China
Highlights Fiscal policy is likely to be eased modestly in most advanced economies over the next two years. The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has proposed. Ironically, fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. The market is pricing in too little Fed tightening over the remainder of the year. The dollar's swoon is ending. Go short EUR/USD with a target of parity by the end of the year. Feature Fiscal Thrust Around The World In its latest Fiscal Monitor, the IMF estimated that advanced economies eased fiscal policy by 0.2% of GDP in 2016, reversing a five-year streak of fiscal tightening (Chart 1). The Fund expects a further 0.1% of GDP of easing in 2017, followed by a neutral stance in 2018. In the EM universe, the IMF foresees a fiscal thrust1 of -0.2% of GDP in 2017 and -0.4% of GDP in 2018. Chart 1IMF Expects Modest Fiscal Easing In Advanced Economies, Further Tightening In EM Averages can disguise a lot of variation across countries (Charts 2). Comparing 2018 with 2016, the IMF expects Canada and the U.S. to experience a positive fiscal thrust of 0.7% of GDP and 0.4% of GDP, respectively. The fiscal thrust is projected to be -0.2% of GDP in the euro area, -1% of GDP in the U.K., and -0.5% of GDP in Japan. Among the larger advanced economies, Australia is expected to experience the largest degree of fiscal tightening, with a fiscal thrust of -1.2% of GDP. Across the EM universe, most of the fiscal tightening is projected to occur among oil producers. The IMF expects oil-exporting economies to collectively reduce their fiscal deficits by US$150 billion between 2016 and 2018. Political considerations require that the IMF give considerable weight to the stated objectives of governments when formulating fiscal projections. In reality, governments often struggle to meet their budget targets. Consequently, the Fund has typically overestimated the degree of fiscal consolidation that ends up happening (Chart 3). As such, our own projections foresee somewhat less fiscal tightening - and in some countries, a fair bit of fiscal easing - than the IMF projects. In particular: Chart 2Countries Will Follow Different Fiscal Paths Chart 3IMF Forecasts Tend To Overestimate Extent Of Fiscal Consolidation We do not expect much more incremental fiscal tightening out of the euro area. Thanks to a slew of austerity measures, the euro area's structural primary budget balance went from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 2010 to a surplus of 1.0% of GDP in 2014. It has remained close to those levels ever since. Now that a primary surplus has already been achieved and interest rates and bond spreads have fallen to exceptionally low levels, the need for further belt tightening has abated. That's the good news. The bad news is that high government debt levels in many European economies rule out any major new stimulus programs (Chart 4). The U.K. will slow the pace of fiscal consolidation. The U.K.'s structural primary budget deficit fell from a peak of 7.1% of GDP in 2009 to 1.3% of GDP in 2016. The IMF expects the primary balance to move into a surplus of 0.6% of GDP in 2019. We think that's unlikely. The Conservatives are under intense pressure to keep the economy afloat during Brexit negotiations. Prime Minister Theresa May has indicated she will delay eradicating the budget deficit until the middle of the next decade, having previously promised a 2020 target date. Japan has limited scope to further tighten fiscal policy. Japan's structural primary budget deficit reached 6.9% of GDP in 2010. The IMF expects it to reach 3.7% this year and fall further to 2% in 2020, provided the government goes forward with raising the VAT from 8% to 10%. We are skeptical that Japan's economy will be strong enough to allow the government to raise taxes. However, even if it is, this will only be because the Bank of Japan gooses growth by keeping long-term yields pinned to zero, thereby allowing the yen to depreciate further. China is making a structural transition to large budget deficits. The IMF estimates that China's structural primary budget balance deteriorated from a surplus of 0.1% of GDP in 2014 to a deficit of 2.8% of GDP in 2016. The increase in the fiscal deficit cannot be explained by the reclassification of off-budget spending as on-budget, since the IMF's "augmented" fiscal balance - which attempts to control for such statistical issues - deteriorated by roughly the same amount (Chart 5). Part of the erosion in China's fiscal balance stemmed from the global manufacturing slowdown in 2015-2016, which hit tax receipts and necessitated a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus. However, there is more to the story than that. As we controversially argued in "China Needs More Debt," now that China is no longer in a position to run gargantuan current account surpluses, large fiscal deficits will be necessary to absorb excess private-sector savings.2 The government's desire to rein in credit growth will only add to the impetus to find new sources of aggregate demand. The era of red ink has begun. Chart 4Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Chart 5China's Fiscal Deficit Has Been Increasing The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has ambitiously proposed. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 6). We think this pessimism is overdone. Donald Trump desperately needs a "win," and cutting taxes is one key area where the President and Congress both see eye to eye. Trump's falling poll numbers have heightened the risk that the Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives next November (Chart 7). This makes passing a tax bill before the midterm elections all the more urgent. The main questions surround the scale and scope of any tax cuts, and just as critically, how they are paid for. We discuss these issues next. Chart 6Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Chart 7Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Trump's Budget Proposal: Fake Math Chart 8Trump In Wonderland? If the definition of a good leader is one who underpromises and overdelivers, then President Trump's budget proposal left much to be desired. Trump's plan assumes that U.S. growth will reach 3% over the next ten years. Even in the unlikely event that the economy manages to avert a recession over this period, such a growth rate would be a remarkable feat. After all, growth has averaged only 2.1% since 2009. And keep in mind that the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 4.4% over this interval, consistent with potential GDP growth of only 1.4%. The slow pace of capital accumulation following the Great Recession undoubtedly hurt the supply side of the economy, but it would take a phenomenal - and rather implausible - acceleration in potential GDP growth to justify Trump's 3% target. Many of the other assumptions in Trump's blueprint are no less dubious (Chart 8). Despite projecting much slower growth, the Federal Reserve expects short-term rates to rise to 3% in 2019. In contrast, the Trump administration sees rates increasing to only 2.4%, an assumption that perhaps not coincidentally helps reduce projected debt-servicing costs. Most flagrantly, the plan assumes no decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio, even though the basis for faster growth largely rests on the assumption of steep tax cuts. When pressed on the issue, officials from the Office of Management and Budget sheepishly noted that there would be offsetting limits on tax deductions, which would have the effect of broadening the tax base. However, no specific information was given on what these would entail. Many theories have been offered as to why Trump offered such an outlandish budget plan. Was he trying to appease conservatives in Congress? Perhaps this was just a sly attempt to gain leverage in future budget negotiations? Our theory is simpler: Trump promised an economic boom during the election campaign, while assuring voters that his tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Hell would need to freeze over before he released a plan that did not share these assumptions. Congress Will Decide So where do we go from here? The specifics of Trump's plan are irrelevant. Congress will rewrite the budget from scratch. Major spending cuts will be scrapped. So will the onerous cuts to insurance subsidies and Medicaid in the House version of the health care bill. The Senate will ditch those. In contrast, Trump's tax cuts will be preserved, albeit on a smaller scale than envisioned in his budget proposal. Granted, congressional leaders have said they want tax reform to be revenue neutral, meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures. That is easier said than done, however. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - all face severe resistance from vested interests. In Washington, where there is a will there is usually a dishonest way. Budget forecasts are typically made over a 10-year window. Thus, it is possible to lower taxes upfront and promise spending cuts and ill-defined revenue raising measures in the tail end of the budget window. Such a strategy would generate a positive fiscal thrust early on, while leaving the door open for Congress to dump any future spending reduction or revenue measures before they are actually implemented. Add to that the tax revenue that is projected to pour in from supply-side reforms, and the stage is set for a dollop of fiscal easing starting in early 2018. How likely is it that Republicans will pursue such a strategy? Very likely. As evidence, look no further than the fact that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney floated the idea on Wednesday of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. Investment Conclusions Chart 9Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well An obsessive focus on fiscal austerity hamstrung the recovery in many countries following the Great Recession. The irony is that fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year. Despite all the obituaries that have been written for the death of the Phillips curve, the data show that it is alive and well (Chart 9). Higher inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates once per quarter. The market is not prepared for this. Investors currently expect only 45 basis points in rate hikes over the coming 12 months. That is far too low. On the other side of the Atlantic, the ECB's months-to-hike measure has plummeted from 65 months in July 2016 to only 24 months today (Chart 10). Real rates are projected to be a mere 14 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time (Chart 11). Chart 10The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy Chart 11The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Poor demographics and high private-sector debt levels imply that the neutral rate of interest is lower in the euro area than in the U.S. And while the euro area may not be tightening fiscal policy any longer, the fact that its structural primary budget balance is 2.6% of GDP larger than America's means that the euro area's overall fiscal stance will contribute less to aggregate demand than in the U.S. This will force the ECB to keep rates lower for longer, causing the euro to weaken. Chart 12Widening Real Rate Differentials ##br##Support The Dollar Chart 13Speculators Are Long The Euro For ##br##The First Time In Three Years Incredibly, two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 41 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 12). We think this divergence has occurred because investors have been busy covering the euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections. However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will subside (Chart 13). With all this in mind, we are going short EUR/USD today with a year-end target of parity and a stop-loss of 1.14. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the structural primary budget balance from one year to the next. As a convention, we define a positive thrust as loosening in fiscal policy (i.e., a lower fiscal balance). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, and "China Needs More Debt," dated May 20, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Feature Chart 1 Senior officials at the Federal Reserve have begun preparing the market for the eventual run down of the central bank's balance sheet. After several rounds of quantitative easing (QE), total assets held by the Fed currently stand at US$4.5 trillion - a dramatic increase from US$900 billion before the global financial crisis. Indeed, efforts to shrink the Fed's balance sheet are essentially reverse QE. As the 2013 'Taper Tantrum" suggests, such a profound change in U.S. monetary policy can have a significant impact on interest rates and broader financial assets, and Fed officials are working hard to properly anchor market expectations. In comparison, how the People's Bank of China manages its balance sheet is much less transparent and less understood by market participants, even though the PBoC has the biggest balance sheet among the world's major central banks (Chart 1). Currently, the PBoC's total assets amount to US$4.9 trillion, compared with about US$4.5 trillion for both the Fed and the European Central Bank (ECB). Moreover, its balance sheet has stopped growing since 2015 in local currency terms and has been shrinking in dollar terms, but the impact on the economy and financial markets has so far not been material. Generally speaking, a central bank uses its balance sheet to aid monetary policy. It controls the size and composition of its assets to affect interest rates, and in turn the economy. Through "operation twist" and QE, the Fed significantly increased its holdings of longer-dated Treasury securities and mortgage backed securities (MBS), which currently account for 95% of its assets (Table 1). Therefore, shrinkage of the Fed balance sheet means that the Fed's holdings of long-term securities will gradually be reduced - likely by allowing them to run off at maturity rather than selling them in the open market. This should nonetheless put some upward pressure on long-term risk-free rates going forward. Table 1The Fed's Balance Sheet In a Special Report we published six years ago, we pointed out the explosion in the PBoC's balance sheet and its unique features compared with other central banks.1 In a nutshell, the PBoC's biggest holdings on its asset side were U.S. Treasurys rather than domestic risk-free assets. The Chinese central bank was essentially engaging in a massive "currency swap" in which it accumulated U.S. Treasurys while dramatically increasing the country's monetary base. Meanwhile, it was also working hard to "sterilize" by forcing commercial banks to maintain an increasingly massive sum of required reserves with the central bank. These policy tools, however, were inherently crude and clumsy, with huge volatility in monetary market rates and overall financial volatility being a key after-effect. This week we are revisiting the PBoC's balance sheet to highlight some major shifts in recent years. Some developments are worth highlighting. Dynamics have completely reversed since 2015, when Chinese official reserves began to fall, leading to a shrinking in the PBoC's balance sheet by about US$500 billion since the all-time peak. The "sterilization" process has also been reversed, as the PBoC has been releasing liquidity back into the domestic financial system. The overall liquidity situation has been largely stable. Normally a decline in the PBoC's foreign asset holdings would lead to a decline in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) to offset the liquidity outflows, leading to a simultaneous decline in both sides of the central bank's balance sheet. The PBoC, however, has been resisting shrinking its balance sheet. As its foreign asset holdings (U.S. Treasurys) have been declining, the PBoC has significantly ramped up domestic asset holdings by increasing direct claims on commercial banks through repos and other lending facilities. The central bank appears to be concerned that a lowered RRR will stoke more domestic capital outflows, which risks creating a vicious circle. How the PBoC manages domestic liquidity has seen major shifts in recent history, and will likely continue to evolve going forward. The RRR, as a monetary policy tool, will likely be gradually phased out.2 Over the long run, this will lead to important changes in the PBoC's balance sheet and the way it conducts monetary policy. In the short term, commercial banks' excess reserves are at close to record low levels. The odds are rising that the RRR will be lowered in the coming months, especially if the RMB stabilizes against the dollar, as we expect.3 Finally, it is worth noting that the most aggressive phase of the Fed's QE efforts coincided with the most rapid phase of the PBoC's balance sheet expansion. This means that both central banks were aggressive buyers of U.S. Treasurys and risk-free assets in previous years. Looking forward, if a shrinking Fed balance sheet leads to a sharp increase in U.S. interest rates and a dollar rally, it could force the PBoC to also liquidate its holdings of U.S. Treasurys to stabilize the RMB exchange rate. This means both the Fed and the PBoC could become marginal sellers of Treasurys, which would have a much more profound impact on U.S. interest rates and the growth outlook. Monitoring the PBoC's balance sheet will become increasingly important for Fed watchers. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Delving Into the PBoC'S Balance Sheet," dated July 27, 2011, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "More On The Chinese Debt Debate," dated April 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The RMB Appreciate Against The Dollar, Again?" dated May 11, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Table 2 offers a simplified balance sheet of the People's Bank of China. Foreign assets still account for 65.6% of its total assets, down from a peak of 83% in 2014. In comparison, most other major central banks' assets are predominantly domestic government bonds. The explosive growth of the PBoC's holding of foreign assets had been the only source of its balance sheet expansion before 2015. In the past two years the PBoC's domestic assets have increased sharply. Overall the PBoC's balance sheet has stayed flat in the RMB terms. PBoC's holding of foreign and domestic assets has been matched by expansion of reserve money (monetary base) on the liability side of the PBoC's balance sheet, including currency issuances (M0 and cash in the vaults of depository institutions) and deposits of commercial banks in the central bank. Commercial banks' reserve deposits at the PBoC have continued to grow even though the PBoC balance sheet expansion has stalled. (Chart 2) Table 2The PBoC's Balance Sheet Chart 2 PBoC holdings of foreign assets include foreign exchange reserves and gold. Foreign reserves currently account for 63% of PBoC total assets, compared with a peak of 84% in 2014. Official record shows that gold is still a negligible share of its total assets. Other major items on the asset side of the PBoC's balance sheet include claims on the government, commercial banks and other financial corporations. The PBoC's claims on the government (entirely on the central government) account for 4.5% of its total assets. In 2007 the government set up a sovereign wealth management fund to manage part of the country's reserves. The government issued bonds to the PBoC in exchange for foreign exchange reserves, which was used as capital of the investment firm. Legally the PBoC is forbidden to directly hold government bonds. The PBoC's claims on other depository corporations (commercial banks) include loans and rediscounts to commercial banks and the net amount of repurchase agreements, which has increased sharply since 2016. The PBoC claims on other commercial banks were a major policy tool to control liquidity in the early 2000s. The central bank's claims on other financial corporations mainly include loans to the asset management firms that the government set up in the late 1990s to deal with bad loans spun off from commercial banks. There has been no change in this item in recent years. (Chart 3 and Chart 4) Chart 3 Chart 4 On the liability side of the PBoC's balance sheet, the dominant item is reserve money, which includes currency issuances and deposits of depository corporations. Taken together these items account for almost 90% of banks' total liabilities. However, currency issuances (M0 and cash in vault) have been hovering around 20% of the PBoC balance sheet in recent years. Deposits of depository corporations account for about 66%. Deposits of commercial banks in the central bank include required and free reserves. Currency issuance and free reserves make up China's "high power money" that can result in a much larger increase in money supply through the money multiplier. Therefore, adjusting the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on banks has been a key policy tool for the PBoC to control "loanable" funds and liquidity. The central bank, however, been reluctant to adjust RRR since 2016 despite continued liquidity outflow. Commercial banks used to hold large amounts of free reserves with the central bank, which however have declined sharply in recent years. The massive reserves of commercial banks in the PBoC offer a critical liquidity buffer for banks at times of crisis. As banks' free reserves have been running thin, there is a building case for an RRR reduction in coming months. (Chart 5 and Chart 6) Chart 5 Chart 6 Other major items on the liability side of the PBoC's balance sheet include bond issues, government deposits and foreign liabilities. The central bank started to issue bonds (notes) in 2002 as a way to sterilize foreign capital inflows, a tool that has essentially been phased out. Currently, total outstanding bonds amount to RMB 50 billion, a mere 0.1% of the PBoC total liability, compared with almost 30% in 2007. The PBoC's foreign liabilities are deposits of international financial institutions, which account for a negligible share of its total assets. Government deposits account for 8.4% of the central bank's total liabilities, or RMB 2.88 trillion at the end of April 2017. The PBoC regularly auctions off fiscal deposits to commercial banks as a way to adjust interbank liquidity. (Chart 7 and Chart 8) Chart 7 Chart 8 There are four main items on the PBoC's balance sheet that the central bank uses at its discretion to manage domestic liquidity: claims on depository corporations (banks), deposits of depository corporations, liabilities to the government (fiscal deposits) and bond issues. Claims on depository corporations are on the asset side, and include loans and rediscounts to commercial banks and the net amount of repurchase agreements. The PBoC has significantly expanded some new liquidity tools, such as various lending facilities and open market operations. These assets are mostly short term, allowing the central bank flexibility to adjust the quantity quickly. Reserve deposits of commercial banks, central bank bond issues and fiscal deposits are on the liability side of the PBoC's balance sheet, but reserve deposits play by far the largest role in the central bank's sterilization efforts. Commercial banks reserve deposits are still hovering around record high levels. (Chart 9 and Chart 10) Chart 9 Chart10 Taken together, the ebbs and flows of the PBoC's sterilization operations coincide with the pace of country's foreign reserve accumulation. The PBoC was able to "sterilize" about 80% of foreign capital inflow before 2015, and it has been quickly adjusting its balance sheet to offset domestic capital outflows in the past two years. All these items on the PBoC's balance sheet should be cross-checked to assess its liquidity operations, rather than focusing on one item. Looking forward, the PBoC's liquidity operations will remain contingent on the situation of cross-border capital flows in the near term, and its monetary independence will remain compromised. Over the long run, a free-floating RMB exchange rate will diminish the purpose of PBoC's precautionary holdings of foreign reserves, which will in turn impact how the central bank manages its balance sheet for domestic considerations. (Chart 11 and Chart 12) Chart 11 Chart 12 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Feature EM risk assets refuse to sell off - regardless of new information and developments that historically would have caused these markets to tumble. Indeed, political turmoil and changes in Brazil and South Africa - two high-beta EM markets - have so far had limited impact on flows and market dynamics. Moreover, while our Reflation Confirming Indicator has rolled over, EM share prices have not reacted at all (Chart I-1). EM stocks have also decoupled with the equal-weighted average of global mining and energy equity indexes (Chart I-2). Chart 1Reflation Confirming Indicator And ##br##EM Stocks Chart 2Commodities Share Prices And ##br##EM Equities: Unsustainable Divergence We do not subscribe to the thesis that EM assets have permanently decoupled from both commodities and their domestic credit cycles, and that tried and tested indicators no longer work. Technology and social media share prices have been instrumental to this latest decoupling, as we wrote in last week's report.1 This group of stocks is in a full-blown mania phase, and it is hard to know when this will end. Yet, exponential price moves always occur at the end of a bull market, and are typically followed by bear markets. As we elaborated in last week's report, the investment call on social media and internet stocks is a bottom-up - not macro - call. Top-down analysis can add some value on the semiconductor cycle, and we suggested last week that it is likely topping out. This week new data releases support the thesis that Asian/global trade in general and the semiconductor cycle in particular are already decelerating. Korean exports data for the first 20 days of May, Japanese preliminary manufacturing PMI for May, and Taiwanese manufacturing output volume growth for April have all decelerated (Chart I-3). Finally, one technical piece of evidence that this rally is late is relative weakness in the equal-weighted MSCI equity indexes. In the EM space, the equally-weighted individual stock index has fared poorly against the EM market cap-weighted index since May 2016 (Chart I-4, top panel). In the U.S., the same measure of market breadth has deteriorated since December 2016 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart 3Asia's Manufacturing Growth ##br##Is Already Decelerating Chart 4The EM And U.S. Equity Rally ##br##Has Been Driven By Large-Cap Stocks Bottom Line: EM financial markets are in the midst of irrational exuberance. The rally is late, but it is impossible to time the top. The forthcoming selloff will be large and protracted. Beware Of China's Budding Growth Slump Interest rates have risen in China sufficiently enough to cause a major growth slowdown in the mainland economy (Chart I-5). Liquidity tightening amid a lingering credit bubble could not be a more dangerous combination. In this context, financial markets are extremely complacent on EM/China plays. China's liquidity tightening continues, and is bound to create a decisive growth relapse in the months ahead, as well as dampen exports in countries that sell to China (Chart I-6). Chart 5China Growth To Slump Chart 6Exports To China To Slump Not only is the People's Bank of China (PBoC) guiding interest rates higher, but there is an ongoing regulatory crackdown on the financial system. Regulators are forcing banks to bring Wealth Management Products (WMPs) and other off-balance-sheet items onto their balance sheets. As a result, banks' capital adequacy and risk matrixes will deteriorate, and they will be forced to slow down credit creation. Chart 7EM Share Prices Ex. Tech Have Not Broken Out Remarkably, policymakers are determined to get things under control. According to The Wall Street Journal,2 key policymakers have issued strongly worded statements. "Strong medicine must be prescribed," said Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CRBC), according to people familiar with the matter. "If the banking industry gets into a mess," he added, "I will resign." He was appointed as the head of the CRBC last October, and likely has a mandate from the President to tackle speculative excesses in the financial system. In its first quarter Monetary Policy Implementation Report,3 the PBoC repeatedly used the phrase "preventing bubbles." Besides, in his statements, the chairman of the PBoC has frequently emphasized the need to normalize credit growth and curb speculative activities. The former head of the insurance regulator, who has been "accommodating" and "tolerant" of risky activities by insurance companies, was jailed last fall for corruption. These are strong indications confirming that policymakers are determined to curb speculative financial activities. Provided how entrenched and large various speculative financial schemes and the credit bubble have become in China, it will be impossible to tackle speculative excesses without a slowdown in overall credit growth and associated harm to the real economy. This is not to say that policymakers are tightening with intentions to cause a growth collapse. Policymakers in all countries always tighten to cap inflation or credit excesses or normalize interest rates - i.e., they never tighten to cause a major shock to the real economy. This applies to Chinese policymakers at the moment, especially ahead of the party Congress later this year. That said, when the existing imbalances in the economy or financial system are sufficiently large, even minor tightening can cause a financial accident or growth relapse. It is not within policymakers' powers to predict or prevent it. They may alter their policy after the fact, but markets will sell off considerably beforehand. We do not know exactly how financial dynamics in China will evolve in the months ahead, but we are certain that the market consensus is too complacent and that EM asset prices are at major risk. Bottom Line: It is impossible to predict financial accidents (stress among specific institutions) but we are certain that China's credit growth and, consequently, capital spending are bound to slow considerably in the coming months. This bodes ill for producers of commodities and industrial goods both within and outside China. Accordingly, EM risk assets will suffer the most. As a final note, EM ex-technology share prices have not yet broken out and we do expect them to relapse from the current levels (Chart I-7). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?," dated May 17, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Lingling Wei and Chao Deng, "China's War on Debt Causes Stocks to Drop, Bond Yields to Shoot Up and Defaults to Rise," May 5, 2017, The Wall Street Journal. 3 Please refer to http://www.pbc.gov.cn/zhengcehuobisi/125207/125227/125957/3307990/3307409/index.html (In Chinese only). Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights U.S. fiscal stimulus will be priced back into markets; Northeast Asia is consumed with domestic politics for now; China's financial crackdown raises risks, but so far looks contained; South Korea's relief rally will lead to buyer's remorse; Japan's constitutional reforms portend more reflation. Feature The market has lost faith in U.S. fiscal stimulus. The bond market has given back all of the expectations of faster growth and higher inflation (Chart 1). Hopes of populist, budget-busting tax cuts appear to have been dashed by the Putin-gate scandal and alleged White House obstruction of justice. As a result, the DXY has fallen to pre-election levels, while the Goldman Sachs high tax-rate basket of equities has fallen to its lowest level relative to the S&P 500 since February 2016 (Chart 2). We continue to believe that tax reform, or just tax cuts, will happen this year or early next year and that the market will have to re-price fiscal stimulus and budget profligacy at some point this year.1 As such, we are not ready to close our tactical recommendations of going long the high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 (down 1.62% since April 5) or playing the 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener (down 11.4 bps since November 1). Republicans in Congress will push through tax reforms or cuts for the sake of remaining competitive in the upcoming midterm elections. And we doubt their commitment to budget discipline. That said, it is not clear that the equity market needs tax reforms to continue its upward trajectory. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% in the second quarter while the NY Fed's Nowcast is forecasting 2.3%. BCA U.S. Equity Strategy's earnings model continues to predict continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year both in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 3).2 In fact, if expectations of stimulus in the U.S. fully dissipate, the USD will take a breather - giving global stocks a boost - and the Fed will be able to take it easy on tightening U.S. rates, easing global monetary conditions. Chart 1Market No Longer##br## Believes In Trump Stimulus... Chart 2...Or Trump ##br##Tax Cuts Chart 3Corporate Profit ##br##Outlook Still Strong Perhaps far more important for global and U.S. risk assets is global growth. And the fulcrum of global growth has been China's economic performance. As the only country willing to run pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy, China has had a disproportionate impact on global growth since 2008. As such, we turn this week to the geopolitics and politics of Northeast Asia. China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go? Chinese financial policy tightening caught the market by surprise this year. The running assumption was that policy would be fully accommodative in order to ensure stability ahead of the all-important nineteenth National Party Congress in October or November.3 However, it is possible that the assumption is flawed. First, as we have pointed out in the past, China does not have a record of proactive economic stimulus ahead of party congresses (Chart 4). Second, President Xi Jinping may be far more secure in his position than is understood. Chart 4Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Mid-Term Party Congresses In China The crackdown on the financial sector in recent months suggests that Xi's administration has a greater appetite for risk ahead of the party congress than is generally believed: The administration is continuing to tamp down on the property sector. The PBoC has drained liquidity and allowed interbank rates to rise (Chart 5). The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) has launched inspections and new regulations on wealth management products and the shadow lending sector. The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) has imposed new restrictions, including preventing insurers from selling new policies. One can make a good case that these measures will be limited so as not to cause excessive disruption in the financial system. All of the key Communist Party statements, from Premier Li Keqiang's recent comments to those made by the economic leadership in December, at the beginning of this tightening cycle, have emphasized that stability remains the priority.4 The PBoC's measures have been marginal; other measures have mostly to do with supervision. Notable personnel changes affecting the top economic and financial government positions fall under preparations for the party congress and do not necessarily suggest a new ambitious policy initiative is under way.5 Moreover, the government has already stepped back a bit in the face of the liquidity squeeze. One of the signs of the PBoC's tighter stance was its discontinuation of its Medium-Term Lending Facility in January, but this has since been reinstated.6 And throughout May the PBoC has injected increasing amounts of liquidity into the interbank system, marking an apparent tactical shift (Chart 6). Furthermore, government spending is already growing again after a brief contraction. Chart 5People's Bank Tightens Marginally... Chart 6...But Keeps Interbank Rates On A Leash In light of these decisions, it seems policy tightening is intended not to be stringent but merely to keep the financial sector - especially the shadow banking sector - in check during a year in which the assumption is that regulators' hands are tied. After all, an unchecked expansion of leverage throughout the year could interfere with the stability imperative. There are two major risks to this view. First, there is the danger of unintended consequences: China is overleveraged: The fundamental problem for China is that there is too much leverage in the system and there has not been a bout of deleveraging for several years (Chart 7). Much of the leverage is off-balance sheet as a result of the rapid growth in shadow lending. There are complex and opaque webs of counterparty risk. When authorities crack down, they cannot be certain that their actions will not spiral out of control. Recently, heightened scrutiny of "mutual guarantees," a type of shadow lending between corporations, led to the default of a company in Shandong that prompted a local government bailout, and more such credit events have occured.7 Policymakers are human: It is a fallacy to assume that Chinese policymakers are omnipotent. The mishaps of 2015-16 put a point on this. A state-backed newspaper has recently reiterated that its "deleveraging" campaign is not finished - the government could accidentally push too far.8 The rise in bond yields has already inverted the yield curve, causing the five-year bond yield to rise higher than the ten-year (Chart 8). This is a red flag and warrants caution.9 Quick fixes have negative side-effects: China escaped the last round of financial jitters, in 2015-16, by using its time-tried technique of credit and fiscal spending to boost the property market and build infrastructure, while imposing draconian capital controls. The growth rebound came at the expense of more debt, less economic rebalancing, and less financial openness. Chart 7China Is Massively Overleveraged Chart 8China's Yield Curve Has Inverted Second, there is the risk that Xi Jinping's calculus ahead of the party congress is not knowable. It may well be the case that Xi's position in the party is strengthened by a disruptive financial crackdown. The party congress is already under way: The party congress runs all year; it is not merely a one-off event this fall. Senior party officials will come up with a list of candidates for promotion in June or July. Then the PSC and former PSC members will likely meet behind the scenes to hash out their final list, which the Central Committee will ratify in the fall. If financial jitters were supposed to be strictly avoided for the party congress, then the current crackdown would never have begun. The outcomes are uncertain: The negotiations for the Politburo and PSC are not a foregone conclusion no matter how well positioned Xi appears to be as the "core" of the Communist Party. A simple assessment of the current Politburo suggests that the factions are evenly balanced when it comes to the current Politburo members capable of filling the five positions on the new PSC. Two of these positions should go to President Xi's and Premier Li Keqiang's successors, likely to be of opposing factions, while there will probably be three remaining slots that will have to be divvied up among an equal number of candidates from the two main factions (Table 1). Xi may still need to win some battles for influence behind the scenes in order to stack the Central Committee, Politburo, and PSC with his people for 2017 and beyond.10 His anti-corruption campaign has slowed down but is not over (Chart 9). This is all the more imperative for him since his retirement could be rattled by future enemies, given that he has removed the longstanding impunity of former PSC members. Table 1Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced Despite these risks, we still tend to think that for China, as for the world, political risks are overstated in 2017 and understated in 2018.11 If Xi deliberately courts instability this year, as opposed to merely staying vigilant over the financial sector, then it will mark a major break from the norms of Chinese politics. The true risk to China's stability - aside from the unintended consequences discussed above - arises after the party congress, when Xi's political capital is replenished and he can attempt to reboot his policy agenda. Previous presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both launched reform pushes after their midterm congresses in 2007 and 1997, respectively. Hu's reform drive was cut short by the global financial crisis, while Jiang's was large-scale and disruptive and paved the way for a decade of higher potential GDP. Having consolidated power in the party, bureaucracy, and military, and tightened controls over the media, Xi Jinping will be in a position in 2018 to launch sweeping reforms should he choose to do so. Presumably these reforms would follow along the lines of those he outlined in the Third Plenum of the Eighteenth Central Committee back in 2013 - they would be pro-market reforms focused on raising productivity by transferring more wealth to households and SMEs at the expense of state-owned enterprises and local governments.12 To illustrate the process of structural reform, we have often used the notion of the "J-Curve" in Diagram 1. This shows that painful reforms deplete political capital, creating a "danger zone" for political leaders in which they lose popularity as economic pain hurts the public. Xi's work over the past five years to fight corruption and rebuild the party's public image have given him the ability to start the J-Curve process from a higher point than otherwise would have been the case. He will start at point D in the diagram, instead of point A, which means that the low point E may not embroil him as deeply in the danger zone of serious political instability as point B. Chart 9Embers Still Burning In ##br##Anti-Corruption Campaign Diagram 1The J-curve Of##br## Structural Reform But there is still no guarantee that he intends to expend his political capital in this way. The current round of financial tightening could be preliminaries for bigger moves next year - or it could be just another mini-cycle in the ongoing process of "managing" China's massive leverage. If China decides to execute a major deleveraging campaign, either now or next year, it will have a negative effect on global commodity demand (particularly base metals), on commodity exporters, on emerging markets in general, and ultimately on global growth. It would be beneficial for Chinese growth in the long run but negative in the short run, and in terms of Chinese domestic risk assets would open up opportunities for investors to favor "new (innovative) China" versus "old (industrial) China." Bottom Line: We remain long Chinese equities versus Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities for now, but are wary of any sign of doubling down on policy tightening in the face of more frequent and intense credit events. That would indicate that the Chinese leadership has a higher risk appetite than anyone expects and may be willing to induce serious financial disruption before the party congress. Korea: Drunk On Moonshine The Korean election is over and with it much of the heightened uncertainty that accompanied the impeachment and removal from office of President Park Geun-hye over the past year. The new president, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party, performed right around the polled expectations at 41% of the vote (Table 2). His competitor on the right wing, Hong Jun-pyo, outperformed expectations, though he still trailed well behind at 24%, giving Moon a large margin of victory by Korean standards that will help provide him with political capital (Chart 10). Table 2South Korean Presidential Election Results Chart 10Moon Will Have A Honeymoon Moon's election will bring relief to markets on both the domestic and geopolitical front. On the domestic front, he is proposing a series of policies that will cumulatively boost fiscal thrust and growth. On the geopolitical front, he will revive the "Sunshine Policy" (now "Moonshine Policy") of engagement with North Korea, reducing the appearance that the peninsula is slipping into war.13 The power vacuum in South Korea was a key driver of North Korea's belligerence in 2016, as the lead-up to South Korean elections has been in the past (Chart 11). South Korean presidents typically enjoy a substantial honeymoon period in which they are able to drive policy. The fact that the election occurred seven months early, as a result of the impeachment, gives Moon a notable boost to this period - he has seven months longer than he would have had before he faces any potential check from voters in the 2020 legislative elections. That is not to say that Moon has free rein. Ahn Cheol-soo's People's Party holds 40 seats in the National Assembly and is therefore in a "kingmaker" position - able to provide either the ruling Democratic Party or the fractured right-wing opposition with a majority of seats (Diagram 2). The People's Party is already criticizing Moon's call for increasing government spending by around 0.7% of GDP to fulfill his campaign pledges. True, the People's Party leans to the left and rose to power as a result of the median voter's shift to the left in the 2016's legislative elections. This may limit its ability to obstruct Moon's agenda at first. Nevertheless, it poses a substantial constraint on Moon's agenda through 2020. Chart 11Bull Market For##br## North Korean Threats Diagram 2Center-Left People's Party##br## Is The Korean Kingmaker Markets are relieved but not ebullient. The impeachment rally is over and eventually markets will realize that while Moon's agenda is pro-growth, it is not necessarily pro-corporate profits (Chart 12). He is promising to introduce a higher minimum wage, to convert temporary labor contracts into permanent ones, to increase social spending, and to toughen up labor and environmental regulation (Table 3). He has also appointed the so-called "chaebol sniper" as his point man in leading the reform of the country's chaebol industrial giants. On one hand, South Korea definitely needs corporate governance reform; on the other, the process will add uncertainty and Moon's approach may not be market-positive.14 Chart 12Relief Rally Likely To Disappoint Table 3South Korean President's Campaign Proposals To get an indication of what kind of impact Moon's economic agenda may have, it is helpful to compare that of his mentor, Roh Moo-hyun, president from 2002-7. Roh gave a boost to consumption, both government and private, and saw a relative drop off in fixed capital accumulation, which fits with the broad agenda of supporting workers and households and removing privileges for Korea's traditional export-oriented industrial complex (Chart 13). Roh proved very beneficial for the financial sector, wholesale and retail trade, and health and social work. Education and public administration received some support but were flat overall (Chart 14 A & B). If Moon follows in Roh's footsteps, he will be beneficial for the domestic-oriented economy. Chart 13South Korea's Left Wing##br## Boosts Domestic Consumption Chart 14ASouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (I) Chart 14BSouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (II) Abroad, the Moonshine Policy is likely to have some success, at least in the medium term. The Trump administration is pursuing a strategy comparable to the U.S.'s nuclear negotiations with Iran from 2011-15, in which it tries to rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on the rogue state with the purpose of entering into a new round of negotiations that will actually generate concrete results. The "arc of diplomacy" will take time to get going and could last several years - it is essentially a last-ditch effort to convince North Korea to pause its nuclear and missile advances. The tail risk of conflict on the Korean peninsula will be moved out to the end of this effort, perhaps around the end of Trump's term.15 Meanwhile, Moon is already patching up trade relations with China, according to reports, after the latter imposed sanctions on Korea for deploying the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 15). He will also seek joint infrastructure projects with China and Russia to connect the peninsula. China has a vested interest in Moon's success because it is attempting to demonstrate to the Trump administration that it is cooperating on North Korean security. Chart 15China Likely To Ease##br## Sanctions On South Korea Chart 16South Korean Inflation##br## And Credit Impulse Weak The geopolitical risk to markets is, first, that North Korea miscalculates the threshold of other nations' patience, continues with provocations, and eventually causes an incident that derails the new negotiations. This is possible given the North's record of belligerent acts and the fact that both the Trump administration and the Abe administration could cut diplomacy short in the face of a truly disruptive provocation for domestic political reasons. Second, there is a risk that Trump decides to escalate North Korean tensions again, whether to distract from domestic scandals or to reinforce the military deterrent in the event that China and South Korea appear to be giving North Korea a free pass in another round of useless talks. If Moon pursues a unilateral détente with North Korea, without adequate coordination with the U.S., and pushes for the removal of THAAD missiles, then the U.S. and South Korea are headed for a period of higher-than-normal alliance tensions that could become market-relevant.16 Bottom Line: We remain short KRW/THB. Core inflation and domestic demand remain weak in Korea, which reinforces the central bank's recent decision to stick to an accommodative monetary policy. Credit growth is cyclically weak, which reinforces the fact that rate cuts are still on the table (including the possibility of a surprise rate cut like in mid-2016) (Chart 16). Finally, the KRW has been relatively strong compared to the currencies of Korea's competitors (Chart 17). Chart 17South Korean Won Has Outpaced The Yuan And Yen In terms of equities, the top six chaebol have come under scrutiny, but Samsung has rallied despite lying at the center of the corruption scandal. The others have not performed well amid the economic slowdown. We see no opportunity at present to short the chaebol in relation to the broader market. Broadly, however, Moon's policies will add burdens to large internationally competitive industrials while boosting small and medium-sized enterprises. We also remain short the Korean ten-year government bond versus the two-year (see Chart 12, panel three, above). Moon's policy bent will subtract from a 1% budget surplus (2016) and worsen the long-term trajectory of the country's relatively low public debt (39% of GDP). Insofar as his foreign policy succeeds, it entails a larger future debt burden as a result of efforts to integrate with North Korea, which is relevant to long-term bonds well before reunification appears anywhere on the horizon. At bottom, we are structurally bearish South Korea because of rising headwinds both to U.S.-China relations and to the broader globalization process that has benefited South Korea so much in the recent past. Japan: Is Militarism The Final Act Of Abenomics? Japan has reached peak political capital under Shinzo Abe. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, with its New Komeito coalition partner, continues to play in a totally different league from its competitors - there is no political alternative at the moment (Chart 18). The ruling party has a de facto two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Diet. Abe himself is more popular than any recent prime minister, and has retained that popularity over a longer period of time (Chart 19). He has secured permission from his party to stay on as its president until 2021, though he faces general elections in December 2018 to stay on as prime minister. Chart 18Japan: Liberal Democrats Still Supreme Chart 19Shinzo Abe Remains The Man Of The Hour Political capital is a fleeting thing, so Abe must use it or lose it. This is why we have insisted that he would press forward rapidly with attempts to revise Japan's constitution, his ultimate policy goal, which he has now confirmed he will do. His proposed deadline is July 2020 for the new provisions coming into force.17 Constitutional revision is not only about enshrining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) so as to normalize the country's defense policy. It is also about Japan becoming an independent nation again, capable of forging its own destiny outside of the one foreseen by the American framers of the post-WWII constitution. Though Abe has specific constitutional aims, any change to the constitution will demonstrate that change is possible and break a taboo, advancing Abe's broader goal of nudging the Japanese public toward active rather than passive policies.18 Hence Japanese politics are about to heat up in a big way. Abe has already done a trial run in his passage of a new national security law in September 2015. This law allowed the government to reinterpret the constitution so as to achieve many of his chief military-strategic aims (e.g. allowing the JSDF to come to the aid of allies in "collective self-defense"). Over the course of that year, Abe's popularity flagged, as public opinion punished him for shifting attention away from the economic reflation agenda that got him elected so as to focus on his more controversial, hawkish security agenda (Chart 20). Nevertheless, Abe stuck to the security agenda, in the face of some of the largest protests in Japan's post-Occupation history, and managed to shift back to the economy in time to notch another big victory in the upper house elections of 2016. We expect a similar process to unfold this time, though with bigger stakes and far less of a chance that Abe can "pivot" again. Under no circumstances do we see him reversing the constitutional drive now that he has the rare gift of supermajorities in the Diet; rather, he is going to spend his political capital. After all, there is no telling what could happen in the 2018 election. What are the market implications of this agenda? There may be some hiccups in consumer and business sentiment as a result of the rise in activism, political opposition, and controversy that is already beginning and will intensify as the process gets under way. Abe will be accused of putting the economy on the backburner. Abenomics is already of questionable success (Chart 21) and it will come under greater criticism as Abe shifts attention elsewhere, especially if global headwinds gain strength. Chart 20Abe Loses Support When He Talks##br## Security Instead Of Economy Chart 21Abenomics: ##br##Progress Is Gradual However, we recommend investors fade this narrative and buy Japan. Abe's constitutional changes must receive a simple majority in a nationwide popular referendum in order to pass - and Abe does not clearly have what he needs at the moment (Chart 22). This means that he cannot, in reality, afford to put Abenomics on the back burner, but instead must err on the side of monetary dovishness, fiscal stimulus, and reflation in order to win support for the non-economic agenda. There has been virtually no talk of fiscal stimulus this year, yet the policy setting is conducive to increasing spending as necessary. The Bank of Japan has explicitly embraced a monetary regime designed to allow for greater "coordination" with fiscal policy (Chart 23).19 There is no reason whatsoever to believe Abe is backing away from this stance. (Incidentally, the next consumption tax hike is not slated until October 2019, and could be delayed again.) Geopolitics are also fairly supportive of the Abe administration. First, the Korean situation is currently alarming enough to help justify the constitutional changes yet not alarming enough to provoke outright conflict. Abe is also making headway toward a historic improvement of relations with Russia, allowing Japan's military to pivot from the north to the south and west (i.e. China and North Korea). The chief risk for Abe is if North Korea surprises on the dovish side and new international diplomatic efforts appear so fruitful as to reduce domestic support for remilitarization. China, South Korea, and possibly North Korea will encourage the latter dynamic, while drumming up global criticism of Japan for warmongering. Meanwhile Japan will try to remind the domestic public and the U.S. that North Korea remains a clear and present danger and tends to take advantage of negotiations. Given the relatively positive geopolitical backdrop for Abe, the biggest risk to his agenda is an exogenous economic shock. Even then, if that shock stems from China and causes Beijing to rattle-sabers as a domestic distraction, then it will benefit Abe's remilitarization agenda. What would hurt Abe is if global growth sags but China and North Korea lay low. It is too soon to say that they will do this, but it is unlikely. Trump is also a wild card whose threats of "tough" policy toward China and North Korea may reemerge in 2018, in time to help Japan make constitutional changes that the U.S. generally supports. Bottom Line: Go long Japan. While there is no correlation between Japan's defense-exposed equity sector performance and the current government's remilitarization efforts, there is a clear case to be made that nominal GDP and defense spending will both be going up as a result of constitutional and economic policies (Chart 24). Abe will double down on reflation for at least as long as is necessary to maintain popular approval of his government ahead of a historic constitutional referendum. Chart 22Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 23Japanese Reflation ##br##Will Continue Chart 24Expect Higher Nominal##br## Growth And Defense Spending Housekeeping: Play Pound Strength Through USD, Not EUR We are closing our short EUR/GBP position, open since January 25, for a loss of 1.77%. This trade has largely been flat. We put it on as a way to articulate our view that Brexit political risks are overstated and that the pound bottomed on January 16. The political call was right, but the pound has largely moved sideways versus the euro since then. We maintain our short USD/GBP, which is up 4.63% since March 29, as a way to articulate the same view that Brexit (and the upcoming U.K. elections) are not a risk. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump Thumps The Markets," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The party congress, which occurs every five years and marks the "midterm" of President Xi Jinping's administration, will see a sweeping rotation of Communist Party officials, including on the Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). 4 Please see "China able to keep its financial markets stable, Premier Li says," Reuters, May 14, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. For the December meeting, see "China's monetary policy to be prudent, neutral in 2017," Xinhua, December 16, 2016, available at www.chinadaily.com. 5 Finance Minister Xiao Jie, Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, NDRC Chairman He Lifeng, and China Banking Regulatory Commission Chairman Guo Shuqing have all recently been appointed, but they replaced leaders due to retire as part of the party congress reshuffle. Only the new China Insurance Regulatory Commission Chairman Xiang Junbo and the new Director o f the National Bureau of Statistics Wang Baoan were replaced for reasons other than retirement, having been stung by the anti-corruption campaign. By March 2018 the world should have a better sense of Xi's economic and financial "team" for 2018-22. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Zouping government, in Shandong, intervened into the case of Qixing aluminum company's insolvency in order to transfer control to Xiwang, a corn oil and steel producer that had given a mutual guarantee to Qixing. The Zouping authorities arrested the son of Qixing's chairman to force the transfer. Please see "Bond Buyers Blacklist Some Chinese Provinces After Run Of Defaults," Bloomberg, April 26, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see "China Deleveraging To Continue As Goals Not Yet Achieved: State Paper," Reuters, May 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Signs Of An EM/China Growth Reversal," dated April 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Signal From Commodities," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Xi may yet go after another big "tiger," Zeng Qinghong, the right-hand man of former President Jiang Zemin. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated in 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Tracking The Reform Progress," dated October 22, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Moonshine Policy" is a phrase we regrettably did not coin, but we discussed its coming in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "What About Emerging Markets?" dated May 3, 2017, and "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Moon has nominated Kim Sang-jo, a professor of economics at Hansung University in Seoul, to head his Fair Trade Commission. Kim is a long-time advocate for shareholders against the family-controlled chaebol and led a prominent law suit against Samsung. Past efforts at reforming the chaebol led by Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun focused on improving balance sheets, protecting minority shareholders' rights, limiting the total amount of investment, and improving corporate management and accountability. It remains to be seen how Moon (and Kim Sang-jo, assuming his nomination is confirmed) will proceed, but the effort will bring domestic challenges to the top industrial conglomerates' operating environment at least initially. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 South Korea's special envoy Hong Seok-hyun claims that Trump told him at the White House that he will work closely with Moon and is willing to try engagement with Pyongyang, conditions permitting, though he is not interested in talks for the sake of talks. This fits with our view that the U.S. saber-rattling this year was designed to make the military option more credible before pursuing a new round of diplomacy. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, and Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 So, for instance, if it should happen that, over the course of the coming debates, Abe is forced to drop his proposed revisions to the pacifist Article 9, he may still achieve changes to the amendment-making procedure in Article 96. The latter would be even more important for Japan's future, since it would make it easier for Japan to change the constitution for whatever reason in the coming decades. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. The recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. Feature Chinese domestic stocks and bonds have taken a beating of late as the authorities ramped up scrutiny to rein in excesses in the country's financial sector. While it is warranted to control accumulated financial risk - especially associated with shadow banking activity - the "campaign" style administrative crackdown has caused widespread confusion and mini-panics among domestic investors. The actions and corresponding reactions illustrate the authorities' primitive control tools, which are increasingly at odds with the rapidly developing financial sector, and how blanket actions can spur undue financial volatility and provoke unintended consequences. For now, we expect the economic fallout to be limited, unless the financial crackdown causes further spikes in interest rates and a sudden halt in credit flows. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher in the absence of a major policy mishap that short-circuits the broad growth improvement and the profit cycle upturn. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless, while the more richly valued bubbly segments of the market will continue to deflate. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. What Do They Want To Achieve? Policymakers' primary focus has been on cracking down on excessive speculation in financial markets and restricting lending activities that are not in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Financial sector deregulation in recent years has increasingly blurred the lines between banks, insurance companies, brokers and trust companies, and regulators are constantly challenged to monitor all the increasingly sophisticated moving parts. From the banking sector's point of view, regulators are concerned that lenders have been aggressively boosting their exposure to other banks and non-bank financial institutions instead of providing credit to the "real economy." Overall commercial banks' claims on other banks and non-bank financial institutions have increased from 12% of their total assets in 2006 to over 25% as of January 2017, while their liabilities to other banks and non-bank financial firms have increased from 7% to 12% (Chart 1). Smaller banks are even more dependent on interbank financing for loanable funds. Interbank transactions and repo activities account for about 14% of smaller lenders' total source of funding, compared with 2% for large banks (Chart 2). Some small banks regularly borrow at lower costs through the interbank market or use negotiable certificate of deposits to purchase "wealth management products" offering higher returns issued by other banks or financial institutions. The duration mismatch leads to constant pressure to roll over these short-term financial instruments. The increasing interdependence among the country's financial institutions also creates the risk of a chain reaction in the financial system should some type of credit event erupt. Chart 1Increasing Interdependence Among Financial Institutions The Chinese authorities have long regarded preventing systemic financial risk as a top priority, and the recent growth improvement has provided a window of opportunity for some housecleaning without a major adverse impact on the economy. Therefore, it is unlikely that regulators will back off from tightening regulatory supervision going forward. Overall, the authorities will continue to discourage overtrading within the financial system, and enforce full disclosure of off-balance-sheet items and shadow lending activities. The saving grace is that tightened macro prudential measures have already begun to curtail banks' aggressive expansion to non-bank financial institutions. Commercial banks' claims to these firms have slowed sharply since last year's peak (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the recent rise in interbank rates should also further discourage the perceived "risk-free" funding arbitrage to play the interest rate gap between long- and short-dated financial assets. All of this reduces the pressure of an escalation in the regulatory crackdown. Chart 2Smaller Banks Depend More On##br## Wholesale Funding Chart 3Banks' Exposure To Non-Bank Financial Firms ##br##Has Been Scaled Back Should Investors Be Concerned? In essence, banks' rising claims to other financial institutions means a lengthening of the credit intermediation channel, in which financing goes from credit providers through multiple layers of intermediaries to reach final borrowers in the real economy. In other words, banks, instead of lending directly to borrowers, channel loans to trust companies or securities brokers, who in turn transfer the funds to the real economy through "shadow banking" activities such as trust loans or various forms of "wealth management products", typically at higher rates. From this perspective, cracking down on lending excesses within the financial system in of itself should not have a material impact on credit flows to final corporate borrowers. In fact, streamlining the financial intermediation channel holds the promise of increasing accessibility to bank credit for the corporate sector and reducing its funding cost, which should benefit the overall economy in the long run. In the near term, liquidity tightening and the regulatory crackdown could push up interest rates and disrupt credit flows, which should be closely monitored to assess near-term negative impact on the economy. So far, the impact does not appear material. Chart 4Regulatory Crackdown ##br## Has Not Interrupted Credit Flows Interbank rates have increased by about 100 basis points across the board since the beginning of this year, and 10-year government bond yields have risen by 50 basis points - both of which pale in comparison to the significant improvement in overall business activity. Nominal GDP growth expanded by 11.8% in the first quarter, compared with 9.6% in Q4, 2016. Furthermore, the central bank early this week re-started its medium-term lending facility (MLF), which was designed to avoid liquidity overkill in the domestic financial sector. Overall, the risk of overtightening of liquidity is not high. The regulatory crackdown since early this year has not had a meaningful impact on credit expansion. Banks' claims to other financial institutions have slowed sharply, but overall loan growth has been rather stable. Importantly, medium- and long-term loans to the corporate sector, pivotal for overall capital spending, have in fact accelerated (Chart 4). In short, increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. We expect the authorities to remain highly vigilant and avoid policy overkill. Reading Market Tea Leaves There have been some notable divergences among different classes of Chinese stocks (Chart 5). Chinext, the domestic small-cap venture board, has suffered heavy losses of late, while large-cap A shares have been much more resilient. Meanwhile, offshore Chinese shares have barely felt any pressure at all. H shares have moved higher of late, while Chinese firms listed in the U.S. have decisively broken out. The divergence between onshore and offshore Chinese stocks' performance confirms the recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Barring major policy mistakes, we expect the Chinese economy to stay buoyant, as discussed in detail in our recent report.1 As such, a few investment conclusions can be drawn. Tighter liquidity will likely continue to place downward pressure on domestic stock prices, but the downside is limited by overall buoyant activity and improving profits. We expect the broad-A share market will remain narrowly range-bound. Overseas-listed Chinese shares are not subject to domestic liquidity constraints, and will likely continue to grind higher supported by growth improvement, profit recovery and low valuation multiples. The small-cap Chinext market has long been viewed as the more speculative segment of the domestic financial market, with higher multiples and greater volatility than large-cap A shares. As such, this market will remain vulnerable to domestic liquidity tightening. Even after the most recent selloff, the bourse's trailing price-to-earnings ratio and price-to-book ratio are still at 38.4 and 4.6, respectively, much higher than for broader onshore and offshore Chinese stocks. The recent selloff in the onshore corporate bond market has also been driven by liquidity pressure, which in our view is overdone. While it's true that economic acceleration justifies higher yields, corporate spreads have also widened sharply, which is at odds with the broad growth acceleration and profit recovery. In addition, after the most recent selloff, Chinese corporate spreads are significantly higher than in most other major markets (Chart 6). In the near term, tighter liquidity may continue to induce more selling pressure in the domestic bond market. Cyclically we expect Chinese corporate bond spreads to narrow. Chart 5Diverging Market Trends Chart 6The Sharp Spike In Chinese Corporate ##br##Spreads Is Overdone Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?" dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Unsurprisingly, OPEC 2.0's leadership agreed on the need to extend the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement to end-March 2018. Leaders of the coalition - the energy ministers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will recommend as much when the coalition meets next week in Vienna. Meanwhile, sequential production in U.S. shales during the first four months of the year is up just under 100k b/d, based on the EIA's latest estimates. This was led by surging Permian production. We expect shale-oil production growth to continue, and are revising our year-end 2017 light-tight-oil (LTO) production estimate for the four main shale-oil plays to 5.66mm b/d, up from our earlier assessment of 5.39mm b/d. We also are lifting our year-end 2018 estimate of shale production to 6.64mm b/d. This means December-to-December LTO production will increase ~ 1mm b/d by Dec/17 and by another ~1mm b/d by Dec/18. Energy: Overweight. As of last Thursday's close, we are long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. $45/bbl puts at -$1.16/bbl, and long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent at -$0.21/bbl. These positions were up 16.4% and 242.9%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. The physical deficit in zinc appears to be widening slightly, based on supply-demand estimates from the International Zinc Study Group. Usage totaled 2.282mm MT in Jan-Feb 2017 vs. refined production of 2.28mm MT. For 2016, usage was 13.89mm MT vs. supply of 12.67mm MT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Metal refiner Johnson Matthey expects a 790k oz. palladium deficit this year, up from a little over 160k oz. last year. Separately, the World Platinum Investment Council expects platinum supply to fall 2% this year to 7.33mm oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported corn planting stood at 71% for the week ended May 14, vs. an average of 70% over the 2012 - 16 period. We remain bearish. Feature The determination of the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to clear the storage overhang could not have been made more clear, following comments earlier this week from KSA's and Russia's energy ministers the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement would be extended to end-March 2018. This is three months beyond earlier speculation the deal would be extended to year-end 2017. Chart of the WeekBalances Chart Still, when dealing with a political organization of any sort - and OPEC 2.0 is nothing if not a political entity - our bias is to assume less-than-complete compliance with production cuts, and an earlier return to pre-agreement production levels than proffered by the leadership of the coalition. Hence, in our updated balances model (Chart of the Week), in addition to assuming higher U.S. production out of the shales, we have Russian production returning to a level just below 11.30mm b/d by October 2017, up roughly 150k b/d from the 11.15mm b/d we assume they'll be producing until the end of September. We also assume Iraq's production will move up to 4.45mm b/d (up 50k b/d) beginning in January, and that Iran will be steadily, yet slowly, increasing production by 5-10k b/d per month beginning this month. The only assumption we're making for staunch compliance to the OPEC 2.0 accord after our assumed extension to year-end 2017 at next week's Vienna meeting is that KSA and its GCC allies - Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - will continue to abide by their voluntary production cuts. This group has maintained solidarity on past production-management deals, we expect them to do so again in this round. Of course, the other members of the coalition could vote against this proposal next week, and instead decide to end the production deal in June under its original conditions. Or, they could agree to extend the deal, but only until year-end 2017. Regardless of whichever policy decisions are agreed to during next week's meeting, come November, when OPEC meets again, they might tweak/change those agreements to reflect their updated outlook at that time. Given this uncertainty, we believe the assumptions we've made are realistic, but we will be monitoring conditions closely so that we can modify our view quickly. Shale Coming On Strong Part of OPEC 2.0's desire to extend its deal likely is the improvement in the performance of shale-oil producers in the U.S. In its latest Drilling Productivity Report (DPR), the EIA noted that sequential production in the first four months of the year has risen ~ 100k b/d per month in the U.S. shales. This surge was led by higher Permian production, which accounted for ~ three-quarters of the increased output (Chart 2). Interestingly, rig-weighted production per rig dropped for the first time in April 2017, but it still is high at 732 b/d, down from 735 b/d in March. We will be watching this closely to see if it is the beginning of a trend of stagnating productivity amid a rapid expansion of industry activity. The resurgence in the shales can be seen in the year-on-year (yoy) growth in total production in the seven basins the EIA tracks, which broke back above 5.0mm b/d in February and crossed into positive yoy growth in March (Chart 3). Net, we expect 2017 global supply to average 97.65mm b/d, for an increase 610k b/d this year, and for demand to average 98.3mm b/d, for an increase of 1.5mm b/d. EM demand, which we proxy using non-OECD consumption, accounts for 1.27mm b/d of this year's global demand growth, and continues to lead overall growth in oil demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Of this, China and India account for 350k and 210k b/d, respectively, of the growth in EM demand. Chart 2Permian Basin Leads##br##U.S. Shale's Resurgence Chart 3Year-On-Year LTO Production##br##Breaks Out In 1Q17 Chart 4EM Growth Continues##br##To Lead Global Demand China, India Lead EM Oil Consumption Non-OECD countries represent more than 50% of global oil consumption. Indeed, within the ~1.6mm b/d global oil demand growth we expect for 2017 and again in 2018, slightly more than 87% of it comes from EM economies. Table 1 below shows the average yoy growth by year for different regions - DM and EM - and countries from 2011 to 2018. Over this period, almost all of the world's oil-demand growth comes from non-OECD countries. From 2011-2018, the average p.a. demand growth for non-OECD countries is 2.79%, while for OECD countries it is only 0.12%. Table 1EM Leads Oil-Demand Growth Looking more closely at the composition of the EM economies, we see that, on average, between 2010 and 2018 Chinese oil consumption accounts for 24% of non-OECD demand, while the Indian oil consumption represents 8.3%, for a combined total of 32.37% of non-OECD average consumption. These two countries alone contributed on average to around 50% of the world oil consumption growth from 2010 to 2018. China has been the fastest-growing oil market in the world since the early 2000s. However, since 2015, when it emerged as an important growth market on the world stage, India's consumption has been increasing at a faster pace than China's. One of the reasons for this likely is the desire of the Chinese government to resume its pivot to a more service-oriented economy, which is less commodity-intensive than the export-oriented economy dominated by heavy industry. India, meanwhile, is looking to increase its manufacturing output, lifting it from the low-teens to 25% of GDP by 2022 under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Make in India" campaign. This change in the composition of global oil-demand growth is reducing demand for residual fuel oil and distillates. Indeed, IEA data continues to show a steady decline in yoy consumption for these two types of fuel in China, with residual fuel oil consumption down 26.5% yoy in 2016, and gasoil and diesel (distillates) consumption down close to 3% yoy. By contrast, gasoline consumption, is up more than 8% yoy along with jet fuel and kerosene. LPG demand (propane and butane, along with other light ends) and ethane demand (a petrochemical feedstock) is surging, up 24% in 2016, according to the IEA. In relative terms, China will remain the main driver of global oil consumption. At ~ 12.5mm b/d, China's oil demand is close to three times as high than India's. However, India likely will surpass China in terms of its contribution to global oil demand growth in coming years. A combination of structural and policy-driven factors points toward a possible sustainable growth path for Indian oil consumption for the coming years (oil consumption per capita is increasing, as is vehicle usage, particularly motorcycles (Chart 5); and, the government's desire to increase the share of the manufacturing to 25% of GDP by 2022 will boost oil demand growth as well). Chart 5India Passenger Car Sales Are Soaring Recent studies assessing the "take-off" of an economy look at its per capita oil consumption in transportation, in particular, given that this sector accounts for more than half of the world's oil consumption (63% according to IEA Energy Statistics 2014). The theory boils down to the following: As income grows, a larger share of the population becomes vehicle owners. This is referred to as the "motorization" of an economy. In India, the transportation sector represents around 40% of total oil consumption.1 According to Sen and Sen (2016), the level of vehicle-ownership per capita is still low in India compared to other economies that have experienced similar take-offs. The government's targeted increase in manufacturing as a share of GDP to 25% under the "Make In India" program (from a current level of ~ 15%) would, according to the Sen and Sen (2016) formulation, lead to an increase in oil consumption. The "Make in India" campaign was launched in 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and aims to transform the country's manufacturing sector into a powerhouse for growth and employment. Other key objectives of this campaign include a target of 12-14% annual growth in the manufacturing sector, and the creation of 100 million new jobs by 2020 in the sector.2 In 2017Q1, India's liquid fuels consumption declined by 3% yoy. This decline was, for the most part, caused by the government's "demonetization" program, which was designed to streamline the economy and reduce rampant black-market transactions. The government chose to invalidate the 500- and the 1,000-rupee banknotes, the most-used currency denominations in the economy (around 86% of the total value of currency in circulation). This represented a huge shock to the average citizen, since it limited the purchasing power of a large part of the consumer economy for an extended period of time and impacted India's overall economic activity. Recent data show Indian oil and liquids consumption up 3% in April (yoy), and its money supply is almost back to its pre-demonetization levels, according to the EIA. This suggests economic activity and liquid-fuel consumption will get back to their previous levels. Bottom Line: We believe OPEC 2.0's deal will be extended at next week's Vienna meeting to March 2018. However, after September, we are expecting compliance to fall off meaningfully, leaving KSA and its allies as the only producers adhering to their voluntary cuts past year-end 2017. Even so, we expect the storage overhang to be worked off - mostly this year - but also into next. Even though U.S. shale production is surprising on the upside, the commitment of a majority of OPEC 2.0 to production cutbacks at least through September of this year will force the storage overhang to draw down by year end. KSA and its core allies will maintain production discipline to March 2018, which will keep storage from refilling too quickly during the seasonally weak consumption period in the first quarter next year. We continue to expect oil forward curves to backwardate by December 2017, and remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent. In addition, we remain long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts, expecting prices to rally toward $60/bbl by the time Brent delivers in December. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant Commodity & Energy Strategy hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Sen, Amrita; Anupama Sen (2016), "India's Oil Demand: On the Verge of 'Take-Off'?". Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 2 Some of the recent policies to enhance the manufacturing growth include: Government subsidies of up to 25% for specific manufacturing sub-sectors; area-based incentives to increase the manufacturing development in key regions; allowances for companies that invest a predetermined amount in new plant and machinery; deductions for additional wages paid to new regular employees; deductions for R&D expenditures; and other incentives aimed at promoting the manufacturing sector and improving the India's ease of doing business to attract foreign direct investments. Please see http://www.makeinindia.com/article/-/v/direct-foreign-investment-towards-india-s-growth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlight Once-ebullient oil markets are overwrought. Fears that an economic slowdown in China will spill over into EM - the engine of global commodity demand growth - along with a very weak 1Q17 U.S. GDP performance, will keep oil markets focused on downside risks to prices. On the supply side, high-frequency inventory data from the U.S. suggests visible OECD stocks remain high, seemingly impervious to OPEC 2.0's best efforts to drain them. Steadily rising U.S. shale output also weighs on prices. Markets appear to be looking right through the choreographed comments on production cuts from leaders of OPEC 2.0, which suggest these cuts will definitely be extended to year-end 2017, and possibly into 2018. We doubt the demand picture is anywhere close to a fundamental downshift, expecting, instead, continued robust demand. We also expect the extension of OPEC 2.0's production cutbacks to year-end 2017 to significantly drain storage, even as shale output continues to grow. If anything, recent market action has presented an opportunity re-establish length, and to position for backwardation toward year-end. Energy: Overweight. The stop-loss on our Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts vs. $65/bbl calls was elected May 4/17, leaving us with a loss of $1.54/bbl (-327.7%). We are reinstating the position as of tonight's close, anticipating Brent will reach $60/bbl by year-end. We also stopped out of our Dec/17 Brent long vs. Dec/18 Brent short on May 4/17, with a $0.50/bbl loss (-263.2%). We will re-establish this position as well basis tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. LME and COMEX stock builds are keeping copper under pressure, offsetting possible renewed labor unrest. This is keeping us neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. We were made long spot gold at $1230.25/oz basis last Thursday's close as a hedge against inflation risk, and a possible equities correction. Ags/Softs: Underweight. USDA data indicate a favorable start to the grain planting season. We remain bearish. Feature Softer Chinese PMIs spooked commodity markets, coming as they did on the heels of a very visible and much-reported weakening of base metals and iron ore prices emanating from Chinese markets (Chart of the Week).1 Financial markets fear weaker Chinese growth could presage weaker EM growth, which is the engine of commodity growth generally.2 With U.S. GDP coming in weak as well - registering a paltry growth of 0.7% in 1Q17 - markets started re-calibrating oil demand estimates for this year in light of still-high inventory levels. Adding to the market's agita, visible oil inventories in the OECD remain stubbornly high, thwarting OPEC 2.0's best efforts to drain them via their closely followed production cuts. By Wednesday of this week, this potent combination shaved some 9.6% off 1Q17 average prices, taking international benchmarks Brent and WTI below $50/bbl. Dubai prices have largely been spared similar carnage, as Gulf OPEC states continue to reduce supplies of heavier sour crude availabilities (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekChina PMIs Weaken As Monetary##BR##Conditions Tighten Slightly Chart 2Oil Prices##BR##In Retreat OPEC 2.0 Responds To Weaker Prices OPEC 2.0 - our moniker for the producer group comprised of OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, led by Russia - was not oblivious to these concerns. Indeed, earlier this week KSA Oil Minister Khalid al-Falih said the group would "do whatever it takes" to drain stocks and normalize global inventories (Chart 3). The OPEC 2.0 leadership is well aware that failure to do so would again expose these petro-states to the risk of a price collapse, as, absent production discipline, oil inventories once again would fill. This would force prices through producers' cash costs until enough production was knocked off-line to drain the storage overhang.3 Comments by leaders of OPEC 2.0 regarding the extension of its 1.8mm b/d production cuts this year and into next year are consistent with a strategy we laid out earlier, part of which includes the use of forward guidance to convince markets the supply side will tighten in the future.4 The other critical part of the strategy is for OPEC 2.0 to keep the front of the Brent curve at or below $60/bbl, using their own production, spare capacity and storage, and guiding to higher supply in the future, which would keep markets backwardated in 2018 once visible storage returns to five-year average levels. A persistent and deep backwardation - on the order of 10% p.a. - would, based on our modelling, slow the return of rigs to U.S. shale fields. In addition, the combination of a front-end forward curve capped at $60/bbl and persistent backwardation would keep depletion rates elevated, as cash-strapped producers - e.g., non-Gulf OPEC producers with high fiscal breakeven oil prices - are forced to forego maintenance capex. Taken together, this would give OPEC 2.0 a stronger hand in guiding prices - provided the coalition can hold together and maintain production discipline. We continue to expect an extension of the 1.8mm b/d OPEC 2.0 cuts will backwardate markets once inventories normalize later this year, even with strong growth from U.S. shales.5 Indeed, we expect this combination of fundamentals will clear the storage overhang by end-2017, and produce draws of more than 1mm b/d on average from April - December (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Leaders KSA,##BR##Russia: "Whatever It Takes" Chart 4Steady Demand,##BR##Extended Cuts Will Drain Inventories Wobbly Oil Demand Is Transitory The 1Q17 demand-side scares emanating from China and the U.S. are transitory. Chart 5Fiscal And Infrastructure Spending##BR##Picked Up This Year In China Following their return from the mainland, our colleagues on BCA's China Investment Strategy desk note that monetary conditions still are fairly stimulative, and are unlikely to cause the economy to roll over.6 Most of the deterioration in economic growth results from a slowing in the depreciation of China's trade-weighted RMB, following a years-long appreciation from 2012 to 2015, which did dampen growth. In addition, while fiscal stimulus was reduced at the end of 2016, the government "quickly reversed course" as direct spending and investment in infrastructure picked up substantially (Chart 5). Our China Investment Strategy colleagues note China's fiscal spending is pro-cyclical - it increases as the economy improves and tax revenues increase. The government shows no sign of wanting to wind this down: "China's policy setting remains expansionary, a major departure from previous years when the Chinese economy was under the heavy weight of policy tightening while external demand also weakened. Looking forward, there is little chance that the Chinese authorities will commit similar policy mistakes that could lead to a major growth downturn. Barring a major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth should remain buoyant." The impact of Chinese demand on global oil demand is increasing, based on econometric work we've recently completed. From 2000 to end-April 2017, a 1% increase in Chinese oil demand has translated into a 0.64% ncrease in Brent prompt prices. During this period, the impact of non-OECD demand ex China was more than two times that of China's - a 1% increase there could be expected to lead to a 1.3% increase in Brent prices. China's impact on Brent prices in the post-GFC world more than doubled, while the impact of non-OECD demand ex-China increased marginally. Since the Global Financial Crisis, a 1% increase in China's oil consumption has produced a 1.4% increase in Brent prices, while a similar increase in EM ex-China has translated into a 1.8% increase in Brent prices.7 Turning to the U.S., we believe, along with the Fed, the weak patch in GDP in 1Q17 is transitory. Following the report on the quarter's weak 0.7% GDP growth, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics surprised markets with a reading of 4.4% unemployment (U3 measure), and an equally impressive U6 measure of 8.6%, which takes it almost to pre-GFC levels. We expect robust U.S. labor-market conditions will keep demand for refined products in the U.S. robust, which will support oil prices there going forward. Globally, the U.S. EIA expects oil consumption will grow 1.6mm b/d this year - unchanged from last year. This is above our 1.4mm b/d estimate for the year. If the EIA's demand estimate is accurate, we can expect a sharper draw (+200k b/d) in global inventories than the average 860k b/d we currently are projecting, all else equal (Chart 4). This would lead to a sharper and earlier backwardation in prices that we currently expect. We will be re-estimating our balances model next week. Investment Implications We continue to expect the global storage overhang to clear by year-end, given the extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to at least year-end 2017. Wobbly demand is a transitory phenomenon, and we expect a recovery in the balance of the year. Given our expectation, we are re-establishing our long year-end Brent exposure, and are going short a $45/bbl Dec/17 Brent put vs. long a $65/bbl Dec/17 Brent call at tonight's close. We had a -$1.00/bbl stop-loss on this position, which was elected May 4/17 and resulted in a 1.54/bbl loss (-327.7%). We stopped out of our long Brent front-to-back position - long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent - in anticipation of backwardation. We also will be looking to re-establishing this position at tonight's closing levels, and for a good entry point to re-establish the same position in WTI. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Iron-ore (62% Fe) prices are down 33.5% after peaking this year at close to $91/MT in March. The LMEX base metals index is down 7.7% from its 2017 peak in February. Regular readers of Commodity & Energy Strategy will recall we've been bearish iron ore and steel for months, and have remained neutral base metals. Please see "China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals," and "Copper's Price Supports Are Fading," in the January 19, and March 23, 2017, issues of Commodity & Energy Strategy. They are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In the May 5, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy, our colleague Mathieu Savary notes, "The impulse to EM growth tends to emerge from China as Chinese imports have been the key fuel to boost exports, investments, and incomes across a wide swath of EM nations. Chinese developments suggest that Chinese growth, while not about to crater, may be slowing." Please see "The Achilles Heel of Commodity Currencies" in the May 5 FES, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy April 20, 2017, for a further discussion of the logic behind these cuts. 4 This aligns with a strategy we laid out last month, which uses forward guidance to convince markets to anticipate tighter supply further out the curve. By leading markets to anticipate lower crude oil availabilities in the future - while storage is drawing - OPEC 2.0 is setting the stage for forward curves to remain backwardated. Please see "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" published April 6, 2017, in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 "Backwardation" refers to a futures forward-price curve in which contracts for prompt delivery are higher than prices for deferred delivery. This indicates merchants and refiners are willing to pay more for a commodity delivered close in time versus in the future. It is the opposite of a "contango" curve, in which deferred prices exceed prompt prices. 6 Please see "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?" in BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report published May 5, 2017. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 These coefficients are all significant at less than 0.01. R2 coefficients of determination for these cointegrating regressions, which include the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) all exceed 0.90, indicating that the USD TWIB and Brent prices share a common long-term trend, and that FX effects remain important in assessing oil prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Shorting the RMB against the dollar is no longer a one-way bet. Investors should look to reduce bearish positions on the RMB going forward. The RMB is no longer overvalued. Therefore, any further decline will push the RMB deeper into undershoot territory, which is ultimately subject to mean reversion. The recent focus on China's low and falling reserve-to-M2 ratio largely reflects lopsided expectations on continued capital outflows and further RMB declines. The PBoC should have no difficulties maintaining control over the exchange rate with the country's massive current account surplus, low foreign currency debt and pervasive capital account control measures. Feature With widespread consensus among investors and market-watchers for the RMB to continue depreciating against the U.S. dollar, a key question is whether the seemingly unloved RMB could once again become appreciated. Indeed, the widely shared consensus a mere three years ago - that the RMB had nowhere to go but up - has now become a highly controversial rhetorical question. The current prevailing view is that the RMB is under intense downward pressure against the dollar, and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) is fighting an uphill battle in maintaining exchange rate stability. Some have gone even further, relating the RMB's ongoing weakness to "money printing" and "credit largess." According to these pundits, the country's mighty official foreign reserves pale in comparison to domestic capital flight, and the end game will have to be a substantial currency depreciation before a new equilibrium is re-established. Chart 1The RMB's Rollercoaster Ride In June 2013, amid the comfortable consensus that the RMB would perpetually rise against the dollar and the RMB "carry trade" was running amok, we published a Special Report titled "Is The RMB Still Undervalued?"1 We argued at the time that "the large valuation buffer for the RMB has mostly been eliminated," and that "there is a strengthening case for the RMB to fall against the greenback." Fast forward four years, the CNY/USD peaked in January 2014 and has since depreciated by about 15% (Chart 1). As the consensus on the RMB has now completely swung to the other extreme, it is time for a new reality check and some provocative rethinking. What Has Changed? With the benefits of hindsight, it is easy to spot what went wrong for the RMB as well as for the Chinese economy. In our 2013 Special Report, we concluded that "the dollar appears to be bottoming out from its structural bear market" and that "the Chinese central bank should guide the RMB lower versus the greenback in order to maintain a relatively stable exchange rate against a currency basket." In reality, the sharp dollar rally of 2014-'15 pushed up the trade-weighted RMB by another 10% and led to draconian tightening in China's monetary conditions - a major policy mistake that caused relentless deflationary pressure and growth woes. By the same token, the depreciation of the RMB since early 2016 has turned out to be a key reflationary force that has helped stabilize the Chinese economy. As far as the RMB is concerned, there have been a few important changes in the macro environment. Chart 2The Dollar: A Long Term Perspective First, the dollar's multi-year bull market has pushed the greenback up by 25% since 2014. The U.S. economy is currently a bright spot in the world, and the Federal Reserve appears to be the most determined to tighten among the major monetary authorities - two factors that are likely to maintain dollar bullishness. However, it is important to note that the sharp rally has already pushed the dollar close to two sigma above its long-term trend (Chart 2). The dollar may remain well bid in the near term, but another major up leg similar to the one in 2014-'15 is highly unlikely. Second, the valuation froth in the RMB accumulated in previous years has been squeezed out (Chart 3). The trade-weighted RMB has fallen back to its long-term trend line after a two-sigma overshoot. Its spot rate against the dollar has now dropped below our PPP model fair value estimate. In real effective terms, the RMB has also quickly swung back from overvalued territory. The increase in Chinese producer prices since September 2016 also suggests the RMB may have become cheap again. Third, the massive RMB "carry trade" has been largely unwound. Before 2014, the RMB's one-way ascendance attracted speculative "hot money" inflows to China in anticipation of both higher yields and further currency upside. Chinese companies also sharply ramped up borrowing in foreign currencies, mostly U.S. dollars, for lower rates and potential exchange rate gains. Both trends abruptly reversed as the RMB began to fall, with hot money fleeing and domestic borrowers rushing to pay back foreign currency obligations. Chart 4 shows the abnormal surge of the RMB "carry trade" before 2014 has essentially vanished. Chart 3The RMB Is No Longer Overvalued Chart 4The Unwinding Of The RMB "Carry Trade" Finally, the reflationary benefit of a weaker exchange rate on the Chinese economy has been proven since 2016, which in of itself rules out the possibility of an endless RMB decline. As the largest manufacturer and exporter in the world, a weaker RMB is good news for the Chinese industrial sector's pricing power, profit margins and overall business activity - unless broad protectionist backlash blocks the positive feedback loop.2 The bearish argument on the RMB fixating on Chinese credit, even if true, ignores the reflationary impact on a major part of the Chinese economy, which in turn puts a floor under its exchange rate. What's Intact? Meanwhile, some factors that were widely viewed in previous years as supportive for an ever-rising RMB have remained largely intact. China still runs by far the largest trade surplus in the world, amounting to an annualized US$ 500 billion. Chinese foreign reserves, although having fallen by US$ 1 trillion since their all-time peak, still accounts for almost 30% of the global total (Chart 5). In comparison, China's official hoarding of foreign assets accounted for about 15% of the world in 2005, when the RMB was de-pegged from the greenback and began a decade-long ascent. In addition, Chinese exporters have continued to gain global market share, currently accounting for about 14% of world exports, more than double 2005 levels. Meanwhile, it is fairly likely that China's recent export numbers have been under-reported, as exporters have hidden part of their overseas proceeds offshore in anticipation of further RMB declines. Overall, there is no evidence that the value of the RMB has hindered Chinese exporters' competitiveness. From a long-term perspective, a country's productivity growth relative to the rest of the world fundamentally determines its relative competitiveness in global trade, which in turn is the ultimate driving force behind its exchange rate (Chart 6). On all these fronts, China still compares favorably to other major countries. Chart 5China's Foreign Official ##br##Reserves Remain Massive Chart 6Relative Productivity Determines ##br##Export Sector Competitiveness Are China's Foreign Reserves Enough? Chart 7 shows that the ebbs and flows of China's foreign exchange reserves are tightly linked with the USD/CNY "risk reversal" indicator, defined as the implied volatility for call options minus the implied volatility for put options on the cross rate. Chinese foreign reserves have increased for three consecutive months, a sign of slower capital outflows and easing concerns surrounding the RMB. It remains to be seen whether this is a permanent shift or a temporary pause. A more important question is whether China's foreign reserves are large enough for the PBoC to maintain control over its exchange rate. Chart 7The RMB Risk Aversion And Capital Flows Central banks' precautionary holdings of foreign reserves are mainly to reduce the likelihood of balance-of-payments pressures. From this perspective, for a country running chronic and massive trade surpluses with minimal foreign currency debt, China should not hold large foreign reserves at all. This is also why its massive foreign reserve holdings were long regarded as wasteful before 2014 by both market participants and Chinese policymakers - and since 2014 as the RMB has weakened the exact opposite: as not enough. Based on traditional yardsticks for reserve adequacy such as coverage ratios for imports or short-term foreign currency debt, China's reserves are far more than adequate. The more recent focus has been on additional metrics proposed by the IMF, particularly the ratio of reserves relative to a country's broad money supply (M2). This ratio captures potential residents' capital flight through the liquidation of their highly liquid domestic assets, which reflects potential drains on the balance of payments. Chart 8 shows a sharp decline in China's reserves-to-M2 ratio in recent years. However, this does not mean that Chinese foreign reserves are insufficient for the following reasons. Historically China's reserve-to-M2 ratio has had no direct correlation with the broad RMB trend. China's reserve-to-M2 ratio peaked at 28% in 2008, long before the RMB peaked. At 13% currently, the ratio is comparable to 2005 when the RMB began to rise against the dollar. Globally speaking, there is no empirical evidence that a higher reserve-to-M2 ratio helps alleviate downward pressure on a country's exchange rate. Other major emerging countries such as Brazil, Russia and India have much higher reserve-to-M2 ratios than China, but their currencies have suffered brutal declines in recent years (Chart 9). In contrast, Japan's reserve-to-M2 ratio is comparable to China, but the Bank of Japan has been trying desperately to weaken the yen. Germany's ratio is even lower. Finally, China's pervasive capital account control measures and its largely state-controlled financial institutions are powerful tools to hinder capital outflows, and can be adjusted to accommodate changes in the marketplace. This further diminishes the usefulness of this ratio. Chart 8China's Reserves-To-M2 Ratio Has Been Falling... Chart 9...But Does It Matter? Overall, the recent focus on China's low and falling reserve-to-M2 ratio largely reflects lopsided expectations on continued capital outflows and further RMB declines. This has all but ignored the prospect for capital inflows. True, Chinese households and companies will likely continue to diversify into foreign assets. However, there is an equally compelling case that foreign demand for RMB-denominated assets will also increase going forward. For example, Chinese local bond yields, both sovereign and credit, are substantially higher than other major economies. Meanwhile, foreign ownership in Chinese bonds is practically non-existent compared with other bourses (Chart 10). It is almost a sure bet that foreign demand for RMB bonds will increase significantly, especially if market expectations on the RMB stabilize. Given how dramatic market expectations on the RMB have shifted in the past several years, this could come much sooner than many expect. Chart 10The Case For Increasing Foreign Demand##br## For RMB Bonds Investment Conclusions We are not making the case for an immediate resumption of a rising RMB. In the near term, the USD/CNY cross rate will continue to be dominated by the broad dollar trend, the upside of which may not yet be exhausted. However, the prevailing bearish consensus means that shorting the RMB against the dollar has become a very crowded trade. Meanwhile, our valuation models suggest the RMB is currently no longer overvalued. Therefore, any further decline will push the RMB deeper into undershoot territory, which is ultimately subject to mean reversion. Overall, we caution against being overly negative at the moment, and investors should begin to reduce bearish bets on the RMB going forward. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is The RMB Still Undervalued?," dated June 12, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflecting On The Trump-Xi Summit," dated April 13, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Please note that we are publishing a Special Report today titled "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields". Feature Commodities prices have plunged lately, even though the U.S. dollar, up until this past week, has been weak versus European currencies. Hence, the recent selloff in the commodities complex cannot be attributable to U.S. dollar strength. Something else has been at work. Furthermore, EM share prices and currencies have decoupled from both commodities prices and DM commodities currencies such as the AUD, NZD and the CAD (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Unsustainable Divergence Is this time different, and are we entering a new era in EM investing? We do not think so. This divergence is unsustainable and reflects irrational exuberance and fund flows into EM. The decoupling is already overstretched - although it could last another several weeks, it will not continue for much longer. We have the following observations: The commodities selloff has been very broad-based, and has been especially intense in commodities that are trading in China as well as those that are leveraged to Chinese growth (Chart I-2A & Chart I-2B). Such a simultaneous gap down in various commodities prices can be explained either by a decline in speculative long positions in commodities or weakness in real demand. It cannot be attributed to supply because the selloff has transpired at the same time across various commodities. Commodities' supply dynamics are idiosyncratic. China's central bank has been tightening liquidity, forcing deleveraging in the financial system. It is very plausible that this has led to an unwinding of long positions in commodities trading in China. Chart I-2AWidespread Carnage In Commodities Chart I-2BWidespread Carnage In Commodities China bulls would correctly argue that the selloff in commodities is indicative of a reduction in speculative trading activities - not in final demand. However, to be consistent, we should also accept that that the commodities rally in 2016 was not entirely due to demand improvement in China. Instead, it was at least partially due to speculative investment demand. It is impossible to quantify the magnitude of speculative activity in China's commodities markets, yet it has probably been a non-trivial force supercharging both last year's rally as well as the latest selloff. In regard to commodities demand from the real economy, China's growth has not yet turned decisively down. That said, the growth outlook is downbeat as credit growth downshifts in response to the ongoing policy tightening. Chart I-3 illustrates that the annual growth in the number and value of newly started projects has recently contracted. This heralds weaker demand for commodities, materials and capital goods in the months ahead. The surge in new projects launched last year marked the beginning of an upturn in industrial activity, and could well be indicative of a budding downtrend now. Besides, Chinese imports of industrial metals (excluding iron ore) has by and large been flat since 2010 (Chart I-4). The mainland's iron ore imports have been strong because inefficient/expensive domestic production has been shut down, leading to an increase in imports. Chart I-3China: Capital Spending To Slump Again Chart I-4China: No Growth In Industrial Metals' Imports Although China's oil imports have been strong (Chart I-5, top panel), underlying final demand has been weaker as there is evidence that the country has used imports of crude to increase inventories (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Provided that inventories are mean-reverting, such a large build-up in crude inventories poses a risk to China's oil demand and oil prices in the months ahead. Remarkably, the Brazilian real and South African rand have recently decoupled from the overall commodities price index and platinum prices, respectively (Chart I-6). These divergences represent a substantial departure from historical correlations. We cannot find any explanation other than the ongoing irrational exuberance in EM financial markets. Finally, signposts of potential growth deceleration are not only limited to the commodities complex. For example, Taiwanese narrow money (M1) impulse has decisively rolled over; it typically leads Taiwanese exports and correlates well with the equity market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5China's Oil Imports And An Inventories Proxy Chart I-6EM Commodity Currencies And Commodities Prices Chart I-7Taiwanese Export Growth And Equities Are At Risk Too Bottom Line: The recent decoupling between commodities prices and EM risk assets is unsustainable. This divergence reflects irrational exuberance that typically transpires around a major market top. While not chasing this rally has been painful, there is no point in doing so at current levels. We recommend investors maintain a negative stance on EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations