China

Highlights The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. The pending deal being discussed between US congressional negotiators is not perfect, but it is likely to be a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). The surprisingly strong euro area flash services PMI in December likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that may soon need to be reimposed. European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China’s credit impulse has likely peaked, but economic activity will continue to accelerate in the first half of 2021 and will positively contribute to global growth. Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will not lead to a meaningful drag on global growth in the second half of next year, but the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand has meaningfully reduced the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year. Extreme technical conditions suggest that a moderate correction in stocks is possible in the first quarter, but the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought rather than sold. Investors should position in favor of risky assets over a 6-12 month horizon. Feature Our recently published 2021 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations. In this month’s report we briefly discuss the nearer-term outlook for growth through the lens of fiscal policy. Still Some Way To Go Chart I-1Slowing Economic Activity In Developed Economies Over the very near term, growth will remain unavoidably linked to the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second/third wave of infections that began in September has forced the re-imposition of restrictions in most European countries, as well as in some US states. High-frequency economic indicators clearly show that the European economy contracted in Q4 (Chart I-1), whereas in the US the slowdown has so far been less pronounced. The US economy continued to expand in the fourth quarter with the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model projecting 11% annualized growth, driven heavily by a sizeable change in private inventories (Chart I-2).   Chart I-2US Q4 Growth Is Set To Be Large, But Driven Mostly By Inventories The relationship between the pandemic and the economy has shifted since the spring. Back then, the rapid spread of the disease and the mostly unknown nature of the virus triggered a forceful response from policymakers. Widespread restrictions on movement and economic activity were imposed to stem the spread. However, those measures came at a high economic and social cost. With economic activity still running far below pre-pandemic levels and an increasingly weary and resistant public, policymakers have become highly reluctant to re-impose aggressive measures. As a driver of policy, the key consideration is the extent of pressure on medical systems. Chart I-3 highlights the situation in Europe. Daily ICU occupancy exploded in several European countries in October, which led to the new restrictions at the end of that month. In the US, COVID-19 hospitalizations are now nearly twice as high as they were in April and July, and for now many new state-level restrictions are not mandatory. But New York City’s mayor noted earlier this week that a “full shutdown” was likely following Christmas, highlighting that many parts of the US may be facing meaningfully tighter restrictions in the weeks ahead if the pace of new infections does not level off. Chart I-4 presents an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction value (“R-naught”) in the US and in advanced economies outside the US, which highlights that it is too soon to confidently project a peak. Even outside the US, where restrictions have recently been tighter and progress has been made at reducing the number of intensive care patients, the reproduction number has crept back above one after some restrictions were loosened. Chart I-3Europe Reintroduced Lockdowns Because Of Pressure On The Medical System Chart I-4Too Soon To Project A Peak In Cases   A Credible Extension Of The US Reflationary Bridge The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. Currently, health experts project that this is unlikely to occur before late spring or mid-year. Earlier this year, fiscal authorities around the world built a massive reflationary bridge to support household income while stay-at-home orders were in place. However, the effect of that stimulus has waned – at least for some income groups. In the US, Chart I-5 highlights that unemployment insurance payments have fallen by more than suggested by the decline in continuing jobless claims. Post-election surveys have suggested that a vast majority of Americans felt another economic assistance package was needed, with most reporting that it should occur before inauguration.1 Overall income remains higher than its pre-pandemic baseline (Chart I-6), but aggregate figures mask white collar/blue collar divergences. Many white-collar employees saw a substantial increase in their savings this year as their spending declined and income held up (due to their ability to work from home), whereas blue-collar and low-wage service workers found themselves dependent on government assistance. While the deployment of white-collar savings is likely to eventually support blue-collar and low-wage worker income, it is unlikely that this will occur while significant pandemic restrictions remain in place. Chart I-5The Stimulative Effect Of The CARES Act Has Waned Chart I-6Overall Income Is ''Normal'', But This Masks Large Differences Across The Income Spectrum   That reality motivated the COVID relief deal that is reportedly under discussion between US congressional negotiators. The deal – as described in the financial media as we go to press – likely excludes state & local support, but it also likely includes a new round of stimulus checks, some funding for unemployment insurance recipients, and cash for small businesses, health-care providers, and schools. The deal, which we expect to be passed over the course of the next week, is not perfect but it is a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). Chart I-7State & Local Government Support Is Needed In The New Year The issue of state & local funding will be important to return to in the new year following Joe Biden’s inauguration. Persistent state & local government austerity following the global financial crisis acted as a significant drag on US economic growth (Chart I-7). Nonetheless, one-month delay to state & local government fiscal assistance is less problematic than a delay in extending unemployment insurance payments, given the pending expiry of the remaining CARES act unemployment programs on Dec. 26. Europe’s Bridge Is Shakier In Europe, the need for additional fiscal support is higher than in the US, given that activity contracted this quarter. While the December flash euro area services PMI showed surprising strength, this likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that we noted may soon need to be reimposed. European economies responded very forcefully this year to the pandemic when all response measures are considered, but less so in many important economies when focusing only above-the-line measures – i.e., new spending and foregone government revenue – to the exclusion of equity injections, loans, and guarantees. Based on this metric, Chart I-8 shows that the UK and Germany have provided a response that is in line with the advanced economy average, whereas most other European countries have lagged. Chart I-9 highlights that this year’s economic rebound in Spain and Italy has been aided by Germany’s stronger fiscal response, as evidenced by intra-euro area trade balances. Chart I-8The Fiscal Response Of Many European Countries Has Lagged Chart I-9Germany's Fiscal Stimulus Supported The Euro Area's Recovery Funds from the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (“RRF”) have yet to be deployed and they will eventually act to support euro area economic activity. However, outlays from the fund next year are expected to be small. Given that this month’s ECB actions were aimed at simply maintaining easy financial conditions,2 European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China: Adding To Global Growth, For Now Chart I-10China Will Boost Euro Area Economic Activity Next Year Fortunately for Europe (and advanced economies more generally), the external demand outlook is bright – for now. Euro area exports to China are strongly predicted by China’s credit impulse lagged by 9 months, and are set to rise materially (Chart I-10). China’s aggressive – and comparatively early – response to the pandemic will thus contribute meaningfully to global growth in the first half of 2021, and could obviate the need for further European fiscal stimulus if restrictions there are not reinstituted. China is likely to provide a significantly smaller boost to global growth in the second half of next year, as policymakers have already begun to mop up excess liquidity. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private-sector leveraging. The chart suggests that an inflection point in this cycle’s upswing has been reached, which is consistent with the view of BCA’s China strategists that the credit cycle has peaked. A peak in China’s credit impulse does not mean that China’s contribution to global growth is about to slow. Global industrial production continued to accelerate following a peak in China’s credit impulse for at least six months in the lead-up to the last two global economic slowdowns (Chart I-12). But the chart also shows that a slowdown in global activity did occur following China’s impulse peak in both cases, especially when the impulse fell below its average of 28½% of GDP. Chart I-11China's Credit Cycle Has Peaked, Right On Schedule Chart I-12DM Economies Continue To Grow Following A Peak In China's Credit Cycle   Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will bring the impulse down to approximately 30% of GDP in 2021, which is still above its average of the past decade. This suggests that China will not contribute as much to global demand in the second half of the year, but will not be an actual drag. Still, the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risk of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. Investors should closely watch for signs of increased hawkishness emanating from China’s National People’s Congress in March. Conclusions And Portfolio Recommendations Cyclically, as we highlighted in our 2021 Outlook, developed market (DM) economies are likely to experience above-trend growth, low inflation, and accommodative monetary policy next year. China’s economic cycle is running ahead of the DM world and Chinese growth will eventually moderate, but is still set to accelerate in the first half of the year. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand meaningfully reduces the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year, in the sense that consumers, businesses, and investors are much more likely to view any near-term lockdown-driven impacts on growth as necessarily temporary. This de-risks the path to a post-pandemic economy and increases our conviction in a cyclically-bullish stance towards risk assets. We continue to recommend that in 2021 global investors should: Favor stocks versus bonds; Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration; Position for corporate bond spread tightening; Favor commodities; and Expect a continued decline in the US dollar. Chart I-13US Equities Are Vulnerable To A Moderate Correction Over the very near-term, Chart I-13 shows that US equities are potentially vulnerable to a moderate tactical correction. US stocks are very richly valued, and investors may use signs of modest delays in the immunization campaign, a failure of the US Congress to provide support for state & local governments, or inadequate fiscal support in Europe as an excuse to sell. A moderate correction, on the order of 5-7%, is possible in the first quarter. The question for investors is whether the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought or sold. Given the ongoing impact of very easy monetary policy on equity multiples and the high likelihood of a significant earnings recovery, we are strongly inclined towards the former, barring any substantial shift in the timeline to mass vaccination. Equity returns will be lower in 2021 than in 2020, but are very likely to be positive and beat those offered by government securities. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 18, 2020 Next Report: January 28, 2021   II. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.3” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,4 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework5 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.6 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.7 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,8 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.9 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts Among BCA’s equity indicators, the monetary indicator continues to fall but it remains very elevated relative to its history. This underscores that monetary policy remains extremely accommodative and will continue to support stock prices. By contrast, our technical, valuation, and speculative indicators have become quite elevated. This would normally be a very concerning profile, but an improvement in sentiment is warranted in response to the positive vaccine news over the past month. Valuation remains a source of concern, but value is not an effective market timing tool. Extended valuation ratios point more to low average returns over a multi-year time horizon than a major equity market selloff next year. Equity earnings are likely to improve meaningfully in 2021, but much of this improvement is already priced in. Over the coming 12 months, bottom-up analysts expect S&P 500 EPS to grow 20% to a point that modestly surpasses their pre-pandemic peak. Earnings growth that is merely in line with these expectations is likely to produce mid-single digit returns from stocks. Globally, the most significant regional equity trend is that the US is beginning to underperform the rest of the world. The relative performance of US versus global stocks has broken below its 200-day moving average, and sector weights suggest that euro area stocks are likely to be the biggest beneficiary within global ex-US if the trend in growth versus value follows that of the US versus global. Within the currency space, the US dollar remains quite oversold. But USD is a reliably counter-cyclical currency, and it has only modestly undershot what would be implied by the rally in global stock prices this year. The euro and commodity currencies have been especially strong versus the dollar over the past month, and may be due for a consolidation. Our composite technical indicator for commodities is the most overbought that it has been since 2011. Industrial metals and lumber appear to be at the greatest risk of a technical selloff, as gold’s correction may have already run its course. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. US labor market momentum is waning, although payroll growth remained positive in November. A massive rise in the savings rate means that savings will eventually support spending, but this is unlikely to significantly occur while pandemic restrictions remain in place. Given this, fiscal and monetary policymakers need to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system and allows a return to more normal economic conditions. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Daily Insights "Americans Want Another Deal, Pronto!" dated November 30, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Daily Insights "The ECB: Looser For Longer," dated December 10, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 3 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 4 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 5 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 6 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Dear Client, Please note that this report will be our final publication of the year (what a year!). In addition to the Special Report we are sending you, please join me for the two webcasts I am hosting ("China 2021 Key Views: Shifting Gears In The New Decade") today at 10:00AM EST (English) and Thursday at 9:00 AM Beijing/HK/Taipei time, 12:00 PM Australian Eastern time (Mandarin).  Our publishing schedule will resume on January 6, 2021 with our monthly China Macro and Market Review. Our China Investment Strategy team wishes you a safe, healthy, and happy holiday season! Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights Chinese crude steel output growth will moderate considerably next year, leading to a sharp reduction in the country’s iron ore imports. Rising domestic iron ore production as well as increasing use of scrap steel will partially substitute Chinese overseas purchases of iron ore next year. In the meantime, the global iron ore output growth will likely be stronger in 2021 than this year. Both iron ore and steel prices are vulnerable to the downside in 2021. Feature Global iron ore prices have rallied over 60% since February, propelled by surging Chinese iron ore imports (Chart 1). China accounts for about 70% of global iron ore imports (Chart 2). Chart 1Iron Ore: Surging Prices On Strong Chinese Imports Chart 2China Accounts For 70% Of Global Iron Ore Imports Iron ore is mainly used in the steel-making process. The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was largely due to its strong crude steel1 output growth. Chart 3Strong Crude Steel Production In China For past six months of this year, crude steel output increased by 8.2% compared with a year ago in China, while having contracted considerably in the rest of world (Chart 3, top panel). As the world’s largest steel producer, China currently accounts for 60% of world crude steel output (Chart 3, bottom panel).  However, the odds are that China’s crude steel output growth will decline considerably next year causing a sharp reduction in the country’s iron ore imports. In addition, rising domestic iron ore extraction as well as increasing use of scrap steel next year also point to a drop in Chinese iron ore imports in 2021. Moreover, global iron ore output is set to increase in 2021, putting further downward pressure on iron ore prices. While global steel output outside of China will likely increase next year, the increase in the world ex-China’s iron ore imports will not offset the drop in the Chinese iron ore imports. This is because nearly half of steel output outside China uses an electric-furnaced steelmaking process mainly requiring scrap steel. Puzzling Surge In Chinese Iron Ore Imports Chart 4Stronger Steel Output Growth But Weaker Iron Ore Imports In 2018 And 2019 It is not always true that strong Chinese steel output growth will boost the country’s iron ore imports. China’s annual crude steel output growth was much higher in both 2018 and 2019 than this year. Yet, the country’s iron ore imports still dropped by 1% in 2018 and only rose slightly in 2019, much lower than the strong 11% growth so far this year (Chart 4). The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was due not only to strong domestic steel output, but also to limited scrap steel availability, weak domestic iron ore production, and low domestic iron ore inventory. First, scrap steel availability and domestic iron ore supply can be swing factors that determine Chinese iron ore imports. Both scrap steel and domestically mined iron ore can be used as a replacement for imported iron ore in the steel-making process. China’s post-pandemic steel output growth this year reached a similar rate as in 2019, but this year’s scrap steel availability was limited due to a pandemic-induced disruption in the domestic scrap steel supply chain earlier this year. Meanwhile, Chinese authorities started clamping down on ferrous scrap imports in July 2019 due to environmental concerns. This has caused a collapse in the country’s scrap steel imports since then (Chart 5). Chart 5Tighter Scrap Steel Supply In 2020 In comparison, the scrap steel supply was more abundant in the past two years, thereby reducing the need for the country’s iron ore imports. China’s supply-side reforms and a nationwide clampdown on illegal sub-standard steel (Ditiaogang) production in 2017 led to a significant increase in scrap steel supply for steel producers in 2018. The World Steel Association data shows that Chinese crude steel output from the electric-furnace steel-making process—mainly using scrap steel as the feedstock—jumped significantly to a 33% annual growth rate in 2018.  In 2019, despite the decline in the country’s scrap steel imports, total scrap steel supply in China still had a net increase due to a 9% year-on-year growth in domestic scrap steel supply. Second, China’s domestic iron ore output during the first ten months of this year only rose by 0.4% year on year, compared with the sharp increase of approximately 11% in 2019 (Chart 6, top panel). Chart 6Weaker Domestic Iron Ore Output Growth This Year Finally, China’s iron ore inventory level remains low relative to its crude steel output this year, following a substantial destocking cycle in 2018 and 2019 (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chinese ore inventory increased by three million tons so far this year, after having declined 14 million tons in 2019 and nine million tons in 2018. Bottom Line: The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was due not only to strong domestic steel output, but also to low iron ore inventory, weak domestic iron ore production and limited scrap steel availability. Substitutes For China’s Imported Iron Ore Both domestic iron ore output and scrap steel supply are likely to rise in 2021. This will reduce the need for imported iron ore in China’s steel-making process.  Chart 7Chinese Iron Ore Output Is Set To Go Up In 2021 The considerable increase in profit margins for Chinese iron ore domestic miners and a declining number of loss-generating companies herald an upside for iron ore output in China (Chart 7). Chinese iron ore output in the past 12 months was still 56% lower than its peak output in 2014. We expect a 5-7% increase in the country’s iron ore output in 2021. Domestic scrap steel supply will also increase considerably in the coming years as the country puts more emphasis on the “green and sustainable development” of its economy. The increasing use of scrap steel clearly fits this narrative, as using one ton of scrap steel in the steel-making process can reduce emissions of 1.6 tons of carbon dioxide and three tons of solid waste.   Chinese domestic scrap steel supply is expected to reach 290-300 million tons by 2025 from approximately 240 million tons in 2019. This suggests an annual increase of about eight to 10 million tons in the country’s domestic scrap steel supply over the next five years. The use of one ton of scrap steel in the steel-making process can reduce iron ore imports by 1.65 tons. This means the increase of eight to ten million tons of scrap steel could reduce iron ore imports by about 13-17 million tons in the coming year. All else being equal, this alone would reduce this year’s 1,074 million tons of Chinese iron ore imports by 1.2-1.5% in 2021.   Moreover, China is also likely to allow the resumption of ferrous scrap imports in 1H2021. The country plans to reclassify eligible ferrous scrap as a recyclable resource so it would be no longer subject to the import ban. The country is expected to release new standards for steel scrap imports by the end of 2020. Scrap imports peaked at 13.7 million tons in 2009 and plunged to 180,000 tons by 2019. We expect China’s scrap steel imports to increase to 1-1.5 million tons in 2021 (Chart 5 on page 4).  The increased use of steel scrap and domestic iron ore will boost the bargaining power for Chinese steelmakers, as there will be greater volumes of raw materials available to Chinese steel mills. Bottom Line: The availability of steel scrap and domestic iron ore is set to increase for Chinese steel producers. This will likely lead to a considerable reduction in Chinese iron ore imports in 2021. What About China’s Steel Output In 2021? Chinese steel output remains a major determinant for the country’s iron ore imports. The growth of crude steel output in China is generally determined by the country’s underlying steel demand, the steel companies’ profit margins, and the extent of capacity expansion in that year. It is also subject to the government’s regulations in the steel sector.2 Chart 8Chinese Steel Consumption Structure First, our research shows that Chinese underlying steel demand growth will decline considerably next year. Chart 8 shows the structure of China’s underlying steel consumption in 2019. Chart 9Weaker Steel Demand Growth From Construction In 2021 About 55% of Chinese steel consumption is consumed in the construction sector. The sector includes development of properties and traditional infrastructure. There is a close correlation between building construction area starts and Chinese total steel demand proxy (Chart 9, top panel). The latter is calculated as China’s steel output plus net imports. Steel is heavily used in the early construction stage of buildings. Traditional infrastructure3 is also a major user of steel products. This year’s boost in traditional infrastructure investment also contributed a sharp rebound in steel use (Chart 9, bottom panel). As government credit and fiscal stimulus have already peaked, traditional infra-structure investment growth will decelerate from the current level. The weakness will be especially pronounced in 2H2021. Regarding building construction, in the October report, we made a case for a moderate growth in property starts over the following six months. For 2021 in its entirety, odds favor a slight contraction in building construction starts. The country’s property demand faces strong structural headwinds. In the meantime, the Chinese authorities seem determined to deleverage the country’s real estate developers. Hence, subdued property demand and shortage of financing for real estate developers will likely to lead to a decrease in building starts. Chart 10Chinese Machinery Output Will Likely Have A Growth Deceleration Next Year   The machinery sector accounted for 17% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019. Chinese machinery output has experienced significant growth this year due to fiscal stimulus. For example, construction machinery, including excavators, loaders, cranes, road rollers, bulldozers, ball graders and spreaders, surged 40% over the past six months and the annualized output reached a record high (Chart 10). We expect a growth deceleration in Chinese machinery output next year due to peak stimulus in 4Q2020. The automobile and shipbuilding sectors accounted for 6% and 2% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019, respectively. Automobile output showed a strong rebound in the past six months while the output of civilian ships was still in a deep contraction during the same period (Chart 11). We expect steel consumption in both sectors to improve only slightly in 2021, which will not offset the steel demand growth reduction in the construction and machinery sectors. The home appliance sector contributed 2% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019. Next year’s government-targeted stimulus in the consumption segment may provide a boost in output of home appliances, albeit a modest one (Chart 12). In addition, global demand for freezers and refrigerators due to the pandemic may diminish. Overall, we expect steel consumption in the home appliance sector will grow only slightly. Chart 11Steel Consumption Next Year Will Rise Slightly In Automobile And Shipbuilding Sectors… Chart 12… As Well As In The Home Appliance Sector The China Iron and Steel Association estimates that Chinese steel demand year-on-year growth for the first ten months of this year was at about 10.3%. We expect it to fall considerably to 3-5% next year, mainly due to diminishing steel demand growth in the construction and machinery sectors; combined, this accounts for about 72% of Chinese steel demand. Second, weakening demand growth will push down steel prices more than iron ore prices, resulting in a profit margin squeeze. This will force some unprofitable steel-making companies out of the market.   Chart 13Falling Profit Margins Of Chinese Steel Producers May Weigh On Their Steel Output Chart 13 shows a close correlation between crude steel output and steelmakers’ profit margins. Despite a recent rebound, Chinese steel producers’ profit margins have fallen sharply from last year. Finally, the new version of the capacity swap policy for the steel sector, which is expected to be released soon, will get stricter. The capacity swap policy, introduced by the authorities in 2017 and in effect since January 1, 2018, has allowed steel producers to add new capacity to replace obsolete capacity at a ratio of 1:1-1.25 (the range depends on region). Recently, it has been reported that the new version of the capacity swap policy will raise the ratio to 1:1.25-1.5. This new policy, if implemented next year, will likely curb new steel production capacity in 2021. Bottom Line: China’s steel output growth is likely to drift lower next year mainly due to diminishing steel demand growth. This will also weigh on Chinese iron ore imports. More Global Iron Ore Supply In 2021 Global iron ore supply outside China will go up next year due to larger capex. The world’s top four iron ore producers—Rio Tinto, Vale, BHP and Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) account for about half of global iron ore production. The year-on-year growth of their aggregate iron ore output will likely increase from 2% this year to 4-6% in 2021.  Table 1 shows the capex of these four companies this year and in 2021. All four will increase their capex considerably in 2021. Table 1The Capex of the World’s Top Four Iron Ore Producing Companies In 2020 & 2021 Chart 14Both Australian And Brazilian Iron Ore Producers Are Set To Increase Their Iron Ore Output Their aggregate capex will surge by 22% year on year in 2021. In particular, FMG4 will boost its capex by 60% next year. In 2019, 92% of FMG’s iron ore sales went to China. Next year, we expect Vale to considerably increase its iron ore output and exports to compete with Australian iron ore miners (Chart 14).  Very high current iron ore prices will likely boost the capex of other iron ore producers next year as well. We expect global iron ore output growth to accelerate in 2021. Moreover, the giant Simandou iron ore deposit in Guinea—the often-called “Pilbara-killer” (the Pilbara region accounts for over 90% of Australian iron ore exports)—is getting closer to development (Box 1).       Box 1 The Giant Simandou Iron Ore Deposit There are four blocks in the Simandou deposit, all of which involve participation from Chinese companies. The SMB-winning consortium—including one Singaporean company, one Guinean company and three Chinese companies—won the tender last year to develop blocks 1 and 2. Rio Tinto, Chinalco and the Guinean government own blocks 3 and 4. Last month, Guinea’s government approved the consortium’s plan to build a railroad and deep-water port to export output from the massive Simandou iron ore deposit to key markets including China. The consortium aims to bring the two blocks into production by 2025, with the first phase of iron ore export targeted at 80 million tons. One estimate is that Guinea’s combined annual iron ore production from blocks 1-4 could be 120 million tons per year (phase 1) by 2026 and may increase to 220 million tons per year (phase 2) by 2030. The 220 million tons of iron ore is equivalent to approximately 15% of the global seaborne iron ore trade in 2019. Investment Implications Chart 15Both Iron Ore And Steel Prices Are Vulnerable To The Downside In 2021 Both iron ore and steel prices are vulnerable to the downside next year. We expect prices of Chinese imported iron ore (62% grade) to decline around 30% from current US$155 per ton to about US$100-110 per ton in 2021 (Chart 15, top panel). We expect the Chinese steel products price index to drop 15% from the current 158 to the range of 130-140 in RMB terms in 2021 (Chart 15, bottom panel).   Ellen JingYuan He  Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1According to the World Steel Association, crude steel is defined as steel in its first solid (or usable) form, including ingots, semi-finished products (billets, blooms, slabs), and liquid steel for castings. 2For example, there were mandated production cuts during the supply-side reform in the previous several years and frequent output halts aiming to reduce winter pollution. 3Traditional infrastructure is made up of three categories: (1) transport, storage and postal services; (2) water conservancy, environment and utility management; and (3) electricity, gas and water production and supply. 4In November 2020, FMG signed 12 memoranda of understanding (MoU) with major Chinese steel mills, procurement partners and financial institutions on the sidelines of the third China International Import Expo. The MoUs are valued cumulatively in the range of US$3 to $4 billion. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, Next week I will be presenting our 2021 outlook on China at our last webcasts of the year "China 2021 Key Views: Shifting Gears In The New Decade".  The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, December 16 at 10:00AM EST (English) and at 9:00 AM Beijing/HK/Taipei time, 12:00 PM Australian Eastern time (Mandarin). In addition, our final weekly publication for 2020 will be on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights Chinese policymakers have shifted their focus from supporting economic growth at all costs to risk management. The trend will likely gather speed in 2021. A deceleration in credit growth next year is almost a certainty. While policymakers will be data dependent and the slowdown will be managed, our baseline scenario suggests a decline of approximately three percentage points in credit impulse in 2021. Chinese stocks could still trend higher in Q1, but prices will falter as the market starts to price in a tighter policy environment and slower profit growth in 2H21. We recommend a tactical neutral stance in both the onshore and offshore markets.  We continue to favor Chinese government bonds on a cyclical basis, while gyrations in the onshore corporate bond market will endure for at least the next six months. Feature China’s economic growth momentum has strengthened in recent months, but the nation’s policy stance has also turned more hawkish. As set out in the 14th Five-Year Plan, 2021 will mark the beginning of a new era in which policymakers will switch gears from building a "moderately prosperous society" to becoming a "great modern socialist nation.” The pivot means China’s top officials may tolerate slower economic growth, implement tougher financial and industry regulations, and accelerate structural reforms by allowing more bankruptcies and industry consolidations. As we pointed out in our November 4, 2020 Strategy Report,1 external challenges combined with a stronger domestic leadership will allow China to initiate more meaningful reforms in the next decade than in the past ten years. The reforms will strengthen our structural view on China’s economy and financial assets, but this restructuring will create headwinds for growth in the short to medium term.  Therefore, investors should maintain low expectations for Chinese growth and financial asset prices. In 2021, credit growth will decelerate, regulations will be tightened and the “old economy” will moderate in the second half of the year.  We will discuss four main themes in our outlook for 2021. Key Theme #1: Macro Policy: Turning More Hawkish Government officials recently stepped up mention of financial risk containment in their public announcements, along with tightened industry regulations. Many market commentators are downplaying the risk of a tighter policy in 2021, citing China’s fragile recovery and a weak global economy. However, the current environment resembles the policy backdrop in late 2016/early 2017 when President Xi Jinping began his financial deleveraging campaign. Our policy framework suggests that China currently faces fewer constraints than in 2016/2017. Thus, the odds are high that the leaders will turn their tough rhetoric into action in the next six to twelve months.   Importantly, despite low year-over-year GDP growth, the pace of China’s domestic economic recovery has been faster than in 2016 (Chart 1). The PMIs in both the manufacturing and service sectors have been above the 50 percent boom-bust threshold for nine consecutive months (Chart 2). The laggards in the economy - manufacturing investment and household consumption - have been consistently improving (Chart 3). Bond yields have climbed sharply, but given that corporate bond issuance only accounts for 10% of total social financing, the economic impact from rising corporate bond yields has been more than offset by the large number of government bonds issued (Chart 4). Moreover, the recovery in China’s export sector and current account balance has fared surprisingly well this year, propelled by the global demand for medical supplies and stay-at-home electronic goods (Chart 5). Portfolio inflows also have been strong, fueling a rapid appreciation in the RMB.  Chart 1Current Economic Recovery In Better Shape Than In 2016 Chart 2PMI Remains Strong Chart 3The Laggards Are Catching Up Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus More Than Offset Tighter Monetary Stance Chart 5Exports Surged Chart 6Chinese Business Cycle Upswing Still Has Steam Looking forward, China’s economic recovery should continue for at least another two quarters due to this year’s credit expansion. Economic activities usually lag the turning points in credit growth by six to nine months (Chart 6). Moreover, headline economic data in 1H21 should be impressive, given the deep slump in domestic output during the same period in 2020. The strengthening economic data will provide China’s leadership with a long-awaited opportunity to focus on risk management. Chart 7A Mild Deflation Will Not Stop Policymakers From Reining In Stimulus Furthermore, the ongoing deflation in the ex-factory prices should not stop the authorities from scaling back policy support. It is worth noting that Xi’s administration doubled down on squeezing shadow banking activity in early 2017 when the CPI was decelerating; the PPI turned positive only due to a low base factor from deep contractions in 2016 (Chart 7). In this vein, as long as the deceleration in both the CPI and PPI does not drastically worsen, we think that policymakers will see less need to reflate the economy. China’s external environment will be less challenging in 2021 than in 2016/2017. Geopolitical tensions are set to ease, at least temporarily, with US President-elect Joe Biden taking office in January. This contrasts with 2016/2017 when President Xi began his financial deleveraging campaign despite increasing strain from then newly-elected President Donald Trump. In hindsight, Xi’s intention may have been to solidify China’s financial sector in preparation for a trade war with the US. The same logic can be applied to our view for next year: Xi will accelerate structure reforms to mitigate risk in the domestic economy before the Biden administration turns its focus to China. We do not think the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary next year will prevent Xi from adopting a hawkish policy bias either. Xi plowed ahead with tightening financial regulations in 2017 even as the ruling Communist Party Committee (CPC) was preparing for a generational leadership reshuffle. In the past two years, the escalation in US-China tensions has strengthened Xi’s power in the CPC and Chinese society. The recent large number of changes in provincial CPC leaders should help Xi to further consolidate his centralized power over local governments. All signs indicate that both the domestic and external landscapes should provide Xi with even more room to undertake reforms in 2021 compared with 2017. Key Theme #2: Stimulus: Deceleration Ahead A deceleration in both credit growth and fiscal support in 2021 is almost a certainty in light of the more hawkish tone by Chinese policymakers. Chart 8 shows that between 2017 and 2019, policymakers came close to stabilizing the macro leverage ratio, but the progress was more than reversed this year due to the pandemic. If policymakers are to allow the increase in the 2021 debt-to-GDP ratio to be within the range of the past four years, then credit may expand at a rate slightly above nominal GDP growth in 2021 (assuming nominal output growth at around 10-11% next year). This scenario, which is our baseline view, is in line with recent statements from the PBoC, which calls for aligning credit growth with nominal GDP in 2021.  Our calculation suggests that credit impulse will reach around 29% of next year’s GDP, about 2 to 3 percentage points lower than in 2020 (Chart 9). Chart 8Financial Deleveraging Efforts Erased By COVID-19 Chart 9Credit Growth Will Decelerate In 2021 Even if the PBoC keeps its official policy rate (i.e. the 7-day interbank repo rate) steady, tightening regulations and repricing credit risk will lead to higher funding costs and a lower appetite for borrowing (Chart 10). Banking regulators have made it clear that some of the one-off easing measures from this year, such as the extension of loan payments (through March 2021) and the delay of macro-prudential assessments (through end-2021), will end next year. Financial institutions will need to slow the pace of their asset balance sheet to comply with these regulations. The regulatory pressures will lead to de facto deleveraging. On the fiscal front, we expect the large budget deficit to remain intact next year. Targeted stimulus through subsidies and tax cuts to support household consumption and small businesses will likely continue. Government spending in the new economy sectors such as semiconductor and tech-related infrastructure will even accelerate. However, the new-economy infrastructure investment is estimated to only account for about 1% of China’s total capital formation, having limited impact on the overall economy.2 Chart 10Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Chart 11Fiscal Boost For Infrastructure Will Scale Back The proceeds from the large number of the local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) this year will continue to provide tailwinds for infrastructure investment into Q1 2021. However, as the laggards in the economic recovery catch up and government tax revenue improves next year, 2021 quotas for government general and SPBs are likely to be scaled back, reining in expenditure growth in the traditional infrastructure sector (Chart 11).   Finally, investors should watch for signs of further hawkishness from China’s leaders at the Central Economic Work Conference this December and the National People’s Congress next March.  While we expect policymakers to be data dependent and keep a controlled deceleration in credit and economic growth, risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A more bearish scenario would be if policymakers decide to fully revert the pace of debt accumulation to the average rate in 2017-2019. In this case, credit impulse in 2021 could fall by more than 5 percentage points compared with 2020 (Scenario 2 in Chart 9 on Page 6). Key Theme #3: Chinese Equities: Position For A Peak In Prices This year’s cyclical (6- to 12 months) call to overweight Chinese stocks within a global portfolio has panned out. In the next 12 months, the risks in Chinese stocks relative to global benchmarks are to the downside; Chinese stocks are vulnerable to setbacks in policy support next year, in both absolute and relative terms. We are closing the following trades: Long MSCI China Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 1.5% profit; Long MSCI China A Onshore Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 5.6% profit; Long MSCI China Ex-TMT/Short MSCI Global EX-TMT, for a 0.7% loss; Long Investable Materials/Short broad investable market, for a 5.6% profit; and Long Onshore Materials/Short broad A-Share market, for a 9.3% profit. Chart 12Onshore Equity Market Investors Will Start To Price In Slower Profit Growth In 2H21 In absolute terms, Chinese onshore stocks on an aggregate level could still inch higher in the next quarter, supported by an improving business and profit cycle (Chart 12). However, in Q2 the market may start to price in slower economic and profit growth in 2H21, erasing the gains from the first quarter.  The resilient performance in Chinese stocks against a tightening policy backdrop in 2017 is not likely to repeat itself next year. Current valuations in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets are higher than at the end of 2016; the price-to-forward earnings ratios in both markets this year have breached the peak levels achieved in 2017 (Chart 13A and 13B). Recovering earnings in the next year will help to digest the currently elevated valuations, i.e. the market has already priced in a substantial post-pandemic profit recovery and investors’ focus will soon switch to a more pessimistic outlook for corporate earnings in 2H21.  Chart 13AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle Chart 13BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Still Elevated Additionally, a property market boom in 2017 boosted the stock performance of real estate developers and related sectors in the supply chain (Chart 14). Policies have already turned much more restrictive in the past month, and deleveraging pressures faced by property developers may weigh on both the sector’s profit growth and stock performance in the next six to twelve months.3 The investable market may not be insulated from tighter domestic policies either. Recent anti-trust regulations in China could create headwinds for mega-cap technology stocks in the near term. Global investors will demand a higher risk premium for China’s tech sector than in the past, as the rich valuations of tech stocks pose more downside risks in a less friendly policy environment (Chart 15).  Chart 14Housing Boom In 2017 Also Helped Sustain A Bull Market Back Then Chart 15Valuations In Chinese Tech Stocks Are Elevated Chart 16A Policy Overkill Will Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months Furthermore, if we presume a policy overkill with more aggressive deleveraging and a further appreciation in the RMB in 2021, our model shows a significant increase in the probability of a profit growth contraction in the next 12 months (Chart 16). In this scenario, selloffs in Chinese stock prices may start in Q1, a risk that cannot be ruled out. In relative terms, Chinese stocks will likely underperform global equities. It is doubtful that the impressive outperformance in Chinese investable stocks throughout 2017 will be repeated in 2021. Chinese equities have benefited from the successful containment of China’s COVID-19 situation in the past year (Chart 17). As breakthroughs in vaccines make the pandemic less threatening to the global economy, Chinese risk assets relative to global ones will become less appealing. Global cyclical stocks, particularly European and Japanese equities, should benefit from improvements in business activities and relatively low valuations (Chart 18). Chart 17Chinese Equities Have Benefited From A Better Control Of COVID-19 This Year... Chart 18...But Vaccines Will Give A Boost To Other Markets Next Year Importantly, despite strong inflows this year from foreign investors to China’s bond market, foreign portfolio flows into China’s onshore equity market have been less than one-third of that in 2019 (Chart 19). Looking ahead, global investors will be less keen to support Chinese stocks, based on the expectation of tighter onshore liquidity conditions and less buoyant economic growth.   Chart 19Foreign Investors Have Not Been So Keen On Chinese Risky Assets This Year Everything considered, we anticipate that Chinese A-shares and investable stocks will start descending in Q2 in absolute terms. Their performance relative to global equities will also peak. We recommend a neutral stance on both bourses in the next three months to minimize the downside risks.  Key Theme #4: Chinese Bonds: Favor Onshore Government Over Corporate Bonds We continue to recommend a cyclical long position in Chinese government bonds within a global fixed-income portfolio. However, we are closing our long Chinese onshore corporate bond trade for now, for a 17% gain (Chart 20). The large interest rate differential between yields in Chinese bonds versus those in other major developed nations should remain intact into the new year. The yield on the short-duration government notes will continue to trend higher in 1H21, based on the prospect of tighter monetary policy. The yield on long-dated bonds will also escalate as the outlook for the economy continues to improve. We are pricing in a 70BPs increase in the 1-year government bond yield and a 40BPs rise in the yield of the 10-year bond from their current levels (Chart 21).   Chart 20Handsome Returns On Chinese Government Bonds Chart 21Our Projections On Government Bond Yield Hikes Next Year Chart 22RMB Appreciation Will Continue In 2021, But At A Slower Pace Than This Year The ongoing appreciation in the RMB will also make Chinese government bonds attractive to global investors. The speed of the gain in the RMB against the US dollar may slow in 2021, but the economic fundamentals do not yet suggest that this trend will reverse. Relative growth and interest rates between China and the US will probably narrow and the geopolitical tailwinds affecting the RMB following the Biden win in the US election will subside in the new year (Chart 22). However, China's strong export sector should still support a record high trade surplus and provide a floor to the Chinese currency against the USD. Chinese onshore corporate bonds have undergone a major shakeout in the domestic corporate bond market in the past month. A slew of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults has pushed up the yields on the lower-rated corporate bond by nearly 40BPs in one month. In our view, the recent panic selloff in the onshore corporate bond market is overdone and domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive on a cyclical basis. Bloomberg data shows that the value of defaulted bonds in the first three quarters of this year is in fact much lower than in the past two years: it dropped to 85Bn RMB from 142Bn RMB defaults in 2019 and the default of 122Bn RMB in 2018. Bondholders have been spooked by the fact that the Chinese local government and top financial regulators allow defaults by state-backed firms. The policy change to shift risk to the markets should result in a continuation of risk-off sentiment among investors, inducing selling pressure in the domestic corporate bond market in the near term. However, on a cyclical basis, such selloffs could present good buying opportunities. While we expect China’s onshore corporate bond defaults to be higher in 2021, the default rate remains below the global average (Chart 23). As we pointed out in our previous report, since 2017 Chinese onshore corporate bonds have been priced with a significantly higher risk premium than their global peers, which in our view is overdone (Chart 24). Chart 23Chinese Corporate Bond Default Rate Lower Than Global Average... Chart 24...And Much Lower Than Their Risk Premiums Imply Chart 25Chinese Corporate Bonds Can Bring Better Returns Once The Peak Intensity In Policy Tightening Passes In addition, Chart 25 shows that the total returns on Chinese onshore corporate bonds briefly declined in 2017 when the government’s financial de-risking efforts intensified. It sequentially rebounded in 2018, suggesting a turnaround in investors’ sentiment after the first cleanup wave in the corporate sector.  As such, while we do not favor Chinese onshore corporate bonds in the next six months, on a 12-month horizon, conditions could become more favorable to initiate a long position. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Please see China Investment Strategy Report "The 14th Five-Year Plan: Meaningful Transformations Ahead," dated November 4, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market?" dated March 25, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers," dated October 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations