China

Highlights Social unrest and populism are on a secular rise in the U.S.; However, the "Breitbart clique" has suffered a critical defeat in the current Administration; This will make headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio; We continue to stress that domestic politics will not hurt U.S. equities, but more downside to USD may exist this year; India-China military tensions are not strategic or market relevant, yet. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." - Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 This is the second time we have begun a report with this classic Gingrich quote from 2001, which now seems to come from a different era. On November 9, 2016 we used it to open our election post-mortem in which we argued that American party identifications were ossifying into tribal markers that could cause run-of-the-mill polarization to mutate into something scarier.1 Chart 1 shows that party identification (Republicans vs. Democrats) is now responsible for the greatest difference in attitudes towards 48 values, something historically determined by race and education. Over the long term, these trends are concerning and may spur further social unrest in the U.S. As we wrote in June, the gulf between America's patricians and plebeians has never been as wide as it is now. It is being complemented by a gulf in ideology and worldview.2 Part of the problem is that migration from the traditionally liberal-leaning coastal America as well as the Great Lakes region have significantly altered the demographic makeup of the American South (Chart 2). The combination of pro-business regulation, low taxes, sunshine, affordable real estate, southern charm, and excellent higher-education institutions has been difficult to resist.3 Thus, an influx of young and educated migrants has altered the political makeup of many traditionally conservative states. There are many cities - much like Charlottesville, Virginia - where these recent migrants will come into conflict with the values and traditions of the south. Chart 1Rise Of A Tribal America Chart 2Internal Migration Is A Risk... Given America's history of internal population movements, these patterns of migration should not be a problem. However, today's polarization is extreme (Chart 3), and it is deepening thanks to radically different information and media streams made available by cable television and especially the Internet (Chart 4). Chart 3... In A Polarized Context... Chart 4... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates What does all of this mean for investors? America is geopolitically very well endowed. It has benign neighbors, strong demographics, and almost all the natural resources it needs. However, hegemons are not born out of plenty, but rather out of need and want. The U.K. built a global empire largely because its rain-drenched island lacked basic materials for superpower status. Spain and Portugal discovered new worlds because stronger empires barred lucrative trading routes. Geography does not preordain hegemony. Strong domestic institutions, luck, and guts and glory do. The USD remains weak despite the fact that the Fed was the first major central bank to start hiking this cycle and despite strong economic data out of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world (Chart 5). Perhaps investors have caught the whiff of something rotten in the American Empire? If so, we may be seeing the beginning of a major USD bear market. Chart 5USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the current DXY weakness as temporary. We agree, given that the current trajectory of BCA's ECB months-to-hike measure is discounting way too much hawkishness (Chart 6). The dollar index will likely rally in 2018 as inflation data improves and risks in Europe (Italian election) and Asia (Chinese structural reforms) deepen. Chart 6The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The scope and pace of the 2018 USD rally, however, will depend on whether investors have confidence in America's economy and institutions. If the Republican tax reform agenda stalls later this year, and if social unrest continues, sovereign and long-term investors may begin to think about diversifying away from the dollar. The "Trump Put" Continues We do not expect domestic politics to play a role in an equity correction. At least not yet. First, investors seem to be completely discounting any possibility of tax reform judging by the performance of the high tax-rate basket (Chart 7). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Second, the market fell 1.58% after President Trump's combative press conference on August 15. The move was not a reprimand for Trump's rhetoric, but concern that Gary Cohn, the scion of the "Goldman clique" and likely the next Fed Chair, would resign over the comments.4 These concerns have now been allayed by the firing of Stephen Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and leader of the "Breitbart clique." Bannon's departure puts Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Meanwhile, three generals are now in charge of foreign and national policy: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Between the six of them, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, there is not a drop of populism left in the White House. Chart 7What Tax Reform? Although nationalists and populists may be on the retreat, it is still not clear what form tax legislation will take. The only thing that has certainly changed since earlier this year is that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, which would have raised ~$1 trillion in revenue over ten years.5 This requires the GOP either to moderate its tax cuts by the same amount, or to add more to the deficit, which, according to legislative rules, would make the cuts temporary. It is likely at this point that whatever bill the GOP passes, it will expire after a "budget window" of around ten years. The divergence between the White House and Congress remains the same: the White House wants gigantic tax cuts, while Congress wants tax reform, i.e. to broaden the tax base and reduce inefficiencies and distortions. The White House would blow out the budget deficit by more than would the House GOP. There are two key questions that investors want to know from the upcoming tax legislation. First, how significant will the fiscal thrust be? This will determine the impact to the economy and hence will affect the Federal Reserve's response. The GOP Plan: Both the White House and the House GOP claim that they will reduce the budget deficit over the next ten years despite cutting taxes. They project an average budget deficit of 1.3%-1.4% from 2018-2027, down from a 3%-4% baseline. This projection is rationalized via expectations of faster economic growth as well as "dynamic scoring" to capture the macroeconomic feedback of the tax cuts. The White House and GOP claim that economic feedback will reduce the deficit by $1.5-$2 trillion over the ten-year budget window, which is 26%-37% of the total deficit reduction they are proposing (i.e., likely very optimistic).6 The Tax Policy Center Response: Outside analysis of the budget plan argues the opposite. The Tax Policy Center argues that the White House plan, insofar as the details are known, would add a minimum of $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, and that the macroeconomic feedback could even be negative (i.e., add to the deficits). The deficit would rise from 3.2% of GDP to 6.4% by 2026, if we factor in the Congressional Budget Office assumptions that a 4% real growth rate leads to a GDP of $26.9 trillion in 2026.7 The GOP Retort: Republicans claim they will reduce the deficit by means of proposed "revenue offsets," or savings measures, over the ten-year period. The Tax Policy Center highlights the following in particular: $1.6 trillion from repealing personal exemptions; $1.5 trillion from abolishing all itemized deductions (other than the politically sensitive mortgage interest deduction and charity deduction); $622 billion from treating some income from pass-through businesses as dividends; $272 billion from repealing corporate tax breaks; $208 billion from repealing the "head of household" status for tax filers; $49 billion from taxing capital gains upon death (above the $5 million threshold). The total is $4.3 trillion in savings, against $7.8 trillion of losses, for a total deficit that is increased by $3.4 trillion over the ten years. This would amount to around $340 billion of "stimulus" each year, with the biggest thrust felt in 2018-19. We very much doubt that the White House will achieve this slate of proposals. It has not shown an inkling of the ability to coordinate such a difficult legislative feat. Therefore, we expect the tax legislation to be watered down. The budget deficit may rise to something closer to 6%, over the next ten years, than to the gigantic 12% of GDP implied by Trump's proposals on the campaign trail (Chart 8). Chart 8Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? The second question asked by investors is about the impact of tax legislation on assets. It is clearly positive for inflation and growth given that even tepid tax cuts will provide economic stimulus when unemployment is already very low. Our colleagues at BCA already believe, without a tax bill, that inflation is likely to surprise to the upside in 2018-19.8 Fiscal stimulus via tax cuts would obviously add to that. The equity market will cheer any promising developments on tax cuts or reform, especially given that so little is currently priced in. However, whether the USD rallies as it did on hopes of tax legislation earlier this year will largely depend on how the Fed reacts to the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty, particularly if President Trump decides to go with Gary Cohn as the next Fed chair. Bottom Line: Congressional Republicans cannot gamble with tax legislation. The failure to cut taxes, or reform the tax code, would be a major policy misstep ahead of the midterm elections. If legislation passes, we expect that Congress will have had greater control over the plan than the White House, reducing the eventual magnitude of the tax cut and the fiscal stimulus. Congress controls the purse strings and will reassert that authority in the context of an ineffective executive. Should You Care About The Debt Ceiling? Clients are beginning to fret about the upcoming debt ceiling fight. There is good reason to be nervous. The Republican-held Congress has failed to pass legislation, notably on this year's priority item, Obamacare. The last thing Republicans want is to shut down the government or cause a technical default entirely of their own doing! Clients should note that while government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. This is because the debt ceiling is an anachronism. In other countries, when a budget is passed it automatically contains the implicit authority to issue whatever debt is required to finance the resulting deficit.9 To require separate legislation for a budget and an authorized level of debt is a product of politics and has little bearing on the actual financing needs of the U.S. government. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will almost inevitably be raised in the U.S. because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors (who vote!) or a halt to other entitlement programs. Only a disastrous chain of events resulting from polarization and brinkmanship, even worse than in the Obama years, would lead to such an outcome. Today, given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, there is no way for the Republicans to share the blame with the Democrats, as they did under Obama. Investors are therefore mistaking the game-theoretical paradigm: It is not a "game of chicken," but rather a cooperative game given that Republicans in Congress are largely on the same side. Members of the GOP are starting to "get it," including the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus. David Schweikert, influential member of the Freedom Caucus who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said last week that he is in favor of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Mark Meadows, North Carolina representative who chairs the group, has also said that he is "bullish" on raising the debt limit, although he added that he preferred to attach some reforms to the bill. On August 2, he said "Either that will get done [some spending cuts attached to the debt ceiling bill] or a clean debt ceiling will get done. We will raise the debt ceiling and there shouldn't be any fear of that." Other members of the Caucus, including its founder Jim Jordan of Ohio, have retorted that no debt limit hike without spending cuts should be contemplated, prompting the media to focus on the brinkmanship. But we note that the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is itself considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill since the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. If Schweikert and Meadows are indicative of how the group will vote, the fiscal conservatives may not have enough votes to deprive the GOP of a majority. (The latter would force GOP moderates to go to the Democrats for votes, complicating the negotiations and increasing the risk of mistakes.) What about the Democrats in the Senate? To pass a clean bill on the debt ceiling, Republicans would need at least eight Democrat Senators to get to 60 votes, and probably more given that Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) would likely vote against a clean bill. We doubt that Democrats would remain united in voting against a clean bill. It would allow President Trump and Republicans in Congress to accuse them of hypocrisy and holding U.S. credit hostage, much as Democrats did to Republicans between 2011-2016. As such, the market's fear that Democrats could play the spoiler is a red herring. While some grassroots activists in the Democratic Party are sure to want a confrontation, its median voters tend to be educated and well-informed. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown, between October 1, when the current funding for the government expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling is hit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. But the contingent probability of a debt ceiling failure following a government shutdown would be reduced, not increased, given that it would focus public attention on Republican incompetence. In other words, if a shutdown occurs on October 1, we would expect the odds of a debt ceiling crisis to be reduced. Finally, our assessment that the "Goldman Sachs clique" has reasserted control over White House economic policy should also be positive for the likelihood of a clean debt ceiling bill. While we have no evidence that Stephen Bannon was in favor of using the debt ceiling for fiscal cuts (given his opposition to government spending cuts in toto), he did say following his resignation that Trump would be "moderated" by remaining White House staffers. He went on to say "I think he'll sign a clean debt ceiling; I think you'll see all this stuff." The only remaining holdover in the White House on the debt ceiling issue is the Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney has suggested earlier in the year that Republicans should try to tie spending restraint to a debt ceiling bill. However, at a meeting between President Trump and GOP leaders in early June, President Trump said that congressional leaders should take Steven Mnuchin's position as the White House position. "Mnuching is that guy," Trump told party leaders at the meeting, according to GOP sources who spoke to Politico in the summer. Mulvaney's office has also confirmed that the Treasury Department "has point on the debt ceiling," i.e., that Mnuchin is in charge. Bottom Line: Concern over the debt ceiling is natural, given the failure of Republican-held Congress to pass any legislation of note this year. However, it is also overstated. The U.S. government would default on its obligations to its voters, first and foremost. Such a scenario - given Republican control of all branches of government - would put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican-held Congress ahead of the midterm elections. Fade any fear of a U.S. default. Will India And China Fight A War? Clients, particularly in China, have shown considerable concern about geopolitical conflict between China and India. Since early June, a border dispute between China and India has flared up in the Doklam region. Doklam, or rather the India-China-Bhutan border region, is one of three main border disputes in the Himalayas that flare-up from time to time - along with Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. The 1962 border war between the two Asian behemoths over the latter two areas marked the biggest flare in recent memory. Today, India is fearful of China's growing military and logistical capabilities and concerned about the long-term security of the Siliguri Corridor, the narrow stretch of land connecting the subcontinent to the Northeast (Map 1). Control of the Doklam Plateau and Chumbi Valley would give China access to Siliguri; they are therefore important areas to monitor.10 India is also threatened by China's improving bilateral relations with neighbors like Pakistan,Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and potentially Bhutan. The latter does not have formal relations with China, has always been under India's sphere of influence, and is at the center of the current dispute. And ultimately, India fears that China seeks to create an economic corridor through Bangladesh to the Indian Ocean, which would, in combination with the Pakistan corridor, surround India. Map 1Too Close For Comfort: Tensions Threaten India's Control Over Vital Siliguri Corridor The current dispute ostensibly began - as many do - with contested infrastructure construction. India built some bunkers at a forward outpost in Lalten in 2012; China allegedly bulldozed them on June 6-8 of this year. The same month, Indian troops confronted Chinese troops building a road along the border with Bhutan that would have connected an existing road to a People's Liberation Army outpost and to the border crossing of Doka La. While the territorial dispute is old, China is expanding its pressure tactics on Bhutan, while India has sent troops into disputed Sino-Bhutanese territory in a more assertive defense of Bhutan. Broadly, China is making inroads with infrastructure as it develops its far-flung western regions and seeks to improve connectivity with neighbors via the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. China is capital-rich and can afford to improve its access to regions of strategic value that yield access to key Indian territories or supply water and hydropower to India. India is capital-poor and downstream, so its ability to respond is often limited to military gestures. India also wants to retain its dominance over Bhutanese foreign policy, in place since 1949 and especially 1960, and this dispute is marked by India taking an active military role on Bhutanese territory on Bhutan's behalf. There are several reasons we do not expect this conflict to be market-relevant. First, the Himalayas are isolated and poor, so that China or India would have to make a very dramatic move that poses a genuine strategic threat (e.g., to the Siliguri Corridor, or Chinese control of Tibet, or Indian relations with Pakistan, or Indian water sources) to trigger a larger conflict. Second, while it is true that nationalism is flaring up on both sides, China has a clear interest in pursuing some "rallying around the flag" strategy amid the standoff over North Korea, and ahead of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress. That it chose to do so in Doklam, where conflict is more easily contained than in the Koreas or the East or South China Seas, suggests that political opportunism and China's desire to make incremental gains, rather than a sweeping Chinese plan to seize strategic territory, is driving the current episode. Meanwhile, India needs to attract capital to build its manufacturing base, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reached out to China for this reason. India will undoubtedly defend its strategic interests if attacked, but otherwise it is not eager to clash with China, which has bulked up its military far more than India has done in recent decades. Chart 9India Would Bolster Containment Of China However, we do see India-China relations as fitting into the larger, negative geopolitical dynamic where the U.S. and its allies encourage India as a balance to China, while China suspects the U.S. alliance of using India and others to encircle and entrap China (Chart 9). Not that the U.S. stirred up the current dispute, but that the U.S. (and Japan) will generally seek to improve relations with India and to strengthen its military and economy, and China will use its regional influence to try to keep India off balance.11 This structural dynamic, in addition to China's territorial assertiveness, is likely to keep generating frictions. Bottom Line: A conflict between India and China is only market-relevant if it extends beyond disputed territories in the Himalayas to affect core strategic interests like the Siliguri Corridor, Tibetan stability, the Indo-Pakistani balance of power, or water supply and hydropower. It could also become market-relevant by worsening U.S.-China relations - and delaying Chinese economic reforms - if China should come to feel embattled on all geopolitical fronts. For instance, should an adventurous, "lame duck" Donald Trump attempt to combine with India and other neighbors in ways that threaten to cause problems in China's western regions as well as in its East Asian periphery. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Hook 'em Horns! 4 We recently argued that the White House is torn between two groups, the "Goldman" and the "Breitbart" cliques. The Goldman clique is led by Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and is pragmatic, un-ideological, and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. The Breitbart clique is populist, nationalist, and leans to the left on economic matters. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027," June 2017, available at www.cbo.gov and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation For American Greatness, Fiscal Year 2018," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 7 Please see the Tax Policy Center, "The Implications Of What We Know And Don't Know About President Trump's Tax Plan," July 12, 2017, and Benjamin R. Page, "Dynamic Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan: An Update," June 30, 2017, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. Using White House growth assumptions of 4.7% would lead to a deficit of 5.7% in 2026. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long," dated August 8, 2017, and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Denmark also has a debt ceiling, but it has set it so high that it does not need to be addressed. 10 Please see Sudha Ramachandran, "Bhutan's Relations With China And India," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief (17:6), April 20, 2017, available at Jamestown.org. 11 In fact, Japan already waded into the India-China dispute. The Japanese ambassador to India issued a statement critical of China, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately rebuked.

Highlights Despite a tightening in Chinese monetary conditions, dollar bloc currencies have continued to rally. Rising global reserves and strong carry inflows into EM prompted by low global financial volatility have created plentiful liquidity conditions in EM, supporting dollar-bloc currencies. The beginning of the Fed's balance-sheet runoff could reverse these dynamics, hurting the AUD, CAD and NZD in the process. Monitor U.S. inflation, cross-currency basis swap spreads, gold, EM currencies and Chinese monetary conditions to judge when a break in dollar-bloc currencies will materialize. Feature The rally in the dollar-bloc currencies since July 2016 has been nothing short of stunning. We did highlight in April last year that commodity currencies had room to appreciate, but we did not anticipate such a prolonged move.1 In fact, the up leg that began in April 2017 caught us by surprise. At this juncture, it is essential to analyze whether or not the bull move in commodity currencies has further to run, or whether it is in its final innings. A principal component analysis of the returns of the AUD, the CAD, and the NZD shows that despite differing central bank postures in the three countries, a simple common factor explains 86% of their variability against the USD since 2010 (Chart I-1). Because of this result, our focus in this week's report are the global forces that may be driving this factor. Today, the key risk to the dollar-bloc currencies is global liquidity tightening. Behind this danger lies the removal of policy accommodation in the U.S., and the risks to carry trades created by the already-very-low volatility of risk assets. A China-Fueled Rebound, But Something Is Amiss... The key reason behind the rally in commodity currencies has been improvement in EM growth relative to DM economies since 2016 (Chart I-2). This growth outperformance has been underpinned by a few factors. Chart I-1One Factor To Drive Them All Chart I-2Commodity Currencies And EM Growth China has played an essential role. As the Chinese economy decelerated in 2015, Beijing implemented a large amount of fiscal stimulus, which saw government spending grow at a 25% annual rate in November 2015. Due to the lags of stimulus on the economy, the full force of that stimulus was felt in 2016. Direct fiscal goosing was not the only road taken by Beijing. The Chinese authorities also applied a considerable amount of monetary pressure on China. After tightening massively through 2015, Chinese monetary conditions eased greatly in 2016 as real borrowing costs collapsed from a peak of 10.5% in the fall of 2015 to a trough of -3.5% earlier this year (Chart I-3). Directed expansion of credit through banking channels was also used to support the economy, resulting in a surge in the Chinese credit impulse. However, in recent months these positives have dissipated. Chinese money growth has slowed, and the combined credit and fiscal impulse has been lessened. Yet EM equity prices, copper prices and commodity currencies are all continuing their rally, and are now re-testing their May 2015 levels - levels last experienced right before EM assets and related plays entered a vicious tailspin that lasted all the way until January 2016 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: From Tailwind ##br##To Headwind Chart I-4EM, Copper, Dollar Bloc: ##br##Back To May 2015 Levels Bottom Line: The rally in dollar-bloc currencies that begun in January 2016 was powered by improving growth performance within EM economies. The original driver behind this move was Chinese monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, even once the easing faded, EM plays, including the AUD, the CAD and the NZD continued to appreciate. Another factor is currently at play. ...And This Something Is Global Liquidity Our view is that global liquidity is now the key factor supporting EM plays in general and dollar-bloc currencies in particular. Since the end of 2016, we have seen a rebound in the Federal Reserve's custody holdings - one that has happened as foreign central banks resumed their purchases of Treasury securities (Chart I-5). Fed custodial holdings for other monetary authorities are a key component of our dollar-based liquidity indicator. A rebound in this indicator tends to be associated with a surge in high-powered money globally. The capital outflows from China have dissipated, helping high-powered money find its way into EM plays and the commodity-currency complex. Private FX settlements - a proxy for the Chinese private sector's selling of yuan - was CNY -43 billion in July, a massive improvement compared to the CNY 800 billion in outflows experienced in August 2015 (Chart I-6). Through stringent administrative controls and a lessening of deflation, China gained the upper hand over its capital account. This development has two implications: it means that China does not need to sell reserves anymore, and in fact has been accumulating Treasurys since February 2017. It also means that investors are now less afraid of a sudden devaluation in the CNY, which has heartened risk-taking globally - especially in assets most exposed to China, which includes EM, commodities and dollar-bloc currencies. Chart I-5Easing Global Liquidty In 2017 Chart I-6Chinese Capital Account Under Control The collapse in the volatility of risk assets has been an additional element helping global liquidity make its way into EM plays and commodity currencies. As Chart I-7 illustrates, there is a relationship between the realized volatility of the U.S. stock market and the performance of dollar-bloc currencies. The first hunch is to dismiss the relationship as an artifact of the fact that both stock prices and commodity currencies are "risk-on" instruments. But there is an economic underpinning behind this relationship. As we argued in a Special Report on carry trades last year, the main reason carry trades have been able generate high Sharpe ratios since the 1980s is because they offer investors a risk premium for taking on exposure to unforeseen spikes in volatility.2 As a result, when the volatility of risk assets collapses, as has been the case recently, carry currencies outperform. The opposite holds true when volatility spikes back up. Chart I-7Dollar Bloc Currencies Like Low Vol When carry trades do well, investors end up aggressively buying EM currencies. As a result of these purchases, they inject funds - i.e. liquidity - into these economies. These injections of liquidity end up boosting money growth and supporting their economic activity, which stimulates global trade, commodity prices, and thus commodity currencies - even if these are not currently "high-yielders." Bottom Line: Chinese monetary conditions have deteriorated, creating a handicap for EM assets and the dollar-bloc currencies. Nonetheless, an increase in high-powered money growth, a decline in the risk premium to compensate investors for the risk of sudden new Chinese devaluation, and a collapse in global financial volatility have reinforced each other to create the ideal breeding ground for a rally in the AUD, the CAD and the NZD. The Sweet Spot Is Passing At the current juncture, the sweet spot for the dollar-bloc currencies may be passing. To begin with, commodity currencies are trading at a significant premium to underlying commodity prices, suggesting they are expensive and vulnerable to a decrease in global liquidity (Chart I-8). The AUD and the NZD stand out as especially expensive, while the CAD is only trading at a small premium to its long-term fair value (Chart I-9). This suggests that the Canadian dollar is likely to continue to outperform the Australian and New Zealand currencies, as it has been doing in choppy fashion since November 2016. Chart I-8Dollar Bloc Currencies Are Expensive Chart I-9AUD And NZD Are Expensive Another problem for dollar-bloc currencies is that they have greatly overshot global liquidity metrics. Historically, the commodity currencies have moved in lockstep with the evolution of global central bank reserves - a key measure of global liquidity (Chart I-10). While global reserves have improved, the average of the AUD, the CAD and the NZD has over-discounted this positive, pointing to potential vulnerability once liquidity ebbs. The problem with this overshoot is that liquidity is likely to decline with the imminent reduction in the Fed's balance sheet size. As Chart I-11 shows, the USD has been closely linked to changes in the reserves of commercial banks held at the Fed. As commercial banks accumulate excess reserves, this provides fuel for the repo market and the Eurodollar market, creating a supply of globally available USD for offshore markets. However, mechanically, once the Fed lets the assets on its balance sheet run off (its holdings of Treasurys), a liability will also have to decrease. This liability is most likely to be excess reserves as banks buy the Treasurys sold by the Fed. A fall in the accumulation of reserves of commercial banks in the U.S. is also directly linked with weaker dollar-bloc currencies (Chart I-12). This is because falling reserves push up the dollar and hurt commodity prices - a negative terms-of-trade shock for the AUD, the CAD and the NZD. Moreover, less reserves point to less liquidity making its way into EM economies. This also hurts the expected returns of holding assets in dollar-bloc economies. This therefore means that not only is there less liquidity available to move into these markets, the rationale to do so also dissipates. Without this dollar-based liquidity support, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could finally show its true impact on commodity currencies. Chart I-10Commodity Currencies Have##br## Overshot Global Liquidity Chart I-11Falling Excess Bank Reserves##br## Equals Strong Greenback Chart I-12Falling Excess Reserves Equals##br## Falling Commodity Currencies The last worrisome development for the dollar-bloc currencies is the volatility of financial assets. When volatility falls, it creates a wonderful environment for these currencies. But today, historical volatility is near the bottom of its distribution of the past 28 years. Being a highly mean-reverting series, it is thus more likely to rise than fall further going forward. There are three fundamental factors pointing to a potential reversal. First, share buyback activity has been declining, which historically points to rising volatility. Second, the U.S. yield curve slope also points toward a higher level of volatility. Volatility tends to bottom before the stock market peaks, and the stock market tends to peak before the economy enters recession. The yield curve itself tends to invert a year or so before a recession emerges. As a result, the yield curve begins to flatten around two years before volatility picks up (Chart I-13). Third, the anticipated decline in bank reserves - an important factor that has supported risk-taking around the globe - is likely to be the key catalyst supporting the relationship between the yield curve and volatility. If volatility increases, carry trades are likely to perform poorly, which will hurt EM currencies and result in outflows from these markets. This will cause liquidity conditions in EM economies to dry out, hurting their growth outlook. EM M1 growth has already weakened considerably, and is currently pointing to problems for commodity currencies (Chart I-14). The dry out in liquidity resulting from a reversal in carry trades will only amplify this phenomenon. Chart I-13Listen To The Yield Curve: ##br##Volatility Will Pick Up Chart I-14EM M1 Growth Is Becoming ##br##A Headwind For The Dollar Bloc Bottom Line: Global liquidity conditions are set to begin to tighten. While it is probably not enough to cause the bull market in stock prices to end now, it could be enough to affect the area of the global economy most exposed to this risk factor: carry trades and the dollar-bloc currencies. Specifically, commodity currencies are likely to be negatively affected by their elevated valuations, their strong sensitivity to excess bank reserves, and their high responsiveness to changes in financial market volatility. Key Indicators To Monitor After the surge that the dollar-bloc currencies have experienced since the spring and the large increase in the long exposure of speculators to these currencies, they are naturally at risk of experiencing a period of weakness. However, what worries us is not a retracement of 3-4%, but rather a 10-15% move. We suggest monitoring the following: First, watch U.S. inflation closely. The U.S. dollar is only likely to genuinely rally once the market believes the Fed can actually increase rates. So long as inflation remains tepid, investors will continue to second-guess the Fed. The market's response to this week's release of the most recent Federal Open Market Committee minutes only confirmed this. Mentions of debate on inflation within the FOMC was enough to send bond yields and the dollar reeling. However, based on the dynamics in the U.S. velocity of money, we continue to expect inflation to pick up in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-15).3 Second, follow cross-currency basis swap spreads. The cost of hedging U.S. assets back into euro or yen has normalized somewhat after hitting record levels in early 2016 (Chart I-16). If the removal of excess bank reserves in the U.S. system does affect global liquidity conditions, this market will be one of the first to be affected. Third, scrutinize the price of gold. The yellow metal remains a key gauge of global liquidity. Moreover, it is extremely sensitive to real rates and the dollar - two major determinants of the cost of global liquidity. In the summer of 2015, EM and dollar-bloc currencies severely suffered once gold broke below 1150. Today, a break below 1200 would be a sign of danger ahead. Fourth, watch EM currencies. A breakdown in EM currencies would be a key indication that carry trades are being reversed, and that global liquidity is no longer making its way into EM and EM-related plays. Commodity currencies are currently trading at a premium to their historical relationship with EM currencies, suggesting they would be highly vulnerable to such an event (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Watch U.S. Inflation Chart I-16Monitor Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Chart I-17Dollar-Bloc Currencies At The Mercy Of EM FX Finally, keep an eye on Chinese monetary conditions. If Chinese monetary conditions improve from here, it would alleviate some of the negative pressure exercised on dollar-bloc currencies by the upcoming deterioration in global liquidity. However, if Chinese monetary conditions deteriorate further, this would negatively affect commodity prices, EM returns and the commodity currency complex. It would also hurt expected returns on Chinese assets, re-kindling outflows out of China and thus raising the risk premium associated with what would become a growing risk of CNY depreciation. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Pyrrhic Victories", dated April 29, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled, "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen", dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data has been mixed this week: The Empire State Manufacturing Index increased to 25.2, a significant jump and beat Retail Sales increased at a 0.5% monthly pace, with the ex. Autos measure increasing at 0.5%, both beating expectations; The Import Price Index increased by 1.5% since last year; Initial jobless claims dropped to 232,000, beating expectations significantly; However, housing starts and building permits both underperformed expectations. While the DXY has rebounded, the FOMC's July minutes discussed the recent shortfall of inflation, which was interpreted bearishly by markets. The Fed is likely to begin normalizing its balance sheet very soon, as well as raising rates again by the end of this year. The greenback will likely continue its ascent when firmer inflation data emerges. Report Links: Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Improving euro area growth prospects have propelled the euro 12% higher since the beginning of the year. However, the market seems to begin questioning the ECB's hawkishness. In its minutes, the ECB expressed worries about a potential euro overshoot. Additionally, rumors emerged that Mario Draghi will not give much guidance in Jackson Hole. Together, these stories have reversed some of the euphoria that had engulfed the euro. The tightening in euro area financial conditions relative to the U.S. has prompted a roll over in relative economic and inflation surprises, justifying these budding doubts. Furthermore, U.S. inflation should begin to meaningfully accelerate in the fall. This is likely to add to the euro's weakness, as the greenback will resume its upward trend. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Data in Japan was mixed this week: Annualized gross domestic product growth grew by 4% on an annualized basis, crushing expectations. Additionally the month-to-month growth of industrial production came in at 2.2%, also beating expectations. However both export and import growth underperformed, coming in at 13.4% and 16.3% respectively. On cue, after we placed a long USD/JPY trade last week, USD/JPY rallied half percentage point, even if it gave up some of the gain now. We continue to be bearish on the yen as we expect U.S. yields to start picking up, in an environment where market expectations are very depressed. But could a correction in EM caused by the rise in the dollar help the yen? Not in the short term, given that historically the yen only gains in very sharp EM selloffs that themselves weigh on bond yields. Report Links: Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data in the U.K. was mixed this week: Retail sales prices increased by 3.6% year-on-year, outperforming expectations. However, The trade balance not only worsened since last month but also came in below expectations, at -4.564 Billion pounds Crucially, most inflation metrics came in below expectations, with headline inflation coming in at 2.6% while PPI core output inflation came in at 2.4%. Overall, we continue to believe that the market's rate expectations for the BoE remain too hawkish. As the pass through from the currency dissipates, inflation should also start to come down. Furthermore, one has to remember that the BoE has a higher hurdle for raising rates than other central banks due to the unique situation in which the U.K. is currently in. Lowered rate expectations will be negative for cable in the short term. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Despite initially weak data, a risk-on environment and increasing copper prices have fueled a rally in the AUD. Data from China has been soft, and Australian data has been neutral: Chinese retail sales increased annually by 10.4%, less than expected; Chinese industrial production also underperformed at 6.4%; Australian wages increased at a 1.9% annual pace, in line with expectations; Australian unemployment dropped to 5.6%; participation rate increased to 65.1%; and a net of 27,900 jobs were filled. However, full-time employment went down by 20,300 while part-time employment increased by 48,200, so hours worked contracted. This development is likely to comfort the RBA in its dovish stance. In its minutes, the RBA discussed its worries concerning the housing market, and that "borrowers investing in residential property had been facing higher interest rates". This further worries the RBA regarding the impact of higher interest rates, limiting the room for more hawkish speeches. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: Retail sales and retail sales ex-autos Quarter-on-quarter growth strengthened relatively to the previous quarter, coming in at 2% and 2.1% respectively. Moreover quarter-on-quarter inflation both for producer prices in outputs and inputs outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3% and 1.4%. Currently, differences in perception adjustment between the dovishness of the RBNZ and the RBA have pushed Australian rate expectations to the point that the market is now pricing a hike in Australia before New Zealand. Overall, this seems like a mispricing, as the kiwi economy is on a stronger footing than the aussie one. Moreover, a slowdown in China would be more harmful for Australia as iron ore is more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than dairy products. Thus we remain bearish on AUD/NZD. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD has regained some composure despite weak oil prices. Even with the U.S. dollar weakening and inventories drawing massively, oil dropped. This dynamic is particularly worrying for oil, as the markets are doubting the durability of the curtailment in global oil production. While this could be worrying for the CAD, we still believe the USD 40-60/bbl equilibrium price level, as postulated by the BoC, will have a limiting effect on the oil-based currency, which has been driven by interest rate differentials. Both central banks are now hiking, but we believe that markets are underpricing Fed hikes. Thus, the CAD should weaken against USD. However, it will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data has continued to show a mixed picture for the Swiss economy: Consumer prices inflation, increased slightly from the previous month, coming in at 0.3%, in line with expectations. The unemployment rate also came in in line of expectations at 3.2%, unchanged from the previous month. However, producer prices contracted by 0.1%, underperforming expectations. EUR/CHF has been weakening since its August second overbought extreme. For the moment, we expect the SNB to stand pat in its ultra-dovish monetary policy, at least until inflation and other economic indicators start to strengthen considerably. USD/CHF however might appreciate, given that the euro might fall the ECB minutes this week showed that the ECB is concerned by a potential euro overshoot. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Data in Norway this week was mixed: Headline inflation came in at 1.5% in July, outperforming expectations. However, it softened from June's 1.9% reading. Core inflation came at 1.2% in July, in line with expectations, decreasing from 1.6% in June. Moreover, manufacturing output contracted by 0.6% year-on-year. We continue to be bullish on USD/NOK, as the increasing gap in real rate differentials between the United States and Norway should outweigh any oil rally. Indeed, the recent numbers in Norway illustrate the lack of inflationary pressures in this Scandinavian country. This should keep a lid on rates, and thus help USD/NOK. On the other hand EUR/NOK should follow the path of oil. Thus, the OPEC supply cuts will ultimately support oil prices and thus, weigh on this cross. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has had a particularly strong week, as inflation surprised to the upside on both a monthly and a yearly basis, coming in at 0.5% and 2.2% respectively. While it initially appreciated against all currencies, the uptick in commodity currencies on Wednesday made it lose its gains against AUD, CAD, NZD and NOK. As inflationary pressures grow, the SEK is likely to appreciate further, especially against the EUR and GBP. Additionally, with current Riskbank governor Stefan Ingves' term coming to an end by the end of this year, the hawkish rhetoric is likely to only increase. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights Geopolitical tensions will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or escalating trade wars with significant economic damages, the impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets should be limited. President Trump's recent decision to probe China's IPR practices is his first direct trade measure against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near term impact should be limited. There is enough common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Short KRW/JPY as a hedge against geopolitical risk in The Korean Peninsula. There is an economic case for the trade, even without geopolitical considerations. Feature The Chinese economy is experiencing a summer lull, as most recent growth figures have disappointed, albeit slightly. Exports, production, investment and retail sales have all decelerated, underscoring that growth momentum is softening across the board. Investors have largely shrugged off the weaker-than-expected numbers, a sign that the market is not overly concerned about a major relapse down the road. We share investors' optimism, as discussed in some recent reports,1 but are watchful for signs of market complacency.2 After the most recent rally, multiples of Chinese equities are no longer exceptionally cheap by historical norms, even though they are still a lot cheaper compared with most other major global and EM bourses. We will discuss Chinese equity valuations in greater detail in the coming weeks. Geopolitical risks have dominated Greater China markets of late. The escalation of tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took their toll in the past week. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump authorized U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to determine whether to launch an investigation into China's alleged theft of intellectual property. Overall, both events underscore rising geopolitical tensions globally, particularly around China. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or an escalating trade war that causes major economic damage, the tensions should not have a material impact on the outlook for the Chinese and global economy, as well as financial markets. A short position on the Korean won versus the Japanese yen offers a low-risk hedge against a sudden escalation of geopolitical tensions in the region. Intellectual Property Investigation: The Knowns And Unknowns It is unclear at the moment whether Trump is simply using the investigation as a bargaining chip to seek concessions/cooperation from China, or to start a trade war with lose-lose outcomes. The situation needs to be closely monitored and assessed continuously. For now, a few observations are in order: This is the first direct trade measure by the Trump administration against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near-term impact should be limited. President Trump has only authorized his administration to determine whether or not to formally investigate Chinese policies and practices. It may take a year to finalize the decision, and even longer to begin negotiations and discussions with Chinese officials for solutions and remedies. Previous similar investigations against Chinese products resulted in bilateral agreements rather than all-out confrontations. Trump's decision is based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to protect U.S. industries from "unfair trade practices" of foreign countries. This was a popular trade tool in the 1980s and was used to impose tariffs against certain Japanese and Korean products, but has been rarely used in the past decade. In 2010 the Obama administration also accepted a petition under Section 301 to investigate China's state support for clean-energy exports, particularly solar panels and wind turbines, and the Chinese government later promised to limit some of these practices through bilateral negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that taking any such actions against other member countries without first securing approval under WTO rules is, in of itself, a violation of the WTO Agreement, and can be challenged under the WTO framework. In fact, section 301 investigations have not resulted in any trade sanctions since the WTO was set up in 1995. Table 1Top Challenges Doing Business In China More importantly, we see common ground enabling the U.S. and China to work together to improve China's Intellectual Property Rights, or IPR practices. From the U.S.'s perspective, while Trump's blunt accusations on China's trade policies are not completely justified and will not solve the massive trade imbalances between the two countries, his challenge on China's IPR infringement has legitimate ground, and resonates well within the broader American business community. American companies doing business in China have long listed intellectual property rights infringement and protectionism as top challenges, especially among industrial and resources businesses (Table 1). In other words, Trump's complaints on China's IPR practices reflects corporate America's rational voice rather than a sensational rant. China's own practices are also in conflict with its intentions to build a more open and market-friendly policy environment. Indeed, China has also been making notable progress to enhance IPR protections. In September 2015, in his state visit to the U.S., President Xi promised to limit the scope of national security reviews on investment, refrain from cyber-enabled IP theft, and uphold WTO agreements regarding market access for information and communications technology (ICT) products. China's deficits in IP royalty fees has increased sharply in recent years, while America's royalties surpluses have been expanding (Chart 1). Furthermore, 90% of American firms doing business in China believe that China's IPR enforcement has improved over the last five years, according to American Chamber Of Commerce In China (AmCham China) surveys.3 In short, there is certainly room for further improvement in China's IPR practices, and the broad direction fits with Trump's expectations, creating common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect China's IPR practices will continue to converge towards international standards going forward. Chart 2 shows Chinese patent applications have exploded in recent years. As the country's technology continues to advance and local businesses are growing more aware of the value of intellectual property, China will develop a keen interest to safeguard its own IPRs. We are hopeful that Trump's investigation will provide a catalyst for further improvement in Chinese IPR practices, rather than derail broader bilateral trade. Chart 1China's Widening Deficits In IPR Royalty Chart 2China's Exploding Patent Applications ##br##Will Demand Stricter IPR Protections North Korea Tensions, And Short KRW/JPY As A Crisis Hedge The escalation of geopolitical tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took a toll on global and Greater China markets in the past week. The situation remains highly fluid, and the stakes are exceedingly high - both of which will put investors on edge in the weeks and months ahead. Our Geopolitical team in their latest assessment concludes that the U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea. However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack, and brinkmanship could last for a long time.4 As far as China is concerned, there is genuine interest among the Chinese leadership to de-escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but there is no easy solution. On one hand, it is absolutely against the country's best interests to collapse the North Korea regime. Such an outcome could see a surge of refugees to its densely populated and economically struggling Northeast region. Moreover, it could also potentially lead to a strong and unified Korea at the Chinese border that is a military ally to the United States. On the other hand, Beijing also feels that it has fallen victim to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and has become growingly frustrated by its escalating provocations. China also fears that North Korea's nuclear program could encourage countries in the region, particularly Japan, to develop their own nuclear arsenals, which would be viewed as strategically threatening to China's national security. For now, we expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Already, China has supported the United Nations Security Council in imposing new sanctions on North Korea last week. Early this week, the Commerce Ministry announced a ban on imports of iron ore, iron, lead and coal from North Korea. These actions may have contributed to the softened tones from North Korea since, but it remains to be seen whether the impact will be long-lasting. The upshot is that the shared interests between China and the U.S. on various major global issues mean that the risk of an escalating trade war between the two countries should remain under control. For investors, bouts of geopolitical tension will likely bid up traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and the Swiss franc going forward. Another way to play the geopolitical risk is to short the Korean won (KRW) and long the Japanese yen (JPY). The KRW will obviously suffer devastating losses in even mild military skirmishes between the U.S. and North Korea, while the JPY may benefit from any "risk-off" unwinding of the yen carry trade. More importantly, economic fundamentals are not supportive of a stronger KRW, especially against the JPY, which means the downside risk in shorting the KRW/JPY is quite low, even without geopolitical considerations. Chart 3The Won Is Expensive Against The Yen The KRW is expensive against the JPY, based on a purchasing power parity (PPP) assessment (Chart 3). The 30% rally of KRW/JPY since 2012 has pushed it to an over two-sigma overshoot above its PPP fair value. Historically the won has rarely been sustainable at such elevated levels. Korea's economic outlook remains uninspiring. Capacity utilization has continued to decline, pricing power is weak, money growth is decelerating and real retail sales growth has stalled (Chart 4). Exports have been the bright spot in the overall growth picture, recovering strongly from last year's slump, but it is unrealistic to expect the export sector to continue to accelerate if growth numbers in China downshift. Softening exports will further weigh on Korea's growth outlook. In contrast, the latest growth numbers confirm that the Japanese economy has improved notably (Chart 5). Real GDP expanded by 1% in the second quarter compared with the previous three months, significantly beating expectations. While it remains to be seen whether Japan is able to maintain its regained momentum going forward, its growth gap with Korea has narrowed considerably of late, which will also lend support to the yen against its Korean counterpart. Chart 4Korea Growth Is Set To Moderate Chart 5Japan And Korea: Growth Gap Has Narrowed The bottom line is that geopolitical tensions in the Korean Peninsula will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a significant military conflict that causes major economic damage, the geopolitical skirmishes should not have a material impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets. Investors may consider shorting the KRW/JPY as a hedge for geopolitical risks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, and "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: What Could Go Wrong?" dated August 3, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 AmCham In China 2016 White Paper 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Washington must establish a "credible threat" if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer the superior outcome; The process of establishing such a credible threat is volatile; U.S. Treasurys, along with Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been consistent safe haven assets; The risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea is a red herring, while the crisis itself is not; We suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Feature Brinkmanship between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C. has roiled markets over the past week. The uptick in rhetoric has not come as a surprise. Since last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that souring Sino-American relations were the premier geopolitical risk to investors and that China's periphery, especially the Korean peninsula, would be the "decisive" factor for markets.1 North Korea's nuclear ambitions - which could be snuffed out immediately by a concerted and coordinated effort by China and the U.S. - are a derivative of the broader U.S.-China dynamic. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve its standoff with North Korea. There are long-standing constraints to war, ones that all of the interested parties know only too well from their experience in the Korean War of 1950-53. The first of these is that war is likely to bring a high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage; U.S. troops and Japanese troops and civilians would also likely suffer. Second, China is unlikely to remain neutral, given its behavior in the 1950s, its persistent strategic interest in the peninsula, and its huge increase in military strength relative to both the past and to the United States. However, the process by which the U.S. establishes a "credible threat" of military action is volatile.2 Such a credible threat is necessary if Washington is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome to the belligerent status quo. Viewed from this perspective - which is informed by game theory -President Donald Trump has not committed any grave mistakes so far, but has rather shrewdly manipulated the world's perception that he is mentally unhinged in order to enhance his negotiating leverage. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is "credible." As such, it is unclear how long the current standoff will persist. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this "territorial threat display" or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. As such, further volatility is likely. The ongoing crisis in North Korea is neither the first nor the last geopolitical crisis the world will face in today's era of paradigm shifts.3 We have long identified East Asia as the cauldron of investment-relevant geopolitical risks.4 This is a dynamic produced by the multipolar global context and the geopolitical disequilibrium in the Sino-American relationship. For now, investors have been able to ignore the rising global tensions (Chart 1) due to the ample liquidity emanating from central banks, but the day of reckoning is nigh (Chart 2). Chart 1Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 2Day Of Reckoning? Q&A On North Korea Back on April 19, we wrote a Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," which argued that North Korea had at last become a market-relevant geopolitical risk after decades of limited impact (Chart 3).5 Chart 3North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Looking to the next steps, we introduced the "arc of diplomacy," a framework comparable to the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations from 2010-15 (Chart 4). We predicted that the U.S. would ultimately ramp up threats for the purpose of achieving a diplomatic solution. The U.S. was constrained and would only go to war if an act of war were committed, or appeared imminent.6 Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin This assessment is now playing out. But not all clients are convinced of our logic, as we have found in our travels throughout Asia Pacific and elsewhere this month. Below we offer a short Q&A based on questions we have received from clients: Q: Diplomacy has already been tried, so why won't the U.S. attack? A: The U.S. public has less appetite for war, especially a preemptive strike, in the wake of the Iraq War, and has not suffered a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor-type catalyst. The U.S. will exhaust diplomatic options before joining a catastrophic second Korean War. And the diplomatic options are far from exhausted. The latest round of sanctions are tighter and more serious than past ones, but still leave categories untouched (like fuel supplies to the North) and are still very hard to enforce (like cutting illegal North Korean labor remittances). Enforcement is always difficult, and the U.S. is currently attempting to ensure that its allies enforce the sanctions strictly, not to mention its rivals (i.e. Russia and China). While we do not think China will ever impose crippling sanctions, we do think it can tighten them up considerably, which could be enough to change the North's behavior. Q: Why doesn't China just take North Korea out? A: China is a formal political, military, and ideological ally of North Korea, and has a strategic interest in maintaining a buffer space on the Korean peninsula - which it defended at enormous human cost in the Korean War. This interest remains in place. China is far more likely to aid and abet a nuclear-armed ally in North Korea than it is to endorse (much less participate in) regime change. The fallout from a new war, such as North Korean refugees flooding into China, is extremely undesirable for China, though it could handle the problem ruthlessly. China would also prefer not to have to occupy a collapsing North, which would be an extensive and dangerous entanglement. Therefore, expect China to twist Pyongyang's arm but not to break its legs. On a more topical note, China is consumed with domestic politics ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. It is perhaps more likely to take action after the congress in October-November. Q: Will U.S. allies cooperate with Trump? Why not bandwagon with China to gain economic benefit? A: South Korea is the best litmus test for whether Trump is causing U.S. allies to drift. The new South Korean President Moon Jae-In, who is politically left-of-center, has played his cards very carefully and started out on good footing with President Trump. A disagreement appears to be a likely consequence of Moon's agenda, which calls for extensive engagement with the North and a review of the U.S. THAAD missile defense deployment in Korea. So far, however, Moon is reaffirming the alliance, in his own way, and Trump has not (yet) expressed misgivings about him. If this changes significantly - as in, South Korea joining with China to give North Korea significant economic aid in defiance of U.S. sanctions efforts - then it would be a sign of division among the allies that would benefit North Korea and could even increase the risk of the U.S. taking unilateral action. The odds of that are still low, however. We have been short the Korean won versus the Thai baht since March 1, and the trade is up 6.03%. We also expect greater volatility and higher prices of credit default swaps to plague South Korea while the crisis continues over the coming months. We are closing our long Korean consumer stocks trade versus Taiwanese exporters for a loss of 4.24%. Q: What is Japan's role in the current crisis? What is the impact on Japan? A: Japan is one of the few countries whose relations with the U.S. have benefited under the Trump administration. The Japanese are in lock-step so far in reacting to North Korea. The government has been sounding louder alarms about North Korea for the past year, including by conducting evacuation drills in the case of attack. Japan has long been within range of North Korea's missiles, but its successes in nuclear miniaturization pose a much greater threat. Not only does North Korea pose a legitimate security risk, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also stands to benefit at least marginally in terms of popular support and support for his controversial constitutional revision. This will, in turn, feed into the region's insecurities. Yen strength as a result of the crisis, however, would be a headwind to Japan's economic growth. Thus Abe has a tightrope to walk. We expect him to take actions to ensure the economy continues to reflate. Q: Is Trump rational? How do we know he won't push the nuclear button? A: Ultimately this is unknowable. It also involves one's philosophical outlook. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong both committed atrocities by the tens of millions but did not use nuclear weapons. Nikita Khrushchev practically wrote the playbook that North Korea's Kim dynasty has used in making its belligerent nuclear threats. Yet Khrushchev ultimately agreed to détente. Kim Jong Un makes Trump look calm. The combination of Kim and Trump is worrisome; but so was the combination of Eisenhower and Khrushchev, one believing nuclear weapons should be used if needed, the other threatening wildly to use them. It may be the case that the threat of an atrocity, or (in Kim's case) of total annihilation, is enough to keep decisions restrained. As we go to press, Kim has ostensibly suspended his plan to fire missiles around Guam and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they would not attack unless attacked. Stairway To (Safe) Haven Revisited In expectation of increased frequency of geopolitical risks, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has produced two quantitative analyses of safe haven assets over the past two years. The first, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," unequivocally crowned gold as the ultimate safe haven (Table 1), while showing that the USD is not much of a defense against geopolitical events (Chart 5).7 Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises As such, investors should fade the narrative that the failure of the USD to appreciate amidst the latest North Korean imbroglio is a sign of some structural weakness. The greenback continues to underperform due to weak inflation in the U.S., a fleeting condition that our macro-economist colleagues expect to reverse. Mathieu Savary, BCA's currency strategist, believes that more upside exists for the USD regardless of the geopolitical outcome: Chart 5Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Chart 6DXY Is Cheap... Chart 7...But The Euro Is Not First, the dollar is currently trading at its deepest discount to the BCA Foreign Exchange Service augmented interest rate parity model since 2010 (Chart 6). The euro, which accounts for 58% of the DXY index, is its mirror image, being now overvalued by two sigma, the most since 2010 (Chart 7). Second, bullish euro bets will dissipate as Europe's economic outperformance versus the U.S. fades. Financial conditions have massively eased in the U.S., while they have tightened in Europe, resulting in the biggest upswing on euro area growth relative to the U.S. in over two years (Chart 8). Such an economic outperformance by the U.S. should lead to a strengthening greenback (Chart 9).8 Chart 8Easing Versus Tightening FCI Chart 9PMIs Point To USD Rally Our second attempt to quantify safe-haven assets, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," concluded that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds, and Japanese bonds are the best performers in times of crisis.9 We considered 65 assets10 (Table 2) with five different methodologies and back-tested them empirically within the context of 25 financial and geopolitical events since January 1988. Some of these assets have been proven to perform as safe havens by previous academic research, some are commonly utilized in investment strategies, and others could provide alternatives (see Box 1 for further details). Table 2Scrutinizing The World For Safe Havens This report demystifies four key issues related to safe havens: Part I identifies what qualifies as a safe-haven asset. Unsurprisingly, the best performers are U.S. Treasurys along with Swiss and Japanese bonds due to their currency effects. Part II examines if safe havens change over time. We find that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens, and that JGBs and Swiss bonds have a long history as portfolio protectors. Part III breaks down safe havens through an event analysis. We look at the country of origin, the nature of the crisis, and whether the risk is a "black swan" or "red herring" - two classifications of events that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has established - all of which have an impact on their performance. But red herrings or black swans are only defined after the fact, thus requiring geopolitical analysis or market timing indicators to be able to act on them. Part IV demonstrates that timing plays a crucial part when investing in safe havens as their performance is coincident with that of equities. Box 1 Safe Havens - A Literature Review In a previous Geopolitical Strategy Special Report published in November 2015, it was established that shifts in economic and political regimes alter investors' preferences for safe-haven assets, and that Swiss bonds and U.S. 10-year Treasurys were at the top of that list.11 Also, statistical methods were used to demonstrate that gold had acted as a safe haven from the 1970s to the early 90s, but has since lost its status due in part to a new era of looming deflationary risks. Li and Lucey (2013) have identified a pattern in precious metals, through a series of quarterly rolling regressions testing the significance of the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements against safe-haven assets, catching extreme negative events. For instance, the 1st percentile captures the very worst corrections that have occurred, the one that represent the bottom 1% of the equity performances. The 5th and 10th percentiles represent the 5% and 10% lowest returns for equities, respectively. The authors demonstrated that silver, platinum and palladium act as safe havens when gold does not.12 Similarly, Bauer and McDermott (2013) examined the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements and proved that both gold and U.S. Treasurys can serve as safe havens, but that gold has the best record in times of extreme financial stress.13 Baele et al. (2015) concentrated on flight-to-safety episodes, which they characterized as events in which the VIX, TED spreads and a basket of CHF, JPY, and USD all increased drastically.14 They found that during flight-to-safety episodes, large cap stocks outperform small caps, precious metal and gold prices (measured in dollars) increase slightly, while bond returns exceed those of the equity market by 2.5-4 percentage points. Baur and Glover (2012) provide further evidence that gold can no longer be utilized as a safe haven due to increased speculation and hedging. Their main finding is that gold cannot be both an investment and a safe-haven asset. That is, gold can only be effective as a safe haven if the periods prior to the event had not generated significant investment demand for gold.15 Using high-frequency exchange rate data, Ranaldo and Soederlind (2010) conclude that the CHF, EUR and JPY have significant safe-haven characteristics, but not the GBP.16 The strongest safe havens are identified as the CHF and JPY, but the returns are partly reversed after a day of safe-haven protection. They also find that the nature of the crisis has a significant effect on safe-haven properties. For instance, a financial crisis and a natural disaster produced drastically different outcomes for the yen. Part I - Safety In Numbers Our first step in identifying safe-haven assets was to review each asset's performance against equities in times of crisis. As such, we conducted a series of threshold regressions to generate a list of true safe-haven assets - assets that have a statistically significant positive performance in times of turmoil. Our method is explained as follows: Step 1 - Percentile Dummies: Following methods from Li and Lucey (2013) and Bauer and McDermott (2013), we created dummy variables for the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns since 1988. We then multiplied each of these dummies by their corresponding stock returns (see Box 1 for further detail). Step 2 - Regressions: Using the 64 potential safe-haven assets, we ran a series of regressions both in USD and the local currency, testing each asset's returns explained by the three percentile dummies.17 Step 3 - Identifying Safe Havens: We then quantified strong safe-havens as assets having significant coefficients for all three return thresholds (1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns). Results - Seek Refuge In Currencies And Government Bonds: Our quantitative results are mainly consistent with what others have found in the past: the Japanese yen and most G10 government bonds are safe havens. Table 3 shows the safe-haven assets that generated negative coefficients versus equities for all three threshold percentiles. Table 3Seeking Protection Against Corrections In our threshold regressions expressed in USD terms, we found that the Japanese yen, Quality Stocks,18 and Japanese, Swiss and U.S. bonds acted as strong safe havens. Currencies play a crucial part in the performance of safe havens. In fact, in local-currency terms, a series of G10 government bonds (U.S., Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.) proved to be the most useful safe havens. In sum, true or strong safe havens are government bonds that have currencies that add to positive returns during times of crisis. Unsurprisingly, this select group of strong safe-haven assets is comprised of U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Quality Stocks did provide positive and statistically significant results, but the returns were very low - for this reason, we excluded them from our basket of strong safe havens. While gold, the Swiss franc, and the U.S. dollar did generate positive returns during times of crisis, they failed to generate statistically significant results at all three thresholds. Bottom Line: Based on our econometric work, most G10 government bonds can act as safe havens. But due to strong currency effects, our models favor what are already commonly known as safe havens: U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Simply put, the difference between this select group and other G10 bonds is that their currencies rise or are stable during turmoil, while the currencies of the other G10 bonds do not. Part II - Are Safe Havens Like Fine Wines? U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds were not always the top assets providing protection against the downside in equities, however. To determine whether safe-haven properties change, we examined the evolution of the relationship between safe havens and U.S. equity markets over time with the following model: Step 1 - Rolling Regressions: Considering the results obtained in Part I, we restricted our sample to G10 governments in USD and local-currency terms, Quality Stocks, gold, JPY, EUR, and USD for this statistical procedure. We put these remaining assets, both in USD and local-currency terms, through a series of 1-year rolling regressions.19 Step 2 - Identifying Trends: Each regression generated a coefficient that explained the relationship between equities and safe havens (B1). We created a new time series by collecting the coefficients for each data point and smoothing them using a five-year moving average, thus depicting a long-term pattern in the evolution of safe havens. Results - A Regime Shift In Gold And Treasurys: Our findings show that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time (Charts 10A, B & C). Most striking are the changes in U.S. Treasurys and gold. Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge for equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. That said, gold's coefficient has been falling closer to zero lately, illustrating that it could soon resurface as a proper safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. Given that this is precisely the conclusion stated by our colleague Peter Berezin - BCA's Chief Global Strategist - and our own political analysis, we suspect that gold may be resurrected as a safe haven very soon.20 Chart 10ASafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10BSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10CSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Another important finding is that the currency effect plays a key role during recent risk-off periods (Charts 11A & B). The best protector currencies are the ones that are negatively correlated with equity returns. According to our results, the CHF and the JPY have generally been risk-off currencies, while the USD has only been one since 2007, switching places with the euro. This reinforces the case for U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, which are supported by risk-off currencies. Chart 11ACurrencies Are Difference Makers Chart 11BCurrencies Are Difference Makers Bottom Line: Safe havens change over time. Gold fell out of favor due to global deflationary dynamics. With inflation on the horizon, we will keep monitoring the relationship between gold and equities for a possible return of the yellow metal as a safe haven. Since the July 4 North Korean ICBM test, for example, gold has rallied 4.8%. Part III - Red Herrings And Black Swans Since 1988, we identified 25 economic and (geo)political events that generated instant panic or acute uncertainty in the media and financial markets.21 We analyzed the short-term reactions of the safe-haven assets, both in USD and local-currency terms. This methodology allowed for the deconstruction of the impact of the events by the following factors: Country of origin of the crisis, the nature of the crisis, and whether the event was a "red herring" or a "black swan." Generally speaking, a red herring event is a crisis of some sort with little lasting financial impact. A black swan, on the other hand, is an event that has a very low probability of occurring but has a pronounced market impact if it does. Quantitatively, our definition of a black swan is an event that produces an immediate negative response in the S&P 500 below -1%, while creating a rise in either U.S., Japanese, or Swiss government bonds above 0% (Table 4). Of course, determining which event is a red herring or a black swan is only obvious post-facto and thus requires thorough geopolitical analysis. Table 4Understanding The Crises Results - Red Herrings And Black Swans Matter: Our event analysis solidifies our findings with regards to U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, but also builds a case for some European bonds as well as gold during black swan events. Our main findings can be summarized as follows. Fade The Red Herrings: Out of the sixteen geopolitical events, ten were identified as red herrings, in which safe havens underperformed the equity market. This, then, suggests that it is not always beneficial to buy safe-haven assets when tensions are rising. What is interpreted as a major geopolitical crisis - say, Ukraine in 2014 or Greece in 2015 - often ends up being a "red herring." Geopolitical Risk = Gold: Geopolitical black swan events, on the other hand, have a significant, negative impact on the market. During these events, gold emerges as the strongest hedge against a downturn in equities. U.S. Treasurys And The Swiss Franc Provide A Baseline: Under all black swan events considered - geopolitical and non-geopolitical - U.S. Treasurys and the Swiss franc had the strongest performance, generating positive returns on the day of the stock market crash in 85% of the cases. G10 Government Bonds Will Also Do: German, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish government bonds also provided protection during black swan events in local and common-currency terms, albeit to a lesser extent. U.S. And Swiss Bonds Outperform During Financial Episodes: During black swan financial crises, Swiss and U.S. government bonds stand out as the best safe havens due to their capacity to generate positive returns both in USD and local-currency terms in eight out of the nine examined crashes. Other findings that are interesting, yet less robust due to a limited sample size, include: When the crisis originated on U.S. soil, U.S. Treasurys and the dollar performed relatively poorly compared to other safe-haven assets. This is a somewhat surprising finding, as most investors believe that U.S. assets rally even at a time of U.S.-based crises, such as the 2011 budget crisis. We show that they may perform well, but in USD, non-U.S. based assets do better. When the crisis originated in Europe, European bonds performed very well both in USD and local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Europe, Swiss and U.K. government bonds performed poorly in USD terms, but offered strong protection in local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Russia, precious metals acted as a poor hedge. Bottom Line: It is crucial to gain an understanding of the nature of any potential crisis. Red herrings should always be faded, not hedged against, as they produce poor results in safe-haven assets. U.S. Treasurys, Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been very consistent safe-haven assets during previous periods of acute risk. Part IV: Timing Is Everything As a final step in our quantitative approach, we put our results through numerous timing exercises to test how the assets would perform in real time. Based on our Risk Asset Spectrum (Diagram 1), which summarizes our findings, one could argue that investing in times of crisis simply boils down to buying an equal-weighted basket of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds. Although this is technically true, such a strategy would require perfect foresight, unparalleled timing, or dumb luck - since black swan events are, by definition, very difficult to predict. Diagram 1Risk Asset Spectrum Proof Of The Ultimate Safe Haven: The first experiment we conducted was to illustrate how powerful safe havens can be when timed perfectly in a trading strategy. We started off by comparing two baskets. The first was a benchmark portfolio comprised of 60% U.S. equities and 40% U.S. bonds. The other contained the same two assets, but with 100% allocated to a basket comprised of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds during times of negative returns for equities. Of course, this strategy is not realistic and would be impossible to implement, since the trading rule depends on future events. But as Chart 12 shows, if one were able to predict every single period of negative returns for global equities and hold safe-haven assets instead, the trading rule would outperform almost 10-fold. Chart 12Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... One-Month Lag Is Already Too Late: Repeating the same exercise, but with a one-month lag in the execution, produces drastically different results. More specifically, whenever the previous month's equity return is negative (t=0), the portfolio allocates 100% to a single safe-haven asset for the current month (t=1), otherwise it keeps the allocation identical to that of the benchmark. The rationale for using such a simple rule is that average investors are generally late in identifying a crisis and only react once they have validation that the market is in a correction. Chart 13 shows that being late by one month changes the performance of the safe haven basket from astronomically outperforming the benchmark to underperforming it. Chart 13... But Timing Is Everything Reaction Is Key: As a final timing exercise, we analyzed the reaction function of our assets to see how quickly they react after the correction in equities begins (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, the top assets that we identified start appreciating as soon as the crisis hits (t=0). Gold is, on average, the quickest asset to react from investors seeking refuge. Swiss bonds come in as a close second, almost mirroring gold during the first few days of the correction. But both assets start to flatten out and even roll over after a few days. Japanese bonds react slightly later than gold and Swiss bonds, but keep increasing for a longer period of time and start plateauing around the 30th day after the crisis. U.S. Treasurys and Quality Stocks, on the other hand, remain rather flat and constant over the short term. These results attest to the importance of timing the crisis using the best safe-haven assets. Chart 14Safe Havens React Instantly Bottom Line: Timing plays a crucial part in investing in safe-haven assets, as their performance is coincident to that of equities. Investment Implications: Is Pyongyang A Red Herring Or A Black Swan? The results of our quantitative analysis are clear: hedging geopolitical risk depends on whether it is persistent or fleeting. So, is Pyongyang a red herring or a black swan? From our geopolitical analysis we make three key conclusions: The U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea; However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack; Brinkmanship could last for a long time. Even if the risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea itself is a red herring, the crisis itself is not. In fact, between now and when a negotiated solution emerges, investors may face several new crises, which may include limited military attacks or skirmishes. While markets have faded such North Korean provocations in the past, the current context is clearly different. As such, we would suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Even though a "buy and hold" strategy with such a "Doomsday Basket" will likely underperform the market if tensions with North Korea subside, we are betting that it may take time for the U.S. and North Korea to get to the negotiating table. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 6, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. We upgraded North Korea to the status of a genuine market-relevant risk in "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017 available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0," dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. In particular, we argued, "the current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today." Then, on May 13 and July 4, North Korea conducted its first ICBM launches; the UN Security Council agreed to a new round of even tighter economic sanctions on August 5; and the U.S. and North Korea engaged in an alarming war of words. 6 Specifically, we wrote: "Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise." 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen," dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Forty-one assets were denominated in USD only, while G10 bonds, Credit Suisse Swiss Real Estate Fund, and European 600 real estate were used both in local-currency terms and USD, for a total of 65 assets. 11 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Sile Li and Brian M. Lucey, "What precious metals act as safe havens, and when? Some U.S. evidence," Applied Economic Letters, 2013. 13 Dirk G. Bauer and Thomas K.J. McDermott, "Financial Turmoil and Safe Haven Assets," 2013. 14 Lieven Baele, Geer Bekaert, Koen Inghelbrecht and Min Wei, "Flights to Safety," National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 230, 2015. 15 Dirk G. Baur and Kristoffer J. Glover, "The Destruction of Safe Haven Asset?,"2012. 16 Angelo Ranaldo and Paul Soederlind, "Safe Haven Currencies," Review of Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 385-407, 2010. 18 Quality stocks are defensive equity plays with high, steady earnings with an elevated return on investments. They are estimated by Deutsche Bank's Factor Index Equity Quality Excess Return in USD. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Since we were interested in the immediate, often unexpected, response to the event, we did not include economic recessions in our event analysis.

Highlights A number forward-looking indicators for EM corporate profits point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth and they herald a bearish outlook for EM EPS. We continue deciphering the differences between China's various money and credit aggregates. Irrespective of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently extremely weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. We recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position versus U.S. high-yield to underweight versus U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Chart I-1Asian Exports And EM EPS The recovery in EM earnings per share (EPS) has been instrumental to the EM stock rally this year. As such, the equity strategy at the moment hinges on the outlook for corporate profits. In this report, we revisit coincident and leading indicators for EM profits. At the moment, EM corporate profit growth still appears robust, though several forward-looking indicators point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. Korean and Taiwanese exports can be used as proxy for global trade. The latest data for July reveal that the sum of Taiwanese exports and Korean total exports excluding vessels has rolled over (Chart I-1). Historically, the U.S. dollar values of both economies' exports have correlated with EM EPS, and Chart I-1 entails that EM EPS growth will roll over very soon. The reason why we exclude vessel exports in the case of Korea is because vessel shipments are one-off occurrences and when they take place, they distort export growth. This was the case in the last several months - vessel (shipbuilding) exports surged by 75% from a year ago, distorting the annual growth rate of total exports. Overall, Korea's and Taiwan's overseas shipments in the past three months have averaged about 10%, which is lower than the mid-teen growth rates recorded earlier this year. In China, export growth is close to 9% in the past three months, and it is also rolling over. On a similar note, Korea's and Taiwanese shipments-to-inventory ratios lead EM EPS cycles, and they are presently sending a downbeat message (Chart I-2). China's import growth has relapsed, as suggested by both Chinese trade data and their counterparties export data to China (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Chart I-3Exports To China And Chinese Imports The recovery in Chinese imports has been responsible for a considerable part of the recovery in global trade. Importantly, Chinese import cycles correlate very well with EM EPS growth (Chart I-4). The key pillar of our view remains that Chinese imports will contract going forward, which will depress both advanced and developing countries' shipments to China. Exports to China are much more important for EM than DM economies, and deteriorating sales to China will weigh considerably on EM profits and currencies. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B demonstrate that both EM narrow (M1) growth and China's broad money impulse (the second derivative) - herald a major slump in EM EPS. This is the main reason behind our negative stance on EM share prices and other risk assets. Chart I-4Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chart I-5AChina Broad Money Impulse And EM EPS Chart I-5BEM Narrow Money And EM EPS Both narrow and broad money growth in China have already relapsed, and it is a matter of time until economic growth and imports downshift enough to produce a major selloff in EM risk assets. We discuss China's monetary aggregates in the section below. Finally, if Chinese imports and commodities prices relapse, any reasonable strength in DM domestic demand will not be sufficient to preclude a meaningful EM slowdown. The basis is that exports to the U.S. and EU only make up 7% of GDP for China, 8% for Korea and 11% for Taiwan. While exports to China account for 10% of Korean GDP and 15% of Taiwanese GDP. The same holds true for most East Asian countries. With the exceptions of India and Turkey, non-Asian EM countries are primarily commodities producers. These two have their own idiosyncratic problems. Most of our analysis is not applicable to smaller central European economies that are leveraged to the EU business cycle. That said, neither Turkey, India, nor central European markets have large enough financial markets to make a difference in the EM benchmarks. The above is the primary reason behind our bearish view on EM growth and profits. That said, there are a few other interesting considerations regarding EM corporate profits dynamics. First, EM share prices lead EM EPS by six to nine months. Therefore, to be bullish on EM stocks, it is not sufficient to expect EM EPS growth to be robust over the next three months. Rather, to be bullish on EM stocks at the current juncture, one should have a bullish view on EM EPS by the end of this year and into the early part of 2018. Consistently, we believe that EM EPS growth will decelerate materially by the end of this year and shrink in the early part of 2018. Second, the top-line shrinkage in 2015 and the consequent recovery for EM exporters has been mostly driven by prices rather than volumes. Chart I-6A illustrate that Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing production growth is rather muted. Chart I-6ACorporate Pricing Power Chart I-6BAsian Manufacturing Production Price fluctuations affect profits much more than output volume changes. Therefore, if global tradable goods prices deflate - at the moment they have rolled over (Chart I-6B) - EM EPS will contract materially. Third, in EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, there has been little economic recovery, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Along the same lines, the latest (July) manufacturing PMI for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has dropped below the crucial 50 line (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This and the majority of other economic aggregates we use are equity market-cap weighted averages, so they are relevant to investors. This corroborates the fact that outside China, Korea and Taiwan there has been little genuine growth improvement in EM domestic demand - despite the decent recovery in global trade. This challenges the prevailing widespread consensus of a synchronized global economic recovery/expansion. This is also consistent with the fact that the overwhelming EM profit recovery has occurred in technology and resource sectors while domestic sectors have not seen much of corporate earnings recovery (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##No Strong Recovery Chart I-8EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters ##br##Have Outperformed Domestic Finally, bottom-up equity analysts have recently downgraded their EPS estimates for listed EM companies (Chart I-9). Typically, analysts alter their forecasts simultaneously with swings in share prices. Hence, the latest decoupling is puzzling. Chart I-9EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions Notably, EM net EPS revisions have failed to move into positive territory in the past 7 years. This entails that analysts' expectations have been chronically high in recent years, and/or that companies have failed to deliver profits that match these projections. Bottom Line: The EM EPS outlook is downbeat, and listed companies profits will likely contract early next year. Deciphering China's Money Puzzle Based on our assessment of multiple measures, our conclusion with respect to Chinese broad money growth is as follows: Irrespective of which measure we use, and regardless of their individual past track records, all Chinese monetary growth aggregates are currently weak (Chart 10), and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. In recent weeks, we have been working to understand differences among various measures of money growth in China. Our motivation is because neither M2 nor total social financing and fiscal spending - variables that we relied on last year - did a good job of forecasting the duration and magnitude of China's economic and profit revival in the past 12 months. In our July 26 report,1 we introduced the concept of broad money calculated using commercial banks' assets. We called it credit-money. This week, we discuss a different broad money calculation based on commercial banks' liabilities, and refer to it as deposit-money. Deposit-money is an aggregate of non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits, transferable and other deposits, other liabilities, bonds issued and liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. This measure is broader than official broad money (M2) because the latter includes only non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits and some of liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. In brief, our deposit-money calculation is more comprehensive than the official broad money figures (M2). In turn, banks' credit-money is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and all levels of government, as well as banks' foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see July 26 Emerging Markets Strategy report1 for more details). Chart I-10 illustrates the differences between credit-money, deposit-money, total social financing and M2. Based on our calculations, deposit-money grew faster in 2015-'16 than both M2 and total social financing. Yet its current and ongoing slowdown is as bad as that of credit-money or M2. Chart I-10Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China The reason why M2 growth has lagged behind deposit-money growth since the middle of 2015 until now is the fact that the latter's components that are not included in the official M2 measure have outpaced M2 growth by a wide margin since late 2015. The main components of deposit-money are shown in Chart I-11. This is one of the main reasons why we missed the latest China-play rally - we relied on the official measure of money and credit published by the PBoC that has been much tamer than the broader money and credit, as banks have originated credit and hence money in a way that official monetary aggregates have not captured. In addition, banks' credit-money and deposit-money measures should theoretically be identical, but this has not been the case in China in recent years. Deposit-money is larger and it may well be more comprehensive than credit-money (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate Chart I-12The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money Understanding these discrepancies is an ongoing work-in-progress for us, and we will be refining these measures going forward. For now, we would say that these differences are probably due to banks' efforts to misrepresent/hide their assets and liabilities to meet the regulatory ratios and avoid penalties, as well as maximize short-term profits. All that said, the gaps between M2 and deposit-money has recently narrowed: both deposit-money and M2 growth and their impulses are at all-time lows (Chart I-13). Furthermore, we expect deposit-money to slow further because of the lagged impact of higher interest rates and regulatory tightening that is intended to curb commercial banks' ability to originate more money via shadow banking activities. Finally, as can be seen from Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B and Chart I-15, deposit-money's impulse - its second derivative - leads many cyclical economic variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, freight index, and imports. Chart I-13China: Two Measures Of Broad Money Chart I-14ADeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Chart I-14BDeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle There are several other data points from China's real economy that portend developing weakness. Specifically, car sales growth has almost ground to a halt, real estate floor space sold and started are decelerating (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Chart I-16China: More Signs Of Slowdown Bottom Line: Regardless of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. This gives us confidence in reiterating our negative view on China plays (including commodities) and EM. Credit Markets Strategy We have been recommending a strategy of shorting/underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. high-yield (HY) credit and this strategy has shown strong performance, producing 15% gains with low volatility since August 2011 (Chart I-17). However, today we recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position from U.S. HY to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate credit. The primary reason is that credit spreads are extremely tight and odds favor credit spreads widening in both U.S. and EM. Chart I-18 shows that when U.S. TIPS yields rise U.S. IG usually outperforms U.S. HY on an excess return basis. We expect U.S. Treasurys and TIPS yields to grind higher in the near term because U.S. growth and inflation are much stronger than the bond market is currently pricing in. Chart I-17Book Gains On This Strategy Chart I-18Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Rising U.S. bond yields also warrants EM credit underperformance versus U.S. IG because the EM credit benchmark is riskier than U.S. IG. While the two segments have similar durations, the duration times spread measure of risk is greater for EM credit. Furthermore, U.S. HY spreads have narrowed versus both EM sovereign and corporate spreads since early 2016 (Chart I-19, top panel). Hence, there is little value favoring the former versus EM credit. In contrast, U.S. IG spreads versus both EM sovereign and corporate credit are appealing historically (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Therefore, there is a valuation aspect to this strategy change. Relative spread differences have historically correlated quite well with the subsequent 12-month return. Given where relative spreads are, the subsequent 12-month return for investing in U.S. IG relative EM credit is positive (Chart I-20, top panel) but it is negative for investing in U.S. HY versus EM credit (Chart I-20, bottom panel). Chart I-19EM Credit Offers Value Relative ##br##To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG Chart I-20Projected Returns Of EM Credit ##br##To Both U.S. IG And HY As to the rationale of favoring U.S. credit to EM credit, this is consistent with our theme that the growth outlook, corporate leverage, and health of the banking system are in much better shape in the U.S. than in EM. Bottom Line: Book profits on the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. HY credit position. Institute a new position: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. IG corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd", dated July 26, 2017, link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Feature There have been two major milestones in China's financial market liberalization in recent months. In June, MSCI Inc. moved to include Chinese domestic A shares in its widely followed world and emerging market equity indices. In July, regulators in Hong Kong and on the Mainland jointly launched the "bond connect" program, allowing foreign investors easier access to China's massive onshore bond market.1 The immediate impact of these measures will likely be muted, but they mark China's continued efforts to deregulate capital account transactions, opening up Chinese domestic financial assets that a mere few years ago were still completely isolated from the rest of the world. Over the years, we have published and periodically updated our Research Note, "China Shop," as a practical guide for investors looking for exposure to Chinese assets. The guide has come a long way since its first edition more than a decade ago, when investing in China was extremely difficult and very limited for foreigners, and we were struggling to find the best "China play" proxies. Over the years, various indexes, tracker funds and derivatives have been established outside China, making investing in Chinese equities a lot easier and more straightforward. The China ETF universe not only covers broad market indexes but also specific sectors and different market caps, allowing for discretionary sector allocations and investment styles for China-focused portfolios (Box 1). Box 1 A Primer On Chinese Stocks A shares are stocks traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. These shares are denominated and traded in RMB, and are restricted to local investors and Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors (QFII). B shares are Chinese companies traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. This equity class was originally open to foreign investors only, but was made available to domestic investors in 2001. These stocks are denominated in the Chinese currency but traded in U.S. dollars on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and in Hong Kong dollars on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. H shares are mainland-registered state-owned companies listed in Hong Kong and denominated in Hong Kong dollars. The term N shares refers to stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Red Chips are stocks listed on the Hong Kong Exchange. These companies are usually domiciled outside China but have at least 30% of their stakes held by state-owned organizations or provincial and municipal governments of China. P Chips refer to shares of companies which are majority-owned by entrepreneurs from China and derive the bulk of their revenues in the mainland. These companies are typically incorporated in offshore tax havens and are listed in Hong Kong and other major exchanges outside of China. Since our last update a year ago, the China ETF universe that we've been tracking has continued to evolve, with a few interesting developments. The number of ETFs on our list witnessed the first decline since it was created about 10 years ago. Two new ETFs have been added to the list since our last update, but 16 have been suspended or de-listed (Appendix Below). This means the Chinese ETF boom in recent years has entered a period of "consolidation." It also means that global investors' appetite for Chinese assets has been rather weak. Investors' weak appetite for Chinese assets is also reflected in the constant net withdrawals from these China-related ETFs - a remarkable development considering the sharp rally in Chinese equities, both domestic and investable, since early 2016. Total assets under management (AUM) of these ETFs have increased slightly so far this year compared with a year ago. However, the increases have been entirely due to price increases (Chart 1). Indeed, net capital flows have constantly been negative since 2013, according to our calculations. Investors' lukewarm attitude toward Chinese ETFs stands in stark contrast to other EM bourses. AUMs of EM equity ETFs have been chasing the market rally to new records of late (Chart 2). It appears that investors, especially smaller retail investors, have remained highly uncomfortable with China's macro conditions, despite improving growth figures, and have been left out of the bull market. This could be a contrarian sign that Chinese equities are underweighted and under owned - confirmed by depressed equity multiples. Chart 1Constant Negative Fund Flows To China ETFs Chart 2China ETFs: Out Of Favor Looking forward, the Chinese ETF universe will continue to expand, and the recent market liberalization efforts will likely lead to increasing supplies of ETFs focused on the Chinese onshore bond market. Despite cyclical swings in both economic growth and financial markets, it is almost a sure bet that foreign ownership in Chinese assets will grow over time. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Broad Market By Market Cap - A Share By Market Cap - Investible By Sector - A Share By Sector - Investible Leveraged Plays Currency Fixed Income - Mainland Fixed Income - Offshore Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Dear Clients, We are publishing a Special Report prepared by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge who examines the case for allocating capital to EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. I hope you will find this report insightful. Best regards, Garry Evans The relative performance of emerging market equities is challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years. This has led to renewed interest in EM from global investors, and warrants a revisit of the role of emerging market equities within a global equity portfolio. While EM recorded the highest regional equity return last cycle (2002-07), they were surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market in an efficient portfolio allocation. Recently, several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the appearance of much lower commodity exposure than is truly the case. But EM equities will still be correlated with broad commodities prices because the later reflect Chinese growth dynamics. Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that the broad trend in commodities prices is likely to be lackluster over the coming year, at best. Consequently, EM stocks offer a poor risk/return profile, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio. Feature Chart I-1Change In Trend, Or Another Failed Rally? In U.S. dollar terms, the relative performance of emerging market (EM) stocks has been in an uptrend for over 18 months, and now appears to be challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years (Chart I-1). This has led to a renewed interest in EM, particularly among global investors. This report takes the recent outperformance of EM stocks as an opportunity to revisit their past and future contribution to a global equity portfolio, and what this might mean for an allocation to EM equities over the coming year. We conclude that EM's return behavior during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), its continued link to commodities prices, and China's growth dynamics all contribute to a poor risk/return profile for EM over the coming year. Barring compelling signs of a durable commodity bull market, investors should underweight EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. EM Equities In A Global Context: Some Historical Perspective When examining whether emerging markets are attractive from the perspective of global equity allocation, a starting point is to analyze the fundamental drivers of regional earnings. One major driver of global earnings over the past 20 years has been commodities prices; Chart I-2 highlights how 12-month forward EPS for stocks in all major regions have been correlated with commodities since the late-1990s. Chart I-2ACommodities Prices Are Correlated With Earnings... Chart I-2B...Even In Developed Markets This can be largely explained by the fact that commodities tend to be a pro-cyclical asset class. However, the super cycle in commodities prices in the 2000s not only bolstered the earnings of global resource companies, it also powered earnings growth for export-oriented industrials as well as domestic demand plays in commodity-producing countries. Chart I-3Strong Correlation Between ##br##Commodities And EM Emerging markets were among the largest beneficiaries of the commodity boom; net commodity-exporting countries made up roughly 45% of EM market capitalization throughout the last economic cycle, whereas stocks in the resource sector made up between 25-30% of the index by weight. Unsurprisingly, the relative performance of EM stocks closely tracked commodities prices over this period (Chart I-3). But despite this, EM was surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market last cycle within an active portfolio, even though it had the highest return. Chart I-4A presents a scatterplot of annualized regional equity volatility and return from 2002 - 2007, measured in US$ terms. The chart also shows the ex-post Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) efficient frontier, with Chart I-4B presenting the efficient regional allocation at each point along the frontier. Chart I-4AEmerging Market Stocks Had The Highest Return Last Cycle... Chart I-4B...But Were Only The Favored Market For High-Risk Portfolios Chart I-5From 2002-2007, Earnings Drove More ##br##Of The Rally In DCM Than EM While the charts show that the efficient allocation to emerging market stocks did rise to a maximum of 100% during the last economic cycle, it did not become the dominant region until the portfolio became considerably more volatile than the global equity benchmark. Indeed, Chart I-4B shows that developed commodity markets (DCM) were the preferred commodity play for most of the efficient frontier, owing to their superior performance in risk-adjusted terms. This risk-adjusted outperformance may have occurred because DCM returns last cycle were driven more by earnings than by multiple expansion; Chart I-5 highlights that EM stock prices benefitted from multiple expansion last cycle by outpacing forward earnings, versus the opposite in the case of DCM. Since the onset of the U.S. recession in 2008, Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B highlight that the ex-post efficient portfolio has been much more skewed than during the last economic cycle. The charts show that the frontier since 2008 has been extremely short, with efficient allocations only accruing to three countries with typically defensive stock markets: the U.S., Japan, and Switzerland, with a heavy bias towards the former. From the perspective of a global equity portfolio, this historical review leads to two conclusions: 1) investors should not allocate to EM unless they are bullish on commodities prices and, 2) if investors are bullish towards commodities, developed commodity markets have historically been a better risk-adjusted bet than emerging markets as a commodity play. Chart I-6ASince 2008, The Efficient Frontier Has Been Highly Skewed... Chart I-6B...Towards Defensive Markets (Mostly The U.S.) Chart I-7These Trends Give The False Appearance ##br##Of Lower EM Commodity Exposure EM And Commodities Prices: Has The Relationship Really Changed? More recently, a narrative has developed in the market that EM stocks are now far less sensitive to commodities prices than used to be the case. Proponents of this theory point to the following changes in the composition of emerging market equity benchmarks: First, the market capitalization weight of net commodity exporting countries has fallen precipitously since the onset of the collapse in oil prices in 2014 (Chart I-7, panel 1). On average, net commodity exporters made up between 40-45% of EM equity market cap from 2000 to 2013, but their share now stands at 27%. Second, Chart I-7, panel 2, shows that the market cap weight of resource sectors (energy plus materials) in emerging markets has fallen from roughly 30% to 14% over the past five years, a trend that pre-dated the decline in the share of net commodity exporters. Third, the enormous rise in the market capitalization of technology companies as a share of total EM market cap has been specifically cited by many market participants (Chart I-7, panel 3), especially since EM is now heavily overweight the tech sector relative to the global average. Broadly speaking, a fourth compositional change within the EM equity benchmark generally captures all of the shifts noted above, and is the focus of our remaining analysis below: the rise in the weight of emerging Asia as a share of overall EM (Chart I-7, panel 4). Among emerging markets, net commodity exporters tend to be located outside of Asia (with the exception of Indonesia and Malaysia), and emerging Asia accounts for essentially all of EM tech market cap. Consequently, investors who argue that EM equities have largely or fully decoupled from commodities prices are essentially arguing that emerging Asian equities are far less affected by changes in commodity markets than they used to be. This idea is deeply flawed, as shown below: Based on export share, Chart I-8 highlights that emerging Asia is far more economically exposed to China than developed markets and EM ex-Asia. While China is gradually becoming more of a services-oriented economy, Chart I-9 highlights that the sum of primary industry (raw material extraction), secondary industry (manufacturing and construction), and real estate services still account for over half of China's economic activity, well above that of industrialized nations such as the U.S. This underscores that emerging Asia's trade exposure to China is fundamentally rooted in economic activity that is closely linked to commodity demand. Chart I-8Emerging Asia Has High ##br##Trade Exposure To China Chart I-9Chinese Growth Still Largely ##br##Reflects Industrial Activity Within the commodity-linked segment of China's economy, Chart I-10 shows that there is little evidence of a weaker relationship between output and commodities prices. Simple regression analysis underscores that the Li Keqiang index, a growth proxy for China's industrial sector, is strongly linked to the year-over-year % change in spot commodities prices since the beginning of the commodity bull market, and that this relationship has in fact been increasing in strength over time. In addition, Chart I-11 underscores that China remains by far the largest consumer of base metals globally. Demand in the global oil market is considerably more diversified than the market for base metals, but China is the second-largest end market for oil (14% of global oil consumption), and accounted for over a quarter of the growth in total oil demand in 2016.1 Chart I-10Moderating Chinese Growth Will ##br##Be Negative For Commodities Chart I-11China Is By Far The Most Important ##br##End Market For Base Metals Finally, Chart I-12 shows a regression model between forward earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices, both at the overall index level and even for the financial sector (which, along with real estate, accounts for almost 25% of emerging Asian market capitalization). The fit for both models is extremely strong and, similar to the increasing strength of the Li Keqiang / commodity price relationship, the chart shows that commodities prices have begun to lead the growth in forward earnings, when the relationship used to be much more coincident. Chart I-12Emerging Asian Earnings Are Strongly ##br##Correlated With Commodities Prices The bottom line for investors is that Charts I-8-12 show emerging Asian economies are strongly linked economically to China, and that China remains the dominant driver of aggregate commodity demand. This means that while EM stocks may not have as much direct commodity exposure as they used to, they will continue to experience a high correlation with commodities prices because that the latter will be driven by swings in China's business cycle. In brief, Chinese growth fluctuations are instrumental to emerging Asia's economic and equity market performance. This is the rationale behind the very strong link between earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices: the latter reflect cyclical variations in the Chinese economy. EM Stocks: A Lackluster Bet Given The Outlook For Commodities Our earlier discussion of EM's historical contribution to a global equity portfolio revived elements of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), at least from an ex-post perspective. Ex-ante, investors need to make judgements about the likely risk, return, and cross-correlation of an asset when assessing its likely contribution to a diversified portfolio. Regarding the latter factor, Chart I-13 highlights that EM's correlation with global ex-EM has actually fallen quite substantially over the past year, which is a potential argument in the minds of some investors in favor of an increased allocation to EM. When recalling the lessons from Modern Portfolio Theory, most investors tend to focus on the key insight that lowly-correlated assets are valuable from the perspective of constructing a portfolio with an attractive risk/return profile. While this is true, many investors often forget that this is only valid given an expectation of a positive return. The efficient allocation to an asset that has a strongly negative correlation with other assets but has a negative return expectation is basically zero. This means that global investors eying an increased allocation to emerging markets should be squarely focused on EM equities' absolute performance, which as we have highlighted above are likely to be closely linked to commodity returns. Over the coming 6-12 months, Chart I-14 paints an uninspiring picture for commodities prices based on two measures of China's money supply. In turn, interest rates lead money growth and the rise in the former over the past nine months heralds further deceleration in the latter. This implies that the Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, which is negative for the broad trend in commodities prices. Chart I-13A Significant Decline, But Focus On Return ##br##Expectations, Not Correlation Chart I-14Interest Rates And Money Growth Paint ##br##A Poor Picture For Commodities As noted above, China's share of the global oil market is much lower than that of base metals, and we do not expect China's oil demand to shrink even if its industrial sector slumps. But from the perspective of allocating to EM equities within a global portfolio, Table I-1 highlights that broad spot commodity price indexes tend to be more relevant predictors of forward earnings growth than energy prices alone. This means that a rise in oil prices (were it to occur for idiosyncratic supply reasons) might be positive for major oil producers such as Russia,2 but is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks. Table I-1Explanatory Power Of Commodity Price Indexes In Modeling ##br##12-Month Forward Earnings Per Share Growth (2002-2016) Finally, our analysis above has focused on the fundamental drivers of EM stocks, and has shown how DM investors are likely to have little basis to be bullish about emerging markets earnings over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-15 highlights how this is also true about the potential for EM multiple expansion relative to their global peers. The chart shows that periods of relative EM multiple expansion have, like relative earnings expectations, tended to be associated with rising commodities prices, implying that a significant re-rating of EM equities is unlikely over the coming year. This is in addition the fact that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms,3 meaning that there is less room for multiple expansion in EM than many investors believe. Chart I-15No Relative Multiple Expansion ##br##Without Rising Commodities Prices Investment Conclusions In terms of gauging the contribution of EM equities to a global equity portfolio, this report has highlighted the following points: While EM stocks had the highest return of any regional equity market during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), this return profile was accompanied by an outsized degree of volatility. For all but the riskiest portfolios, developed commodity markets were preferred as a commodity play over emerging markets. Several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the outward appearance of much lower commodity exposure, but this exposure has merely become indirect. While EM's weight towards net commodity exporters and resource sectors has declined, this has shifted benchmark exposure to emerging Asia which has significant economic exposure to China and its industrial sector (the dominant driver of global commodities prices). As such, share prices in EM overall and emerging Asia in particular will still be strongly correlated with commodities prices even given the region's significant weight towards the technology sector.4 Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that broad commodity price gains over the coming year are likely to be lackluster, at best (and may very well be negative). Even if global oil prices were to rise, this is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks if industrial metals prices relapse, as we expect. These conclusions underscore that it is highly unlikely emerging market stocks will sustainably decouple from commodities prices over the cyclical investment horizon, and that the uptrend in EM relative performance since early-2016 has likely been driven significantly by expectations of further China's growth acceleration and commodity gains. In our judgement, these circumstances have created a poor risk/return profile for emerging market equities, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017. 2 Note that we recommend an overweight stance towards Russian equities within an EM equity portfolio. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM Equity Valuations Revisited," dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 15. 4 For a further discussion of the impact of the technology sector on the relative performance of emerging market stocks, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?" dated May 17, 2017, link available on page 15.

Special Report

Highlights Dear Clients, We are publishing a Special Report prepared by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge who examines the case for allocating capital to EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. I hope you will find this report insightful. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan The relative performance of emerging market equities is challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years. This has led to renewed interest in EM from global investors, and warrants a revisit of the role of emerging market equities within a global equity portfolio. While EM recorded the highest regional equity return last cycle (2002-07), they were surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market in an efficient portfolio allocation. Recently, several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the appearance of much lower commodity exposure than is truly the case. But EM equities will still be correlated with broad commodities prices because the latter reflect Chinese growth dynamics. Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that the broad trend in commodities prices is likely to be lackluster over the coming year, at best. Consequently, EM stocks offer a poor risk/return profile, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio. Feature Chart I-1Change In Trend, Or Another Failed Rally? In U.S. dollar terms, the relative performance of emerging market (EM) stocks has been in an uptrend for over 18 months, and now appears to be challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years (Chart I-1). This has led to a renewed interest in EM, particularly among global investors. This report takes the recent outperformance of EM stocks as an opportunity to revisit their past and future contribution to a global equity portfolio, and what this might mean for an allocation to EM equities over the coming year. We conclude that EM's return behavior during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), its continued link to commodities prices, and China's growth dynamics all contribute to a poor risk/return profile for EM over the coming year. Barring compelling signs of a durable commodity bull market, investors should underweight EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. EM Equities In A Global Context: Some Historical Perspective When examining whether emerging markets are attractive from the perspective of global equity allocation, a starting point is to analyze the fundamental drivers of regional earnings. One major driver of global earnings over the past 20 years has been commodities prices; Chart I-2 highlights how 12-month forward EPS for stocks in all major regions have been correlated with commodities since the late-1990s. Chart I-2ACommodities Prices Are Correlated With Earnings... Chart I-2B...Even In Developed Markets This can be largely explained by the fact that commodities tend to be a pro-cyclical asset class. However, the super cycle in commodities prices in the 2000s not only bolstered the earnings of global resource companies, it also powered earnings growth for export-oriented industrials as well as domestic demand plays in commodity-producing countries. Chart I-3Strong Correlation Between ##br##Commodities And EM Emerging markets were among the largest beneficiaries of the commodity boom; net commodity-exporting countries made up roughly 45% of EM market capitalization throughout the last economic cycle, whereas stocks in the resource sector made up between 25-30% of the index by weight. Unsurprisingly, the relative performance of EM stocks closely tracked commodities prices over this period (Chart I-3). But despite this, EM was surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market last cycle within an active portfolio, even though it had the highest return. Chart I-4A presents a scatterplot of annualized regional equity volatility and return from 2002 - 2007, measured in US$ terms. The chart also shows the ex-post Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) efficient frontier, with Chart I-4B presenting the efficient regional allocation at each point along the frontier. Chart I-4AEmerging Market Stocks Had The Highest Return Last Cycle... Chart I-4B...But Were Only The Favored Market For High-Risk Portfolios Chart I-5From 2002-2007, Earnings Drove More ##br##Of The Rally In DCM Than EM While the charts show that the efficient allocation to emerging market stocks did rise to a maximum of 100% during the last economic cycle, it did not become the dominant region until the portfolio became considerably more volatile than the global equity benchmark. Indeed, Chart I-4B shows that developed commodity markets (DCM) were the preferred commodity play for most of the efficient frontier, owing to their superior performance in risk-adjusted terms. This risk-adjusted outperformance may have occurred because DCM returns last cycle were driven more by earnings than by multiple expansion; Chart I-5 highlights that EM stock prices benefitted from multiple expansion last cycle by outpacing forward earnings, versus the opposite in the case of DCM. Since the onset of the U.S. recession in 2008, Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B highlight that the ex-post efficient portfolio has been much more skewed than during the last economic cycle. The charts show that the frontier since 2008 has been extremely short, with efficient allocations only accruing to three countries with typically defensive stock markets: the U.S., Japan, and Switzerland, with a heavy bias towards the former. From the perspective of a global equity portfolio, this historical review leads to two conclusions: 1) investors should not allocate to EM unless they are bullish on commodities prices and, 2) if investors are bullish towards commodities, developed commodity markets have historically been a better risk-adjusted bet than emerging markets as a commodity play. Chart I-6ASince 2008, The Efficient Frontier Has Been Highly Skewed... Chart I-6B...Towards Defensive Markets (Mostly The U.S.) Chart I-7These Trends Give The False Appearance ##br##Of Lower EM Commodity Exposure EM And Commodities Prices: Has The Relationship Really Changed? More recently, a narrative has developed in the market that EM stocks are now far less sensitive to commodities prices than used to be the case. Proponents of this theory point to the following changes in the composition of emerging market equity benchmarks: First, the market capitalization weight of net commodity exporting countries has fallen precipitously since the onset of the collapse in oil prices in 2014 (Chart I-7, panel 1). On average, net commodity exporters made up between 40-45% of EM equity market cap from 2000 to 2013, but their share now stands at 27%. Second, Chart I-7, panel 2, shows that the market cap weight of resource sectors (energy plus materials) in emerging markets has fallen from roughly 30% to 14% over the past five years, a trend that pre-dated the decline in the share of net commodity exporters. Third, the enormous rise in the market capitalization of technology companies as a share of total EM market cap has been specifically cited by many market participants (Chart I-7, panel 3), especially since EM is now heavily overweight the tech sector relative to the global average. Broadly speaking, a fourth compositional change within the EM equity benchmark generally captures all of the shifts noted above, and is the focus of our remaining analysis below: the rise in the weight of emerging Asia as a share of overall EM (Chart I-7, panel 4). Among emerging markets, net commodity exporters tend to be located outside of Asia (with the exception of Indonesia and Malaysia), and emerging Asia accounts for essentially all of EM tech market cap. Consequently, investors who argue that EM equities have largely or fully decoupled from commodities prices are essentially arguing that emerging Asian equities are far less affected by changes in commodity markets than they used to be. This idea is deeply flawed, as shown below: Based on export share, Chart I-8 highlights that emerging Asia is far more economically exposed to China than developed markets and EM ex-Asia. While China is gradually becoming more of a services-oriented economy, Chart I-9 highlights that the sum of primary industry (raw material extraction), secondary industry (manufacturing and construction), and real estate services still account for over half of China's economic activity, well above that of industrialized nations such as the U.S. This underscores that emerging Asia's trade exposure to China is fundamentally rooted in economic activity that is closely linked to commodity demand. Chart I-8Emerging Asia Has High ##br##Trade Exposure To China Chart I-9Chinese Growth Still Largely ##br##Reflects Industrial Activity Within the commodity-linked segment of China's economy, Chart I-10 shows that there is little evidence of a weaker relationship between output and commodities prices. Simple regression analysis underscores that the Li Keqiang index, a growth proxy for China's industrial sector, is strongly linked to the year-over-year % change in spot commodities prices since the beginning of the commodity bull market, and that this relationship has in fact been increasing in strength over time. In addition, Chart I-11 underscores that China remains by far the largest consumer of base metals globally. Demand in the global oil market is considerably more diversified than the market for base metals, but China is the second-largest end market for oil (14% of global oil consumption), and accounted for over a quarter of the growth in total oil demand in 2016.1 Chart I-10Moderating Chinese Growth Will ##br##Be Negative For Commodities Chart I-11China Is By Far The Most Important ##br##End Market For Base Metals Finally, Chart I-12 shows a regression model between forward earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices, both at the overall index level and even for the financial sector (which, along with real estate, accounts for almost 25% of emerging Asian market capitalization). The fit for both models is extremely strong and, similar to the increasing strength of the Li Keqiang / commodity price relationship, the chart shows that commodities prices have begun to lead the growth in forward earnings, when the relationship used to be much more coincident. Chart I-12Emerging Asian Earnings Are Strongly ##br##Correlated With Commodities Prices The bottom line for investors is that Charts I-8-12 show emerging Asian economies are strongly linked economically to China, and that China remains the dominant driver of aggregate commodity demand. This means that while EM stocks may not have as much direct commodity exposure as they used to, they will continue to experience a high correlation with commodities prices because that the latter will be driven by swings in China's business cycle. In brief, Chinese growth fluctuations are instrumental to emerging Asia's economic and equity market performance. This is the rationale behind the very strong link between earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices: the latter reflect cyclical variations in the Chinese economy. EM Stocks: A Lackluster Bet Given The Outlook For Commodities Our earlier discussion of EM's historical contribution to a global equity portfolio revived elements of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), at least from an ex-post perspective. Ex-ante, investors need to make judgements about the likely risk, return, and cross-correlation of an asset when assessing its likely contribution to a diversified portfolio. Regarding the latter factor, Chart I-13 highlights that EM's correlation with global ex-EM has actually fallen quite substantially over the past year, which is a potential argument in the minds of some investors in favor of an increased allocation to EM. When recalling the lessons from Modern Portfolio Theory, most investors tend to focus on the key insight that lowly-correlated assets are valuable from the perspective of constructing a portfolio with an attractive risk/return profile. While this is true, many investors often forget that this is only valid given an expectation of a positive return. The efficient allocation to an asset that has a strongly negative correlation with other assets but has a negative return expectation is basically zero. This means that global investors eying an increased allocation to emerging markets should be squarely focused on EM equities' absolute performance, which as we have highlighted above are likely to be closely linked to commodity returns. Over the coming 6-12 months, Chart I-14 paints an uninspiring picture for commodities prices based on two measures of China's money supply. In turn, interest rates lead money growth and the rise in the former over the past nine months heralds further deceleration in the latter. This implies that the Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, which is negative for the broad trend in commodities prices. Chart I-13A Significant Decline, But Focus On Return ##br##Expectations, Not Correlation Chart I-14Interest Rates And Money Growth Paint ##br##A Poor Picture For Commodities As noted above, China's share of the global oil market is much lower than that of base metals, and we do not expect China's oil demand to shrink even if its industrial sector slumps. But from the perspective of allocating to EM equities within a global portfolio, Table I-1 highlights that broad spot commodity price indexes tend to be more relevant predictors of forward earnings growth than energy prices alone. This means that a rise in oil prices (were it to occur for idiosyncratic supply reasons) might be positive for major oil producers such as Russia,2 but is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks. Table I-1Explanatory Power Of Commodity Price Indexes In Modeling ##br##12-Month Forward Earnings Per Share Growth (2002-2016) Finally, our analysis above has focused on the fundamental drivers of EM stocks, and has shown how DM investors are likely to have little basis to be bullish about emerging markets earnings over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-15 highlights how this is also true about the potential for EM multiple expansion relative to their global peers. The chart shows that periods of relative EM multiple expansion have, like relative earnings expectations, tended to be associated with rising commodities prices, implying that a significant re-rating of EM equities is unlikely over the coming year. This is in addition the fact that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms,3 meaning that there is less room for multiple expansion in EM than many investors believe. Chart I-15No Relative Multiple Expansion ##br##Without Rising Commodities Prices Investment Conclusions In terms of gauging the contribution of EM equities to a global equity portfolio, this report has highlighted the following points: While EM stocks had the highest return of any regional equity market during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), this return profile was accompanied by an outsized degree of volatility. For all but the riskiest portfolios, developed commodity markets were preferred as a commodity play over emerging markets. Several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the outward appearance of much lower commodity exposure, but this exposure has merely become indirect. While EM's weight towards net commodity exporters and resource sectors has declined, this has shifted benchmark exposure to emerging Asia which has significant economic exposure to China and its industrial sector (the dominant driver of global commodities prices). As such, share prices in EM overall and emerging Asia in particular will still be strongly correlated with commodities prices even given the region's significant weight towards the technology sector.4 Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that broad commodity price gains over the coming year are likely to be lackluster, at best (and may very well be negative). Even if global oil prices were to rise, this is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks if industrial metals prices relapse, as we expect. These conclusions underscore that it is highly unlikely emerging market stocks will sustainably decouple from commodities prices over the cyclical investment horizon, and that the uptrend in EM relative performance since early-2016 has likely been driven significantly by expectations of further China's growth acceleration and commodity gains. In our judgement, these circumstances have created a poor risk/return profile for emerging market equities, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017. 2 Note that we recommend an overweight stance towards Russian equities within an EM equity portfolio. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM Equity Valuations Revisited," dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 15. 4 For a further discussion of the impact of the technology sector on the relative performance of emerging market stocks, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?" dated May 17, 2017, link available on page 15.

Special Report

This week we are sending you two Special Reports (both included in this document) that were previously published in the May and June editions of The Bank Credit Analyst. Both reports discuss the long-term outlook for global bond yields. The first report emphasizes the importance of demographics and the second focuses on the outlook for productivity growth. We are also sending a Weekly Report published jointly by our Global Fixed Income Strategy and U.S. Bond Strategy services. Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart I-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart I-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Chart I-2Global Shifts In The Saving ##br##And Investment Curves Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart I-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart I-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart I-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart I-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart I-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart I-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart I-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. Chart I-6Hollowing Out The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart I-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart I-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart I-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart I-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart I-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart I-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart I-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Chart I-9Working-Age Population To Shrink In G7 And China Chart I-10Globalization Peaking? Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Chart I-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart I-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart I-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart I-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart I-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart I-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart I-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart I-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: Chart I-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Chart I-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart I-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart I-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table I-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table I-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart I-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart I-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart I-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart I-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst MarkM@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. Chart II-1Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-4The Contribution To Growth ##br##From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart II-5Math Skills Around The World Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-6The Best Educated EMs Have The Worst Demographic Outlooks Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Emerging Markets: Interest Rates Tend To ##br##Be Higher Where Productivity Growth Is Weak Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In ##br##The 1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-14Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-17Examples Of Capital-Biased ##br##Technological Change It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-20A Winner-Take-All Economy Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.