Equities

Highlights So What? The U.S.-China tariff ceasefire is a net positive, but a final deal is by no means assured. Why? In the near term there may be a play on global risk assets, but beyond that we remain cautious. Global divergence remains the key theme, and China now has less reason to stimulate. What to watch for a final deal: Trump’s approval rating, China’s structural concessions, and geopolitical tensions. We recommend booking gains on our long DM / short EM trades. Go long EM oil producers on OPEC 2.0 cuts. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The deal includes: Tariff Ceasefire: A 90-day ceasefire – until March 1 – on hiking the second-round tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese imports. Substantive Talks: The talks will center on structural changes to the Chinese economy, including forced tech transfer, IP theft, hacking, and non-tariff barriers. Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi Jinping’s key economics and trade advisor, may visit Washington in mid-December. Imports: China has agreed to import more goods to lower the U.S. trade deficit, including agricultural and capital goods. This harkens back to the failed May 20 “beef and Boeings” deal. As with the previous deal, there are no deadlines or quantities promised. Not included in the two-and-a-half-hour dinner between Trump and Xi was a substantive discussion on geopolitical tensions. While Chinese statements following the summit did reaffirm Chinese commitment to the U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, there was no broader agreement on tensions, particularly in the South China Sea. The U.S. has recently demanded that China demilitarize the area. Should investors “play” the summit? Tactically, there is an opportunity to play global risk assets in the near term. Cyclically and structurally, however, both economic fundamentals and the underlying trajectory of U.S.-China relations call for caution over the course of 2019. Will The Truce Hold? There are five reasons to doubt the sustainability of the truce: Trade imbalance: It is highly unlikely that the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. can be substantively altered over the course of 90 days. The U.S. economy is in “rude health,” the USD is strong, unemployment is low and pushing up wages, and the output gap is closed. These are the macroeconomic conditions normally associated with an elevated trade imbalance (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues throughout the election season, but not on the issue of his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair, unlike trade with other countries (Chart 2). As such, President Trump will have to produce a convincing deal in order to ensure that his base, and many Democrats, support the deal. Chart 2Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Structural tensions: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the G20 summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.1 The report was an update to the original investigation that launched the Section 301 tariffs against China. Lighthizer’s report therefore provides a road-map for what the U.S. will want to see over the course of 90 days. High-tech transfers: The Department of Commerce announced on November 19 a “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies.” This review will conclude on December 19 when the public comment period ends. In the report, the federal government lists biotech, AI, genetic computation, microprocessors, data analytics, quantum computing, logistics, 3D printing, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials, and advanced surveillance as technologies with potential “dual-use” that may be critical to U.S. national security and thus might merit consideration for export control.2 As such, the U.S. may decide to impose export controls on technologies that China deems critical to accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” goals within the period of the 90 day talks. If those export controls were to include critical items – such as semiconductors, which are critical to China’s export-oriented manufacturing (Chart 3) – negotiations may become more complicated. Geopolitics: The trade truce did not contain any substantive resolution to ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China. These tensions precede President Trump: we have detailed them in these pages since 2012.3 As such, the U.S. defense and intelligence community will have to be on board with any trade deal and that may suggest that Beijing will be asked to make geopolitical concessions over the course of the next 90 days. Chart 3China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Despite the above, the trade truce is a meaningful and substantive move away from an open trade war. Yes, the U.S. will retain tariffs on $250bn Chinese imports, with China maintaining tariffs on $66bn of U.S. imports (Chart 4). No, the U.S. did not rule out a third round of tariffs covering the remaining $267 billion of Chinese imports, if things go awry. Nevertheless, the 90-day truce implies that the U.S. will not ratchet up the tensions for now. Chart 4U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The truce also allows China to make substantive changes to its domestic economic policies that may satisfy some of the structural concerns cited in the above U.S. Trade Representative report. The soundest basis for a durable deal lies in China recommitting to structural reforms: this would both be positive for China’s productivity and would assuage some of Washington’s underlying anxieties about China’s state-backed industrial policies. Significantly, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says that it will “gradually resolve the legitimate concerns of the U.S. in the process of advancing a new round of reform and opening up in China.” When would this new round of reform occur? The upcoming Central Economic Work Conference, and the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, should be watched closely for new initiatives. Also, the new March 1 tariff deadline lines up with the calendar for China’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The NPC meets every year and is the occasion when any major new domestic reforms would need to be laid out. Thus, any Chinese compromises on structural issues could be rolled out as part of a more general reform agenda in March. This is important because the U.S. administration is determined to focus on implementation and not to let China delay resolution of differences through endless rounds of dialogue. As such, investors should watch the following issues over the course of the next three months in order to gauge the likelihood of a substantive deal that not only rules out new tariffs but also rolls back the existing ones: Polls: President Trump is focused on his 2020 reelection. As such, he will want to see political gains from the easing of pressure on China, both in the general populace and amongst his GOP base (Chart 5). A slump in the polls, or a threatening turn in the Mueller investigation, may justify a shift in the narrative come March-April and thus end the truce. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Will Affect Trade Talks Big ticket announcements: China is going to have to make big-ticket item purchases. A huge order of Boeing airplanes, a massive ramp-up in the purchase of agricultural products, a raft of direct investments in manufacturing in the heartland … these are the type of announcements that President Trump could use to sell a substantive deal to his base. Structural changes to the Chinese economy: China will have to prove that it is addressing the concerns outlined in the U.S. Trade Representative report. We suspect that Lighthizer issued the report ahead of the G20 summit so as to set the benchmark for what the U.S. wants to see from Beijing. It is a high benchmark as it includes: An end to cyber theft, hacking, and corporate espionage; Substantive, rather than merely “incremental,” improvements to U.S. market access, including increased ownership of ventures; Serious changes to state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen technology, particularly the so-called “Strategic Emerging Industries” program and “Made in China 2025”; An end to China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley. No new U.S. embargoes: The public comment period for the newly proposed U.S. export controls ends on December 19. That suggests that high-tech restrictions could emerge over the course of the first quarter of 2019. These could exacerbate tensions. No new geopolitical tensions: Geopolitical tensions, such as over human rights in Xinjiang or the militarization of the South China Sea, would obviously make a deal less likely.  Bottom Line: The trade truce could lead to a substantive trade deal between China and the U.S. However, many impediments remain. Investors have to answer three key questions: is the deal politically useful for President Trump ahead of the 2020 election? Does the deal resolve the concerns laid out in the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 report? And will geopolitical and national security tensions ease? Since 2012, we have had a structurally bearish view of the Sino-American relationship. This view is based on long-term structural factors that we do not think can be resolved over the course of 90 days. That said, every structural view can have cyclical deviations. The question we now turn to is how to play such a cyclical deviation in terms of the markets. What Does The Truce Mean For The Markets? In our view, the trade war has been of secondary importance to global markets. Far more relevant to the BCA House View that DM assets will outperform EM has been our conclusion that U.S. and Chinese economies would experience policy divergence. The U.S. economy has been buoyed by pro-cyclical stimulus, whereas Chinese policymakers have created a macro-prudential framework that has impaired the country’s credit channel. This divergence has led to the outperformance of the U.S. economy over the rest of the world, leading to a substantive USD rally (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD While this view has worked out well in 2018, it appears to be fraying as the year comes to the end: Chart 7U.S. Growth Weakening? Fed dovishness: Our recent travels to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Midwest have revealed unease among investors regarding the health of the U.S. economy. Some recent data, such as the woeful core durable goods orders (Chart 7) and weak housing, have prompted calls for a more dovish Fed. On cue, Fed Chair Jay Powell delivered what was perceived as a dovish speech. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes a strong case for why investors should fade the enthusiasm.4 Specifically, Peter thinks that investors are focusing too much on the unknown – the neutral rate – and not enough on the known – the budding inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Nonetheless, in the near-term, the narrative of a “Fed pause” may overwhelm the data. Chart 8Does The Fed Like It Hot? Chart 9Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive Chinese stimulus: Evidence of a broad-based, irrigation-style, credit stimulus is scant in China’s data. Nonetheless, many investors we have met on the road are latching on to higher local government bond issuance (Chart 9) and a positive M2 credit impulse (Chart 10). Moreover, Q1 almost always brings a boost in new lending in China. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, has recently pointed out that the global credit impulse has hooked up, suggesting that EM underperformance is over (Chart 11).5 We do not think that China can turn the corner on a slumping economy without a substantive increase in its total social financing, which remains subdued both in growth terms and as a second derivative (Chart 12). However, we concede that the narrative may have shifted sufficiently in the near term to warrant some tactical caution on our cyclical House View. ​​​​​​​Chart 10China's M2 Turned Positive Chart 11An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM Trade truce: Trade concerns have had a clear impact on the outperformance of U.S. equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 13). As such, a trade truce may alter the narrative sufficiently in the near term to change the direction. In this report, we cite why we are cautious regarding the truce leading to a substantive deal. However, we are biased by our structural perspective that Sino-American tensions are unavoidable. The vast majority of our clients and global investors does not share this view. In fact, the trade war has caught the investment community by surprise. As such, we would argue that investors are biased towards a “win-win” scenario. Therefore, investors may not be cautious, but may in fact project a much higher probability of a final deal into their market decisions. Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak Chart 13U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Over the course of 2019, we do not think the global risk asset bullishness is sustainable. In fact, a reprieve rally now is going to make global growth resynchronization less likely and continued policy divergence more likely. Why? First, Chinese policymakers will have less of a reason to deploy an irrigation-style credit stimulus if fears of an accelerated trade war abate. Second, the Fed will have less of a reason to back off from its hiking trajectory if both the DXY rally and equity market volatility ease. That said, we are going to close our long DM / short EM trades for the time being. This includes: Our long DM equities / short EM equities, for a gain of 15.70%; Our long U.S. Dollar (DXY) index for a gain of 0.56%; Our long USD / Short EM currency basket for a loss of 0.76%; Our long JPY/GBP call, for a gain of 0.32%. Our hedge of being long China play index ought to outperform on a tactical horizon, so we are leaving it open despite its paltry return so far of 0.32%. Also, we are keeping our long Chinese equities ex. Tech / short EM equities trade, as Chinese assets should rally on the back of the truce. Note that, as outlined above, China’s tech sector is not out of the woods yet. Our decision to close these recommendations is to preserve profits, not change our investment stance. On a cyclical horizon, we remain skeptical that global risk assets will outperform DM, and U.S. assets in particular, over the course of 2019. In the end, we do not believe that a mere narrative shift will be sustainable, especially given the robustness of the U.S. labor market (Chart 14) and the tepidness of Chinese stimulus (Chart 15). Chart 14A Tight Labor Market Chart 15Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Finally, a word on oil prices. The G20 was crucial for the oil call, as well as the trade war, given that Saudi Arabia and Russia suggested that their OPEC 2.0 union would produce supply cuts at the upcoming Vienna meeting on December 6. This proves that fundamentals were more important than the narrative that Saudi leadership “owed” a favor to President Trump. In particular, the Saudis have fiscal constraints given their budget breakeven oil price is around $80-$85 per barrel. As such, we are reinitiating our long EM energy producers (ex-Russia) / short broad EM (ex-China) equity call. We are excluding Russia from the “long” due to lingering geopolitical concerns – sanctions and Ukraine – and China from the “short,” as we are now tactically bullish on China.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 2      Please see The Federal Register, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” dated November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 3      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?,” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas,” dated November 22, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2018.  The quant model further downgraded U.S. in favor of the non-U.S. block, especially Germany, the Netherlands, Swiss, Spain and Canada as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1 -  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 1 bp in November, with a 27 bps of outperformance from Level 2 model offset by a 10 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 46 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 156 bps and level 1 underperforming by 12 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %)   Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World   Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model   Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Higher interest rates, with the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy three more times in the next seven months, will be the dominant theme next year. All four of our high-conviction underweight calls are levered to this theme. The later stages of the U.S. capex upcycle underpin three of our high-conviction overweight calls for 2019. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P Home Improvement Retail index to underweight today. Trim the S&P Interactive Media & Services index to a below benchmark allocation today.  Table 1 Feature Fed policy will dominate markets next year as the dual tightening backdrop – rising fed funds rate and accelerated downsizing of the Fed balance sheet – remains intact. Two weeks ago we raised the question: is the Fed tightening monetary policy too far too fast?1 In more detail, we put the latest monetary tightening cycle in historical perspective and examined trough-to-peak moves in the fed funds rate since the 1950s (Chart 1). Chart 1Too Far Too Fast? A good friend I call “the smartest man in California” correctly pointed out that 500bps of tightening today is not the same as in the 1970s or 1980s. Chart 2 adjusts for that by including the average nominal GDP growth rate during these tightening episodes and adds more color to each era. As a reminder, the latest cycle that commenced in December 2015 is already 25bps above the median, if one uses the Wu-Xia shadow fed funds rate to capture the full quantitative easing effect, and above-average nominal output growth. Chart 2Trough-To-Peak Tightening Cycle Already Above Historical Median Trying to answer the question, we are concerned that as the Fed remains committed to tighten monetary policy three more times by mid-2019, a yield curve inversion looms, especially if the U.S. economy suffers a soft patch in the first half of next year (please refer to our Economic Impulse Indicator analysis in the October 22ndand November 19th Weekly Reports). This would signal at least a pause, if not reversal, in Fed policy. With that in mind, this week we are revealing our high-conviction calls for 2019. Four of our calls are a play on this tightening monetary backdrop that is one of BCA’s themes for next year.2 The later stages of the U.S. capex upcycle underpin three of our high-conviction calls. Table 22018 High-Conviction Calls Recap However, before we highlight our 2019 high-conviction calls in detail, Table 2 tallies our calls from last year. We had a stellar performance in our 2018 high-conviction calls with an average excess return of 11.6% versus the S&P 500. As the year turns the corner, closing out the remaining calls brings down the average relative return to 7.5%, still a very impressive number, with a total of ten hits and only two misses for the year.    Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Software (Overweight, Capex Theme) Software stocks are our first hold out from last year’s high-conviction overweight list, levered to the capex upcycle theme. Chart 3 shows that relative capital outlays and the share price ratio are joined at the hip. Software upgrades offer the simplest, quickest and most effective capital deployment, especially when productivity gains ground to a halt. Importantly, leading indicators of overall capex remain upbeat and should continue to underpin software profits. Beyond capex, M&A has been fueling software stock prices. It did not take long for the large CA acquisition to get surpassed by RHT and more recently SYMC was also rumored to be in play (Chart 3). Inter-industry M&A activity is reaching fever pitch and this frenzy is bidding up premia to stratospheric levels. The push to the cloud, SaaS and even AI has boosted the appeal of software stocks and brought them to the forefront of potential takeout candidates. These are secular trends and will likely continue to gain steam irrespective of the different stages in the business cycle. As a result, software stocks should remain core tech holdings in equity portfolios. The recovery in the software price deflator (Chart 3), a proxy for industry pricing power, corroborates the upbeat demand backdrop. With regard to financial statements, software stocks have pristine balance sheets with more cash on hand than debt, which sustains the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio in negative territory. Interest coverage is great at 10x and free cash flow generation is expanding smartly. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, RHT, ADSK, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CDNS, FTNT and SYMC. Chart 3Software   Air Freight & Logistics (Overweight, Capex Theme) Air freight & logistics stocks are the second hold out from our high-conviction overweight list, although we added it to list only in late-March. This transportation sub-index laggered is a capex and trade de-escalation play for the first half of 2019. Importantly, energy costs comprise a large chunk of freight services input costs and the recent drubbing in oil markets will boost margins especially on the eve of the busiest season for courier delivery services (top panel, Chart 4). On that front, there are high odds that this holiday sales season will be another record setting one, as wage inflation is underpinning discretionary incomes. Keep in mind that the accelerating domestic manufacturing shipments-to-inventories ratio confirms that demand for hauling services is upbeat. The implication is that rising demand for freight services will buoy industry profits and lift valuations out of their recent funk (Chart 4). Firming industry operating metrics also tell a positive story and suggest that relative share prices will soon take off. Air freight pricing power has been healthy, in expansionary territory and above overall inflation measures. While the U.S./China trade tussle and the appreciating greenback are clear risks to our sanguine S&P air freight & logistics transportation subindex, most of the grim news is already reflected in depressed relative forward profit estimates, bombed out valuations and washed out technicals (Chart 4). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - FDX, UPS, EXPD and CHRW. Chart 4Air Freight & Logistics   Defense (Overweight, Capex Theme) We have been overweight the pure-play BCA defense index since late-2015 and there are high odds that this juggernaut that really commenced with the George Walker Bush presidency remains in a secular growth trajectory. Our strategy is to add exposure on any meaningful pullbacks and keep this index as a structural overweight within the GICS1 S&P industrials index. The recent drawdown offers such an opportunity and we are adding this index to the 2019 high-conviction overweight list. The rise of global "multipolarity" - or competition between the world's great nations - and the decline of globalization, along with a global arms race and increased risk of cyber-attacks, have been documented in our "Brothers In Arms" Special Report. These trends all signal that global defense related spending will remain upbeat in the coming decade.3 In the U.S. in particular, where military spending in absolute terms is greater than the rest of the world put together, defense spending and investment have bottomed and will continue to accelerate (Chart 5). In fact, the CBO continues to project that defense outlays will jump further next year. While such a breakneck pace is clearly unsustainable, President Trump is serious about upgrading and updating the U.S. military in order to keep China's geopolitical and military ascendancy in check (as well as to deal with Russia and Iran).4 The upshot is that defense outlays will continue to expand into the 2020s. Such a buoyant demand backdrop is music to the ears of defense contractor CEOs, and represents a boost to defense equity revenue growth prospects. This capital goods sub-industry has extremely high fixed costs and thus any increase in top line growth flows straight to the bottom line. Put differently, defense contractors enjoy high operating leverage. No wonder M&A activity is robust: at least four large deals have been announced in the past year that are underpinning takeout premia. A closer look at operating metrics corroborates that defense goods manufacturers are firing on all cylinders. New orders recently jumped to fresh all-time highs and the industry's shipments-to-inventories ratio is rising, on track to surpass the 2008 peak. Unfilled orders are also running at a high rate, signaling that factories will keep on humming at least for the next few quarters. Importantly, the industry is not standing still and is making significant investments. U.S. defense capex as reported in the financial statements of constituent firms is growing at roughly 20%/annum or twice as fast as overall capex (Chart 5 on page 7). While interest coverage has been modestly deteriorating, it is twice as high as the overall market (Chart 5 on page 7). Impressively, defense ROE is running near 30%, again roughly double the rate of the broad market. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA defense index are: LMT, LLL, NOC, GD and RTN. Chart 5Defense   Consumer Discretionary (Underweight, Higher Fed Funds Rate Theme) We recommend investors avoid the consumer discretionary sector that suffers when interest rates rise. Chart 6 depicts this inverse correlation consumer discretionary equities have with interest rates, especially the fed funds rate. Most discretionary equites are levered off of floating rates and thus any increase in the fed funds rates gets reflected immediately in banks' prime lending rate. Also, most consumer debt is floating rate debt and thus tighter monetary conditions, at the margin, dampen consumer debt uptake and, as a knock-on effect, weigh on discretionary consumer outlays. Recently we highlighted that, now that the Fed has been raising rates and allowing bonds to roll off its balance sheet, volatility is making a comeback. Unsurprisingly, the consumer discretionary share price ratio is inversely correlated with the VIX index, signaling that more pain lies ahead for this early cyclical index (VIX shown inverted, Chart 6). Sentiment and technical indicators also point to more downside ahead for this interest-rate sensitive index. Our sector advance/decline line is waning and EPS breadth has plunged. Worrisomely, sell-side analysts are penciling in an extremely optimistic 5-year outlook with EPS growth 23.4%/annum or 1.4 times higher than the overall market. Clearly this is not realistic as it assumes a tripling of EPS in the coming 5 years. Relative EPS estimates have already given way as AMZN commands very little EPS weight, despite its massive market cap weight (30% of the S&P consumer discretionary sector), and suggests that relative share prices will converge lower (Chart 6 on page 9). As a result, the 12-month forward P/E ratio is trading at a 24% premium to the broad market and significantly above the historical mean. Technicals are almost as extended as relative valuations and cyclical momentum has likely peaked, warning that a downdraft in relative share prices looms (Chart 6 on page 9). Chart 6Consumer Discretionary   Home Improvement Retail (Underweight, Higher Fed Funds Rate Theme) While the probablity of a housing recession remains low, we are concerned that too much euphoria is already priced in the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index, and there are high odds that next year HIR will suffer the same fate as homebuilders did this year (Chart 7). Thus, we are downgrading the S&P HIR index to underweight and adding it to the high-conviction underweight list for 2019. Fixed residential investment (FRI) as a percentage of GDP is up 50% from trough to the recent peak, whereas relative HIR performance is up 170% in the same time frame. Our worry is that optimistic sell side analysts' relative profit forecasts will be hard to attain, let alone surpass as FRI is steadily sinking (Chart 7). Worrisomely, our HIR model has plunged on the back of the wholesale liquidation in lumber prices and rising interest rates (Chart 7). Lumber deflation will prove a profit headwind as building supply Big Box retailers make a set margin on wood products. Select industry operating metrics suggest that the easy profits are behind HIR. Not only is our productivity growth proxy (sales per employee) on the verge of deflating, but also an inventory surge has sunk the HIR sales-to-inventories ratio into the contraction zone. Finally, there is rising supply of new and existing homes for sale already on the market, and that puts off remodeling activity at least until this supply glut clears (months' supply shown inverted, Chart 7). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW. Chart 7Home Improvement Retail   Short Small Caps/Long Large Caps (Higher Fed Funds Rate Theme) The days in the sun are over for small cap stocks and we are compelled to put the size bias favoring large caps in our high-conviction calls list for 2019. Small caps are severely debt saddled. Sustained small cap balance sheet degradation is worrying, with S&P 600 net debt-to-EBITDA close to 4 compared with less than 2 for the SPX (Chart 8). Such gearing is fraught with danger as the default rate has nowhere to go but higher. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have a higher dependency on bank credit as opposed to the bond market access that mega caps enjoy. Most bank credit is floating rate debt and so are lines of credit, and as the Fed remains firm on tightening monetary policy, interest expense costs are skyrocketing for SMEs. In a relative sense this will weigh on net profits. Moreover, small caps are a lot more sensitive to interest rates, and the selloff in the 10-year Treasury note heralds more pain in 2019 (Chart 8). Small caps are high(er) beta stocks and when volatility spikes they underperform large caps. When the Fed ballooned its balance sheet and dropped the fed funds rate to zero it suppressed volatility. Now that the Fed has been decreasing the size of its balance sheet and raising interest rates, this is working in reverse and volatility is making a comeback as we have been highlighting in our research, and will continue to weigh on small caps (VIX shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 8). Another way to showcase small caps' riskier status is the close correlation they have with the relative EM equity share price ratio. When EMs outperform the SPX, small caps follow suit and vice versa. Importantly a wide gap has opened recently and we suspect that it will narrow via small caps following the EM higher beta stocks lower (SPX vs. EM ratio shown inverted, fourth panel, Chart 8 on page 12). Chart 8Small Vs. Large   Interactive Media & Services (Underweight, Higher Fed Funds Rate Theme) In our initiation of coverage on the S&P interactive media & services index,5 we highlighted three key risks that offset the revenue & profit growth vigor of this group, comprised almost entirely of Alphabet (Google) and Facebook. These were a renewed regulatory focus, rapid unpredictable changes in tastes & technology and an appreciating U.S. dollar. It is the first of these that has risen most dramatically since that report. Tack on the inverse correlation these growth stocks have with interest rates (top panel, Chart 9) and that is causing us to lower our recommendation to underweight and include this index in the high-conviction underweight list for 2019. Increasing regulatory efforts on technology will be a key theme next year, one we explored this past summer.6 Our conclusion was that both antitrust (particularly in the case of Alphabet) and privacy regulation (particularly in the case of Facebook) added significant risk to these near monopolies; calls for legislating both have dramatically amplified. Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, recently commented that more regulation for Facebook and Alphabet was inevitable; we agree. While the form such regulation might take remains open to debate (for example, the U.S. could adopt an EU-style General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)), we fear the associated headline risk (not to mention likely profit headwinds) will impair stock prices in the S&P interactive media & services index. This communication services sub-index is particularly prone to such a risk when it already trades at close to a 40% valuation premium to the broad market (middle panel, Chart 9 on page 14). Adding insult to injury is the PEG ratio that is trading at a 60% premium to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 9 on page 14). In the face of the Fed’s sustained tightening cycle these extreme growth stocks are vulnerable to massive gravitational pull. The ticker symbols in the stocks in this index are: S5INMS – GOOGL, GOOG, FB, TWTR and TRIP. Chart 9Interactive Media & Services Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, "Manic Market," dated November 19, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Report, "OUTLOOK 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence", dated November 26, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Global Show Of Force?" dated October 10, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "New Lines Of Communication," dated October 1, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?", dated August 1, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights On a 6-month horizon, go long a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds. The recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Stay short oil and gas versus financials. During December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound… …and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekBanks And Bond Yields Were Connected At The Hip... Until This Year Back in June, in Oddities In The 1st Half, Opportunities In The 2nd Half we pointed out two striking oddities in financial market behaviour. One oddity was the sharp decoupling of crude oil from industrial commodity prices (Chart I-2). It is highly unusual for crude oil to outperform copper by 50 percent in the space of just six months. We argued that such an extreme deviation would have to correct one way or another. Which of course it did… Chart I-2Crude Oil Abruptly Decoupled From Industrial Commodities... Then Abruptly Recoupled The other oddity was the abrupt decoupling of bank equity performance from bond yields (Chart I-3 and Chart of the Week). Bank equity prices and bond yields are usually connected at the hip. The tight connection exists because higher bond yields tend to signal stronger economic growth, either real or nominal. Stronger growth should be good for banks as it is associated with both accelerating credit growth and lower provisions for non-performing loans. Chart I-3Banks Decoupled From Bond Yields... But Will Recouple On the back of these two striking oddities, we recommended a compelling trade: short oil and gas versus financials. This trade is now in profit and has further to run, but today we want to introduce a new trade: go long a combination of banks and bonds. Explaining The Oddities Of 2018 The underperformance of banks from February through September was entirely consistent with similar underperformances in the other classically growth-sensitive sectors – industrials, and basic materials as well as the decline in industrial commodity prices (Chart I-4). Furthermore, these underperformances started well before any inkling of a trade war. This suggests that the cyclical sector underperformances were correctly reflecting a common or garden down-oscillation in global growth. Chart I-4Oil And Gas Was The Odd Man Out Oil was a striking oddity because its supply dynamics, rather than its demand dynamics, were dominating its price action, at one point lifting its year-on-year inflation rate to 70 percent for Brent and 80 percent for WTI. Part of this surge in year-on-year inflation was also to do with the ‘base effect’, the dip in the oil price to $45 in the summer of 2017. The base effect shouldn’t really bother markets. After all, most people do not consciously compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago. The problem is that central banks do compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago in their inflation targets. Clearly, when oil price inflation was running at 80 percent, it was underpinning headline CPI inflation, central bank reaction functions, and thereby bond yields. Hence, the two striking oddities – oil abruptly decoupling from industrial commodities (Chart I-5) and bond yields abruptly decoupling from banks – are two sides of the same coin. From February through September, bond yields were taking their cue, at least partly, from the rising price of oil, given its major impact on headline inflation and on central bank reaction functions. Whereas banks, industrials, and industrial commodity prices were taking their cue from fading global growth and industrial activity. Chart I-5It Is Highly Unusual For Oil To Outperform Copper By 50% In Six Months A Banks Plus Bonds Combination Could Be A Win-Win The oddities of 2018 are now correcting. With the oil price sharply lower, its year-on-year inflation rate has plunged to -10 percent (Chart I-6). Furthermore, as we have pointed out in recent reports, the sharp deceleration in global credit growth from February through September has clearly arrested and even reversed. The upshot is that banks and bond yields will recouple, one way or the other. Chart I-6Oil Inflation Down from 70% To -10% Most likely, global growth will rebound somewhat and the beaten-down bank equity prices have considerable scope for recovery (Chart I-7), while the restraint on headline CPI inflation will keep bond yields in check. Indeed, as President Trump recently tweeted: Chart I-7Global Growth Will Rebound, So Will Banks “Inflation down, are you listening Fed!” But if we are wrong and growth disappoints, bank equities are already beaten-down while a further downdraft in inflation will pull down bond yields. Either way, on a six month horizon a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds should be a win-win strategy. Given the different betas of the two investments, the recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Focus On Sectors And Currencies The remainder of this report is a reminder that successful macro investing requires the application of the Pareto Principle, also known as 80:20 rule. In macro investing, the vast majority of performance outcomes, ‘the 80’, are explained by a very small number of drivers, ‘the 20’. We find that the vast majority of a region’s or a country’s stock market relative performance is explained just by its distinguishing sector fingerprint combined with its currency (Chart I-8 - Chart I-12). Chart I-8Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-10FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-11FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-12FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Major stock markets comprise of multinational companies whose sales and profits are internationally diversified. But each major stock market has a distinguishing ‘long’ sector in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as a distinguishing ‘short’ sector in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint (Table I-1): FTSE100 = long energy, short technology. Eurostoxx50 = long banks, short technology. Nikkei225 = long industrials, short banks and energy. S&P500 = long technology, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long technology, short healthcare. Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Distinguishing Fingerprint The other important factor is the currency. The FTSE100 oil and gas stock, BP, receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In other words, BP’s global business is currency neutral. But BP’s stock price is quoted in London in pounds. Hence, if the pound strengthens, the company’s multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. This means that the domestic economy can impact its stock market through the currency channel. Albeit it is a counterintuitive relationship: a strong economy via a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak economy via a weak currency helps the stock market. What does all of this mean for our European country allocation right now? From a sector perspective, a stance that is short oil and gas versus financials penalises the FTSE100 versus the Eurostoxx50, given the FTSE100’s oil and gas fingerprint and the Eurostoxx50’s banks fingerprint. Against this, a weakening pound would support the FTSE100. Given that Theresa May’s Brexit agreement will meet stiff resistance when it comes to Parliament in the second week of December, the point of maximum risk for the pound is still ahead of us. But as we argued last week, we ultimately expect relief for the pound as: either the Article 50 process is extended, or the U.K. moves into a transition period within a negotiated Brexit.1 Hence, during December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound, and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that this year’s sell-off in Italian equities is technically very stretched. Therefore, in a continued de-escalation of the budget spat between Italy and the EU, Italian equities would be ripe for a strong countertrend burst of outperformance. On this basis, our recommended trade is long MIB versus the Eurostoxx with a profit target of 5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-13 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 Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas”, November 22, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights Turkish commercial banks have been ramping up purchases of local currency government bonds. Given that commercial banks create new money “out of thin air” when they buy assets from non-bank entities, should investors interpret this phenomenon positively or negatively? Under the backdrop of a severe recession, we view this phenomenon as a stabilizing factor that can provide moderate relief - a painkiller rather than a poison. Meanwhile, record-wide net interest rate spreads as well as rising purchases of government bonds yielding around 20% are positive for banks’ earnings amid an otherwise dismal economic outlook. To express a selective positive bias toward this depressed and still fundamentally challenged market versus other EMs, we recommend a relative equity trade: long Turkish banks / short EM banks, currency unhedged. Feature On August 15, 2018, we upgraded our stance on Turkish markets from underweight to neutral and closed our shorts in the currency and bank stocks after having been bearish/underweight for several years.1 Our rationale was that Turkish equity and currency valuations had become cheap, and its financial markets oversold. Yet we stated that the adjustment in interest rates and ensuing economic slowdown were still pending – preventing us from going overweight. Are Turkish interest rates now sufficiently high to put a floor under the currency? In other words, is monetary demagoguery – relentless bank lending promoted by the authorities amid high inflation – a thing of the past?2 At first glimpse, the answer appears to be no. Turkish banks have been aggressively buying local currency government bonds – at a time when foreigners have been selling their holdings (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Turkish Banks Have Been Buying Local Government Bonds As we demonstrate in Box I-1 on page 9, commercial banks in all countries create new money when they purchase any asset, including any security, from non-bank entities. One can argue that the Turkish banks’ creation of money “out of thin air” holds the potential to trigger renewed currency depreciation. Furthermore, banks’ financing of the government depresses government bond yields, bringing down market-determined local currency interest rates. On the other hand, there is also evidence that banks have drastically curtailed financing to the real economy, which is causing a severe collapse in domestic demand. This has already squeezed imports and has started to narrow the current account deficit - a necessary condition for macro and exchange rate stabilization (Chart I-2). As such, it seems Turkey’s necessary macro adjustment is already under way. Chart I-2Turkey: Current Account Deficit Is Narrowing These two dynamics – (1) banks financing the government by creating money “out of thin air” and (2) banks inhibiting financing to households and companies – are conflicting. While many economists refer to this phenomenon as a crowding out of the private sector by the government, we disagree with this analytical framework. Please refer to Box I-1 on page 9 for a more detailed discussion. Our assessment of these dynamics is as follows: In the current context of rapidly shrinking domestic demand, banks’ financing of the government is a mitigating factor in the ongoing macro adjustment. Commercial banks’ financing of the public sector via bond purchases caps market-determined interest rates and allows the government to spend, therefore diminishing the blow to the real economy. Consequently, the expansion of Turkish banks’ purchases of government bonds is a silver lining in an otherwise harsh macro adjustment. So long as this phenomenon is not prolonged indefinitely and does not cause the currency to plunge anew, it is an acceptable strategy for both banks and the government. In fact, it could form a fertile ground for Turkish banks’ stock prices to start rising from the ashes, at least relative to other emerging markets. Fiscal Deficit Financing By Banks: Poison Or Painkiller? Diagnosing a patient in critical condition and prescribing the right medicine is a complex task. Assessing monetary conditions in a financial crisis-stricken economy and determining the correct policy mix is no different. While monetary tightening may be the right medicine for some parts of the economy, monetary easing can be appropriate for others parts. In fact, this is what is currently happening in Turkey. There is a dichotomy occurring between monetary easing for the government (in the local currency bond market) and monetary tightening for companies and households. Chart 3 demonstrates that local currency broad money growth now slightly exceeds bank loan growth. One of the reasons for this is that banks are literally creating money by purchasing government securities. With a low likelihood of default and a yield of 20%, government securities are currently attractive for Turkish banks. On the surface, government deficit financing via money creation by banks might seem like a recipe for higher inflation. Yet, we have to put this phenomenon in the context of current cyclical economic conditions in Turkey. The economy is on the precipice of a major recession which will likely produce a major deflationary shockwave. Money and credit growth in real terms is negative (Chart I-3, bottom panel). In addition, government expenditures in real terms are now contracting, suggesting that fiscal policy is tight (Chart I-4). Furthermore, government debt levels are low – total public debt stands at 31% of GDP. This means that fiscal expansion is a lever that authorities can and should be using. Chart I-3Turkey: Money And Loan Growth Are Negative In Real Terms Chart I-4Turkey: Fiscal Policy Is Tight Hence, we infer that banks’ financing of government expenditures are not excessive from a macro perspective; particularly when considering the currently heightened recessionary crosscurrents. Bottom Line: The expansion of Turkish banks’ purchases of government bonds are capping local bond yields and, on the margin, allowing the government to support the economy. Given the backdrop of a severe recession, we view this as a stabilizing factor – a painkiller rather than a poison. Monetary Tightening In The Real Economy Commercial banks have substantially tightened financing to companies and households. Interest rates on bank loans to businesses and consumers have risen much more than the central bank’s policy rate. The former are now 850 basis points higher than the latter (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-5Turkey: Tight Monetary Conditions In The Real Economy In real terms (deflated by core CPI), commercial bank loan interest rates are now 8% (Chart I-5, bottom panel). High real bank loan rates charged to households and companies will cause domestic demand to collapse – despite a real policy rate at zero. Provided economic activity is already shrinking, it will be difficult for debtors to achieve a hurdle real rate of 8%. This is already producing a collapse in loan demand and a material retrenchment in consumer and business spending. A statistical regression of economic activity variables on the change in borrowing costs demonstrates that the Turkish economy is in for a severe recession across all sectors, with capital expenditures being the hardest hit (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Turkey: The Recession Will Be Severe A cheapened currency and high borrowing costs are the correct medicine for the nation’s deep economic imbalances – i.e. its large and persistent current account deficits. In fact, the real economy has already been adjusting: the current account excluding oil is starting to narrow (refer to Chart I-2 on page 2). This together with cheap valuations may help put a floor under the lira (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Turkish Lira Is Cheap Bottom Line: Interest rates on bank loans have increased much more than the central bank policy rate and are sufficiently high in real terms, foreshadowing a severe, but necessary, domestic demand contraction. Go Long Turkish Banks / Short EM Banks There appears to be a relative tactical opportunity to go long Turkish banks while shorting EM banks. Relative share prices in dollar terms between Turkish and EM banks are at an all-time low (Chart I-8). Odds are that Turkish banks will outperform for the time being. Chart I-8Long Turkish Banks / Short EM Banks Not only are Turkish banks charging a large spread on loans relative to the policy rate, they are also enjoying a wide net interest rate spread – lending rates minus deposit rates. In fact, Turkish banks’ net interest rate spread is presently the highest in recorded history (Chart I-9, top panel). This is very positive for banks’ net interest margins (NIM) – net interest income as percent of loans - and earnings (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-9Turkish Banks' Margins Are Widening In addition, banks’ purchases of government bonds allows them to expand their balance sheets and earn a yield that is around 20%. Given the government’s low credit risk, this is also positive for banks’ profits. On the negative side, non-performing loans (NPLs) are set to surge. Therefore, any investment consideration should take into account banks’ equity erosion due to surging NPLs. Turkish banks are presently extremely under-provisioned, as illustrated in Chart I-10. Yet their share prices have already plunged substantially, discounting a higher level of NPLs than banks have acknowledged and provisioned for. Chart I-10Turkey: NPLs Are Set To Surge We have performed a credit stress test for the Turkish banking system. The scenario analysis shown in Table I-1 illustrates that banks’ share prices are already pricing in a significant amount of bad news regarding the NPL cycle. For example, in a scenario where the non-performing credit assets (NPCA) ratio rises to 20% from its current 3.5% level, bank stocks would be fairly valued at current levels. Table I-1Credit Stress Test For Turkish Banks Considering that the NPL-to-total-loan ratio reached 18% after the 2001 currency crisis, we believe 20% is a reasonable estimate. The key difference between now and the 2001 crisis is that woes in 2001 were related to unsustainable government debt, while Turkey’s present problems stem from excessive private debt. This valuation part of the stress test assumes that the fair value for the price-to-book value (PBV) ratio adjusted for all credit losses is 1.3 - the average PBV ratio for EM banks since 2011. In short, banks’ stock prices are currently trading close to their fair value assuming 20% NPCA (Table I-1). In all scenarios, we assume a recovery rate of 40%. In terms of structural valuations, using our model for the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio, Turkish banks are currently trading at two standard deviations below their fair value in absolute terms, and two-and-half standard deviations relative to the other EM banks (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Turkish Bank Stocks Are Cheap Given that we expect an additional selloff in EM risk assets, Turkish bank stocks will likely relapse in absolute terms. This is why we recommend a market-neutral bet. In short, we expect more downside in the share price of EM banks than in Turkish ones for now. Investment Conclusions Given our overarching negative view on emerging markets as a whole, we are reluctant to be bullish on Turkish risk assets in absolute terms. The basis behind why we are not upgrading our stance on Turkey’s overall stock index is as follows: Non-financials companies are about to experience severe profit shrinkage as the recession deepens. Conversely, contraction in banks’ earnings will be mitigated by a very wide NIM and an increased financing of the government at yields above 20%. In addition, we expect EM currencies and high-yielding local bonds to resume their selloff, and corporate and sovereign credit spreads to widen. Given Turkey has historically been a high-beta market, it is difficult to bet on its financial markets outperforming EM peers in a bear market. Finally, the recent rebound in Turkish markets was from quite oversold levels and is currently facing its first technical resistance (Chart I-12). Chart I-12The Lira And Local Government Bonds Are Facing Their First Technical Resistance Overall, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to Turkey for EM dedicated equity investors, as well as local currency bond and credit portfolios. Nevertheless, to express a selective positive bias toward this depressed market versus other EMs, we recommend a relative equity trade: Long Turkish banks / short EM banks, currency unhedged. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Box 1 How Banks Create Money By Purchasing Assets From A Non-Bank Entity We demonstrate, in a stylized example, how a commercial bank (Bank 1) creates a new deposit in the banking system – which consists of two banks (Bank 1 and Bank 2) - when it purchases a bond from an investor (Investor A) that is a non-bank. For simplicity, we presume that this is the only transaction in the banking system on that day. All numbers we cite here are local currency values and all transactions take place in local currency. We assume at the beginning of Day 1 that both Bank 1 and Bank 2 each have excess reserves (ERs) of 1000 and existing deposits of 1000 (Figure I-1). Hence, the overall banking system ERs amount to 2000 and total deposits are equal to 2000. Figure I-1Begining Of Day 1 Balance Sheet & Transactions As Bank 1 purchases a bond at the price of 300 from Investor A, the following balance sheet accounting entries take place (these entries are shown in red in Figure I-1): Bank 1 acquires a bond and its assets now include a bond valued at 300. Investor A has an account at Bank 2, so to pay for this purchase Bank 1 transfers 300 from its ERs to Bank 2’s ERs account at the central bank. Bank 1 ERs decline by 300. Hence, its assets and liabilities have not changed – it has just swapped 300 in ERs with 300 in bond (Figure I-1). Bank 2 credits Investor A’s deposit account by 300. Hence, Investor A received a deposit valued at 300 that it previously did not have. This is a new deposit for the whole banking system that was created “out of thin air”. Bank 2’s ERs and hence its total assets have risen by 300. This rise in Bank 2’s assets is balanced by the increase of its deposit by 300 (Figure I-2). In brief, this deposit is nothing more than an accounting entry to balance Bank 2’s assets and liabilities. Yet, deposits represent money and give their holders purchasing power. Figure I-2End Of Day 1 Balance Sheet Assuming that during the day there was no other transaction in this banking system, the latter’s ERs have remained unchanged at 2000 yet its total deposits have risen from 2000 to 2300. A new deposit worth 300 was created without the central bank providing any funding (new ERs) to the banking system. Money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system and commercial banks create deposits “out of thin air” when they lend to non-banks or purchase assets from non-banks. As such, banks do not need to reduce private sector lending to fund the government. In other words, no “crowding out” of the private sector needs to take place for banks to buy government bonds.   Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Alert "Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts," dated August 15, 2018, the link available on page 14. 2      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Turkey's Monetary Demagoguery," dated June 1, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? A trade deal is unlikely at the G20. Stay short CNY/USD. Why? The odds of a U.S.-China tariff ceasefire are around 30%-40%. Investors should see any ceasefire as a temporary reprieve. Stay neutral on Chinese equities. Expect a weaker CNY/USD. Fade any rally in U.S. China-exposed equities. In Taiwan, local elections do not herald a decline in geopolitical risk, which is elevated. Feature The scheduled meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1 has generated a fair amount of speculation that the trade war will be resolved or at least put on pause. A major de-escalation would bring some consolation to global equity markets that have fallen by 11% since their peak in late January, 2018, especially to Chinese and Asian cyclicals, which have fallen by 27% and 21% respectively over the same time period (Chart 1). Chart 1Desperate For Good News We are doubtful that the summit will cause a major positive catalyst for markets. Yes, it is tempting to think that President Trump could wrap up the whole trade war promptly, just as he wrapped up negotiations with Mexico and Canada in October. If President Xi could add a few sweeteners to concessions he has already made, then Trump could proclaim a “historic new deal” and roll back the tariffs. Equity markets would celebrate. The past year would seem like a bad dream. But this is all fantasy. U.S.-China relations have gotten worse every year since 2008 for a host of economic, political, military, and strategic reasons. Is the current stock market selloff really enough to force Trump into a major capitulation, given that trade tensions were not the primary cause either of the October correction or of the earlier pullback in February? And is Xi really going to make significant concessions with Trump holding bigger threats over his head? We admit that some kind of improvement is plausible – say, a tariff ceasefire and an agreement to launch a new round of talks. We attach a 30%-40% subjective probability to such a scenario. But our base case – which is driven as always by structural factors – is that the summit will turn out to be a flop and the trade war will escalate in 2019. How Likely Is A Tariff Ceasefire? Presidential summits can have major consequences, but context is everything. Trump’s impending meeting with President Xi will be the third since he took office. The first two – in April and November 2017 – did not prevent the trade war. Neither did high-level negotiations in May 2018, which produced a “trade truce” that did not last a week. However, much has changed since then: the U.S. has imposed tariffs on half of Chinese imports, while China has suffered a bear market and some signs of domestic economic stress (Chart 2). Chart 2Signs Of Economic Weakness Over the past month, some developments suggest that the U.S. and China are managing their strategic tensions a bit better than they were earlier this year. Tensions peaked in early October, when the U.S. imposed sanctions on China’s People’s Liberation Army for purchasing Russian Sukhoi-25 jets and S400 surface-to-air missiles, under a law designed to punish Russia for meddling in the U.S.’s 2016 election. Meanwhile CNN reported that the U.S. military was considering staging a “global show of force” in November, a show that would have included sensitive operations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Since then, however, positive signs have emerged: Presidents Trump and Xi confirmed their meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires. The two sides have exchanged letters and will bring trade negotiators to the summit, making it at least possible for substantive work to be done. Various preparatory discussions have been held, including a phone call between Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and top Chinese economic adviser and negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. Beijing offered to hold military-to-military talks that it had previously canceled between Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. The two officials met in Singapore and in Washington for the second round of the U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue. The U.S. and China tentatively agreed to a multilateral protocol for avoiding accidental encounters by military aircraft, supplementing a similar agreement covering unplanned encounters at sea.1 Treasury Secretary Mnuchin met with People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia in October, and afterwards refrained from accusing China of currency manipulation in the Treasury’s biannual foreign exchange report. Director of the National Trade Council Peter Navarro, a fierce trade hawk on China, is reportedly not attending the G20 summit. National Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow publicly chastised Navarro for criticizing the new negotiations as a Wall Street capitulation to China.2 This piece of anecdotal evidence has captured the imagination of sell-side analysts and many of our clients. These developments, in addition to Trump’s positive tweets on the subject, suggest that both China and the U.S. are trying to step back from the brink and accomplish something at the upcoming summit. However, there are many reasons to take these developments with a grain of salt: China is negotiating under duress: In statements over the past month, and reiterated by President Trump as we go to press, the U.S. has warned that if the G20 summit does not go well, it will ratchet up the pressure. In early December, it might move forward with the third round of threatened tariffs, covering the remaining $267 billion in imports from China. On December 19, the U.S. Department of Commerce will conclude consultations on whether to impose new export controls on “emerging technologies.” And on January 1, 2019, the existing tariff rate on $200 billion worth of imports (the second round) is supposed to rise from 10% to 25%, which implies that a third round of tariffs would eventually have the same rate. Indeed, since the confirmation of the G20 summit, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Chinese technology companies like Fujian Jinhua. It has also begun implementing a new law strengthening the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States and its foreign investment reviews, which already mostly target China (Chart 3). Chart 3Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Further, the U.S. has taken the occasion in the recent military and diplomatic dialogue to demand, for the first time ever, that China remove its missile systems from the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.3 Some of these moves can be read as evidence that the U.S. will impose penalties for various grievances even if China agrees to some of its key trade demands. The demands on the South China Sea and arms purchases, for instance, will stand even if China makes major concessions on key trade issues like technology acquisition. At minimum, the above details suggest that Xi Jinping will be negotiating with a sword over his head and thus may refuse to make concessions on principle, despite the negative impact on China’s stock market and export sector (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impending Tariff Impact Leaks from the negotiations do not suggest any breakthroughs: China’s written response to Trump’s letter reportedly contains no new, significant trade concessions.4 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the sine qua non of any trade deal, has issued a hawkish report on the eve of the summit arguing that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that prompted the tariffs so far.5 The report, an update to his initial Section 301 report, makes grave accusations about China’s use of cyber theft and corporate espionage over the past year alone, in addition to earlier years. These activities go far beyond trade disputes and clearly affect national security: a tariff freeze is hardly possible without substantial commitments by China to rein in these operations. Lighthizer also argues that China’s trade concessions so far are merely “incremental” and in several cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies (Chart 5), but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 6). Chart 5China’s High-Tech Protectionism Chart 6More High-Tech Protectionism Lighthizer further claims that China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley continues despite a headline reduction in capital flight to the United States. And he also presents evidence that the full range of U.S. government agencies as well as the U.S.’s major allies are observing the same malicious or abusive practices from China and share the U.S.’s concerns. As for China hawk Navarro – who is far less important than Lighthizer to trade negotiations – his status today is not worse than it was in 2017, when his office was subordinated to that of former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Of course, Cohn got fired, while Navarro’s office was upgraded and his pro-tariff argument won out. Trump’s olive branch is suspicious: Trump and his administration adopted friendly rhetoric during the lead-up to the midterm election, when it might have been desirable to show “progress” in the trade negotiations. It would have been impossible to engineer credible signs of progress without genuinely engaging the Chinese. Now, however, the midterms are over and there is no pressing political need for Trump to agree to a deal. Many of our clients – and almost all broker research – believe that Trump has a financial need to agree to a deal – i.e. to calm the stock market. However, there are two problems with this thesis. First, it is not clear that stock performance has had any relationship with President Trump’s approval rating (Chart 7). Chart 7Trump No Slave To Stock Market Second, both of the U.S. stock market pullbacks this year were catalyzed by sharp rises in treasury yields, not disruptive news on the trade front (Chart 8). As such, positive news about the trade war will yield only a passing relief rally in the United States. Chart 8Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff On this basis, we doubt that President Trump will agree to a hurried, watered-down trade deal that the Democrats will slam as a “giveaway” to China for the remaining two years of his presidency. With the U.S. economy fired up, the trade deficit is likely to widen regardless of tariffs (Chart 9), rendering any weak Trump-China deal a humiliation. Chart 9Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs However, while a trade deal is out of reach, there is a logic to suspending further tariff impositions: Trump may wish to disperse the negative impact of the trade tariffs over a longer period of time. This would give him room to try to settle a very tricky trade agreement before the 2020 election. Then, if the talks succeed, he can present himself as a great dealmaker. If the talks fail, he has all the more ammunition to launch a third round of tariffs. (And on this time frame, the effects of the third round would not be felt by consumers until after the election.) Xi, for his part, may wish to “lock in” Trump with concessions today rather than wait to see how aggressive Trump will become as 2020 draws near. True, Xi cannot afford to “lose face” by capitulating abjectly. But he is the dictator of a regime that has full control of the media; he will be able to suppress domestic criticism of his concessions. In fact, the most insidious criticism of Xi is that he flouted the maxims of both Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping by provoking the wrath of China’s greatest enemy prematurely. Thus, if he stays Trump’s hand on tariffs in exchange for a new round of talks or minor concessions, then he comes out of Buenos Aires looking okay. The reason we put this ceasefire scenario at only 30%-40% probability is that we still do not see Trump as heavily constrained by the trade war. His greatest constraint is political and works against a trade deal: it comes from the Democrats, whose protectionist candidates performed very well in the midterm election in the Rust Belt states that are critical for Trump’s reelection (Table 1). Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Economically, our assessment is that the selloff in U.S. financial markets is a correction, not a bear market, and that there is no sign that the U.S. economy is likely to slip into recession (Chart 10). Trump is constrained by the unemployment rate, not by the stock market alone. As long as Trump shares this assessment, he will not be lulled into a politically damaging capitulation to China. Chart 10No Sign Of Recession Yet Also, Xi will fear that difficult concessions will encourage Washington to continue what Chinese government officials have called “trade bullyism,” i.e. using coercive measures and upping its demands. In other words, the main argument for a tariff ceasefire is that Trump might simply prefer one to boost the stock market and thus may accept few or no concessions. And that preference is not enough to change our baseline view in light of his political constraints. Bottom Line: There is no basis for a resolution of the trade war at present, but there is a basis for a tariff ceasefire and a new effort at trade negotiations. Still, it is not our base case. Xi has good reason not to make major concessions under duress and Trump does not want to get outflanked by his political opponents by freezing tariffs without major Chinese concessions. Do Presidential Summits Matter? Have presidential summits between the U.S. and China ever brought about major breakthroughs? Yes, but not since the Great Recession. As Table 2 demonstrates, looking at 50 U.S.-China leadership summits since 1972, only 18 qualify as true “green light” summits in which the outcome was a concrete improvement in relations over the period before the next summit – and 10 of these were during the first decade of the 2000s, the heyday of “Chinamerica,” when China and Emerging Market economies roared ahead while George W. Bush courted China’s cooperation on terrorism and North Korea. Table 2U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology Only eight summits mark truly historic positive inflection points: Nixon 1972, Carter 1979, Reagan 1984, Clinton 1997, Clinton 2000, Bush 2002, Bush 2005, and arguably Obama 2009. Since 2009, under four different leaders (two from each country), Sino-American relations have categorically worsened. Moreover, both President Obama’s and President Trump’s major meetings with President Xi, at the Sunnylands estate in California in 2013 and at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in 2017, saw much fanfare at the time but were followed by a significant deterioration in relations. Indeed, the Obama administration launched a more aggressive China policy in September 2015, including freedom of navigation operations in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This was after President Xi declared that China “does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands – a statement that American officials have repeatedly cited when arguing that China’s foreign policy is increasingly aggressive and that China is not following through with diplomatic promises. Investors should focus not on the Trump-Xi summit on December 1 but rather on the two governments’ actions afterwards. The substance of any positive outcome will depend, in particular, on whether Trump indicates that he will proceed with the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 and/or the initiation of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of U.S. imports from China.6 Bottom Line: History does not give reason for optimism about the summit – especially not recent history, in which heavily hyped summits have not been able to arrest the secular decline in U.S.-China cooperation due to underlying strategic distrust. Investment Implications The primary driver of the recent selloff in global risk assets is not the trade war but the divergence between U.S. and Chinese economic policy writ large. The U.S. economy continues to support the case for Fed normalization, while China’s stimulus continues to disappoint. The result is a double whammy for commodity prices and EM assets as the dollar strengthens and exports of resources and capital goods to China soften (Chart 11). Chart 11A Bad Combination For EM Given that China’s December Central Economic Work Conference will likely reinforce the message of greater policy support, and that China tends to frontload new credit expansion in the beginning of the year (Chart 12), it is entirely possible that a rally in global risk assets on the back of positive trade news in late November could gain traction in December and the New Year. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy will continue to hedge against the risk of substantial reflation in China by means of our Foreign Exchange Strategy’s long “China Play Index” trade (Chart 13). Chart 12China May See A Q1 Credit Spike Chart 13Monitoring The Risk To Our View Fundamentally, however, we would view a December-January rally as a short-term movement that is not worth playing. We expect the Xi administration to remain disciplined in its use of stimulus measures, for the purposes of economic restructuring. Ever worsening trade tensions give Xi the option of blaming the American administration for the economic pain incurred due to his reform agenda. Therefore we think global divergence can persist, which is positive for the dollar and USD/CNY exchange rate. While acknowledging the potential for a near-term rally, we remain neutral Chinese stocks relative to their global counterparts over a 6-12 month horizon and continue to favor low-beta stocks within the Chinese equity universe. We also remain neutral on Taiwanese equities. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) loss in local elections on November 24 was severe (Chart 14), though not unexpected. The election result does not change Geopolitical Strategy’s view that Taiwan faces heightened geopolitical risk. Chart 14Taiwanese Voters Seek More Conciliatory Approach To Beijing Indeed, the election suggests that the Tsai Ing-wen administration may only have 14 months remaining in power, and hence that it will try rapidly to finalize some material improvement in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Since the Trump administration will also try to exploit this closing window of opportunity, the potential is rising for a controversy to erupt over diplomatic or military relations. This could prompt a negative, market-relevant reaction from Beijing. It is also too soon to bottom-fish within the tech sector in China and the U.S., and we remain pessimistic about the earnings outlook for companies exposed to the U.S.-China trade relationship.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      While these agreements do not ensure collisions will not occur, given the USS Decatur incident earlier this year, they are at least a sign of coordination. 2      Navarro had said the following at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Consider the shuttle diplomacy that’s now going on by a self-appointed group of Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers between the U.S. and China. As part of a Chinese government influence operation, these globalist billionaires are putting a full-court press on the White House in advance of the G-20 in Argentina. The mission of these unregistered foreign agents – that’s what they are; they’re unregistered foreign agents – is to pressure this president into some kind of deal.” Please see “Economic Security as National Security: A Discussion with Dr. Peter Navarro,” CSIS, November 13, 2018, available at www.csis.org. 3      Please see U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue,” November 9, 2018, available at www.state.gov.   For the proposed export controls, open for public comment until December 19, 2018, please see U.S. Department of Commerce, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Bureau of Industry and Security, November 19, 2018, available at www.bis.doc.gov. 4      Please see Jeff Mason and David Shepardson, “Exclusive: China sends written response to U.S. trade reform demands - U.S. government sources,” Reuters, November 14, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at https://ustr.gov/ 6      It is very unlikely, but perhaps not impossible, that China would accept a ceasefire that allows the January 1 tariff hike to go forward but forswears the third round of tariffs on the remaining Chinese imports.