 1.4 percent.3 Is this excess return – the so-called ‘equity risk premium’ – enough (Chart of the Week)? Price to sales has been a near-perfect predictor of long term equity returns.   Yes, because at ultra-low bond yields, the risk of owning bonds converges with the risk of owning equities. The asymmetry in the future direction of bond yields makes bonds riskier investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation – nominal or real – diminishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically. The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Recent breakthroughs in risk theory and behavioural economics conclude that our perception of an investment’s risk does not come from its volatility or correlation characteristics. It comes from the investment’s negative skew. The upshot is that today’s excess prospective return of 1.6 percent does make equities the preferred long-term asset-class at the current level of bond yields. The caveat is that this conclusion would quickly change if bond yields were to rise significantly (Chart I-6). Interestingly, German equities are an excellent long-term proxy for global equities, producing near-identical returns (Chart I-7). This is not surprising given the very similar international and sector focusses. We can infer that the German stock market, just like the global equity asset-class, is set to deliver an annualised 10-year return of 3 percent. But in Germany, the 10-year bond yield is -0.7 percent, implying that German equities are offering a more attractive risk premium of 3.7 percent versus German bunds. Chart I-7German Equities Are An Excellent Proxy For Global Equities Some Other Asset Allocation Thoughts The rally in bonds has hurt our cyclical overweight to the DAX versus long-dated German bunds. However, given the aforementioned long-term analysis, we are sticking with it, albeit switching it from a cyclical to a structural recommendation. Our other recent asset allocation recommendations have worked. In May, we pointed out that the simultaneous strong rallies in equities, bonds, and oil was extremely rare, and that at least one of the rallies would soon break down. This is precisely what happened. While bonds rallied a further 5 percent, equities corrected by 5 percent, and the crude oil price plunged 20 percent. However, our portfolio construction could have been better as our weightings in the three assets left the combined short position roughly flat. The position is now closed. Our tactical short in equities achieved its 4 percent profit-target. Likewise in June, fractal analysis suggested that the double-digit rally in stock markets was vulnerable to a countertrend reversal. This is precisely what happened. Our tactical short position in the MSCI AC World Index achieved its 4 percent profit-target and is now closed (Chart I-8). Stay tactically neutral to equities. Chart I-8Stocks Were Overbought, And Reversed Interestingly, the same fractal analysis is suggesting that it is the stellar rally in bonds that is now vulnerable to a countertrend reversal (Chart I-9), implying a tactical short position in bonds. Having said that, developments in the coming weeks warrant a degree of caution. With trade tensions still simmering, the Italian government in chaos, the ECB likely to unveil new stimulus in September, and the no-deal Brexit deadline looming at the end of October, there is too much event risk to short bonds with high conviction right now. Chart I-9Bonds Are Overbought Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the sharp underperformance of Spain (IBEX 35) versus Belgium (BEL 20) is technically extended and susceptible to a liquidity-triggered reversal. Accordingly, the recommended trade is to go long Spain versus Belgium setting a profit-target of 3.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In the other trades, short MSCI All-Country World achieved its 4 percent profit-target and is now closed. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Assuming no default risk and no reinvestment risk. 2 Assuming no default risk and no reinvestment risk. 3 Nominal annualised total return, capital plus income. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Analyses on the Philippines, Colombia and Argentina are available below. Highlights Global growth conditions, especially outside the U.S., remain bond friendly. Nevertheless, U.S. bonds are overbought and technical factors might exert upward pressure on them in the near term. Our ubiquitous premise remains that EM currencies and EM risk assets are primarily driven by cycles in global trade and the Chinese economy rather than U.S. growth and interest rates. There are no signs of investor capitulation that mark a major bottom in EM risk assets. Feature Given the recent plunge in bond yields around the world, we are devoting this week’s report to discussing the implications of low U.S. bond yields on EM risk assets. Our key takeaway is that lower U.S. bond yields are not a reason to be long EM risk assets and currencies. Low Bond Yields: Reflective Or Stimulative? With respect to ultra-low bond yield, investors and commentators generally subscribe to one of the following two arguments: Bond yields are reflective – i.e. they are indicative of an upcoming economic calamity and thereby signal a bearish outlook for equity and credit markets; The current low levels of bond yields signify a dovish monetary policy stance and hence are bullish for global risk assets. In our opinion, it is not a certainty that the bond market always has perfect foresight of the economic outlook. At the same time, falling global bond yields and easing central banks do not automatically ensure a pickup in global economic activity. Hence, low bond yields do not justify a bullish stance on global stocks and credit markets. Like any other financial market, bonds are driven by time-varying forces. In certain times, bond yields signal a correct trajectory for growth, inflation and monetary policy. At other times, bond prices are driven by investor sentiment and momentum-chasing trading strategies. In times where the latter is occurring, the bond market can send the wrong signal on growth and inflation, as well as misprice the future path of interest rates. U.S. bond yields are presently correct in signaling that global growth continues to decelerate. This is corroborated by many other indicators that we have been publishing.  Presently, we have the following observations and reflections on U.S. bond yields: U.S. bond yields are presently correct in signaling that global growth continues to decelerate. This is corroborated by many other indicators that we have been publishing. However, this does not imply that U.S. bond yields will be a reliable leading indicator at the bottom of this business cycle. The basis is that U.S. bond yields did not lead at the top of the cycle. On the contrary, U.S. bond yields lagged the global business cycles by a considerable margin in both 2015-‘16 and in 2018-’19, when the growth slowdown emanated from China/EM. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese nominal manufacturing output and import volume growth rolled over in December 2017, yet U.S. bond yields rolled over in October 2018. In recent years, U.S. bond yields have also lagged the global manufacturing PMI index by about six to nine months (Chart I-2, top panel). Chart I-1China’s Business Cycle Led U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-2Global Manufacturing And EM Stocks Led U.S. Bond Yields   Remarkably, EM financial markets have been leading U.S. bond yields in recent years, not the other way around (Chart I-2, bottom panel). For some time we have held the view that the ongoing growth slump in China would culminate into a global manufacturing and trade recession that would be negative for the rest of the world, especially for EM, Japan, commodities producers, and Germany. This theme has been the main reason for our negative view on global stocks, especially cyclicals, as well as our positive stance on safe-haven bonds and bullish view on the dollar.  Understanding the origins of this global manufacturing and trade downtrend is critical to gauging the evolution of the business cycle. China is the epicenter of this global trade and manufacturing recession. In turn, the root cause of the mainland’s growth slump is money/credit tightening that has occurred in China in both 2017 and early 2018. ​​​​Money and credit growth remain lackluster in the Middle Kingdom, despite ongoing fiscal and monetary policy easing (Chart I-3). Notably, domestic credit growth and its impulse have been muted, especially when issuance of government bonds is excluded (Chart I-4). The aggregate credit and fiscal stimulus have so far been insufficient to engineer a recovery. Chart I-3China: Fiscal Deficit And Broad Money Growth Chart I-4China: Private Sector Credit Growth Is Weak Federal Reserve’s policy tightening was not the reason behind the current worldwide manufacturing recession. U.S. domestic demand has not been the source of the ongoing global manufacturing and trade recession. U.S. final domestic demand was robust until Q4 2018 and has so far downshifted only modestly (Chart I-5, top panel). Corroborating this, U.S. manufacturing was the last shoe to drop in the global manufacturing recession (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Accordingly, the Federal Reserve’s policy tightening was not the reason behind the current worldwide manufacturing recession. It follows that lower U.S. interest rates might not be essential to instigate a global economic recovery. Critically, the latest plunge in EM currencies and widening in EM credit spreads has occurred amid falling U.S. bond yields and Fed easing. Chart I-5U.S. Economy And Bond Yields Have Lagged In This Cycle Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Correlation We have long argued against the consensus view that EM equities, credit markets and currencies are much more sensitive to U.S. interest rates than to the global business cycle. Chart I-6 reveals that there has been no stable correlation between U.S. bond yields and EM credit spreads and currencies. Therefore, a bottom in EM currencies and risk assets will occur when global trade and Chinese demand ameliorate rather than as a result of Fed policy. An important question is whether low bond yields are going to support global share prices. Our hunch is that it is not likely.1  First, if U.S. bond yields had not dropped by as much as they have, global equity prices would be lower. In short, reduced long-term interest rate expectations have led investors to pay higher multiples, especially for non-cyclical and growth stocks. The U.S. equity rally since early this year has been due to multiples expansion, especially among non-cyclical and growth stocks. Chart I-7Global Ex-U.S. Share Prices: No Bull Market Here The latter has allowed the S&P 500 to reach new highs recently at a time when global ex-U.S. share prices are not far from their December lows (Chart I-7). Second, falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are growing, even if at a slower rate. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Going forward, U.S. equities remain at risk due to a potential profit contraction. We do not foresee a recession in U.S. household spending. However, America’s corporate earnings will be under pressure from a stronger dollar and shrinking profit margins due to rising unit labor costs (Chart I-8), notwithstanding the manufacturing recession that is taking hold. Chart I-8U.S. Corporate Profits Are At Risk From Margins One popular narrative attributes exceptionally low bond yields to excess savings over investments. Yet this is not always accurate. Box I-1 below explains why bond yields have little relation to savings and investments in any economy. Chart I-9U.S. Bonds Are High-Yielders Among DM Finally, some investors wonder if the low/negative bond yields in DM ex-U.S. could push U.S. Treasury yields lower. Our take is that it is possible. The spread of U.S. Treasury yields over DM ex-U.S. is very wide, which could entice foreign fixed-income investors to purchase Uncle Sam’s bonds (Chart I-9). ​​​​​​What is preventing foreign fixed-income investors from piling into Treasuries is exchange rate risk. If for whatever reason a consensus emerges among global fixed-income investors that the greenback is not going to depreciate in the next 12-18 months, there could be a stampede of foreign investors into U.S. Treasuries, pushing yields considerably lower. In our opinion, the odds are that the broad trade-weighted dollar will stay firm for now and could make new cycle highs. In such a scenario, investor expectations of U.S. currency depreciation will diminish. This could trigger a stampede of foreign fixed-income investors into U.S. bonds. This is not a forecast but a consideration that bond investors should take into account. Bottom Line: Global growth conditions, especially outside the U.S., remain bond friendly. Nevertheless, bonds are overbought and technical factors discussed in Box I-1 below might exert upward pressure on U.S. bond yields in the near term. Implications For EM  We explore three scenarios for the direction of U.S. bond yields in the coming weeks and months and the corresponding potential dynamics for EM risk assets and currencies. Scenario 1: U.S. bond yields continue to fall as the global trade and manufacturing recession endures, suppressing global growth. Outcome: EM currencies will depreciate and EM risk assets will suffer more. Scenario 2: U.S. Treasury yields increase because U.S. domestic demand firms up, even if the global trade contraction persists.  Outcome: EM currencies will weaken and EM risk assets will sell off further. Scenario 3: U.S. bond yields rise because the global manufacturing recession abates and a recovery in China leads to a global trade revival. Outcome: EM currencies will appreciate and risk assets will rally considerably. Please note that Scenario 3 is not our baseline scenario. The ubiquitous premise in these deliberations is that EM currencies and EM risk assets are primarily driven by cycles in global trade and the Chinese economy rather than U.S. growth and interest rates. EM currencies and EM risk assets are primarily driven by cycles in global trade and the Chinese economy rather than U.S. growth and interest rates. Chart I-10Stay With Short EM Equities / Long 30-Year U.S. Bonds Strategy To capitalize on our view of weaker global growth emanating from China/EM, we have been recommending the following strategy: short EM stocks / long U.S. 30-year Treasuries. This recommendation has panned out nicely, delivering a 21.5% gain since its initiation on April 10, 2017 (Chart I-10). Barring Scenario 3 above, this trade has more upside. EM Financial Markets: No Capitulation So Far Major bottoms in financial markets typically occur after investor capitulation has already taken place. Having reviewed various financial market variables, we conclude that signposts of capitulation in EM risk assets and global equities are absent: The S&P 500 SKEW index is very low. This index reflects the probability that investors are assigning to downside risk in share prices. The SKEW index is currently at one of its lowest readings of the past 30 years (since its existence), which suggests that investors are not hedging themselves against large price swings (Chart I-11). This usually occurs prior to a heightened period of volatility. Chart I-11Are U.S. Equity Investors Complacent? The volatility measures for EM and commodity currencies are still very subdued (Chart I-12). The same is true for EM equity volatility (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Even though EM and commodities currencies as well as EM share prices have fallen substantially, the price of buying insurance is still low – meaning investors are still not particularly worried. This habitually is a sign of complacency. Chart I-12Cyclical Risk Markets: Implied Volatility Remains Low Chart I-13No Capitulation Among EM Equity And Currency Investors Finally, Chart I-13 shows that asset managers’ and leveraged funds’ net long positions in EM equity index futures and high-beta liquid currencies futures were still elevated as of August 15. Bottom Line: There are no signs of investor capitulation that often mark a major bottom in risk assets.   BOX 1 Do Bond Yields Equilibrate Savings And Investment? Mainstream economic theory regards bond yields as the interest rate that balances desired savings and desired investment. According to mainstream theory, when desired savings rise relative to desired investment, bond yields drop. The latter induces less savings and more investment equilibrating the system. Conversely, when desired investment increases relative to desired savings, bond yields climb, discouraging investment and incentivizing more savings. The fundamental shortcoming of this economic model stems from the misrepresentation of banking. When a commercial bank buys any security from a non-bank, it originates a new deposit “out of thin air.” The bank does not allocate someone’s deposit into bonds. Diagram I-1 below exhibits this point. When a U.S. bank purchases a dollar-denominated bond from a pension fund, it does not use someone’s deposit to do so. Rather, a new deposit in the U.S. banking system (often at another bank) is created “out of thin air” as a result of the transaction. The amount of bonds commercial banks can purchase is limited only by regulatory norms, liquidity provision by the central bank as well as its management’s willingness to do so. Nobody needs to save for a bank to buy a bond or make a loan.  We have written in past reports on money, credit and savings that deposits in the banking system have no relationship with national or household savings. When an individual or company saves, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change. All in all, banks do not intermediate savings/deposits into credit/loans. They create new deposits “out of thin air” when they originate a loan to or buy any security from a non-bank. Provided that banks do not utilize national savings or existing deposits to acquire bonds, fluctuations in bond yields do not reflect changes in national savings. Holding everything else constant, bond yields could drop if commercial banks buy bonds en masse. The opposite also holds true. Chart I-14 demonstrates that U.S. commercial banks have been augmenting their purchases of various types of bonds. This partially explains why bond yields have plunged (bond yields shown inverted on this chart). If U.S. banks’ bonds purchases mean revert, as they often do, U.S. bond yields could rise. Chart I-14Are U.S. Banks' Purchases Of Bonds Driving Bond Yields? This along with more bond issuance by the U.S. Treasury to refill its Treasury’s General Account at the Fed as well as the existing overbought conditions in government bonds could produce a pick-up in yields. Such a rebound in bond yields would be technical and would not signal fundamental changes in the U.S. or global business cycles, or in the savings-investment balance.  Closing Some Positions Long Latin American / short emerging Asian equity indexes. This position has generated a 6% loss since its initiation on October 11, 2018 and we have low confidence that it will generate positive returns going forward. Long Chinese small cap / short EM small-cap stocks. Our bet has been that Chinese private sector companies trading in Hong Kong and represented in the MSCI small-cap index will perform better than the average EM small cap. This strategy has not worked out and has produced a 4.4% loss since its recommendation on November 20, 2013. We are downgrading Colombian equities from neutral to underweight. Please refer to pages 17-20 for a detailed analysis. Instead, we are upgrading the Peruvian bourse from underweight to a neutral allocation within an EM equity portfolio. Our view remains that gold prices will continue outperforming oil.2 Peru benefits from higher gold and silver prices while Colombia is largely an oil play. Consistently, the Peruvian currency will depreciate less than the Colombian peso. These justify this allocation shift between these two bourses.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Philippines: The Currency Holds The Key Government expenditures, in general, and infrastructure investment, in particular, will rise meaningfully in the next few months. Chart II-1Philippine Current Account Deficit Funded By Volatile Portfolio Flows Declining U.S. interest rates coupled with slumping oil prices have supported Philippine financial markets. However, the country’s balance of payments dynamics are still precarious. In particular, Philippine’s wide current account (CA) deficit will need to be funded by volatile foreign portfolio inflows as the basic balance – the sum of CA balance and net FDI – has turned negative (Chart II-1). Critically, the already wide current account deficit is set to balloon even further: First, the 2019 fiscal spending was back-loaded because a Congress impasse delayed the government budget approval to April. Hence, government expenditures, in general, and infrastructure investment, in particular, will rise meaningfully in the next few months. Higher infrastructure spending will drive imports of capital goods higher (Chart II-2). The latter accounts for 32% of total imports. Second, Philippine export growth is likely to contract anew as global trade is not recovering (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Philippine Government Infra Spending Will Accelerate Chart II-3Philippine Exports Will Contract We continue to expect broad portfolio capital outflows from EM. Potential for foreign outflows from the Philippines is large. Foreign ownership of local equities is high at 42%. As to foreign ownership of local currency bonds, it stands at around 13%. A renewed decline in the peso will drive away portfolio flows reinforcing additional currency depreciation. The falling peso will prevent the central bank from reducing interest rates further. Even if the central bank does not hike rates to support the peso, market-driven local rates could rise for a period of time. This is bad news for property stocks – which account for about 27% of the MSCI Philippines index. Having rallied considerably, they are at major risk as local interest rates rise. In addition, these stocks have benefited from strong real estate demand emanating from the Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGO) sector – which itself has been largely driven by Chinese capital flows. Both the Chinese and Philippine authorities have begun cracking down fiercely on these operations because they are link to capital flight out of China. This crackdown will curtail capital flows into these areas and depress revenues of Philippine real estate companies. This will occur at a time when the residential market is experiencing weak demand. We continue to recommend shorting/underweighting property stocks. Finally, small cap stocks are in a bear market and are sending an ominous signal (Chart II-4). Furthermore, this bourse is neither attractive in absolute terms nor relative to EM (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Small-Cap Stocks Are In A Bear Market Chart II-5Philippine Equities Are Expensive Bottom Line: We continue recommending to short the Philippine peso against the U.S. dollar. Overall, EM dedicated investors should continue underweighting the Philippine equity, fixed income and sovereign credit markets within their respective EM universes. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Colombia: A Top In The Business Cycle? Colombia’s business cycle has reached a top and growth will slow considerably in the next 12 months. Falling oil prices and fiscal tightening will cause the Colombian economy to slow down in the next 12 months. What’s more, a depreciating peso and sticky inflation will prevent the central bank (Banrep) from frontloading rate cuts to mitigate the downtrend. The Colombian peso is making new cyclical lows and more weakness is in the cards. While the currency is slightly cheap according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart III-1), our negative view on oil prices entails further currency depreciation. Colombia is still very heavily reliant on oil exports – the current account deficit is 4.3% of GDP with oil, but 8.4% excluding it (Chart III-2). Moreover, a chunk of FDIs are destined for the energy sector, and foreign portfolio flows are contingent on exchange rate stability. Therefore, falling oil prices and a weaker peso will result in diminishing FDIs and foreign portfolio flows, reinforcing downward pressure on the currency. Chart III-1The Colombian Peso Is Not That Cheap Chart III-2Current Account Deficit Is Large And Widening Notably, there is a significant pass-through effect from the currency to inflation (Chart III-3). Even though Banrep does not target the exchange rate, having both headline and core inflation above the 3% central target will constrict it from cutting interest rates soon. On the whole, odds are that Colombia’s business cycle has reached a top and growth will slow considerably in the next 12 months. The yield curve is signaling an economic slowdown ahead (Chart III-4). Chart III_3The Exchange Rate And Inflation Chart III-4Domestic Demand Is About To Roll Over Our credit and fiscal spending impulse might be peaking, signifying a top in domestic demand growth (Chart III-5). The impulse is rolling over primarily due to the substantial fiscal tightening. Duque’s administration has slashed expenditures and the latter are contracting in inflation-adjusted terms (Chart III-6). Chart III-5A Top In The Business Cycle? Chart III-6Severe Fiscal Tightening   Government revenues are highly dependent on oil exports, and the recent fall in oil prices will bring about a contraction in fiscal revenues. This, and the government’s strong adherence to fiscal surplus, implies no loosening up on the fiscal side. Finally, our proxy for marginal propensity to spend for businesses and households is indicating that growth is about to roll over (Chart III-7). Auto sales are also weakening, and housing sales are contracting (Chart III-8). Chart III-7The Business Cycle Is Peaking Chart III-8Colombia: Certain Segments Have Turned Over Given that both fiscal and monetary policies are unlikely to be relaxed soon, the peso will come under renewed selling pressure, acting as a release valve for the Colombian economy. Investment Recommendations We are downgrading this bourse from neutral to an underweight allocation within a dedicated EM equity portfolio. In its place, we are upgrading Peruvian stocks from underweight to neutral. Continue shorting COP versus RUB. This trade has generated a 14% return since its initiation on May 31st of last year. Finally, within EM local currency bond and sovereign credit portfolios, Colombia warrants a neutral allocation. We also recommend fixed-income investors continue to bet on further yield curve flattening: receive 10-year / pay 1-year swap rates.   Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com   Argentina: Do Not Catch A Falling Knife The latest rout in Argentine markets has brought fears of another sovereign debt default or restructuring. Are conditions right for buying Argentine markets? Politics complicate the assessment of a debt restructuring and we do not recommend bottom fishing in Argentine financial markets. Looking at the profile of past financial crises and debt defaults, there might be more downside in Argentine asset prices. Sovereign U.S. dollar bond prices remain well above their 2002 and 2008 lows (Chart IV-1). Compared with previous EM financial crises, Argentine stocks might still have considerable downside in U.S. dollar terms (Chart IV-2). Chart IV-1Things Could Get Worse Chart IV-2Historical Patterns Suggest More Downside In Bank Stocks The equity market index has relapsed below its 2018 lows in dollar terms, which technically qualifies as a breakdown and entails fresh lows ahead (Chart IV-3). Chart IV-3A Technical Breakdown In Argentine Equities In addition to political uncertainty and rising possibility of a left-wing run government, the nation’s ability to service its foreign currency debt has deteriorated with the currency plunging to new lows. Specifically, the country has large foreign debts of $275 billion. Foreign obligation payments in the next 12 months are about $40 billion. The government lacks foreign currency reserves and export revenues necessary to service its external debt. The central bank’s net foreign exchange reserves (excluding FX swaps and gold) are about $17 billion. The country’s annual exports are $77.5 billion. With agricultural commodities prices falling, exports will likely shrink. By and large, our downbeat stance from April remains intact. Bottom Line: Investors should continue avoiding and underweighting Argentine financial markets.   Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please note this is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service and is different from BCA’s house view. Clients can read the debate between various BCA strategists in the report What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open. Please click on the link to access it. 2    We recommended the long gold / short copper and oil trade on July 11, 2019 and this position remains intact. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Fixed-Income And Credit Recommendations

Hard-to-predict policy risks and trade-war uncertainty will continue to hinder oil-demand growth, as will USD strength. The cost of oil in local-currency terms remains close to highs not seen since Brent and WTI traded above $100/bbl in 2014 in key EM economies, which partly explains the fall-off in demand begun in 2H18 that carried into 1H19 (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect oil demand to revive on the back of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, which, along with continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers, keeps our 2020 Brent forecast at $75/bbl. For 2019, however, our Brent forecast falls to $66/bbl from $70/bbl, following a re-basing of estimated demand in 2017-18 to bring it in line with lower historical data, and the lingering impact of a stronger USD.1 We also are revising our WTI expectation, as markets price in the last bits of ~ 2mm b/d of new pipeline takeaway capacity coming online in the Permian Basin. For 2019, we expect WTI to trade $6.50/bbl under Brent, and $4/bbl under next year, vs. $7/bbl and $5/bbl we expected last month. Chart of the WeekUSD Strength Hinders Oil-Demand Rebound Highlights Energy: Overweight. Distillate fuel accounted for 29.6% of the product derived from refining crude oil in the U.S. during July, a record for the month, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Refiners are gearing up for the global change-over to low-sulfur marine fuels ahead of the January 1, 2020, implementation of IMO 2020. Base Metals: Neutral. Increased infrastructure spending will add ~ $2 billion (14 billion RMB) to China’s total infrastructure spending of 524 billion RMB, according to a Fastmarkets MB analyst survey. Copper usage is expected to increase as 2H19 grid spending picks up. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold and silver continue to mark time close to recent highs. USD strength could slow the metals’ rally. We remain long both metals as portfolio hedges. Ags/Softs: Underweight. This week’s USDA’s Crop Progress report showed 56% of the corn crop was in good or excellent condition, vs. 68% in 2018. For beans, 53% of the crop is in good or excellent condition, vs. 65% last year. Feature We expect global fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift demand in EM economies, which will be visible over the balance of this year and next. In this month’s assessment of supply-demand balances, we are lowering our 2019 Brent forecast to $66/bbl from $70/bbl, after re-basing our demand estimates so that they are more in line with EIA’s historical data (Chart 2). We lowered our historical demand estimates up to and including 2017, in line with the EIA data. This reduces the base level for 2018-20 demand. As a result, the level of our 2018 demand is down by 200k b/d to 100.1mm b/d, vs. last month’s estimate, and the level of our 2019 and 2020 demand estimates is down by 250k b/d to 101.3mm b/d and to 102.8mm b/d. The adjustments are mainly due to the revision of historical level of demand in 2017-2018. In addition, we lowered our growth estimate for 2019 slightly to 1.2mm b/d from 1.25mm b/d last month, but kept our 2020 growth rate expectation at 1.5mm b/d. Chart 2Lower 2019 Demand Estimate, Price; Keeping 2020 Unchanged As noted above, we expect global fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift demand in EM economies, which will be visible over the balance of this year and next. Continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers leaves our 2020 Brent forecast unchanged at $75/bbl. In addition, this combination of stronger demand and tighter supply will create a physical supply deficit (Chart 3). This deficit will force inventories lower, which remains OPEC 2.0’s paramount goal, and backwardate the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 4). Chart 3Stronger Demand, Tighter Supply Produces Physical Deficit Chart 4Inventory Draws Will Resume For WTI, we now expect it to trade $6.50/bbl under Brent in 2019 and $4/bbl under in 2020, vs. the $7/bbl and $5/bbl differentials we expected last month. This narrowing of the differential comes on the back of the build-out of takeaway pipeline capacity in the Permian Basin, which amounts to ~ 2mm b/d by the end of this year. The expansion of deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf is being delayed by regulatory action, which means the Brent vs. WTI differential will not significantly contract further until later in 2020 or 2021 when we expect crude-oil export volumes to pick up sharply. Over the course of the coming year, we do expect exports to pick up before 2021, as they have done in 2018-2019. This trend likely continues. We calculated there is ~ 4.5 mm b/d of current export capacity in the Gulf, therefore exports still can increase before being fully constrained. In addition, small capacity expansion projects already are under construction, which will lift capacity next year. That said, any delays could pressure differentials (LLS-Brent, WTI-Brent). But, as long as shale-oil production keeps increasing and foreign demand remains strong, exports can increase – likely at a slower pace – while differentials hold around the $4/bbl level next year. Digging Into The Oil Demand Slow-Down This was a stealthy USD rally, overshadowed by the Sino-U.S. trade war, and exogenous foreign-policy shocks re U.S. Venezuela and Iran policy. For 2019, a grouping of negative demand-side effects have proven to be quite strong – uncertainty spawned by the Sino-U.S. trade-war, tightening financial conditions globally, and the strong USD. Over the past year, these effects have combined to lower actual demand, and forced us to lower our growth expectation for this year for a fourth time to 1.2mm b/d. In hindsight, it is apparent the strong USD has affected EM demand by raising the local-currency cost of oil in particular over the past year to levels not seen since crude was trading above $100/bbl in 2014 (Charts 5A and 5B). Chart 5AAs USD Strengthened Local-Currency Costs Skyrocketed Chart 5BAs USD Strengthened Local-Currency Costs Skyrocketed   This was a stealthy USD rally, overshadowed by the Sino-U.S. trade war, and exogenous foreign-policy shocks re U.S. Venezuela and Iran policy. In addition to raising the cost of commodities priced in USD, in local-currency terms, the stronger dollar lowered the cost of producing commodities for countries like Russia, whose currencies are not pegged to the USD. So, in one fell swoop, USD strength lowered demand via higher prices, and increased supply via lower costs of production. In addition, weaker local currencies catalyze capital outflow, which reduces the supply of savings available to EM economies for investment. At the margin, this also stunts income growth.2 The effects of USD strength could persist, and continue to have a deleterious influence on oil demand into next year, given the way in which monetary policy – and its effects on FX rates – can act with “long and variable lags.” Our BCA Commodity-Demand Nowcasting model continues to point toward a revival of demand as EM economic growth picks up (Chart 6).3 Given the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency vis-à-vis the rest of the world, we expect this will weaken the USD and be supportive of commodity prices. Chart 6BCA Commodity-Demand Nowcast Remains Upbeat Chart 7Expect Further Backwardation In Crude Oil Forward Curves Higher oil demand and lower supply likely will further backwardate Brent and WTI forward curves, which will diminish the impact of the USD’s strength (Chart 7), and lead to higher volatility, as fundamentals once again dominate price formation (Chart 8). Still, the effects of USD strength could persist, and continue to have a deleterious influence on oil demand into next year, given the way in which monetary policy – and its effects on FX rates – can act with “long and variable lags," to borrow Milton Friedman's well-turned phrase.4 We will monitor this risk closely, and will be offering further research into it.   Supply Concerns Persist E&P companies are using their accumulated inventory of excess Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUC) wells to reach their production targets, while controlling capital expenditures (i.e. flat/lower rig count). We continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to manage production, and to keep a laser focus on reducing inventories. The producer coalition continues to get a huge assist in this effort from the U.S. sanctions against Iran, which, according to the American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have taken almost all of that country’s oil exports – some 2.7mm b/d – out of the market (Chart 9).5 In our balances estimates, we show OPEC producing 29.8mm b/d of crude oil on average this year, and 29.7mm b/d next year. This is down sharply from the 32mm b/d we estimate the Cartel produced last year, which included a surge in 2H18 undertaken in response to pressure from the U.S. to build inventories ahead of oil-export sanctions being re-imposed against Iran (Table 1). Given the lower demand estimate OPEC is forecasting for this year and next – 99.9mm b/d, and 101.1mm b/d this year and next – we expect OPEC’s leader, KSA, to keep production closer to 10mm b/d vs. its 10.33mm b/d quota. We expect the other putative leader of OPEC 2.0, Russia, to produce 11.43mm b/d and 11.41mm b/d this year and next, versus 11.4mm b/d last year. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Once again, U.S. shale-oil output provides the largest increase in supply globally. That said, shale-oil producers are being forced to temper production growth, as investors’ demand higher profits or greater return of capital. We revised down our U.S. shale production growth to 8.2mm b/d in 2019 and 9.1mm b/d in 2020 (Chart 10). In 2018, we estimated U.S. shale production at 7.2mm b/d. Chart 10Shale Output Reduced Slightly Lower-than-expected WTI prices and capital discipline will limit U.S. shale production growth this year, and temper it next year. E&P companies are using their accumulated inventory of excess Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUC) wells to reach their production targets, while controlling capital expenditures (i.e. flat/lower rig count).6 Year to date, DUC completions increased in the Big Five tight-oil basins, overtaking new wells drilled (Chart 11).7 However, the Permian’s excess DUC inventory increased in July despite the ongoing pipeline capacity expansion and falling rig count. The Permian’s completion rate will be important to monitor. At current oil prices, producers need to tap into their excess DUC inventories to reach both their free-cash-flow and production goals. Bottom Line: We are reducing our Brent price forecast for 2019 to $66/bbl, on the back of weaker demand. Our forecast for 2020 remains unchanged at $75/bbl. Our expectations are driven by our expectation fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift commodity demand – oil in particular – and that production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline from U.S. shale-oil producers will tighten markets and lift prices from here.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition formed in late 2016 by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. The producer coalition’s mission was – and remains – managing global supply so as to reduce inventories. We expect OPEC 2.0 production to be at or below quota levels agreed December 7, 2018, when KSA and Russia and their respective allies set about once again to drain global inventories of the 62-million-barrel overhang that resulted from the production ramp-up undertaken in response to demands from U.S. President Donald Trump. 2      The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that, on the back of higher prices last year, oil once again was “the most heavily subsidized” energy source, expanding its share of the $400 billion provided consumers by their governments to 40%. Please see Commentary: Fossil fuel consumption subsidies bounced back strongly in 2018, published by the IEA June 13, 2019. 3      For a description of our nowcast model, please see Just In Time For Christmas! U.S. Tariff Delay Rocks Oil published last week by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We noted last week that our expectation of stronger EM growth and a weaker USD is contrary to the view of BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy, which expects continued weakness in EM GDP growth. Moreover, as mentioned in last week's report, our nowcast’s last data point was observed in July, which is before the latest escalation in trade tensions. We could see a move down in some of the indicators used as input in our nowcast model in the coming month. 4      Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in Economics, noted monetary policy operates with long and varying lags, which makes it difficult to be precise as to when its effects will be noticed in the macroeconomy. Please see Milton Friedman’s article, “The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy,” Journal of Political Economy Vol. 69, No. 5 (Oct., 1961), pp. 447-466. 5      To date, OPEC and non-OPEC producers have had no apparent trouble replacing lost Iranian and Venezuelan barrels taken off the market as a result of U.S. sanctions. This indicates spare capacity remains sufficient to meet short-term supply disruptions and unplanned outages. Please see U.S. removed almost 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil from market - Pompeo, published by uk.reuters.com August 20, 2019. 6      The process of drilling and completing wells produces a normal inventory of uncompleted wells, because of the time lag between the moment wells are drilled and the time they are completed. The development of multi-well pad drilling in U.S. shales structurally increased the time lag between drilling and completion to ~ 5 months. This implies a normal level of DUC inventory that corresponds to ~ 5 - 6 months’ worth of drilling activity. We define any DUC above our estimate of normal as an excess DUC well. On average, completion accounts for ~ 65% of the total well costs. 7      The Big Five shale basins are the Permian; the Eagle Ford; Niobrara; the Bakken, and the Anadarko. 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

In this Monday’s Special Report we dissected S&P sectors’ relative performance following Powell’s recent interest rate cut characterization as a “mid-cycle adjustment.” Our view remains that a recession likely looms in the coming 18 months, but should we be proven wrong, this Special Report can serve as a road map of what to expect next. The key findings are summarized below: The rate-sensitive sectors – S&P utilities, telecoms, consumer discretionary and financials – underperform early before they outperform once the Fed has started to ease with the exception of the S&P utilities, which initially delivers low but positive returns and continue to underperform up to two years after the beginning of the “mid-cycle adjustments.” Similarly, we find that most of the deep cyclicals underperform in the run-up to the first rate cut and usually outperform subsequently. The S&P energy is an exception as it outperformed heading into the cutting cycle and then underperformed 6 and 12 months following the first rate cut. Please see this Monday’s Special Report for more details.

One of the reasons we have turned cautious on the equity market on a cyclical horizon has been the debt excesses of the non-financial corporate sector. On June 10 Weekly Report we showed using flow of funds data that non-financial business debt hit all-time highs as a percentage of output as the U.S. debt never got purged; it just moved around from the financial and household sectors to the non-financial business and government sectors (please refer to Chart A in the Appendix). Subsequently, on July 15 using stock market reported data we showed that net debt-to-EBITDA for the non-financial corporate ex-tech sector was also in uncharted territory and posited that such balance sheet degrading would bring equities back to earth (please refer to Charts B & C in the Appendix). Today, we show Bloomberg calculated data series on the S&P 500 ex-financials: net debt has been rising north of a 20%/annum pace, while balance sheet cash & cash equivalents growth has been in a standstill (middle panel, side chart). Where have corporates funneled all this debt accumulation? As Chart D in the Appendix shows – which was taken from our June 24 Weekly Report, $5tn in buybacks since the GFC nearly equal the $5tn the non-financial corporate sector has raised in debt. The bottom panel of the chart on the side depicts this backdrop in a slightly different way. Adding it all up, there are high odds that the debt-saddled non-financial corporate sector might collapse under its own weight (net debt shown inverted, top panel, side chart). Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the broad equity market on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon.   Appendix Chart A Appendix Chart B Appendix Chart C Appendix Chart D