China

Special Report

Highlights This report presents our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also provide a monthly estimate of illicit capital outflow, which we find is negatively correlated with “on balance sheet” capital flows. This implies that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. Our monitoring framework suggests that outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, especially given the rise in CNY-USD since early-November. However, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors, and thus bears close monitoring. Feature Fears of a new round of capital outflow from China re-emerged in the second half of 2018 as USD-CNY approached 7, a psychologically important level for many investors (Chart 1). The last episode of significant capital outflows from China occurred in late-2015 following the PBOC’s devaluation of the RMB, and the sharp spike in volatility that resulted had a contagious effect for global financial markets. Chart 1A Near Miss Late Last Year In the very near term, the risk of a similar event appears to be low given the material trade talk-driven decline in USD-CNY that has occurred over the past five months. However, several news reports over the past year concerning the possible risk of another episode of capital flight underscore that China’s cross-border capital flow statistics are misunderstood by financial market participants. This raises the risk that investors either fail to anticipate a capital outflow event in the future or exaggerate the odds of one occurring. In this report we present our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also adjust the typical measure of short-term capital flow derived from the quarterly balance of payments to account for cross-border RMB settlement, and present an estimate of illicit capital outflow that suggests Chinese residents alternate their use of legal and illegal channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. We then combine these three direct measures of capital flow with two indicators of expected RMB depreciation to further augment our monitoring efforts. We conclude by noting that while outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This scenario is not part of our base case outlook, but could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors and thus bears close monitoring. Defining Short-Term Capital Flow From The Balance Of Payments Table 1 presents China’s balance of payments (BOP) for the four quarters ending in Q3 2018, with all items shown on a net basis. The table is organized in a way that provides a helpful refresher on the formulation of the balance of payments, namely that the current account (“CA”, made up of the trade balance and primary & secondary income) plus the sum of the capital account (“KA”), the financial account (“FA”), and a balancing item (referred to as net errors & omissions, “NEO”) is equal to 0, when capital and financial outflows are recorded with a minus sign. Current account surpluses necessarily involve net financial outflows (i.e., investment); whereas current account deficits must be funded by financial inflows (i.e., borrowing). Table 1 highlights that what financial market participants typically refer to as “capital” flows are actually recorded in the financial account of the balance of payments. While derivatives are included in the table for the sake of completion, in practice they are usually quite small (as is the case for the actual “capital” account). Table 1China’s Balance Of Payments The bottom panel of Table 1 indicates that the balance of payments formula can be rearranged so that it represents how many market participants tend to define total and short-term capital outflows from a balance of payments perspective. As we will show in the next section of the report, this re-arrangement of the balance of payments formula is an essential element in building a more frequent proxy of short-term capital flow. We define short-term capital flow from the balance of payments as the combination of portfolio investment, other investment, and net errors & omissions. The bottom panel shows that by adding reserve assets (“RA”) to the current account (“CA”), the right hand side of the BOP equation becomes the sum of direct investment (“DI”), portfolio investment (“PI”), other investment “OI”, and net errors & omissions (“NEO”). Since direct investment tends not to be driven by short-term economic behavior and is normally not influenced by foreign exchange expectations or fluctuations, the formula can be further arranged to isolate short-term capital outflows on the right-hand side: Current Account + Changes in Reserve Assets + Direct Investment ≈ (Portfolio Investment + Other Investment + Net Errors & Omissions)*-1 Or using our line item notation, CA + RA + DI ≈ -PI - OI - NEO The formula above is expressed as an approximation rather than an identity simply because it excludes the capital account (“KA”) and financial derivatives (“FD”). As can be seen in Table 1, the net value of adding the four quarter rolling total of CA + RA + DI to PI + OI + NEO is US$ 3.3 billion; adding KA + FD (-0.35 and -2.95 billion US$, respectively) would result in a value of 0. Chart 2 shows this relationship visually; and highlights that both series are nearly identical. Chart 2Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Building A Better Proxy Of Short-Term Capital Flow The balance of payments approach is a useful starting point for measuring short-term capital flow, but it has two important drawbacks: Timeliness: Balance of payments data are reported in quarterly frequency, and often with a lag. This is inadequate for most investors, particularly when market participants are concerned that a crisis or crisis-like conditions may be emerging. This is the primary disadvantage of the BOP approach. Failure to account for cross-border RMB settlement: The balance of payments approach implicitly assumes that a current account surplus in China will automatically result in the importation of foreign exchange, but this assumption is no longer fully valid. Cross-border RMB settlement now accounts for part of China’s foreign trade settlement, reaching more than 30% during the 2015/2016 period. Compared with its peak level, RMB settlement as a share of total foreign trade has fallen over the past two years, but still accounts for 19% today (Chart 3). To more precisely gauge China’s capital outflows, cross-border RMB settlement should be removed from the current account surplus, because trade payments settled in RMB would not involve the receipt of foreign currency. This offsetting current account discrepancy would still show up in the balance of payments under net errors & omissions, but that would have the effect of distorting our definition of short-term capital flow. Chart 3Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Chart 4 illustrates the difference between our quarterly definition of short-term capital flow and the series adjusted for cross-border RMB settlement. The chart shows that the two series are quite similar for most of the past decade, with the notable exception of the 2015/2016 period. The adjusted series suggests that the intensity of China’s episode of capital flight did not peak in 2015, but rather late in 2016. This is consistent with domestic commentary at the time,1 and implies that the PBOC faced headwinds in their attempt to stem capital outflows that were even worse than has been generally acknowledged. Chart 4After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 Unfortunately for investors, dealing with the lack of timeliness in the release of China’s balance of payments statistics is a more challenging endeavor. This problem cannot be resolved with simple adjustments to the quarterly data, and instead requires the building of a proxy for short-term capital flow based on the BOP equation but using monthly statistics. Investors can proxy our adjusted quarterly balance of payments-based measure of short-term capital flow on a monthly basis. As we referenced above, the key to constructing a monthly capital flow estimate lies with the re-arrangement of the balance of payments equation such that short-term capital flow is expressed as being approximately equal to the sum of the current account, direct investment, and the change in reserve assets (when outflows of the latter two series are recorded as negative values). Table 2 highlights that high quality monthly series are available to act as proxies for these three balance of payments components, after accounting for cross-border RMB settlement and the following two additional adjustments: Table 2Components Of BCA’s Monthly China Capital Outflow Indicator Services Balance: The trade balance accounts for the vast majority of the current account of most countries, and this is also true in the case of China. An underappreciated fact about China’s trade balance is that it has shrunk considerably over the past several years, due to what is now a sizeable services deficit. Some market commentators who are aware of the services deficit point to it as evidence that China’s net importation of services is laying the groundwork for its “new economy” (via eventual import substitution), but the reality is that travel (i.e. net tourism spending) accounts for over 80% of it (Chart 5). For the purposes of our monthly capital flow proxy, a sizeable services deficit is a complication that must be accounted for, given that China’s monthly trade statistics (and most monthly trade data globally) represent the trade in goods, not the trade in services. Since most of the fluctuations in the trade balance occur due to net trade in goods, we include the history of the quarterly services balance in our monthly indicator as a structural variable, and extend the most recent quarterly value into the current quarter as a simplifying assumption. Currency Valuation Effect on Official Reserves: Foreign exchange reserves in the balance of payments are calculated by the historical cost method, whereas the highly followed monthly official foreign exchange reserve data released by the PBOC is measured using market value. Changes in its balance, in addition to genuine changes in foreign exchange reserve assets, also reflect revaluation effects caused by fluctuations in the foreign exchange market. To dampen these effects, we include foreign exchange reserves in our monthly capital flow proxy in SDR terms rather than in U.S. dollars, rebased to the value of the underlying U.S. dollar series as of December 2018. Chart 5Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Chart 6 presents our quarterly balance of payments-based capital flow measure (adjusted for cross-border capital flow) with our monthly proxy, based on the series shown in Table 2 and the adjustments noted above. Divergences between the series exist in level terms, but panel 2 shows that our monthly proxy does a good job capturing the trend in the quarterly series. The only major exception to this occurred at the beginning of 2016, when our monthly proxy fell sharply relative to the adjusted quarterly BOP version. Chart 6Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows This sharp decline is a bit of a mystery; it can be traced to the official reserves series, and either suggests that capital outflow was materially worse in Q4 2015 and Q1 2016 than officially recognized, or that China suffered outsized losses from the risky asset portion of its reserve portfolio during that period. However, the first explanation is at odds with the evidence noted earlier that the intensity of capital flight seems to have peaked in late-2016, and the second explanation is inconsistent with the history of financial market returns over the past decade. We noted in a February 2018 Special Report that risky U.S. assets (almost entirely stocks) accounted for as much as 9.5% of China’s foreign reserve assets in the summer of 2015,2 and it is true that U.S. equity returns were quite negative from December 2015 to February 2016. But this was certainly not the first and only period of extreme U.S. equity market volatility to occur since 2010, raising the question of why this sharp decline in official reserves only occurred in 2015/2016. Future research on the topic of Chinese capital flows will aim to reconcile the difference between our monthly proxy and our adjusted quarterly balance of payments series during this period, but for now we are confident that the former contributes meaningfully to our understanding of the latter, particularly on a rate of change basis. Import Over-Invoicing: A Third Measure Of Short-Term Capital Outflow Investors need to track both legal and illicit capital flows. Our first two measures of short-term capital flow were based on an attempt to track the legally allowable movement of funds out of China. However, illicit capital outflow is an acknowledged problem in China, which tends to occur through the practice of import over-invoicing.3 Chart 7 presents our estimate of import over-invoicing for China, based on a methodology articulated by Global Financial Integrity, a U.S. non-profit organization that provides analysis of illicit financial flows globally (see Appendix A). The chart highlights two important points: Chart 7Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit outflows have increased significantly over the past 2 years following China’s capital control crackdown, particularly in Q3 2018 following the announcement of the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Panel 2 of Chart 7 illustrates that there is a negative correlation between “on balance sheet” capital flows and illicit capital outflows, implying that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. This underscores the importance of monitoring both channels on an ongoing basis. Investment Conclusions Table 3 brings together the three measures of short-term capital flow that we have laid out above, as well as two indicators of expected RMB depreciation (Chart 8): net settlement of foreign exchange by Chinese banks (see Appendix B), and the 3-month moving average of the percent deviation of CNH-USD (offshore RMB) from CNY-USD (onshore RMB). Altogether, the series shown in Table 3 form the basis of our capital outflow monitoring efforts, and we plan on updating these series regularly to gauge whether outflow pressure is increasing. Table 3Dashboard For Monitoring Short-Term Capital Flows Chart 8Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation For now, only our measure of illicit capital outflow is flashing a warning sign, and the timing of the recent spike in the measure appears to be closely connected with the trade war with the U.S. This implies that outflow pressure is more likely to ease if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks, as we expect will occur. However, we noted in a March 6 joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy service that a deal with only slight concessions from China may stand on shaky ground and that tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent.4 This would ensure elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and would raise the probability of a relapse into another trade war ahead of the 2020 U.S. election. In this scenario we would be watching the indicators shown in Table 3 closely for signs that increasing pessimism about the long-term state of sino-U.S. relations is causing the capital outflow “dam” built by policymakers following the 2015/2016 episode to buckle. Our monitoring framework suggests that the odds of a major capital flight event are currently low. But a shaky trade deal with the U.S. could change that. It is not part of our base case outlook, but onshore concerns of a renewed trade war with the U.S. next year could theoretically become self-fulfilling, if another major episode of capital flight were to weaken the RMB in a way that could even remotely be construed as a violation of the yuan stability pact that will reportedly be part of any agreement between the U.S. and China. While this would in no way entail a purposeful devaluation by Chinese policymakers to boost trade competitiveness, it could nonetheless provide an excellent excuse for President Trump to reinstate damaging economic pressure on China in the midst of what is likely to be a highly competitive re-election campaign. This could, in turn, produce a feedback effect that magnifies the original desire to move capital out of China, and would likely prove to be a highly destabilizing event for global financial markets. Stay tuned!   Qingyun Xu, CFA, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Appendix A Measuring Import Over-Invoicing In this report we use one of the two methodologies employed by Global Financial Integrity to measure import over-invoicing in China, which compares a country’s reported trade statistics with that of its global trade partners.5 Using the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics data, we deflate Chinese import data measured on a C.I.F. (cost insurance and freight) basis to an F.O.B. (free on board) basis using an assumed freight and insurance factor of 10%. Then, we use Hong Kong re-export data to adjust global exports to China for re-exported trade through Hong Kong. The formula is listed below: Chinese Import Over-invoicing = [(Chinese Imports From The World)/1.1] - Adjusted Global Exports To China   Appendix B The Onshore Market For Foreign Exchange A poorly understood fact about China’s capital/financial account regime is that a material amount of foreign exchange reserves are now held by enterprises and individuals. Most investors are familiar with China’s old foreign exchange settlement policy (established formally in 1993), which prohibited enterprises from retaining foreign currency. Exporters receiving foreign currency as payment for goods and services had to sell all foreign exchange receipts to designed banks, and purchase foreign exchange from these banks when needed to make payments to offshore suppliers. Thus, while this policy was in effect, the PBOC held all China’s foreign exchange reserves and official reserves equaled total reserves. However, since the early-2000s, this policy has been gradually withdrawn. Since its complete abolishment in 2012, foreign exchange retained by enterprises and residents has increased materially. Chart B1 shows the impact of these changes on the bank foreign exchange settlement and sale rates. The settlement rate represents enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks as a share of their total foreign exchange receipts in a given month, while the sale rate represents banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises as a share of enterprises’ total foreign exchange payments. The chart shows that the settlement rate has dramatically dropped since 2012 (from 70% to less than 50%). We can also see there were spikes in the settlement rate and sale rate in August 2015 (in contrary directions) when the PBOC devalued the RMB, implying that the demand for forex and presumably the expectation of further RMB depreciation was severe. Chart B1The Evolution Of China’s Domestic Foreign Exchange Market​​​​​​​   Given this, we view net FX settlement (enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks minus banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises) as a reasonable proxy of expected RMB depreciation, and have included it as part of our capital flow monitoring framework.         1 “China’s capital outflow is still intensifying”, Reuters China Finance and Economics Column, December 19, 2016. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Demystifying China’s Foreign Assets”, dated February 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Import over-invoicing occurs when an importer (in country A) attempts to evade capital controls by colluding with an exporting entity (in country B) to falsify the reported value of goods imported into country A from country B. The importer “overpays” for the goods in question and, usually through an intermediary, moves the surplus funds into the importer’s offshore account. Please see https://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/ for more information about the mechanics of and motivations behind trade misinvoicing. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?”, dated March 6, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 “Illicit Financial Flows to and from 148 Developing Countries: 2006-2015”, Global Financial Integrity, January 2019. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global equities will remain rangebound for the next month or so, but should move decisively higher as economic green shoots emerge in the spring. A revival in global growth will cause the recent rally in the U.S. dollar to stall out and reverse direction, setting the stage for a period of dollar weakness that could last until the second half of next year. Rising inflation will force the Fed to turn considerably more hawkish in late-2020 or early-2021. This will cause the dollar to surge once more. The combination of a stronger dollar and higher interest rates will trigger a recession in the U.S. in 2021, which will spread to the rest of the world. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year. Feature Stocks Temporarily Stuck In The Choppy Trading Range We argued at the end of February that global equities and other risk assets would likely enter a choppy trading range in March as investors nervously awaited the economic data to improve.1 Recent market action has been consistent with this thesis, with the MSCI All-Country World Index falling nearly 3% at the start of the month, only to recoup its losses over the past few days. We expect stocks to remain in a holding pattern over the coming weeks, as investors look for more evidence that global growth is bottoming out. The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 1). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world. This makes the U.S. a low-beta play on global growth (Chart 2). As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. Chart 1The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 2The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth Given the dollar’s countercyclical nature, it is not surprising that the slowdown in global growth over the past 12 months has given the greenback a lift. The broad trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by almost 8% since February 2018, putting it near the top of its post 2015-range (Chart 3). Chart 3The Dollar Has Gotten A Lift From Global Growth Disappointments Stocks Will Rally And The Dollar Will Weaken Starting In The Spring We expect the U.S. dollar to strengthen over the coming weeks as global economic data continues to underwhelm. However, an improvement in leading economic indicators in the spring will set the stage for a reacceleration in global growth and a decline in the dollar in the second half of this year. The combination of stronger growth and a weaker dollar later this year should be highly supportive of global equities. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks. We do not have a strong view on U.S. versus international equities at the moment, but expect to upgrade the latter once we see more confirmatory evidence that global growth is bottoming out. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks.   A Stronger China Will Lead To A Weaker Dollar Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. The deceleration in global growth in 2018 was largely the consequence of China’s deleveraging campaign. China’s slowdown led to a falloff in capital spending throughout the world. Weaker Chinese growth also put downward pressure on the yuan, pulling other EM currencies lower with it (Chart 4). All this occurred alongside an escalation in trade tensions, further dampening business sentiment. Chart 4EM Currencies Are Off Their Early 2018 Highs While it is too early to signal the all-clear on the trade front, the news of late has been encouraging. A recent Bloomberg story described how Trump watched approvingly as Asian stocks rose and U.S. futures rallied following his decision to delay the scheduled increase in tariffs on Chinese goods.2 As a self-professed master negotiator, Trump needs to secure a deal with China before next year‘s presidential election, while also convincing American voters that the deal was concluded on favorable terms for the United States. Reaching a deal with China early on in his term would have been risky if the agreement had failed to bring down the bilateral trade deficit — an entirely likely outcome given how pro-cyclical U.S. fiscal policy currently is.  At this point, however, Trump can crow about making a great deal with China while reassuring voters that the product of his brilliance will be realized after he has been re-elected. This means that we are entering a window over the next 12 months where Trump will want to strike a deal. For their part, the Chinese want as much negotiating leverage with the Trump administration as they can muster. This means being able to convincingly demonstrate that their economy is strong enough to handle the repercussions from turning down a trade deal that fails to serve their interests. Since the credit cycle is the dominant driver of Chinese growth, this requires putting the deleveraging campaign on the backburner. Admittedly, credit growth surprised on the downside in February. However, this followed January’s strong showing. Averaging out the two months, credit growth appears to be stabilizing on a year-over-year basis. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that correlates with GDP growth.3 Thus, merely going from last year’s pattern of falling credit growth to stable credit growth would still imply a positive credit impulse and hence, an uptick in GDP growth. In practice, we suspect that the Chinese authorities will prefer that credit growth not only stabilize but increase modestly. In the past, this outcome has transpired whenever credit growth has fallen towards nominal GDP growth (Chart 5). The prospect of a rebound in credit growth in March was hinted at by the PBOC, which spun the weak February data as being caused by “seasonal factors.” Chart 5Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Europe: Down But Not Out Stronger growth in China will help European exporters. Euro area domestic demand will also benefit from a rebound in German automobile production, the winding down of the “yellow vest” protests in France, and incrementally easier fiscal policy. In addition, the ECB’s new TLTRO facility should support credit formation, particularly in Italy where the banks remain heavily reliant on ECB funding. Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. Euro area financial conditions have eased significantly over the past three months, which bodes well for growth in the remainder of the year. It is encouraging that the composite euro area PMI has rebounded to a three-month high. The expectations component of the euro area confidence index has also moved up relative to the current situation component, which suggests further upside for the PMI in the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Euro Area Growth The selloff in EUR/USD since last March has been largely driven by a decline in euro area interest rate expectations (Chart 7). If euro area growth accelerates in the back half of the year, the market will probably price back in a few rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. Chart 7EUR/USD Sell-Off Has Been Driven By Falling European Rate Expectations What Will The Fed Do? Of course, the degree to which a steeper Eonia curve benefits EUR/USD will depend on what the Fed does. The 24-month discounter has fallen from over +100 bps in March 2018 to -25 bps today, implying that investors now believe that U.S. short rates will fall over the next two years (Chart 8). Chart 8The Fed's Dovish Messaging Has Worked... Almost Too Well We expect the Fed to raise rates more than what is currently priced into the curve, thus justifying a short duration position in fixed-income portfolios. However, the Fed’s newfound “baby step” philosophy will probably translate into only two hikes over the next 12 months. Such a gradual pace of Fed rate hikes is unlikely to prevent the euro from appreciating against the dollar starting in the middle of this year, especially in the context of a resurgent global economy. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. In contrast to the euro, the yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The yen is a “risk-off” currency and thus tends to weaken whenever global risk assets rally (Chart 9). The government is also about to raise the sales tax again in October, a completely unnecessary step that will only hurt domestic demand and force the Bank of Japan to prolong its yield curve control regime. We would go long EUR/JPY on any break below 123. Chart 9The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency A Blow-Off Rally In The Dollar Starting In Late-2020 What could really light a fire under the dollar is if the Fed began raising rates aggressively while the global economy was slowing down. In what twisted parallel universe could that happen? The answer is this one, provided that inflation rose to a level that evoked panic at the Fed. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. The growth in unit labor costs leads core inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). Thanks to a cyclical pickup in productivity growth, unit labor cost inflation has been trending lower since mid-2018. However, as we enter late-2020, if the labor market has tightened further by then, wage growth will likely pull well ahead of productivity growth, causing inflation to accelerate. Chart 10Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being All things equal, higher inflation is bearish for a currency because it implies a loss in purchasing power relative to other monies. However, if higher inflation spurs a central bank to hike policy rates by more than inflation has risen – thus implying an increase in real rates – the currency will tend to strengthen. Chart 11 shows the “rational expectations” response of a currency to a scenario where inflation suddenly and unexpectedly rises by one percent relative to partner countries and stays at this higher level for five years while nominal rates rise by two percent. The currency initially appreciates by 5%, but then falls by 2% every year, eventually finishing down 5% from where it started.4 The yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The real world is much messier of course, but we suspect that the dollar will stage a final blow-off rally late next year or in early-2021 (Chart 12). Since the Fed will be hiking rates in a stagflationary environment at that time, global growth will weaken, further boosting the dollar. The resulting tightening in both U.S. and global financial conditions will likely trigger a global recession and a bear market in stocks. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Gretzky’s Doctrine,” dated March 1, 2019. 2      Jennifer Jacobs and Saleha Mohsin, “Trump Pushes China Trade Deal to Boost Markets as 2020 Heats Up,” Bloomberg, March 6, 2019. 3      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 4      The 2% annual decline in the currency is necessary for the real interest parity condition to be satisfied. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

We continue to expect copper prices to increase in the near term, as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary-policy stance. Fiscal and monetary stimulus in China also will be supportive of base metals prices going forward. The evolution of the Sino - U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view, given how important the outcome of these talks will be for investors’ expectations and sentiment. Markets appear to be discounting a positive outcome. Anything that scuppers these talks – or results in a no-deal outcome – will be a negative for base metals, copper in particular. Our tactical long copper position is up by 1.2% since we initiated it last week. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Russian oil companies are expected to keep production lower until July, when the current OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement now in place expires. We expect the deal will be extended to year-end.1 Separately, the risk of a complete shutdown in Venezuela’s oil industry rose significantly, as a power failure in most of the country all but eliminated potable water supplies and significantly reduced oil exports. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. High-grade iron-ore prices got a boost this week as Vale was ordered to temporarily suspend exports from its primary port at Guaiba Island terminal in Rio de Janeiro state, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets.2 The price-reporting agency’s 62% Fe Iron Ore Index rose $1.46/MT at $85.25/MT Tuesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Spot gold is back above $1,300/oz, on the back of monetary policy easing among important central banks. This also is supporting base metals globally (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain markets continue to drift sideways, awaiting definitive news re Sino - U.S. trade talks, specifically when presidents Xi and Trump will meet to finalize a deal (see below). Separately, wheat and corn inventories are expected to rise on the back of higher supplies and lower exports, the USDA forecast in its latest world supply-demand estimates. Feature Recent data releases confirm our view that global growth will remain weak in 1Q19 and early 2Q19. This will continue to put downward pressure on cyclical commodities – chiefly base metals and oil (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGlobal Growth Slows In 1Q19 The persistence of the slowdown provoked major central banks to adopt a dovish stance in the short-term. This is easily seen in the recent actions by the U.S. Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), all of which have communicated a pause in their rate normalization policies.3 At the moment, the frail global growth is partly balanced by expectations of a positive outcome re the ongoing Sino - U.S. trade negotiations (Chart 2). In the coming months, we expect the effect of accommodative DM monetary policy combined with an expansion in China’s credit (more on this below) and fiscal stimulus – i.e., tax cuts announced earlier this month amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB) meant to support policymakers’ GDP growth targets – will go a long way toward reversing the earlier contraction. The effect of these policy decisions will be apparent in 2H19. Chart 2China Growth To Hook Higher China’s Credit Cycle Bottomed In December 2018 The evolution of China’s credit cycle remains a central pillar to our view commodity demand growth in 2H19 will surpass consensus expectations. The massive growth reported in China’s January credit statistics revived investors’ expectations that China’s banks will re-open the credit valves as they did in 2016.4 In our view, this number does signal a bottom in China’s credit cycle, and implies Chinese – and indirectly EM – growth will bottom sometime this year. However, we still are not expecting a complete blowout credit expansion this year. We continue to believe Chinese policymakers will focus on stabilizing credit in 1H19 with moderate increases in supply, and start increasing stimulus in 2H19 or 2020 in order to maximize its effect later in 2020 ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2021. The soft February credit number released this week supports this argument.5 China’s Credit Cycle Matters For Base Metals Demand The relationship between China’s credit cycles and base metal prices endures and remains robust. We measure China’s aggregate credit using bank and non-bank claims on non-financial enterprises, households, local and central governments, and non-bank financial institutions. This corresponds to adding outstanding central and local government bonds to China’s Total Social Financing (TSF).6 The annual change in aggregate credit – or its impulses – do not perfectly capture the cycles in global base metal demand. These variables provide interesting signals about the direction and magnitude of movements in credit, however, they do not track base metals’ price cycles accurately and consistently (Chart 3). Chart 3Metals Price Cycles Don't Track Changed In China's Credit To decompose this variable into its trend and cycle, we use a proxy of the credit cycle constructed using the Hodrick-Prescott and Hamilton filters, and the standardized 12-month credit impulse (Chart 4).7 Chart 4China's Credit Cycle Proxy We find that our credit cycle proxy Granger causes base metal prices, import volume and industrial activity (Table 1).8 On average, it leads these variables by 4-6 months (Chart 5). Hence, we believe our credit cycle proxy provides valuable information about future commodity demand in China. Table 1China Credit Cycle Correlations In fact, when regressing copper prices and the LMEX against it, we found that 60% and 58% of the variation in copper prices and the LMEX, can be explained by the linear relationship with our China credit cycle proxy, respectively (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Credit Cycle and Metals Prices Given the leading property of China’s credit cycles with respect to industrial activity and metal prices, we included this new proxy in our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index.9 This improves the correlation of our index with copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 7Credit Cycle Improves BCA's GIA Currently, our models suggest copper prices should increase in the coming months as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary policy stance. The evolution of the China-U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view as the outcome will weigh on investors’ expectations and sentiment. China’s Vs. DMs’ Credit Cycles Between 2009 and 2014, China’s credit cycle lagged the U.S. and EU’s broad money cycles (Chart 8). This counter-cyclicality is partly explained by its elevated level of exports to the U.S. and of hard goods to Europe. When the global economic cycle works in China’s favor – i.e., when the Fed and ECB are accommodative or fiscal stimulus is deployed in either or both regions – China’s exports rise as U.S. and EU aggregate demand increases. This typically reduces the need for endogenous fiscal or monetary stimulus within China. Chart 8China's Credit Cycle Lags U.S., EU Money Cycles On the other hand, when the global economic cycle contracts and fiscal and monetary policy ex China becomes a headwind, Chinese policymakers typically need to deploy fiscal and monetary policy to keep growth going, or at least avoid a contraction in their economy. Between 2016 and 2017, DM and China credit cycles aligned and increased simultaneously. Taking into account the 4-to-6-month lag between the time credit supply is increased and commodity demand rises, this created bullish conditions for metals and oil from 2H16 to 1H18, pushing copper prices up by 60%. In 2018, both regions’ cycles rolled over. Base metals markets currently are experiencing the consequences of this contraction in credit availability and tightening of financial conditions generally. Going forward, we expect China will step in to raise domestic demand and offset the impact of the decline in credit availability elsewhere, which is affecting demand for its exports in the short-term. In the medium-term, the U.S. and EU, along with India, do not appear to be inclined to absorb Chinese exports to the extent they did in the past, which means the pivot to domestically generated growth through consumer- and services-led demand is the most viable alternative Chinese policymakers have to keep growth on target. Bottom Line: The dovish turn of major DM central banks combined with a bottoming of China’s credit cycle will support cyclical commodities at the margin in the coming months. During the second half of this year, we expect a more significant pick up in China’s credit, setting the stage for a year-end rally in base metal prices. As a consequence, the impact of China’s credit growth on base metals demand could diminish compared to previous stimulus targeting industrial demand.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see “Russia’s oil companies ready to cut output until July: TASS,” published by reuters.com March 12, 2019. 2      Please see Fastmarkets MB’s Daily Steel, March 12, 2019. 3      Please see “Pervasive Uncertainty, Persuasive Central Banks,” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy March 12, 2019. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see “China Macro And Market Review,” published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy March 13, 2019. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      See footnote 4 above. 6      For more details please see “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?” published by BCA Research’s Emerging Market Strategy March 7, 2019. It is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7      Hamilton notes the HP filter can be problematic. In general, we agree with critics of the filter (i.e. it results in spurious dynamics that are unrelated with the true data-generating process, it has an end-point bias which affects its real-time properties, and it is highly dependent on the parameter selection). However, there are some arguments in support of using the HP filter to proxy the credit cycle. First, as long as there are no clear theoretical foundation for an accurate measurement of the credit cycle, empirical validation should remain the number one criteria by which one selects its proxy. Second, credit cycles vary in duration and this weakens the ability to construct a reliable proxy. The usual parameter used with the HP filter favors short-term cycles (i.e. ~ 2 years) while the Hamilton filter focuses on medium-term cycles (i.e. ~ 5 years). Therefore, both can convey useful information. Third, China’s aggregate credit variable in level has a quasi-linear trend and is roughly approximated by a trend-stationary process with breaks in the trend and constant. Such a process should converge in limit when decomposed using the HP filter. Please see James D. Hamilton (2018), “Why You Should Never Use the Hodrick-Prescott Filter,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol 100(5), pages 831-843. and Phillips, Peter C. B. and Jin, Sainan (2015), “Business Cycles, Trend Elimination, and the HP filter,” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 2005. 8      Granger causality refers to a statistical technique developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel Laureate in Economics, which is used to determine whether one variable can be said to have caused (or predicted) another variable, given the past performance of each. Using standard econometric techniques, Granger showed one variable can be shown to have “caused” another, and that two-way causality also can be demonstrated (i.e., a feedback loop between the variables can exist based on the historical performance of each). 9      Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 14, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades ​​​​​​​

Highlights February’s credit release earlier this week confirmed that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. We agree that a trade deal between China and the U.S. is likely to occur, but a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the ongoing economic slowdown. A confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with more evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, data releases later this week will provide a crucial read on the pace of the slowdown in coincident economic activity. The ongoing weakness in trade and producer prices suggests that activity has continued to decelerate as the previously beneficial trade frontrunning effect washes out of the data. While we agree that January’s gargantuan credit number means that growth will bottom at some point this year, the February data released earlier this week highlights that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we recommended in our February 27 Weekly Report that investors place Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch, but that an immediate shift to a cyclical overweight was not yet warranted. The recent outperformance of investable stocks vs. the global benchmark largely reflects global investor expectations of a trade deal between China and the U.S. in the very near future, which we agree is likely to occur. But we have underscored that a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the slowdown that is underway. Barring a substantial trade-deal-driven rise in the RMB (which would dampen profits further and raise the bar for credit), a confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with further evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: The January and February data for several measures of coincident activity, including both measures of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) that we track, are set to be updated tomorrow. However, a number of data series that have been released over the past two months point to a continued deceleration: growth in rail cargo volume ticked down in January, producer prices are on the cusp of deflation, and nominal import and export growth decelerated again in February (measured either in US$ or RMB terms). The four components of our LKI leading indicator available for February have all sequentially declined, including the growth in adjusted TSF and adjusted TSF as a share of GDP. Credit had surged in January, but ticked down in February. Chart 1 illustrates the likely path of adjusted TSF as a share of GDP if the average pace of credit growth over the past three months is sustained. The chart implies that credit will have durably bottomed, but that the pace of advance will be weaker than that experienced in past cycles. Chart 1The Recent Pace Of Growth Implies A Moderate Credit Cycle​​​​​​​ January and February data for residential floor space started and sold will also be updated tomorrow, and it will be important to see whether the gap that has emerged between construction and sales has persisted. Floor space sold has reliably led starts since 2010, and we recently highlighted that the PBOC pledged supplementary lending program has led sales since 2015. The pace of PSL decelerated further in February, suggesting that the outlook for sales (which are already in negative YoY territory) is deteriorating. Based on the leading relationships that we have identified, residential construction volume is unsustainably strong. The seemingly inconsistent messages between the NBS and Caixin manufacturing PMIs in February (down and up, respectively) may in fact reflect the PBOC’s focus on easing financial conditions for small businesses. While the NBS PMI includes a much broader sample of firms than the Caixin PMI, the latter focuses heavily on private sector SMEs. Given this, February’s data may suggest that the export outlook is improving, but we would caution against the conclusion that the overall manufacturing sector has bottomed until both PMIs are clearly rising. Over the past month, the most notable development in China’s equity market has been the near-vertical outperformance of A-shares versus the global benchmark. A catch-up period for A-shares was arguably warranted given the sustained rally in investable stocks since early-November, but Chart 2 highlights that the speed of the recent rise has pushed relative A-share performance quickly into overbought territory. At a minimum, a period of consolidation over the coming few weeks is likely. Chart 2Too Far, Too Fast​​​​​​​ The relative performance of EM stocks ex-China is one of the equity components of our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator, which has recovered over the past few months. However, Chart 3 highlights that the performance of EM ex-China reliably led Chinese investable stocks since the beginning of last year, and are now raising a red flag. A near-term relapse in investable equity performance would be consistent with our view that earnings face further downside risk over the coming few months. ​​​​​​​Chart 3EM Ex-China Is Flashing A Warning Sign For Chinese Investable Stocks Within the investable equity market, our low-volatility sector portfolio remains in an uptrend versus the broad market, although the composition of this portfolio has shifted significantly over the past few weeks. Financials, industrials, and energy stocks now account for 86% of our long MSCI China Low-Beta Sectors / short MSCI China trade, which is likely surprising to many investors given their traditionally cyclical characteristics. Chart 4 highlights that the relative performance of our low-beta trade has exhibited a reliably counter-cyclical message; this, in combination with the fact that it remains above its 200-day moving average, signals that it is still premature to shift to a cyclical overweight stance favoring Chinese stocks. Chart 4No Green Light Yet From Low-Vol Stocks Value stocks have been responsible for more of the rally in China’s investable market versus the global average than their growth peers (Chart 5). This underscores that at least part of the rise in investable performance has been due to a relative valuation trade, rather than strong conviction that the Chinese economy will strengthen materially over the coming year. Chart 5The Rally Has Been Led By Cheap Stocks Table 2 highlights that the 3-month interbank repo rate is down materially from its 12-month high, a decline that is now passing through into lower bank lending rates. According to the PBOC, the weighted average lending rate declined 30 basis points in Q4, after having been essentially unchanged in Q3. The decline validates our model for predicting the rate, which had been calling for a non-trivial decline. Despite the continual expression of concern in the financial press about rising onshore corporate bond defaults, spreads on SOE corporate bonds have been steady over the past 6 months. Spreads remain elevated when compared with late-2016 levels, but the recent trend in spreads does not suggest that domestic financial conditions are getting tighter. Chart 6 shows that the recent rise in CNY-USD is consistent with a tariff-based framework that we had presented for the exchange rate several times last year. While the rate was on its way to breaking through the psychologically important level of 7 for USD-CNY, trade talks with the U.S. have helped the rate rise to a point that is consistent with the current tariff regime. CNY-USD has already overshot to the upside based on interest rate differentials, but Chart 6 implies that further gains may occur if tariff rollbacks are part of an eventual deal with the U.S. Chart 6CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations