China

Chart I-1Chinese Bank Share Prices Are On Edge Banks are crucial to financing the private sector as well as all levels of government in China. Not only do banks originate a substantial share of credit, but also they account for 82% of purchases of government bonds. That is why today we revisit the fundamentals of the Chinese banking sector. Besides, their equity valuations appear very cheap, and many investors are tempted to buy their shares. Chinese banks’ financial ratios look healthy and valuations appear extremely cheap because they have not recognized and provisioned for non-performing assets. By expanding their balance sheets enormously and not provisioning for bad assets, their profits have mushroomed. Banks have retained a share of these profits, boosting their capital. Yet, their share prices have been flat over the past 10 years. Recently, investable bank stocks have been lingering around their December lows. Another gap down could be lurking around the corner (Chart I-1). We highlight their poor financial health in the section below, where we perform stress tests for both large as well as small and medium sized banks (SMB). The principal danger to shareholders is equity dilution that will continue occurring among mainland banks (Chart I-2). Our bearish view on Chinese bank stocks has not been contingent on a systematic financial crisis but on inevitable and substantial equity dilution. Investment conclusions: Absolute return investors should stay clear of Chinese bank stocks – they are the ultimate value trap. For relative value traders, we reiterate our long U.S. banks/short Chinese bank shares trade, and within the latter our long large/short SMB stocks position (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Beware Of Equity Dilution Chart I-3Our Trades On Chinese Banks   Large Versus Small And Medium Banks China’s banking system consists of five large banks (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and Bank of Communications) and about 3150 small- and medium-sized banks (SMBs). All five large banks are publically listed but the central government still holds about 70-80% of their equity. About 36 of the SMBs are also listed but the central authorities in Beijing have a stake in some of the medium-sized banks. Notably, the central government has no equity in any of the small banks. In recent years, SMBs have been playing a greater role in sustaining the credit boom: First, on aggregate SMBs have actually outgrown the five large banks in terms of balance sheet size. The former’s risk-weighted assets1 (RWAs) of RMB 73 trillion exceeds the RMB 65 trillion of large banks (Chart I-4). The value of RWAs emphasizes banks’ claims on enterprises, non-bank financial institutions and households over holdings of government bonds. Hence, RWAs of banks are a more pertinent measure of non-government financing than total assets. Second, over the past 12 months large banks and SMBs have accounted for 40% and 60% of the rise in the aggregate banking system’s RWAs, respectively (Chart I-5). Therefore, further credit acceleration will be difficult to engineer if – as we discuss below – SMBs begin retrenching under regulatory pressures and amid tighter market financing in the wake of the Baoshang bank failure. Chart I-4SMBs Have Outgrown Large Ones Chart I-5SMBs Have Contributed Enormously To The Credit Boom   Finally, there has so far been no deleveraging among SMBs. Large banks’ RWAs-to-nominal GDP ratio has been in decline since 2014, but the same ratio for SMBs has not dropped at all (Chart I-6). This chart corroborates that the credit boom between 2015 and 2017 was driven by SMBs, rather than by large banks. In fact, SMBs along with shadow banking are what primarily drove the credit boom that occurred over the past decade. This confirms the thesis that the unprecedented credit bubble has spiraled beyond the central authorities’ control. While China’s entire banking system is in poor health, SMBs are in considerably worse shape than large ones. In particular: SMBs have much more assets classified as equity and other investments than large banks (Chart I-7). Equity and other investments stands for non-standard credit assets that are typically much riskier than loans and corporate bonds. This is the principal reason why in our stress test we use higher ratios of non-performing assets for SMBs than for large banks. Chart I-6No Deleveraging Among SMBs Chart I-7SMBs Exposure To Non-StandarD Credit Assets Is Huge Chart I-8Large Banks Versus SMBs Big banks are better capitalized than SMBs. The capital adequacy ratio among big banks is higher compared with the other banks (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, the ratio of non-performing loans (NPL) to total loans is considerably lower for large banks than for SMBs (Chart I-8, bottom panel). On the liquidity side, SMBs are more dependent on the wholesale funding market than their larger peers. Interbank transactions account for 10% of SMBs own liabilities. On the other hand, big banks are the main lenders in the interbank market. Bottom Line: SMBs have become more important than large ones in providing financing to companies and households. Yet these SMBs are much more vulnerable. A Stress Test We conducted separate stress tests on large banks and SMBs. Our findings are not optimistic. Some 71% of equity of SMBs will be wiped out if 14% of their RWAs turn sour (Table I-1). 43% of large banks’ equity will be impaired if 12% of their RWAs become non-performing (Table I-2). The reason we use RWAs rather than loans is because banks have been accumulating claims on enterprises, non-bank financial institutions and households beyond their loan books. Hence, RWAs better captures all credit assets. We use a higher impairment rate for SMBs than for large banks because the former have substantially more non-standard credit assets. Typically, the quality of non-standard credit assets is inferior to those of corporate bonds or loans. We used the following assumptions in our stress tests: For large banks, we assumed non-performing assets (NPAs) ratios of 10% in the optimistic scenario, 12% (baseline), and 14% (pessimistic) (Table I-2). For SMBs, we employed NPAs ratios of 12% (optimistic), 14% (baseline), and 16% (pessimistic) (Table I-1). The magnitude and duration of China’s current credit boom has considerably surpassed that of the 1990s, when Chinese banks held over 25% of non-performing loans (Chart I-9). Therefore, our stress test assumption that the NPAs ratio will rise above 10% is reasonable. Chart I-9China's Credit Booms In Perspective We applied a 30% recovery rate on NPAs. The recovery rate on Chinese banks’ NPLs from 2001 to 2005 was 20%. This occurred amid much stronger economic growth. Thus, an assumption of a 30% recovery rate today is realistic. Finally, we calculated overvaluations assuming the fair price-to-book value ratio for all banks is 1. How has it been possible for banks in China to continue expanding their balance sheets aggressively despite such moribund financial health? Banks can operate and expand their balance sheets with zero or even negative de facto equity capital, so long as they obtain liquidity from other banks or the central bank. This is how many Chinese SMBs have been operating in recent years. Barring institutional and regulatory constraints, banks theoretically can expand their balance sheets indefinitely by creating loans and deposits “out of thin air.” We have deliberated extensively in past reports that banks do not intermediate savings or deposits into loans and credit. Rather, they create deposits when they make a loan to or buy an asset from a non-bank entity. Loans and deposits are nothing other than accounting entries on banks’ books. It is regulators’ and shareholders’ forbearance – or lack of it – that allows banks to, or prevents banks from, expanding their balance sheets. Although Chinese authorities have been easing both monetary and fiscal policies, they have not completely abandoned their regulatory tightening efforts on banks and shadow banking, or their plans to curb leverage and speculation in the real estate market. For example, in April bank regulators released draft rules on how banks should classify all types of assets and provision for them. Over the past several years, many banks have transformed their bad loans into non-loan assets to disguise the true level of their non-performing loans (NPLs). The new regulation, if and when it is adopted and properly executed, will force banks to recognize NPAs and increase their provisions. Ultimately, this will substantially impair banks’ capital and dampen their ability to originate new credit – both in the form of making loans and buying securities. Consequently, the credit impulse will relapse and the business cycle recovery will be delayed. Bottom Line: If banks in China are forced by regulators to properly recognize and provision for NPAs, large banks would become substantially undercapitalized while many SMBs would have little equity capital left. That would hammer their ability to finance the economy. Investment Ramifications Given the increased importance of SMBs in China, the precarious state of their financial health has become a matter of macro significance. Even if regulators partially reinforce recognition of provisions for NPAs, aggregate credit growth will decelerate. A simple simulation to illustrate this point: If SMBs RWAs growth were to decelerate from 11% currently to 8% – which is the level of current nominal GDP growth – large banks’ RWA annual growth would need to surge from 8% now to 16%. For all banks’ RWA growth to accelerate from the current 9.5% to 12%. The latter is probably what is required to promote an economic recovery. Such a ramp-up in large banks’ RWAs is unlikely, given they would also be facing stricter regulatory requirements. The key point is that the positive effects of monetary and fiscal easing continue to be hampered by regulatory tightening on the credit system. The latter will delay a business cycle recovery in China. For now, although the credit plus fiscal spending impulse has picked up, economic growth has not yet revived (Chart I-10, top two panels). The reason has been a declining marginal propensity to spend among households and companies (Chart I-10, bottom two panels). We have discussed this issue at great length in past reports. Chart I-10Stimulus Versus Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart I-11Chinese Economy: No Recovery So Far   Chart I-12Chinese Corporate EPS: The Outlook Is Downbeat Consistently, nominal industrial output, car sales and smartphone sales as well as total imports are either very weak or are in outright contraction (Chart I-11). All series in Chart I-11 and I-12 include June data. Importantly, Chinese corporate per-share earnings in RMB are contracting for the MSCI investable universe and will soon be contracting for A-share companies as well (Chart I-12). We maintain our negative outlook for EM risk assets and China-plays globally due to our downbeat view on China’s credit cycle. This differs from BCA’s House View, which is positive on global/Chinese growth.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Highlights Analysis on Brazil is available below. If banks in China are forced by regulators to properly recognize and provision for non-performing assets, large banks would become substantially undercapitalized while many small- and medium-sized banks (SMBs) would have little equity capital left. That would hammer their ability to finance the economy. Provided on aggregate SMBs have actually outgrown larger ones in terms of balance sheet size, the precarious state of the former’s financial health has become a matter of macro significance. The principal danger to shareholders of mainland banks is equity dilution. We reiterate our long U.S. banks/short Chinese bank shares trade, and within the latter our long large/short SMB stocks position. Feature Chinese Banks: A Value Trap Chart I-1Chinese Bank Share Prices Are On Edge Banks are crucial to financing the private sector as well as all levels of government in China. Not only do banks originate a substantial share of credit, but also they account for 82% of purchases of government bonds. That is why today we revisit the fundamentals of the Chinese banking sector. Besides, their equity valuations appear very cheap, and many investors are tempted to buy their shares. Chinese banks’ financial ratios look healthy and valuations appear extremely cheap because they have not recognized and provisioned for non-performing assets. By expanding their balance sheets enormously and not provisioning for bad assets, their profits have mushroomed. Banks have retained a share of these profits, boosting their capital. Yet, their share prices have been flat over the past 10 years. Recently, investable bank stocks have been lingering around their December lows. Another gap down could be lurking around the corner (Chart I-1). We highlight their poor financial health in the section below, where we perform stress tests for both large as well as small and medium sized banks (SMB). The principal danger to shareholders is equity dilution that will continue occurring among mainland banks (Chart I-2). Our bearish view on Chinese bank stocks has not been contingent on a systematic financial crisis but on inevitable and substantial equity dilution. Investment conclusions: Absolute return investors should stay clear of Chinese bank stocks – they are the ultimate value trap. For relative value traders, we reiterate our long U.S. banks/short Chinese bank shares trade, and within the latter our long large/short SMB stocks position (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Beware Of Equity Dilution Chart I-3Our Trades On Chinese Banks   Large Versus Small And Medium Banks China’s banking system consists of five large banks (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and Bank of Communications) and about 3150 small- and medium-sized banks (SMBs). All five large banks are publically listed but the central government still holds about 70-80% of their equity. About 36 of the SMBs are also listed but the central authorities in Beijing have a stake in some of the medium-sized banks. Notably, the central government has no equity in any of the small banks. In recent years, SMBs have been playing a greater role in sustaining the credit boom: First, on aggregate SMBs have actually outgrown the five large banks in terms of balance sheet size. The former’s risk-weighted assets1 (RWAs) of RMB 73 trillion exceeds the RMB 65 trillion of large banks (Chart I-4). Recently, investable bank stocks have been lingering around their December lows. Another gap down could be lurking around the corner. The value of RWAs emphasizes banks’ claims on enterprises, non-bank financial institutions and households over holdings of government bonds. Hence, RWAs of banks are a more pertinent measure of non-government financing than total assets. Second, over the past 12 months large banks and SMBs have accounted for 40% and 60% of the rise in the aggregate banking system’s RWAs, respectively (Chart I-5). Therefore, further credit acceleration will be difficult to engineer if – as we discuss below – SMBs begin retrenching under regulatory pressures and amid tighter market financing in the wake of the Baoshang bank failure. Chart I-4SMBs Have Outgrown Large Ones Chart I-5SMBs Have Contributed Enormously To The Credit Boom   Finally, there has so far been no deleveraging among SMBs. Large banks’ RWAs-to-nominal GDP ratio has been in decline since 2014, but the same ratio for SMBs has not dropped at all (Chart I-6). This chart corroborates that the credit boom between 2015 and 2017 was driven by SMBs, rather than by large banks. In fact, SMBs along with shadow banking are what primarily drove the credit boom that occurred over the past decade. This confirms the thesis that the unprecedented credit bubble has spiraled beyond the central authorities’ control. While China’s entire banking system is in poor health, SMBs are in considerably worse shape than large ones. In particular: SMBs have much more assets classified as equity and other investments than large banks (Chart I-7). Equity and other investments stands for non-standard credit assets that are typically much riskier than loans and corporate bonds. This is the principal reason why in our stress test we use higher ratios of non-performing assets for SMBs than for large banks. Chart I-6No Deleveraging Among SMBs Chart I-7SMBs Exposure To Non-StandarD Credit Assets Is Huge Chart I-8Large Banks Versus SMBs Big banks are better capitalized than SMBs. The capital adequacy ratio among big banks is higher compared with the other banks (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, the ratio of non-performing loans (NPL) to total loans is considerably lower for large banks than for SMBs (Chart I-8, bottom panel). On the liquidity side, SMBs are more dependent on the wholesale funding market than their larger peers. Interbank transactions account for 10% of SMBs own liabilities. On the other hand, big banks are the main lenders in the interbank market. Bottom Line: SMBs have become more important than large ones in providing financing to companies and households. Yet these SMBs are much more vulnerable. A Stress Test We conducted separate stress tests on large banks and SMBs. Our findings are not optimistic. Some 71% of equity of SMBs will be wiped out if 14% of their RWAs turn sour (Table I-1). 43% of large banks’ equity will be impaired if 12% of their RWAs become non-performing (Table I-2). The reason we use RWAs rather than loans is because banks have been accumulating claims on enterprises, non-bank financial institutions and households beyond their loan books. Hence, RWAs better captures all credit assets. We use a higher impairment rate for SMBs than for large banks because the former have substantially more non-standard credit assets. Typically, the quality of non-standard credit assets is inferior to those of corporate bonds or loans. We used the following assumptions in our stress tests: For large banks, we assumed non-performing assets (NPAs) ratios of 10% in the optimistic scenario, 12% (baseline), and 14% (pessimistic) (Table I-2). For SMBs, we employed NPAs ratios of 12% (optimistic), 14% (baseline), and 16% (pessimistic) (Table I-1). The magnitude and duration of China’s current credit boom has considerably surpassed that of the 1990s, when Chinese banks held over 25% of non-performing loans (Chart I-9). Therefore, our stress test assumption that the NPAs ratio will rise above 10% is reasonable. Chart I-9China's Credit Booms In Perspective We applied a 30% recovery rate on NPAs. The recovery rate on Chinese banks’ NPLs from 2001 to 2005 was 20%. This occurred amid much stronger economic growth. Thus, an assumption of a 30% recovery rate today is realistic. Finally, we calculated overvaluations assuming the fair price-to-book value ratio for all banks is 1. How has it been possible for banks in China to continue expanding their balance sheets aggressively despite such moribund financial health? Banks can operate and expand their balance sheets with zero or even negative de facto equity capital, so long as they obtain liquidity from other banks or the central bank. This is how many Chinese SMBs have been operating in recent years. Barring institutional and regulatory constraints, banks theoretically can expand their balance sheets indefinitely by creating loans and deposits “out of thin air.” We have deliberated extensively in past reports that banks do not intermediate savings or deposits into loans and credit. Rather, they create deposits when they make a loan to or buy an asset from a non-bank entity. Loans and deposits are nothing other than accounting entries on banks’ books. It is regulators’ and shareholders’ forbearance – or lack of it – that allows banks to, or prevents banks from, expanding their balance sheets. Although Chinese authorities have been easing both monetary and fiscal policies, they have not completely abandoned their regulatory tightening efforts on banks and shadow banking, or their plans to curb leverage and speculation in the real estate market. For example, in April bank regulators released draft rules on how banks should classify all types of assets and provision for them. Over the past several years, many banks have transformed their bad loans into non-loan assets to disguise the true level of their non-performing loans (NPLs). The new regulation, if and when it is adopted and properly executed, will force banks to recognize NPAs and increase their provisions. Although Chinese authorities have been easing both monetary and fiscal policies, they have not completely abandoned their regulatory tightening efforts on banks and shadow banking, or their plans to curb leverage and speculation in the real estate market. Ultimately, this will substantially impair banks’ capital and dampen their ability to originate new credit – both in the form of making loans and buying securities. Consequently, the credit impulse will relapse and the business cycle recovery will be delayed. Bottom Line: If banks in China are forced by regulators to properly recognize and provision for NPAs, large banks would become substantially undercapitalized while many SMBs would have little equity capital left. That would hammer their ability to finance the economy. Investment Ramifications Given the increased importance of SMBs in China, the precarious state of their financial health has become a matter of macro significance. Even if regulators partially reinforce recognition of provisions for NPAs, aggregate credit growth will decelerate. A simple simulation to illustrate this point: If SMBs RWAs growth were to decelerate from 11% currently to 8%, large banks’ RWA annual growth would need to surge from 8% now to 16% for all banks’ RWA growth to accelerate from the current 9.5% to 12%. The latter is probably what is required to promote an economic recovery. Such a ramp-up in large banks’ RWAs is unlikely, given they would also be facing stricter regulatory requirements. The key point is that the positive effects of monetary and fiscal easing continue to be hampered by regulatory tightening on the credit system. The latter will delay a business cycle recovery in China. For now, although the credit plus fiscal spending impulse has picked up, economic growth has not yet revived (Chart I-10, top two panels). The reason has been a declining marginal propensity to spend among households and companies (Chart I-10, bottom two panels). We have discussed this issue at great length in past reports. Consistently, nominal industrial output, car sales and smartphone sales as well as total imports are either very weak or are in outright contraction (Chart I-11). All series in Chart I-11 and I-12 include June data. Chart I-10Stimulus Versus Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart I-11Chinese Economy: No Recovery So Far   Chart I-12Chinese Corporate EPS: The Outlook Is Downbeat Importantly, Chinese corporate per-share earnings in RMB are contracting for the MSCI investable universe and will soon be contracting for A-share companies as well (Chart I-12). We maintain our negative outlook for EM risk assets and China-plays globally due to our downbeat view on China’s credit cycle. This differs from BCA’s House View, which is positive on global/Chinese growth.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Brazil: Buy The Rumor, Sell The News? Having surged on the back of Congress’s initial approval of the social security reform, Brazilian financial markets are attempting to break above important technical resistance levels both in absolute and relative terms (Chart II-1 and Chart II-2). If the Bovespa decisively breaks above these technical resistance lines, it would mean it is in a structural bull market. A failure to break out will lead to a sizable setback. Chart II-1Are Brazilian Equities Poised For A Breakout In Absolute Terms… Chart II-2…And Relative Terms?     We upgraded Brazilian equity and fixed-income markets right after the first round of presidential elections on October 7, but then downgraded them in early April. In retrospect, the downgrade was a miscalculation. Presently, investor confidence in Brazil is very high, sentiment is very bullish and markets are overbought. Faced with the choice of chasing the market higher or waiting, we are opting for the latter. Pension Reform: Necessary But Not Sufficient Chart II-3Public Debt-To-GDP Ratio Will Rise Further The nation’s pension bill is a very positive and much-needed step in the structural reform process. However, in its current form, it is insufficient to make public debt dynamics sustainable – i.e., halt the rise in the government debt-to-GDP ratio (Chart II-3). Table II-1 illustrates the savings from the social security reform adopted in the lower house. As estimated by the Independent Fiscal Institute, an advisory think-tank of the Senate, the reform would bring only BRL 744 billion of savings over the next decade. Is this sufficient to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio? One way these reforms could contain the rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio is if the savings generated significantly exceed the primary fiscal deficits over the next several years – i.e., the government runs continuous robust primary fiscal surpluses. Yet, the pension bill falls short of achieving this goal. The estimated savings in the first four years will likely be around BRL 130 billion. This amounts to annual savings of BRL 33 billion. Chart II-4 demonstrates that savings from the reform are too small to flip the government’s (often optimistic) projected primary fiscal deficit into a surplus in the forecast period. One way these reforms could contain the rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio is if the savings generated significantly exceed the primary fiscal deficits over the next several years. Another scenario for stabilizing the public debt-to-GDP ratio is for interest rates to drop meaningfully below nominal GDP growth. Having plummeted amid very benign global and domestic backdrops, local currency bond yields still remain about 100 basis points above current nominal GDP growth (Chart II-5). It remains to be seen whether local currency borrowing costs will drop and stay below nominal GDP in the years to come. Chart II-4Primary Fiscal Balance Will Remain Negative Despite Pension Reform Chart II-5Borrowing Costs Remain Above Nominal GDP Growth   Overall, the pension reform in current form does not guarantee public debt sustainability in Brazil: It is simply insufficient to get the government to run recurring primary fiscal surpluses. Another prerequisite – nominal GDP growth exceeding local bond yields over next several years – is contingent on further reforms as well as on a substantial improvement in confidence among investors, companies and households. It Is All About Confidence The sustainability of public debt, economic growth and financial markets are interlinked, with the common thread being confidence. In a virtuous cycle, financial markets typically rally while the currency stays firm. Subdued inflation will allow the central bank to rapidly reduce interest rates. This will help boost confidence among businesses and consumers, buoying the economy. In turn, lower policy rates could sustain the stampede into domestic bonds, pushing government borrowing costs below rising nominal GDP growth. At that point, the country’s public debt dynamics will become sustainable, the risk premium will continue to fall, and the nation’s financial markets will be in a secular bull market. On the contrary, a vicious cycle is possible if there is a negative external or internal shock that prompts the Brazilian real to depreciate by more than 10%. On the contrary, a vicious cycle is possible if there is a negative external or internal shock that prompts the Brazilian real to depreciate by more than 10%. In this case, the central bank cannot slash interest rates. On the contrary, government bond yields – which are presently at record lows – could or will likely rise (Chart II-6 and Chart II-7). These events will hurt confidence and suppress nominal GDP growth below borrowing costs. This could aggravate investors’ anxiety over Brazil’s public debt, leading them to demand a higher risk premium. As a result, a vicious cycle could unfold. Chart II-6Government Bond Yields Are At Historical Lows Chart II-7Credit Spreads Are Very Tight   Chart II-8Commodity Prices And The BRL: Positive Correlation To be clear, we are not presently forecasting the onset of a vicious cycle. Nevertheless, given our negative view on EM risk assets and currencies, we expect a pullback in the Brazilian real and risk assets in the near term. The U.S. dollar is about to rally, as we discussed in detail in last week’s report. Commodities prices will tumble as China’s growth downshift persists. Given that the Brazilian real is a high-beta currency and is often positively correlated with commodities prices (Chart II-8), it could depreciate quite a bit. Patience is especially warranted in the case of Brazilian equities because share prices have decoupled from corporate profits and the business cycle. Stock prices have surged despite plummeting net EPS revisions and contracting profits of non-financial and non-resource companies (Chart II-9) and relapsing economic growth (Chart II-10). Clearly, the rally has been driven by expanding equity multiples due to progress on the social security reform. Chart II-9Stock Prices Are Diverging From Corporate Profits Chart II-10Domestic Demand Has Stalled   Bottom Line: A lot of good news has been priced into Brazilian financial markets. For now, the risk-reward profile is not attractive: investors should wait for a better entry point. This is true for both absolute return investors and dedicated EM equity and fixed-income managers. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Risk-weighted asset is a bank's assets or off-balance sheet exposures, weighted according to risk. It is used in determining the capital requirement or Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) for a financial institution. Usually, different classes of assets have different risk weights associated with them.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

NOTE: There will be no report on Wednesday, July 17 due to our regular summer break. Highlights Chinese policymakers as well as the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) have historically been reactive, meaning they have typically waited for economic pain to become entrenched before accelerating reflationary measures. The agreement reached at the June G20 Summit to renew trade negotiations with the U.S., while temporary, takes the pressure off the immediate need to further stimulate the economy. While China has the ability to juice the economy, the pain threshold has been raised higher during this cycle, and the country’s leadership has been reluctant to let go of its financial deleveraging campaign. This approach has resulted in a “half measure” stimulus over the past 12 months. The outlook for Chinese stocks is negative over the next three months, as a flip-flop policy approach will increase market volatility.  However, over a cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we are maintaining a bullish stance toward Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. Feature Last week marked the first anniversary of the imposition of tariffs on imports from China by the U.S. – an event that has clearly had a lasting and meaningful impact on global economic activity. Last week was also the first anniversary of a significant monetary easing measure: China’s 3-month interbank repo rate fell 90 basis points on July 3, 2018, 3 days before the first tranche of import tariffs took effect. This decline was just under half of what would ultimately occur (the 3-month repo rate fell from 4.5% in early July to 2.4% in early August), and was taken as a sign by many investors that the PBoC had shifted to a maximum reflationary stance (Chart 1). Chart 1Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate However, several facts underscore that either the PBoC did not, in retrospect, move completely toward a pro-growth stance, or that China’s monetary transmission mechanism is seriously impaired. In our view, it is a combination of both: Despite evidence suggesting it should, the PBoC did not cut its benchmark lending rate. The repo rate declined in the third quarter last year on the back of increased liquidity supply in the interbank market. The weighted average lending rate also fell, but not massively, and not by as much as our model had predicted (Chart 2). A pickup in credit expansion has significantly lagged easing. Excluding local government bonds, the general pickup in credit has been modest. Based on this measure of Total Social Financing, new credit to GDP still remains lower today than at any point during the 2015-2016 downturn (Chart 3). Chart 2Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Chart 3No Strong Re-Leveraging With the conclusion of the G20 Summit temporarily halting the trade war escalation and implementation of additional tariffs, these observations raise important questions: Will the PBoC be proactive in easing policy? What does this mean for investors over the coming year? The PBoC Will Be Reactive Rather Than Proactive Chart 4Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues In our view, the PBoC’s policy actions last year can at best be described as half-measures, despite the fact that the central bank was quick to reduce interbank interest rates in last July by cutting the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The reason is that the PBoC clearly maintained macro-prudential/administrative restrictions on shadow banking activity, despite significantly easing liquidity in the interbank market. Chart 4 shows that shadow-banking credit as a share of total adjusted social financing continued to decelerate rapidly throughout 2018. It now accounts for a mere 12% of the stock of total adjusted social financing, by far the lowest point since 2009. This underscores that the PBoC and policymakers more generally have a deep-seated desire to avoid (further) inflating China’s substantial money and credit excesses – a dynamic that we have discussed in previous reports.1 Looking forward, there are three reasons why the PBoC’s reactive nature is unlikely to change in the near term, in addition to policymakers’ concerns about financial system’s excesses. First, the PBoC has historically been a reactive central bank, in a way that goes beyond the now-typical “data dependent” approach of its developed-market peers. Chart 5 provides a close look at China’s previous economic growth cycles and their corresponding credit expansions. The chart highlights that Chinese policymakers tend to stay behind the curve when it comes to monetary easing: In the previous three growth cycles, the first sign of monetary easing (defined as an RRR and/or benchmark lending rate cut) lagged the peak of nominal GDP growth by an average of four quarters. Rate cuts took place not when economic growth peaked, but once economic activity had already weakened considerably (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chart 6More 'Pain' Needed For Massive Easing The same pattern has applied to other monetary easing tools that the PBoC has deployed in the past, including the Medium Lending Facility (MLF), the Targeted Medium-term Lending Facility (TMLF), the standing Lending Facility (SLF), and the Pledged Supplementary Lending program (PSL) – all of which only took shape after the economy had already shown across-the-board weakness. It will take more widespread and entrenched economic weakness for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. The local government debt-to-bond swap program was also launched well into the 2015 growth downturn. When widespread and sustained weakness in activity emerged, Chinese policymakers responded by “throwing the kitchen sink” at the economy – by moving forward with multiple rate cuts and often creating new forms of easing in an attempt to catalyze a quick rebound. Since the PBoC has already implemented a series of easing measures, we believe it will take more widespread and entrenched weakness in the real economy for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. Chart 7Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Second, the PBoC is likely to be reactive because of the potentially negative effects that proactive rate cuts could cause on sentiment towards the RMB. Chart 7 highlights the close historical correlation between the RRR, interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY. USD/CNY was trading at 7.8 the last time the weighted average RRR was at 11%, which was back in 2007. At the current juncture, interest rate differentials already point to a weaker currency. The PBoC has signaled that USD/CNY at 7 is no longer a line in the sand that must be defended, meaning this level is not a hard constraint that would prevent the central bank from cutting either the RRR or the benchmark lending rates if warranted. In fact, a measured depreciation in the RMB would help mitigate some of the blow from increased tariffs. Nevertheless, in an environment where the currency has already weakened significantly, cutting the RRR or the benchmark lending rates quickly or by a large amount could create self-reinforcing expectations of further depreciation. China has implemented a better counter-cyclical mechanism to defend the RMB than it had in 2015-‘16,2 but the potential for capital outflows remains a serious concern.3 Third, the Trump-Xi meeting at the June G20 Summit in Osaka temporarily averted a further escalation of the trade war and additional tariffs. The agreement to continue trade negotiations lacks tangible progress from either side, and thus the “truce” is likely to be short-lived. Chart 8Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus However, as we pointed out in last week’s report,4 the existence of talks is likely to take some pressure off Chinese policymakers’ immediate need to floor the reflation accelerator. Readouts from recent PBoC leadership meetings indicate that speculative excesses in the financial system remain a top concern for Chinese policymakers. China’s onshore market, after rallying by 2% following the good news from the G20 meeting, has given back all its gain (Chart 8). Given that the onshore equity market is extremely sensitive to China’s credit growth, the short-lived rally since the G20 meeting suggests markets have been unimpressed by the authorities’ reflationary efforts so far. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers have not fully abandoned their financial deleveraging campaign, which President Xi Jinping initiated two years ago. This implies China’s central bank is likely to maintain its reactive approach in further easing monetary policy, and will likely try to avoid going “all-in” on stimulus for as long as possible. The Reduced Effectiveness Of Monetary Policy The events of the past year have also demonstrated that the effectiveness of Chinese monetary policy has declined relative to past economic cycles. This, in conjunction with the reluctant/reactive nature of the monetary authorities, has clear implications for investors over the coming year. When there is lack of clarity in policy interpretation, Chinese banks tend to stay on the sidelines. Chart 9A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing The PBoC has cut the RRR five times since the second quarter of last year, which has freed up a total of 3.35 trillion yuan of liquidity for the banking system5 and has helped spur significant easing in overall monetary conditions. Yet, as we noted earlier, overall credit growth did not pick up until January of this year, lagging the first rate cut by three quarters (Chart 9). Prior to the economic slowdown in 2015-2016, credit growth used to respond to cuts in the RRR almost immediately. In other words, when banking system liquidity was ample, banks historically lent without hesitation. Post-2015, however, this relationship has changed. The PBoC has increasingly been having trouble channeling new liquidity into actual financing for the real economy. A sharp deterioration in reported bank asset quality that began in 2014 is likely part of the explanation,6 but we suspect that more recent extreme policy contradiction – in particular, repeated flip-flopping among authorities between their desire to support growth and their focus on financial stability – has caused economic agents to wait on the sidelines. While monetary conditions eased and the government urged banks to lend (particularly to the private sector) in the second half of 2018, the “prudent” stance coming from Chinese top leaders was little changed, and tight regulations on financial institutions remained in place. This combination did not give banks the confidence to lend. This changed in the first quarter of this year, when new credit creation-to-GDP surged from 23.6% to 25.6%. The surge occurred shortly after the late-December Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC), which sent a clear message that the central government’s policy focus had shifted to “stabilizing aggregate demand.” Incredibly, the tone shifted again in February, when Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC publicly disputed whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, something Premier Li made clear was to be avoided.7 Charts 10 and 11 highlight how these shifts impacted credit growth: The first quarter was clearly on track for a 2015-2016-magnitude outcome, whereas April and May saw the path of credit growth return back to a moderate re-leveraging scenario. To get back on track for a 2015-2016 magnitude reflation, we will need to see June’s credit creation at or above 5 trillion yuan – equivalent to January’s credit numbers (Chart 12). Chart 12'Credit Binge' In June Unlikely As we go to press, the number for June’s total social financing has not been officially released yet. But the official reading from the total local government bond issuance in June (including both general bond and special-purpose bond issuance), a key component of our adjusted total social financing series, came in at 900 billion yuan. This is three times more than local government bonds issued in May and twice the size of January’s. Nevertheless, January’s bank lending, particularly short-term lending, was unusually large; an episode highly criticized by Chinese leadership as we mentioned above. As PBoC stated in its defense to this criticism, January is “traditionally the biggest month of the year for bank loans due to seasonal factors”. Therefore, without a clear shift in policy signal from China’s top leadership, we do not expect June’s bank lending number to be a repeat of January’s. Instead, June’s total credit impulse will likely put the cumulative progress in credit growth closer to our 27% of nominal GDP assumption (assuming an 8% nominal GDP growth for the remainder of 2019). This would fall into our “half-strength” credit cycle scenario relative to past reflationary episodes. Bottom Line: Ultimately, we do not doubt that Chinese policymakers will be able to engineer a significant re-acceleration in economic activity should they choose to do so. But in order for policymakers to achieve this goal, policy ambiguity and inconsistency will have to be meaningfully reduced.  Investment Implications Over a cyclical time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. From our perspective, neither policymakers’ bias towards reluctance nor the reduced effectiveness of monetary policy convincingly argue against our bullish stance towards Chinese stocks over a cyclical (i.e. six- to twelve-month) time horizon, but the tactical implications are clearly negative. Over a cyclical horizon, one of two scenarios is likely to unfold: Either downside risk brought on by current tariffs and weakness in domestic demand is contained enough such that Chinese economic activity does not materially decelerate, or the trade dispute escalates into a full-tariff scenario of 25% on all U.S. imports from China that dramatically impacts Chinese growth. In the first scenario, policymakers will likely to continue providing half-measured responses, and unconstrained “across-the-board” easing will not occur. But Chart 13 highlights that Chinese stocks, particularly the investable market, are priced for a much worse economic outcome, suggesting Chinese relative equity performance would trend higher in these circumstances. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chart 14Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term In the second scenario, Chinese business and consumer sentiment is likely to collapse and policymakers will be facing high odds of a substantial slowdown in economic activity. This will create the political will necessary for unconstrained “across-the-board” easing, similar to what occurred in 2015-2016. The sharp re-acceleration in economic activity that would result from broad-based stimulus would clearly be positive for listed Chinese earnings per share (Chart 14), meaning the cyclical outlook for Chinese stocks would likely be even more positive than in the first scenario. However, the near-term equity market outlook of the second scenario would be extremely negative, as a financial market meltdown in of itself would likely be required to build the political will necessary to ultimately ease. Bottom Line: For investors with a time horizon of less than three months, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, neither in absolute terms nor relative to the global benchmark. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “China: How Stimulating is The Stimulus?”, dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      A series of countercyclical measures China implemented in 2016-2017 includes: tightening controls on capital outflows, reducing offshore RMB liquidity supply, raising offshore RMB borrowing costs, and setting a firmer daily reference point for the RMB’s trading band. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated July 4, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5      According to PBoC announcements. 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. In the medium-to-long run the trade war with China should reaccelerate while the U.S. should back away from war with Iran. But for now the opposite is happening. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall. Feature Two significant geopolitical events occurred over the past week. First, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his third pause to the trade war with China. The terms of the truce are vague and indefinite, but it has given support to the equity rally temporarily. Second, Iran edged past the limits on uranium stockpiling, uranium enrichment, and the Arak nuclear reactor imposed by the 2015 nuclear pact. Trump instigated this move by walking away from the pact and re-imposing oil sanctions. If these events foreshadow things to come, global financial markets should position for lower odds of a deflationary trade shock and higher odds of an inflationary oil shock in the coming six-to-18 months. But is this conclusion warranted? Is the American “Pivot to Asia” about to shift into reverse? If the White House pursued a consistent strategy to contain China, it would bring Americans together and require forming alliances. In the short run, perhaps – but the conflict with China is ultimately the greater of the two geopolitical risks. We expect it to intensify again, likely in H2, but at latest by Q3 of 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Our highest conviction call on this matter, however, is that any trade deal before that date will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on June 14 to account for the expected resumption of negotiations at the G20, can be found in Diagram 1. The combined risk of further escalation is 68%. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019 To Include G20 Tariff Pause) The risk to the view? The U.S.-Iran conflict could spiral out of control and the Trump administration could get entangled in the Middle East. This would create a very different outlook for global politics, economy, and markets over the next decade than a concentrated conflict with China.  The Missing Corollary Of The “Thucydides Trap” The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1  This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2).    Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order.   Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4).  China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 2. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 2Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 3). Diagram 3Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers.  Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant market-mover. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Iran Is The Wild Card A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While short-term events are pushing toward truce with China and war with Iran, the Trump administration is likely to downgrade the conflict with Iran and upgrade the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 4). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 4Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Over the past week, developments point toward the former scenario, meaning that Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, we think the latter scenario will prevail.  We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).  

Highlights The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. This is the case in EM and China. Our leading indicators for the Chinese business cycle continue to point to intensifying profit contraction in both China and EM. The ratio of global broad money supply to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low. This casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM share prices are at a critical juncture (Chart I-1). Their ability to hold their recent lows and break above their April highs will signify that a sustainable cyclical rally is in the making. Failure to punch through April’s highs will pose a major breakdown risk. In brief, EM is facing a make-it-or-break-it moment. Fundamentally, the outlook for EM risk assets and currencies largely hinges on economic growth in general and corporate profits in particular. In our June 20 report, we illustrated that the primary drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have historically been their business cycles and profit growth – not U.S. interest rates. Falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are expanding, even if at a slower rate. However, when corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Hence, lower global interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition to foster a sustainable cyclical EM rally. As to EM corporate profits, the rate of their contraction will continue deepening. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. That is why BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team contends that EM risk assets and currencies, as well as China-plays, face the risk of a breakdown. This differs from BCA’s house view, which is positive on global risk assets in general. Global And Chinese Business Cycles: No Recovery So Far Chart I-2Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction The rebound in EM risk assets and currencies since last December has occurred despite no improvement in both China’s business cycle and global trade, and despite the deepening contraction in EM corporate profits. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. So far, our baseline economic view has played out – mainland growth has been rather weak, and global trade has contracted. Yet EM financial markets have done better than we had anticipated. China’s domestic industrial new orders lead Chinese A-share earnings per share growth rate by about nine months and point to intensifying profit slump into early 2020 (Chart I-2). Furthermore, China’s adjusted narrow money(M1+)1 growth leads Chinese investable stocks earnings per share (EPS) by about nine months, and is also pointing to further compression (Chart I-3). Finally, Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chart I-4Korean Exports And EM EPS   Notably, both Korean exports values and EM EPS in U.S. dollars terms are on par with their early  2011 levels (Chart I-4, bottom panel). This indicates that neither Korean exports nor EM EPS have expanded sustainably over the past eight years. Chart I-5Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global PMI Historically Is it possible that the current gap between global share prices and global manufacturing is due to the fact that financial markets are forward-looking and lead business cycles? Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led the global manufacturing PMI, as exhibited in Chart I-5. In fact, global share prices have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI not only throughout this decade but before that as well. The de-coupling between share prices and the manufacturing PMI is currently also present in EM, albeit in a less-striking form. Chart I-6 illustrates that the EM manufacturing PMI has slipped below 50 line, yet share prices have recently rebounded and sovereign spreads have tightened. In a nutshell, the divergence between global share prices and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. This cannot be explained by falling global bond yields either. The latter were falling in the previous business cycle downtrends (2011-12 and 2015), yet share prices did not deviate from the global manufacturing PMI during those episodes (Chart I-5). Chart I-6EM PMI And EM Risk Assets Chart I-7The Rest Of World's Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking It seems that the global equity and credit markets expect an imminent recovery in the global business cycle in general and in China in particular. As we elaborated in the previous reports, the current global manufacturing recession stems primarily from China. Our leading indicators of the mainland business cycle suggest that more growth disappointments are likely before China’s growth and other economies’ shipments to the mainland hits a bottom (Chart I-7). For example, Korea’s exports to China in June were still dropping by 24% from a year ago. The primary reason for the lack of revival in growth is that China’s stimulus efforts have so far not been large enough, and the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies is diminishing, offsetting the positive effect of the stimulus, as we have discussed in previous reports. Will the recent G20 trade truce between the U.S. and China boost business confidence worldwide and in China? In our view, it is unlikely to produce a quick and meaningful recovery in business confidence among multinational companies and Chinese businesses. Corporate managers have probably come to realize that the U.S.-China row is not about import tariffs but rather geopolitical confrontation between the existing hegemon and a rising superpower. Hence, there is no easy solution that will satisfy both parties. An acceptable resolution for China will be unacceptable for the U.S., and vice versa. Hence, it will be hard to find a formula that gratifies both sides politically and economically. Overall, we reckon there are low odds in the next six months of an agreement between the U.S. and China that removes tariffs, addresses structural issues and satiates both nations. Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS. Finally, even though the S&P 500 is hovering around its previous highs, under-the-surface dynamics have been less upbeat. Specifically, the equal-weighted share price index of U.S. high-beta stocks in cyclical sectors such as industrials, technology and consumer discretionary versus the S&P 500 has been tame and has not yet broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). The same holds true for the relative performance of an equal-weighted stock index of global cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials and semiconductors against the overall global equity benchmark (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Conversely, despite its recent setback, the U.S. dollar has technically not yet broken down (Chart I-9, top panel). In fact, our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted dollar has troughed at zero – a sign that downside is limited and another up-leg will likely emerge soon (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-8Cyclical Stocks Have Been Underperforming Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down   Bottom Line: The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. As EM currencies depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will likely widen. Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets relative to their DM peers. Too Much Money Chasing Too Few Assets? Many investors identify “liquidity” as the main reason why global equity and credit markets have done so well this year, despite the relapsing global business cycle. Yet there are as many definitions of “liquidity” as there are investors. Many commentators use the term “liquidity” to denote balance sheet expansion by global central banks. As part of their quantitative easing programs, central banks in the U.S., U.K., Japan, the euro area, Switzerland and Sweden have expanded their balance sheets enormously. In line with their asset expansion, their liabilities – the monetary base, consisting primarily of commercial banks’ excess reserves – have also mushroomed. Nevertheless, broad money supply has grown only modestly in these economies.2 The principal reason behind this phenomenon has been a collapse in the money multiplier due to both banks’ unwillingness to boost lending proportionally to their swelling excess reserves, and a persistent lack of demand for credit among households and businesses. This computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Broad money supply includes all types of deposits at commercial banks and cash in circulation. Crucially, it does not include commercial banks’ excess reserves at central banks. This differentiation between broad money and excess reserves at central banks is vital because excess reserves are not used to purchase goods, services or assets/securities. Hence, a true measure of purchasing power for assets, goods and services is broad money supply. Consistently, the pertinent liquidity ratio for financial markets can be computed by dividing global broad money supply by the value of all securities outstanding excluding those owned by central banks. The top panel of Chart I-10 depicts the ratio of the sum of broad money supply in 12 economies3 - excluding China - to the market value of investable global equities and bonds. The latter is calculated as the market cap of the Datastream World Equity Index plus the market value of the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, excluding securities owned by central banks (Chart I-11). Bonds include both government and corporate issues. Chart I-10Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Chart I-11Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QEs And Value Of Outstanding Securities   We exclude China from this calculation because its money supply (deposits) is not internationally “mobile” – i.e., due to capital controls, Chinese residents cannot convert their renminbi deposits to other currencies, or use them to purchase international securities. Likewise, we exclude Chinese on-shore equity and bond markets from the calculation because they are not easily accessible to all foreign investors. This broad money supply-to-asset values ratio can be regarded as a rough proxy for available liquidity for financial markets.4 Our interpretation is that a lower ratio means investors have lower cash balances relative to the value of financial assets they hold, and vice versa. Interestingly, the ratio of global broad money to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low (Chart I-10, top panel). Hence, this computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. By flipping this ratio, we compute the ratio of market value of all investable securities (excluding the ones owned by central banks) to broad money supply (Chart I-10, bottom panel). It is at all-time high entailing that the market value of globally investable publically-traded securities has expanded much more than global broad money supply/deposits. Bottom Line: We recognize that this is a simplistic macro exercise, and a more comprehensive methodology is required to compute global cash balances that are available to purchase securities worldwide. However, at minimum the above casts doubt on the hypothesis that “too much money is chasing too few assets”. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      M1+ is calculated as M1 plus household demand deposits and deposits at third-party payment platforms. 2      Note that when a central bank purchases securities from commercial banks, this operation originates excess reserves, but not a new deposit at commercial banks. However, when a central bank acquires securities from a non-bank entity, such as a pension fund or an insurance company, this transaction creates both excess reserves and a bank deposit that did not exist before. Hence, QE programs have created some deposits but less so than excess reserves. 3      Economies included into this aggregate are the U.S., the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. 4      This calculation does not strip out transactional demand for money, i.e., how much money is required to finance regular  economic activity. Given transactional demand for money is not stable, it is hard to estimate and adjust for it.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations