Corporate Profits

Highlights In this report, we take a close look at corporate margins by analyzing their key drivers: The general level of economic activity, trends in labor costs and productivity, borrowing costs, tax rates, depreciation charges, the exchange rate, and corporate pricing power. The likely contraction of margins next year will be driven by a combination of factors: First and foremost, a slowdown in top-line growth and a decline in corporate pricing power.  In the meantime, the tight labor market is putting upward pressure on wage growth despite a peak in productivity improvement. Input costs are also on the rise with PPI soaring, cutting into corporate profitability. Depreciation is already rising on the back of the recent recovery in capex. Interest expense has bottomed in the face of rising rates, and the potential healing of corporate balance sheets is leading to re-leveraging to raise capital for capex and buybacks.  The US corporate tax rate is bound to increase based on news from Capitol Hill.   The model above encapsulates all of these moving parts (Chart 1) and reiterates that the path of least resistance is lower for US corporate margins. S&P 500 operating margins are likely to contract in 2022. Feature Profits Have Rebounded S&P 500 earnings growth has rebounded vigorously from the pandemic low. Operating earnings-per-share stand 32% YoY above the January 2020 pre-pandemic high (Chart 2). Margins have also exceeded pre-pandemic levels of 11.7% reaching 14.4% in September (Chart 3). The basic story behind a rebound in profitability is well understood: Companies have cut costs aggressively, productivity has improved, lower interest rates have reduced debt servicing burdens, a weaker dollar has boosted overseas earnings, and corporate pricing power has strengthened. Gauging the direction of change for each of these various factors will help us assess whether profits can continue growing, and whether operating margins can continue expanding. Chart 1After An Impressive Surge, Margins Are Set To Decline Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Chart 2Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Chart 3Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Sneak Preview: We expect profit margins to contract in 2022 NIPA Operating Margins vs S&P 500 Operating Margins The market tends to focus on S&P 500 earnings and these can be measured on a reported or operating basis, with the latter removing the effects of one-off charges. In order to better understand the path of S&P 500 margins, we aim to relate profits to the economic cycle; to do so, we analyze the data from the national income and product accounts (NIPA) because they are fully integrated with GDP and any related series. National non-financial after-tax profits without the inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and the capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)1 are conceptually closest to S&P 500 profits as they measure the after-tax worldwide earnings of US corporations. Fortunately, the S&P and equivalent national income measures of operating profits broadly track each other over the long run, although the S&P data display greater volatility. The NIPA profit margin series is 70% correlated with S&P 500 operating profit margins. While this level of correlation indicates that long-term trends in NIPA profits and S&P earnings are broadly similar, short-term annual and quarterly growth rates can differ dramatically. The Key Drivers Of Profitability A number of factors can influence the path of profits: The general level of economic activity, including trends in borrowing costs, tax rates, depreciation charges, the exchange rate, productivity, and corporate pricing power. It clearly would be most bullish if productivity had been the main driver because any future benefits from the other four sources will be limited. Interest rates will normalize at some point, and effective tax rates seem more likely to rise than fall from current levels, and we should hope for faster depreciation in line with increased capital spending. In addition, the downside in the dollar is constrained by the desire of other countries to maintain competitive exchange rates. Corporate pricing power is the sole mitigating factor against these cost pressures. In this report, we will methodically go through and assess the outlook for each of these profit drivers, and their cumulative effect on profit margins for the next year or so. Revenue Growth Is A Key To Margin Expansion The EBITD measure of domestic non-financial profits excludes the impact of changes in taxes, interest rates and depreciation charges and is thus the series that is most directly affected by the underlying economic cycle and by productivity. Moreover, because it covers only domestic profits, it is not overly influenced by exchange-rate movements. GDP growth and NIPA EBITD margin expansion move in tandem. The post-pandemic rebound in economic growth has underpinned margin recovery (Chart 4). However, real GDP forecasts have recently been cut from 6.5%  to just under 6% for 2021, and to 4% in 2022 (Chart 5). Slower growth suggests that the pace of margin expansion will also slow. Chart 4EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP Chart 5GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow Cost Drivers Of Profits Labor Expense As Percentage Of Sales Has Been Falling Looking at the expense side of the NIPA Income Statement, we note that labor costs are singlehandedly the largest expense, hovering around 50% of sales, dwarfing all the other expense items (Chart 6). The NIPA EBITD margin allows us to gauge the effect of changes in labor costs on the bottom line.  Chart 6Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense After the initial spike to 54% of sales at the beginning of the pandemic, explained by rapidly falling sales and an inability of companies to rapidly reduce employee numbers, labor costs as a percentage of sales have been reverting to historical levels.  This is a curious phenomenon as wages have recently been on the rise: The number of open positions has been exceeding the number of job seekers by over a million, indicating that jobs are plentiful.  As a result, the quit rate has exploded (Chart 7). To attract and retain workers, businesses have been raising compensation, leading to average weekly earnings rising by more than 5% year over year. As a result, wages-to-sales have been trending up (Chart 8). Chart 7Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Chart 8Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up If companies must pay more for labor, why has the labor expense as percentage of sales fallen? To answer this question, we will look at the selling prices over unit labor costs as a proxy for the EBITD margin (Chart 9) to examine the underlying profitability as a function of labor costs. However, since the beginning of the pandemic, this stable relationship has broken down, with selling prices falling over unit labor costs, while margins have been expanding. Digging deeper, we notice that NIPA sales prices have rebounded (Chart 10) due to a surge in inflation and a rise in a corporate pricing power (Chart 11), while unit labor costs dived. This can be attributed to a pandemic productivity surge (Chart 12), making it cheaper to produce each additional unit.  Chart 9A Proxy For EBITD Margin A Proxy For EBITD Margin A Proxy For EBITD Margin Chart 10Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Chart 11US Corporate Power Is Waning US Corporate Power Is Waning US Corporate Power Is Waning Chart 12Productivity Has Peaked Productivity Has Peaked Productivity Has Peaked However, after rising for months, the ability of companies to raise prices further has been diminished by consumers’ income increasing slower than inflation, reducing their purchasing power.  Improvements in productivity have also peaked and are unlikely to propel margins higher.  Input Costs Are Soaring While cost of goods sold (COGS) is not one of the lines in the NIPA income statement, we would be remiss not to mention that input costs have been on the rise. The most recent reading in PPI was up 8.3% YoY (Chart 13). The price of oil has been surging as well. An increase in the cost of materials definitely has an adverse effect on corporate margins. We will quantify the effects of the year-on-year percentage of PPI on margins later in this report. Chart 13Input Prices Have Soared Input Prices Have Soared Input Prices Have Soared Other Drivers Of Profitability: Depreciation, Interest And Taxes Switching gears to other costs, interest, taxes, and depreciation expenses are likely to increase going forward. Capex Is Rising, So Will Depreciation Expense Depreciation expense is the second largest expense in the cost structure, constituting some 15% of sales. Between mid-2009 and mid-2012, depreciation charges fell sharply, curtailed by weak investment growth during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) economic downturn. Similarly, the same story unfolded during the 2015 manufacturing slowdown, and the pandemic-induced recession (Chart 14). Today, growth in US domestic fixed investment has rebounded at rates comparable to the 2000 and 2010 recoveries. The trend will continue: According to the Philly Fed Manufacturing Survey, capex intentions have been rising (Chart 15). As a result, depreciation expense is set to climb, cutting into margins and earnings. Chart 14Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Chart 15More Capex Is Under Way More Capex Is Under Way More Capex Is Under Way Interest Costs Set To Increase With Rising Rates Interest charges are small compared to other expenses, never rising above 5% of sales. There has been quite a lot of variability in interest charges in recent years, reflecting swings in both interest rates and the level of corporate borrowing (Chart 16). Falling interest costs provided a boost to profits between 2008 and 2010, as well as during the trade war and the pandemic. Also, corporations have been de-leveraging, but this trend is about to turn: As the corporate sector heals, it is likely to re-leverage, whether to finance capex or buybacks. With interest rates set to rise, interest costs are likely to become a drag on profits (Chart 17).   Chart 16Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Chart 17Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Effective Tax Rates Are Likely To Increase Effective tax rates have fallen from about 18% in 2014-2017 to 12% in January 2018 because of the Trump Administration’s tax reform and remain low by historical standards (Chart 18). Meanwhile, taxes paid have also been hit by the 2020 downturn thanks to temporary tax breaks, and have not yet rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, thereby aiding margin expansion. However, given the Biden Administration’s push to increase the US corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes, chances are that tax expenses will rise. Chart 18Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Overseas Profits So far, we have focused on the domestic drivers of changes in margins.  Yet for many US corporations, especially the ones in the S&P 500, overseas profits are a key source of profits. Many industries derive a substantial share of sales from abroad, and for Technology, this number stands as high as 58%.  Historically, overseas profits have been a tremendous source of growth (Chart 19) thanks to rising exposure to fast-growing emerging economies, a weaker dollar, and the transfer of operations to low-tax regimes. However, recently this trend has turned due to closing loopholes allowing companies to locate headquarters in lower tax regime jurisdictions, tax reform, foreign profits amnesty, and unified global pressure to tax US multinationals. Onshoring of manufacturing production is another emerging trend that is likely to improve the efficiency of supply chains but will add to production expenses, chipping away at corporate profitability. The US dollar has been weakening during the pandemic, giving a boost to profits thanks to both lower prices of the American goods and translation effects (Chart 20). Chart 19Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Chart 20USD TRW Is Strengthening USD TRW Is Strengthening USD TRW Is Strengthening Hence, we conclude that the share of overseas profits is unlikely to change and is not going to become an engine for profit growth for US corporations. Where Next For Profits? The clear implication from the above analysis is that profits have ceased to benefit from earlier benign trends in depreciation charges, interest costs, and tax rates. Looking ahead, these factors, are destined to become modest headwinds for profit growth. Sales growth is also likely to slow as GDP growth returns to trend, with overseas profits less of a source of growth. And importantly, productivity growth and pricing power have peaked and turned, depriving the economy of its key drivers of margin expansion. S&P 500 The obvious question is how all the factors affecting NIPA margins translate into the forecast for change in S&P 500 operating margins. S&P 500 margins are subject to the same profit drivers as the NIPA accounts. In order to forecast the effect of these factors on the year-on-year changes in operating margins, we have built a simple regression model that uses year-on-year changes in average hourly earnings (AHE) to capture the cost of labor; high-yield option-adjusted spreads (OAS) to capture the cost of borrowing; year-on-year PPI as a change in cost of input materials; the trade-weighted USD as an indicator capturing change in foreign profits; and, lastly, the BCA pricing power indicator to measure companies’ ability to pass on these costs to their customers (Table 1).   Table 1Regression To Predict Operating Margins YoY% Marginally Worse Marginally Worse The model forecast of margin growth peaked in August 2021 and is about to slow into the balance of the year (Chart 21). Margins will contract outright in December 2021-January 2022. The growth rate for margins in January 2022 is -65% year on year.  In January 2021, operating margins were 7.2%. Incorporating a negative year-on-year growth rate, we arrive at margins of only 2.6%, which is certainly very low. The caveat here is that our objective is to predict the direction of change as opposed to working out a point estimate of future margins. In other words, there is a wide confidence interval around any forecast of earnings given the unpredictability of movements in the exchange rate, productivity and the general level of economic activity. However, our assumptions are conservative, and the model clearly points to a margin contraction in 2022. Chart 21After An Impressive Surge, Margins Are Set To Decline Marginally Worse Marginally Worse And lastly, why will margins contract? What is the main culprit that would make things worse? The answer is an increase in input and labor costs (PPI and AHE), both of which are no longer being offset by a corporate pricing power: The ability of corporations to pass on their costs to customers has diminished, and margins are going to take a hit (Chart 22 & Table 2). Chart 22Increase In Costs Is No Longer Offset By Pricing Power Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Table 2Contributions To Margins Growth Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Bottom Line Earnings growth and profit margins are of paramount importance to the performance of equities – as we wrote in a report in August, the key driver of returns has shifted from multiple expansion to earnings growth. Despite the recent pullback, the S&P 500, trading at 20.5x forward multiples, is still expensive. Our analysis shows that S&P 500 operating margins are likely to contract in 2022 because of rising wages, a slowdown in productivity, increases in interest and depreciation expenses, and potential tax hikes. On the revenue side, US GDP growth is slowing, and corporate pricing power is waning, making it difficult to pass on rising costs to customers. Impending margin contraction does not bode well for the strong performance of US equities in the year ahead.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Profits before tax reflect the charges used in tax accounting for inventory withdrawals and depreciation. The inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and the capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj) are used to adjust before-tax profits to NIPA asset valuation concepts. The IVA adjusts inventories to a current-cost basis, which is similar to valuation of inventory withdrawals on a last-in/first-out basis. The CCAdj adjusts tax-reported depreciation to the NIPA concept of economic depreciation (or “consumption of fixed capital”), which values fixed assets at current cost and uses consistent depreciation profiles based on used asset prices. Recommended Allocation

This week I have been holding client calls and roundtables with clients located in the EMEA region. In next week’s report we will share our answers to the most common client questions. In the meantime, this week we are sending you a report about Peru that discusses the political situation and the outlook for the nation’s financial markets. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan Highlights Do not bottom fish in Peruvian financial markets. Political volatility has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable. Either president Pedro Castillo will be impeached and massive protest will follow, or his party’s radical leftist agenda will be at least partially legislated. Neither scenario bodes well for Peru’s financial markets. Capital outflows and lower metal prices pose a threat to the exchange rate. Go short the sol versus the US dollar. Dedicated EM equity and fixed-income managers should continue underweighting Peru in their respective portfolios. Feature Chart 1Peru: Absolute And Relative Equity Performance Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru’s financial assets have plummeted due to the election of left-wing president Pedro Castillo. Some investors may be tempted to bottom fish in these markets due to their lower valuations and oversold conditions (Chart 1, top panel). Some may attempt to draw parallels with Brazil’s 2002 election of Lula da Silva which initially triggered a selloff in Brazilian financial markets followed by a substantial rally during the president’s two terms in office. Will that be the case with Peruvian markets? We do not think so. Unlike twenty years ago in Brazil, Peru is currently facing a much worse political and economic outlook. Overall, the political volatility as well as deteriorating macro fundamentals warrant a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Thus, we recommend investors underweight Peru within EM equity, local, and sovereign fixed-income portfolios (Chart 1, bottom panel). A Political Showdown Is Looming One could argue that Peruvian financial markets have hit a floor and that much of the bad news has already been priced. Another argument is that Castillo will not be able to pass sweeping socio-economic reforms because of strong opposition from congress. In our opinion, Peru has yet to reach peak political tensions, which may very well end with a bang. Given this heightened political uncertainty, investors should brace themselves for a rocky ride. We identify two main risks plaguing Peruvian politics. First, the unsustainable ideological divide within Castillo’s proposed cabinet between far-left militants and the pragmatic center-left. Second, the looming clash between a government that wants to upend the country’s socioeconomic system and a notoriously harsh congress keen on making the president’s job unbearable. Intra-Government Dichotomy The ideological divide in Castillo’s government is extreme. On one side is the Marxist-Leninist wing, headed by Free Peru’s party leader, Vladimir Cerrón, and prime minister candidate, Guido Bellido. On the other side is the left-to-center members, headed by Pedro Francke, the minister of finance candidate. The more extremist Marxist-Leninist camp constitutes the majority, while moderates are a minority. Critically, the Marxist-Leninist radicals will make few concessions to the moderate ministers, as the former believe they have a mandate from the people to upend the country’s socio-economic system. Nevertheless, the policies supported by the general public are more nuanced than that. According to a national Ipsos survey from August, 85% of respondents believe president Castillo should govern with technocrats in his governments’ key positions. Only 11% support him making the ideology of his party the centerpiece of his policies and promoting (radical) members of his party. This shows how Castillo’s victory was more of a national referendum against Fujimori and the corrupt political elites than support for a radical socialist government. We elaborated on this topic in our previous report on Peru. The wide ideological divide between the party and a few moderate members of the cabinet in key positions will make governing extremely difficult. Cracks are already beginning to form. Bellido and Francke hold different views on the role of the state in the economy. Bellido, on the one hand, has stated he supports state-owned companies in commodity-extracting sectors (particularly natural gas and hydroelectricity) and the drafting of a new constitution to give the state greater ownership of mining contracts. Francke, on the other hand, wants to reinstate fiscal spending caps and is less harsh with multinational companies, favoring an increase only in mining taxes. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty around the government’s official fiscal plan, as Francke has avoided giving clear figures on fiscal expenditures and social programs. To make matters worse, there is growing concern that it is party leader Cerrón who is de facto in charge, and that he has an enormous influence on Castillo. Cerrón is unpopular among voters as a result of his criminal allegations, close ties to the Cuban regime, and often apologetic stance toward the Maoist terrorist group, Shining Path. Although he intended to run as the presidential candidate for Free Peru, he was banned from the election because of ongoing criminal accusations, which is why he handpicked Castillo as his replacement. Without a doubt, he intends to be heavily involved in government decision-making. According to the same Ipsos poll we cited earlier, 61% of Peruvians believe Cerrón is either de facto in charge of the government or holds considerable sway over Castillo. The biggest risk to financial markets will be the eventual dismissal or resignation of finance minister Francke. This may happen as he eventually realizes that the radicals will concede very little. This would also lead to a resignation of orthodox central bank governor Julio Velarde, who Francke has been able to convince to remain in his post. These two resignations would result in another riot in Peruvian markets, as the investment and business communities fully lose confidence in Castillo’s government.  An Inevitable Clash Between The Government And Congress Being president in Peru is a notoriously difficult job due to the large sway that congress has on legislation and governing. The outcome of this constant confrontation between the president and congress has been five different presidents in the past five years alone. Critically, this tension has never been higher. The government and congress hold diametrically opposed views on the broad vision and strategy for the nation and how the economy should be managed. On the one hand, congress is mainly composed of traditional centrist parties and the opposition holds a majority—Castillo’s coalition has only about 39% of the seats. On the other hand, the government has just been elected on a far-left reformist platform. In essence, both the government and congress have incentives and the determination to be as obstructive as possible for each other. As tensions ramp up and confrontation becomes inevitable, the risks of unrest and clashes between supporters of Castillo and congress will rise. Table 1Peru: Voters Support More Moderate Politicians Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point In congress’s point of view, they have a mandate to serve as an opposing force to Castillo’s radicalism: There is some validity to this claim. The opposition holds a majority, and congress president Maricarmen Alva is by far more popular than the leaders of the Free Peru party like Cerrón and Bellido (Table 1). Given that Castillo’s ideology is a threat to the nation’s current socio-economic model and, thereby, to the political establishment, the majority in congress would prefer to block all radical legislation, including the appointments of controversial cabinet members. In addition, they will use all manner of accusations and alleged linkages between cabinet members and Shining Path to impeach Castillo. Congress needs only 87 votes, which means they need to convince only eight members from the governing alliance to impeach Castillo. In turn, the government argues it was elected to upend the country’s status quo and confront the unpopular political elites: Critically, the president has the ability to dissolve congress after two votes of no confidence, thereby putting pressure on congress to abide by the government’s radical proposals. This latter point and the fact that congress has little popular support provide leverage for the government over congress. Given the fact that current congressional members cannot be reelected, they might be more careful about how they maneuver, so that they do not provoke Castillo to dissolve congress. There are, therefore, two extreme possible outcomes. On one hand, congress may impeach the president, triggering a social revolt from Castillo’s hardline supporters against congress. On the other hand, congressional members may allow the passing of a leftist legislative agenda in order to maintain their seats, which would gravely reduce corporate profitability and productivity in Peru. Both scenarios would result in a collapse of investor and business confidence, leading to more capital flight and a riot in Peruvian financial markets. Bottom Line: Political volatility in Peru has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable, as well as among key cabinet members. Such elevated political volatility warrants a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Return Of Macro Instability Peru enjoyed a period of relative macro stability from the early 2000s until recently. Its currency, local interest rates, and sovereign spreads have fluctuated less than those in other Latin American countries. However, the nation’s economy and financial markets have entered a period of heightened volatility. Both domestic and external macro factors have turned into headwinds for the Peruvian economy and financial markets. Chart 2Peru: Business Confidence Will Continue Plummeting Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Domestically, the economic recovery has been uninspiring, and multiple indicators point to growth disappointments ahead: Business confidence took another serious hit with the election of Castillo and ensuing uncertainty (Chart 2). Imminent political volatility will further depress business confidence, and, consequently, capital expenditures and hiring in the coming months. This will curb household income growth and consumer spending. Peru remains one of the world’s deadliest COVID-19 hotspots (Chart 3, top panel). In addition, vaccination rates are the lowest among major Latin American economies (Chart 3, bottom panel). As the more infectious Delta variant becomes dominant, there will not be enough immunity to hold back new cases. Consequently, either the government will introduce lockdowns or people will voluntarily limit their activities, thereby inhibiting the nascent economic recovery. The unemployment rate remains far above its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). Thus, household income remains very depressed. The latter does not bode well for debtors’ ability to service debt. Chart 3Peru: The Government Has Grossly Mismanaged The Pandemic Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 4Peru: Labor Market Has Not Fully Recovered Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point   As a result, loan delinquencies will rise anew, weighing on banks’ appetite to lend. Notably, local currency loans to the private sector will contract (Chart 5).    Chart 5Peru: Prepare For A Credit Slump Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Commercial banking profitability is also vulnerable, as president Castillo aims to strengthen the state bank (Banco de la Nación) by expanding its operations and undercutting private banking fees. Given financials of the bourse’s market cap, poor banking profitability is a major risk to this stock market. Unrelenting currency depreciation—see below for a more detailed analysis of the exchange rate—will prompt the central bank to hike rates further. This will not only weigh on new credit demand, but also augment loan delinquencies in the banking system. As a result, banks will become very risk averse and shrink their balance sheets. A credit crunch will ensue. Even though fiscal spending will be increased, it is unlikely to propel economic growth. The basis is that fiscal primary spending accounted for less than 15% of GDP before the pandemic and is now 17% due to the pandemic distortion (Chart 6). In the meantime, consumer spending constitutes 63% of GDP, capital spending 21%, and exports 25%. Externally, deteriorating balance of payments dynamics will weigh down on the currency: Peruvian assets tend to move with the country’s trade balance and global metal prices. The fact that Peruvian stock prices have plummeted in the face of rising industrial and precious metal prices supports a bearish thesis on this bourse (Chart 7). Chart 6Peru: Fiscal Expenditures Have Risen Due To The Pandemic Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 7Rising Metal Prices Have Failed To Boost Peruvian Stocks Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 8China's Slowdown Portends A Fall In Commodities Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Export revenue will contract as a result of a decline in commodity prices brought on by China’s slowing “old economy” (Chart 8). Precious and industrial metals together account for 66% of Peru’s merchandise exports. A meaningful decline in metal prices will erode the trade surplus and weigh on the exchange rate. Furthermore, Peru is already experiencing capital flight. Potential anti-market policies from this government could trigger more capital exodus. The capital account deficit will widen as both FDI and portfolio inflows fall due to the negative commodity outlook as well as political uncertainty (Chart 9). Foreigners still hold 45% of local currency bonds, and they will reduce their holdings (Chart 10). Chart 9Peru: FDI Inflows Will Decline Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 10Peruvian Domestic Bonds: Will Banks Make Up For Foreign Investor Retrenchment? Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 11Peru: The Dollarization Rate Has Room To Rise Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Currency depreciation will also be reinforced by locals converting their sol deposits into foreign currency. The dollarization rate—the ratio of foreign currency banking deposits to total deposits—will rise (Chart 11). A weakening currency will also lead to higher inflation expectations, to which the central bank will respond by raising rates. The monetary authorities already hiked the policy rate by 25 basis points this month due to higher-than-expected inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency. As Peru’s exchange rate continues to weaken, the central bank might also sell foreign currency reserves to prevent large fluctuations in the value of the currency. This foreign exchange intervention will, in turn, shrink banking system local currency liquidity and lift interbank rates (Chart 12). Chart 12FX Reserve Sales Will Shrink Banking Liquidity And Lift Interbank Rates Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point In short, the central bank has enough international reserves to stabilize the exchange rate, but this will come at the cost of tighter liquidity and higher interest rates. The latter will only reinforce sluggish growth in domestic demand. Bottom Line: Heightened political volatility and lower metal prices are working against the Peruvian economy and its financial markets. Peru is experiencing large capital flight, which will exacerbate currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Keep an underweight allocation to the Peruvian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. We recommend currency traders go short the Peruvian sol versus the US dollar. While the sol has already depreciated considerably, the domestic and external headwinds entail more downside. For fixed-income investors, we maintain an underweight allocation to Peruvian sovereign credit in an EM credit portfolio. The basis for this position is that the nation’s fiscal policy may undergo a major shift, entailing larger fiscal spending and wider budget deficits. We are downgrading local bonds from neutral to underweight in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Critically, the share of foreign ownership of Peruvian local fixed income remains one of the highest in the EM universe—it has only fallen from around 55% to 45% of domestic fixed-income instruments in the past six months (Chart 10 on page 9). Thus, there is a major risk that foreign investors will sell domestic bonds as the currency depreciates further, which will weigh down on local bonds. Juan Egaña Research Analyst juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Highlights The baht will depreciate further, given the state of the economy and external accounts. Domestic demand was already relapsing, even before the latest surge in COVID-19 cases. Now, the recovery will be delayed more. The authorities have little to offer by way of fiscal or monetary support. Credit to the job-intensive SME sector has collapsed. The balance of payment dynamics remains negative for the currency. Investors should stay short the baht. Dedicated EM asset allocators should continue to be neutral on Thailand within respective equity and domestic bond portfolios. Feature Chart 1Thai Stocks Are Facing Several Headwinds Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Our negative view on the baht has played out as expected.1 The Thai currency is down 10% versus the dollar since its peak in February of this year. It has also been the worst performer in Asia. The country’s stock market is struggling and going down in both absolute terms and relative to their EM counterparts (Chart 1). Going forward, odds are that the baht will remain weak. A weak currency will continue to stifle both Thai stocks’ and local currency bonds’ relative performance. Investors should stay short the baht and remain neutral Thai equity and local currency bonds within their respective EM portfolios. Relapsing Growth Chart 2Surging New COVID-19 Cases... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht The latest spike in new COVID-19 cases has dashed hopes for any early recovery of the Thai economy (Chart 2). Earlier this month, the central bank revised down their GDP forecast for 2021 from 1.8% to 0.7%. We concur with this bearish outlook: Private consumption in real terms was languishing as of June this year at 10% below 2019 levels. Car sales, both personal and commercial, are even more downbeat (Chart 3). After the latest surge in new COVID-19 cases, those numbers must have weakened further. Incidentally, the country’s vaccination rate, at 26% of total population (7.5% fully vaccinated), remains low. It could be, therefore, several months before any meaningful recovery in consumer demand takes place. Faced with low demand, the country’s manufacturing and shipment volumes are also weak. They are both breaking down anew from well below the 2019 levels (Chart 4, top panel). Chart 3...Will Further Delay Domestic Demand Recovery Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 4Manufacturers Are Saddled With High Inventory Amid Weak Orders... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   Weak demand also means that businesses are stuck with high inventories. Indeed, there is a widening disparity between inventory levels and shipments (Chart 4, middle panel). Furthermore, order books have slipped back to levels not seen since the height of the COVID-19 scare early last year. The combination of high inventories and tumbling orders does not portend a manufacturing recovery anytime soon (Chart 4, bottom panel). Notably, jobs and wages are also weak. Employment in the manufacturing sector is well below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). This trend, in turn, is hurting household income and consumer demand, completing a vicious cycle of depressed demand, weak production, falling employment and household income, and further reduced demand. The softness of the economy is accentuating the disinflationary pressure that was already entrenched. Headline and core CPI in Thailand have stayed mostly below 1% over the past five years — the lower band of the central bank’s inflation target. Now, they are flirting with outright deflation. In fact, if the impact of food and oil prices is excluded, the prices are actually deflating (Chart 6). Chart 5...Which Is Hurting Jobs And Wage Growth Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 6Thailand Is Flirting With Outright Deflation... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   Outright deflation makes it harder for borrowers to service their debts, which then discourages both borrowing and spending — making the recovery much harder. Notably, the banks’ prime lending rates remain high at 5.4%, which means real prime lending rates are quite steep at 5% (deflated by core CPI). This is at a time of very low household income and business revenue growth expectations. This trend is a strong disincentive for borrowing and consuming /capital spending. Little Policy Support What is more concerning for the economy is that policymakers can offer little to boost the economy. Fiscal stimulus has waned: government expenditure, after a surge last year, is now contracting (Chart 7). The budget proposal for the next fiscal year (October 2021 - September 2022) that was passed by the parliament in June 2021 (first reading)2 stipulates a 5.7% cut in nominal spending. Part of the reason is that fiscal deficits have already ballooned to a staggering 8% of GDP — from an average of 2.5% in the past ten years. The IMF estimates that the fiscal thrust will be zero this year, and a negative 2.4% of GDP in 2022 (Chart 7, bottom panel). The monetary policy transmission is also paralyzed. Despite easing by the Bank of Thailand — the policy rate is at an all-time low of 0.5% since May last year — credit growth is dismal. Lenders are wary of rising NPLs and are holding back new credit: The share of impaired loans (NPLs plus Special Mention Loans) of total bank loans has dramatically increased to 10%. In the case of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), that ratio is 20%. By comparison, loss provisions are much lower, at just 5.2% as of June of this year (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 7...Yet, The Government Is Planning To Cut Fiscal Spending Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 8Sharp Rise In Banks' Stressed Loans Amid Tanking Profits... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   Notably, both operating and net profits of banks had already halved (as a % of assets) by June 2021 — as both interest and non-interest incomes dropped. Profits are slated to contract further, since banks will have to make greater provisions in the future as the recent surge in new cases will produce more loan delinquencies (Chart 8, bottom panel). The specter of rising NPLs has prompted banks to retrench loans. In particular, bank credit to SMEs has plunged by a massive 34% from 2019 levels (Chart 9). Before the pandemic, banks’ SME loans made up a significant 30% of GDP. Now, they are down to 21%. Credit retrenchment of this order to the job-intensive SME sector is going to have a significant negative ripple effect. Employment will shrink further as small businesses go bust. Shrinking jobs will dent household income, and, in turn, consumer demand. Incidentally, loans to other business segments are also not rising much. Bank loans to all non-financial corporates are growing rather minimally, at 1.5% year-over-year. Going into the pandemic, the Thai household sector was already highly leveraged. Over the past two decades, banks and other financial institutions have been lending ever more to households, shunning non-financial corporates. Households’ borrowing from banks have now risen to 40% of GDP; and those from other institutions another 50%. These loans had helped boost consumer demand all those years, but now, at a time when incomes are uncertain, households have very limited appetite to borrow more to spend. This means a consumer debt-fueled demand recovery is not in the cards (Chart 10). Chart 9...Induced Banks To Massively Reduce Credit To The Job-Intensive SME Sector Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 10Thai Households Are Too Indebted To Borrow More And Spend Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   In brief, Thai businesses are in the middle of a toxic combination of contracting sales, absent fiscal support, slashed credit facilities, and rather high borrowing costs in real terms. Chart 11 shows that corporate profit margins of non-financial firms are struggling at a low level. It is no wonder that businesses are reluctant to invest, expand, and hire. The message is similar when we examined all companies included in the MSCI Thailand stock index. On the one hand, their EPS has fallen to 10-year lows. Thai stock prices, on the other hand, have not yet fallen as much as the shrinking EPS would imply (Chart 12, top panel). The consequence is that the valuations are remarkably stretched—near a 20-year high (Chart 12, bottom panel). Chart 11Low Margins Are Discouraging Thai Firms To Borrow, Invest, Or Hire Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 12Thai Profits, At A Decade-Low, Are Also A Headwind For Stock Prices Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   All in all, for Thai share prices to stage a sustainable rally, an economic recovery is essential. The first indications of that usually come from an improving order book. The latter currently shows little glimmer of hope. But investors should keep an eye on this indicator, as Thai stocks’ performance is geared to the ebbs and flows of the business order book (Chart 13). Thailand Needs A Weaker Currency The state of the Thai economy not only warrants exchange rate depreciation, but also needs a much weaker currency to help an economic recovery. The country’s balance of payment is in deficit — for the first time since 2014. A crucial reason is that the baht is still expensive, which continues to weigh on exports. Of all the export-oriented Asian economies, Thai exports recovery has been the weakest (Chart 14). Chart 13Keep An Eye On The Order Book For A Sign In Stock Recovery Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 14An Expensive Baht Held Back Thai Exports Recovery Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   The fact that a quarter of Thai exports go to other ASEAN countries — where demand has been and remains weak due to the lingering pandemic — doesn’t help either. As a result, the Thai trade surplus has narrowed significantly, and the current account has slipped into deficit (Chart 15, top and middle panels). The other main external revenue source of Thailand, tourism, continues to be near absent at 0.6% of GDP — a far cry from a high of 12% before the pandemic (Chart 15, bottom panel). What’s more, there is little hope of any recovery in the near future. The government now expects the number of foreign tourists this year to be as low as 0.3 million versus 40 million in 2019. On the capital account front, Thailand continues to hemorrhage both FDI and portfolio capital — just as it did the past several years. Despite that, the baht had remained strong until early this year, as a result of a substantial repatriation of bank deposits by Thai residents and, to a lesser extent, foreign borrowings. Those inflows prevented the Thai baht from depreciating. But such panic-stricken, one-off savings/deposit repatriations by Thai residents will certainly slow materially going forward (Chart 16). Chart 15The Thai Current Account Balance Will Struggle To Stay In Surplus... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 16...While The Capital Account Balance Will Slip Deeper Into Deficit... Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht   There’s also little hope that FDI and portfolio inflows will pick up the slack. The reason is that the Thai economy is very weak and the return on capital is low. The latter discourages capital inflows. The fact that the baht continues to be an expensive currency in real terms, and therefore not as competitive as some of its neighbors’, doesn’t help either. The multi-nationals who are planning to re-locate out of China might find some other countries — where the currency is more competitive (such as in India, Malaysia, or the Philippines) — more attractive. Overall, the Thai capital account balance will likely slide deeper into deficit, at a time when the current account will also struggle to stay in surplus. The result will be a further deterioration in the country’s balance of payment, hurting the baht (Chart 17). Considered from another angle, if the return on capital on Thai assets is any guide, the baht could drop much more from its current levels (Chart 18). Chart 17...Putting Downward Pressure On The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Chart 18Thai Firms' Low Rates Of Return Point To More Baht Depreciation Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht     The reality is that, given Thailand’s current macro backdrop, a cheaper currency is what the nation needs. That will help boost growth significantly by aiding exports and promoting import substitution. Since foreign trade makes up an impressive 90% of GDP, a boost therein could kickstart the entire economy. Another result of a weaker currency will be higher inflation, something the economy seriously needs. Higher inflation will contribute to lower real interest rates which, in turn, will encourage borrowing and spending. Higher spending and inflation will help achieve higher nominal sales, boost firms’ profits, employment, and eventually, household incomes. All in all, it could allow a productive cycle to unfold. Given all these possible benefits and given that policymakers have few other tools at their disposal at this juncture, chances are the central bank will let the baht depreciate more, albeit in an orderly fashion, in the months to come. What About Bonds? Chart 19Mantain A Neutral Allocation To Thai Domestic Bonds In An EM Basket Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thai local currency bonds’ absolute return in US dollar terms, as expected, is highly dependent on the exchange rate (Chart 19, top panel). Given the weak currency outlook, foreign investors should refrain from holding Thai domestic bonds outright. For foreign asset allocators, however, the matter is more nuanced. Thai domestic bonds’ relative return versus that of overall EM did not depend on the baht movement alone. This is because Thailand has been a defensive market owing to the following: a traditionally strong current account, a manageable public debt (now 47% of GDP), and a relatively low holding of bonds by foreign investors (now 12% of total). A robust current account surplus for years meant that during periods of negative growth shocks, the baht often fell less than many other EM currencies — that is, in periods of distress, the baht helped boost the relative performance of Thai bonds vis-à-vis overall EM bonds in US dollar terms. Those periods of distress also saw Thai bond yields fall as the central bank was able to cut rates due to low inflation. In addition, during those periods, local investors moved from equities to government bonds. Since the holdings of local bond investors far outweighed those of foreign investors, Thai bond yields managed to go down, even when some foreign investors dumped EM and Thai domestic bonds. As a result of these factors, Thai bonds outperformed their EM counterparts during the commodity/EM slowdown in 2014-15, and again at the height of the COVID-19-scare in early 2020 — even though the baht fell versus the US dollar during those periods (Chart 19, middle panel). All that said, the reality in the ground has changed somewhat since early last year. The Thai current account is no longer in surplus, and, given the dismal tourism outlook and slowing trade surplus, it will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future. That will keep the baht relatively weak weighing on Thai bonds’ relative performance versus their EM peers. On the other hand, the grim outlook of the Thai economy and looming deflation risk means that Thai bond yields could fall going forward relative to their EM counterparts. That will be a tailwind for Thai domestic bonds’ relative outperformance versus their EM counterparts. There is, therefore, a good chance that the headwind from a relatively weaker baht could be somewhat compensated for by a drop in Thai local yields versus their EM peers. Indeed, the periods of the baht’s weakness usually coincided with Thai bonds’ relative yield compression (Chart 19, bottom panel). This calls for a neutral outlook for relative bond performance going forward. Investment Conclusions Currency: The baht outlook remains precarious. Investors would do well to remain short the baht versus the US dollar. Domestic Bonds: Thai bond yields will go down. The Bank of Thailand will have no choice but to cut rates further. Local investors should stay long bonds. For international dedicated EM fixed-income portfolios, we downgraded Thai bonds in February of this year, from overweight to neutral in an EM bond portfolio, in view of the impending baht weakness. That turned out to be a good decision. Going forward, investors should continue to have a neutral allocation on Thai bonds, as the headwind from the baht will be mitigated by the tailwind from relative bond yield compression. Foreign absolute-return investors, however, should avoid Thai bonds in view of expected currency depreciation. Chart 20A Vulnerable Baht Will Keep Foreign Equity Investors Away Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Thailand: Stay Short The Baht Stocks: A struggling economy offers little hope for corporate margins or profits recovery soon. A vulnerable currency makes Thai stocks even less appealing to foreign investors. Without their participation, it will be hard for this market to rise sustainably in absolute terms or outperform their EM counterparts (Chart 20). Thai equities are not cheap either: the P/Book ratio is at par with EM. That said, given the Thai market’s already very steep underperformance versus the EM equity benchmark, from a portfolio strategy point of view, we recommend investors stay neutral this market within an EM equity portfolio. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please refer to the EMS report “Thailand: Beset By A Vulnerable Baht,” dated February 24, 2021. 2 The budget bill has to pass the second and third readings expected in August before it goes for senate and royal approval.

Highlights Chinese authorities’ regulatory crackdown on new economy companies reflects new socio-political and economic shifts in China. Hence, this regulatory crackdown is not transitory. Investors in Chinese TMT/new economy stocks are facing uncertainty on multiple fronts which warrants lower valuation multiples. These companies will experience weaker profit growth and lower profitability relative to the past due to disruptions to their business models. Elsewhere, widening credit spreads among Chinese property developers reflects the property market’s poor outlook. In turn, shrinking Chinese construction heralds weaker demand for commodities and manufacturing goods. This poses a material risk to raw material prices and, consequently, EM in general. Feature Chart 1Chinese Growth/TMT Share Prices And P/E Ratio Chinese Growth/TMT Share Prices And P/E Ratio Chinese Growth/TMT Share Prices And P/E Ratio The Chinese MSCI Investable Growth stock index is down by 35% from its February peak (Chart 1, top panel). Such a drawdown in the previous market leaders has produced a temptation to buy. The enticement is especially strong given that US FAANGM stocks are hitting new all-time highs. Is the latest crash in Chinese new economy/growth/TMT stocks a bad dream that will soon end, or does it mark a new reality for these companies? In our opinion, Chinese authorities’ regulatory crackdown on new economy companies reflects new socio-political and economic shifts in China. Hence, this regulatory crackdown is not transitory but is a part of China’s ongoing transformation. In brief, these companies are facing a new reality. What’s more, their outlook is very uncertain and equity valuations are not low enough to offset potential risks related to owning these stocks. Overall, investors should not start bottom fishing in Chinese stocks in general and Chinese TMT stocks in particular. Uncertainty = Lower Equity Multiples Immense uncertainty surrounds the outlook for Chinese TMT share prices. Even though China’s growth stocks have been de-rated, their trailing P/E ratio remains at 36.5 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1A Snapshot Of Drawdown And Valuations Chinese TMT Stocks: A Bad Dream Or A New Reality? Chinese TMT Stocks: A Bad Dream Or A New Reality? Table 1 shows the drawdowns and trailing P/E ratios for TMT/new economy/growth indexes as well as their largest constituencies: Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan. These equity multiples are still high given the uncertainty these companies are facing. By extension, investors in Chinese TMT/new economy stocks are also facing uncertainty on multiple fronts: Regulatory crackdowns mean that the business models of many of these companies will have to undergo substantial changes. Corporations may need to overhaul their product lines or abandon existing products/markets and find new niches and introduce new offerings. It is impossible to know what the long-term revenue and profit growth rates of these companies will be so that they can be properly valued. Such heightened uncertainty about the long-term outlook warrants a higher equity risk premium and, hence, lower equity multiples. President Xi Jinping’s long-term objective is to reduce income equality and achieve more equal wealth distribution. There will therefore be little tolerance for excessive profitability of individual companies. Chart 2 illustrates the large income gap between the top 10% and bottom 50% of the population. In turn, the mean-to-median wealth ratio points to a large and rising wealth gap – a higher ratio reflects greater wealth concentration among rich households (Chart 3). Chart 2China: Income Disparity Has Not Been Narrowing Wealth Concertation Remains High In China Wealth Concertation Remains High In China Chart 3Wealth Concentration Remains High In China Wealth Concertation Remains High In China Wealth Concertation Remains High In China   President Xi’s goal is to appease the broader population, not shareholders or businesses. Top authorities have been using phrases such as “disorderly expansion of capital” since last fall. This language marked a major shift in government policies regarding market power and dominance of private companies. Investors should take note that they are now dealing with a new investment regime in China. For some time, we have argued that China’s regulatory tightening on private platform companies would aim to limit their monopolistic or oligopolistic power and ration their profitability. As a result, we alleged that these new economy companies would end up being regulated like utilities or become quasi-government entities. Consequently, their profitability would decline to close to that of utilities or SOEs. Yet, utility stocks or SOEs in China command much lower equity multiples than those at which platform companies’ stocks have been trading. Even as of today, the trailing P/E ratio on the China MSCI Growth Investable index is 36.5. Meanwhile, global utility stocks command a trailing P/E ratio of 19. It is hard to know where the P/E ratios of these Chinese TMT stocks will settle, but our hunch is that their multiple compression is not over yet. Regulatory clampdowns will not only curtail their revenues and pricing power but also increase their costs. These companies will need to spend money to comply with the new regulatory regime. They will, for instance, be expected to take on more in the way of social responsibilities, as SOEs in China have been doing. This and other measures will eat into their profit margins and will lower the return on capital. Finally, many Chinese TMT companies that have their ADRs listed in the US have been caught in the crossfire of the “big data war” between the US and China. On the one hand, US authorities want to oblige these Chinese issuers to comply with US regulations in terms of information and risks disclosure. On the other hand, Chinese authorities are reluctant to allow more data/information disclosure by their dominant platform companies to foreign investors. Given that the US-China confrontation is likely to escalate on many fronts going forward, odds are low that there will be a lasting solution to this conflict around US-traded Chinese equities. Authorities in the Middle Kingdom are not very sensitive to the fact that foreign shareholders are losing money in Chinese offshore trading stocks. Unless the crash in offshore stocks spills into the domestic financial markets and the economy, their willingness to compromise will be limited. In turn, the US will not “encourage” American investors to invest more in Chinese stocks where its regulatory authority and influence is weak. Overall, such high uncertainty regarding offshore Chinese stocks in general and the ones trading in the US in particular warrants a higher equity risk premium and lower equity multiples. Despite these negatives, there is a silver lining: China’s new economy segments have been and will continue expanding at a rapid pace. Chinese authorities are genuinely interested in supporting new economy sectors which could help boost productivity and be growth engines as the growth contribution from construction/infrastructure/manufacturing diminishes. The challenge for investors is to find companies that benefit from the continued expansion of new economy sectors, and acquire their stocks at reasonable multiples to secure limited drawdowns during market selloffs. Bottom Line: Chinese growth stocks/TMT share prices – on the index level – remain at risk of further de-rating/multiple compression. These companies also face potentially weaker profit growth and lower profitability compared to the past due to disruptions to their business models and/or higher costs of doing business. A Breakdown In Chinese Property Stocks And Bonds Is Flying Under The Radar Chart 4Property Stocks And Bond Prices Have Crashed Property Stocks And Bond Prices Have Crashed Property Stocks And Bond Prices Have Crashed While Chinese TMT stocks are at the center of the global investment community’s interest, there has been a breakdown in mainland real estate share prices and a spike in property companies’ offshore credit spreads (Chart 4). The rising cost of capital imply that real estate developers will curtail their new property launches and construction. In addition, authorities will not ease regulatory tightening in the property market in general and property companies in particular. The objective is to halt the rise in property prices so that the continuous increase in personal income brings down the household income-to-property price ratio. The latter is extremely high in China making housing unaffordable for average Chinese. Authorities are very sensitive to the issue of housing unaffordability. Not only are property developers under pressure from tightening but also authorities are curbing demand for housing. In particular, two weeks ago the PBoC ordered banks in Shanghai to raise the rate of mortgage loans for first-time homebuyers to 5% from 4.65% and for people who are buying second homes to 5.7% from 5.25%. This measure might be extended to other tier-1 cities if house prices do not stop rising. As a result of the clampdown on property developers and move to restrain investment/speculative demand for housing, construction activity will shrink. The top panel of Chart 5 illustrates that the level of aggregate building construction starts has turned down. Residential property sales are decelerating and starts are contracting (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Property construction in China will start shrinking in the coming months. This will spill into other industrial/manufacturing sectors that supply construction and produce durable consumer goods. Chinese industrial output is set to decelerate materially as is predicted by a relapse in the nation’s manufacturing PMI’s new and backlog orders (Chart 6). This poses a material risk to raw material prices and, consequently, to EM in general. Chart 5Chinese Property Construction Is Set To Contract Chinese Property Construction Is Set To Contract Chinese Property Construction Is Set To Contract Chart 6China's Manufacturing To Decelerate China's Manufacturing To Decelerate China's Manufacturing To Decelerate   Investment Conclusions From a short-term perspective, Chinese growth stocks are oversold, however this is not true from a long-term perspective. As shown in the top panel of Chart 1 above, the Chinese MSCI Investable Growth Stock Index is only back to its June 2020 levels. In fact, the parabolic rise in Chinese TMT stocks in late 2020 and early 2021 reflected investor euphoria that typically occurs at the end of a major bull market. Hence, the February peak in these equities could mark a major top. If so, these stocks are unlikely to embark on a sustainable bull market any time soon. For now, investors should fade rebounds in Chinese TMT stocks. We have been overweight Chinese stocks within an EM equity portfolio but this has been a bad call. However, among Chinese stocks we have recommended the following strategy since March 4th of this year: long A shares/short Investable stocks. The basis has been that we foresaw more downside risks in TMT stocks than onshore equities indexes (Chart 7). This recommendation is up by 15.5% since then and investors should maintain this strategy. Chart 7Stay Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Offshore Trading Stocks Stay Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Offshore Trading Stocks Stay Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Offshore Trading Stocks Chinese equities are oversold relative to the EM index, and we are reluctant to downgrade them now. We are also waiting for our view of the continued US dollar rebound and lower commodities prices to play out before we downgrade Chinese equities. Other EM bourses typically underperform when the US dollar rallies and commodities sell off markedly. As we argued in last week’s report, the weakness in EM equities has not been limited to Chinese TMT stocks. EM ex-TMT share prices have also rolled over, which is consistent with rising EM corporate bond yields (Chart 8). Chart 8Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Herald Lower EM ex-TMT Share Prices Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Herald Lower EM ex-TMT Share Prices Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Herald Lower EM ex-TMT Share Prices Although most of the rise in EM corporate bond yields/spreads can be attributed to Chinese property companies, their widening credit spreads reflect the mainland property market’s poor outlook. In turn, shrinking Chinese construction heralds weaker demand for commodities and manufacturing goods. Notably, Chart 9 reveals that there has been a widening gap between a declining Chinese manufacturing PMI and resilient industrial metals prices. Odds are that commodity prices will recouple with China’s manufacturing PMI to the downside. Chart 9An Unsustainable Divergence: Beware Of Risks To Commodity Prices An Unsustainable Divergence: Beware Of Risks To Commodity Prices An Unsustainable Divergence: Beware Of Risks To Commodity Prices We continue to recommend underweighting EM versus DM for global equity and credit portfolios, a strategy we initiated on March 25, 2021. We also recommend shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar and maintaining a cautious stance on commodity prices. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, fixed-income and currency investors is available at the end of this report. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com  

Dear Client, China Investment Strategy will take a summer break next week. We will resume our publication on July 14th. Best regards and we wish you a happy and healthy summer. Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A USD rebound and higher domestic bond yields pose near-term challenges to Chinese risk assets. A sharp deceleration in credit growth in the past seven months will lead to weaker-than-expected data from China’s old-economy sectors in the second half of the year.  Robust global trade has propelled Chinese exports, allowing the country to pursue financial deleverage and structural reforms. However, next year policymakers will face increased pressure to support the domestic economy as the global economic recovery peaks and demand slows. Investors should maintain an underweight stance towards Chinese stocks in 2H21, but remain alert to any improvements in China’s policy tone.  An easing monetary policy may signal a potential upgrade catalyst in 1H22. Feature Most recent macro figures confirm that China’s impressive economic upcycle has peaked. We expect that the official manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs, which will be released as this report is published, will come in modestly down. We maintain the view that a major relapse in economic activity is unlikely, but the strong tailwinds that have propelled China's recovery since Q2 last year have since abated and will lead to softer growth. Meanwhile, the rate of economic and export expansions has given Chinese policymakers confidence to scale back leverage and continue with market reforms. In the second half of the year, investors' sentiment towards Chinese stocks will be tested based on three risks: A rebound in the US dollar index. A tighter liquidity environment and higher interest rates. A weakening in macro indicators beyond market expectations. As the global economic recovery peaks into 2022, pressures to support the domestic economy will become more urgent if policymakers want to maintain an average rate of 5% real GDP growth in 2020 - 2022. The current policy settings are not yet favorable to overweight Chinese risk assets. Major equity indexes remain richly valued and the market could easily correct if domestic rates move higher. However, signs of policy easing may emerge by yearend, which would prompt us to shift our view to overweight Chinese stocks in both absolute and relative terms. The Case For A Dollar Rebound On a tactical basis (next three months), a rebound in the US dollar index may curb investors’ enthusiasm for Chinese stocks. A stronger dollar will give the RMB’s appreciation some breathing room and will be reflationary for China’s economy. However, in the short term a stronger USD will also lead to weaker foreign inflows to China’s equity markets. Chinese stock prices have become more closely and negatively correlated with the dollar index since early 2020 (Chart 1). A weaker dollar is usually accompanied by a global economic upturn and a higher risk appetite from investors, propelling more foreign portfolio flows to emerging markets (which includes Chinese risk assets). Although foreign inflows account for a small portion of the Chinese A-share market cap, global institutional investors’ sentiment has become more influential and has led fluctuations in Chinese onshore stock prices (Chart 2). Chart 1Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Chart 2Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Chart 3Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff The US Federal Reserve delivered a slightly more hawkish surprise at its June FOMC meeting with the message that it will move the projected timing of its first fed fund rate liftoff from 2024 to 2023. Since then, market expectations have shifted from growth and inflation to focusing on the next monetary policy tightening phase, with the short end of the US yield curve rising sharply (Chart 3). Given that currency markets trade off the short end of the yield curve, higher US interest rate expectations will at least temporarily lift the US dollar. The timing and pace of the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the US central bank’s definition of “maximum employment.” BCA’s US Bond Investment strategist anticipates that sizeable and positive non-farm payroll surprises will start in late summer/early fall, which will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. As such, we expect additional upside risks in the dollar index in the coming months, which will discourage foreign investors’ appetite for Chinese equities. Bottom Line: A rebound in the dollar index will be a near-term downside risk to Chinese stocks. Risk Of Higher Chinese Interest Rates Another near-term risk to Chinese stock prices is a tightening in domestic liquidity conditions and a rebound in interest rates, particularly in Q3. Chart 4The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus So far this year the PBoC has kept liquidity conditions accommodative to avoid massive debt defaults, while allowing a faster deceleration in the pace of credit expansion and a sharp contraction in shadow banking (Chart 4). In the coming months, however, the trend may reverse. Even though we do not think China’s current inflation and growth dynamics warrant meaningful and sustainable monetary policy tightening, there is still room for rates to normalize to their pre-pandemic levels in the next few months. Our view is based on the following:  First, there was a major delay in local government bond issuance in the first five months of the year. The supply of government bonds will pick up meaningfully in Q3 to meet the annual quota for 2021. An increase in government bond issuance will remove some liquidity from the banking system because the majority of these local government bonds are purchased by commercial banks. Adding to the liquidity gap is a large number of one-year, medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans that will be due in 2H21. Secondly, the PBoC may shift its policy tightening from reducing the volume of total credit creation (measured by total social financing) to raising the price of money. Credit growth (on year-over-year basis) in the first five months of 2021 dropped by three percentage points from its peak in Q4 last year, much faster than the 13-month peak-to-trough deceleration during the 2017/18 policy tightening cycle. As the rate of credit creation approaches the government’s target for the year, which we expect around 11%, the pressure to further compress credit expansion has eased into 2H21. China’s policy agenda is still focused on de-risking in the financial and real estate sectors, therefore, we expect policymakers to keep overall monetary conditions restrictive by raising the price of money. Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility of a hike in mortgage rates. Chart 5Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Lastly, as the Fed prepares market expectations for its rate liftoff and China’s domestic economy is still relatively solid, the PBoC may seize the opportunity to guide market-based interest rates towards their pre-pandemic levels. Thus, the market will likely price in tighter liquidity conditions while lowering expectations for the economy and inflation. The short end of the yield curve will rise faster than the longer end, resulting in a flattening of the curve (Chart 5). There is a nontrivial risk that the market will react negatively to tighter liquidity conditions and rising bonds yields, particularly when the economy is slowing. We mentioned in previous reports that rising policy rates and bond yields do not necessarily lead to lower stock prices, if rates are rising while credit keeps expanding and corporate profit growth accelerates. However, currently credit impulse has decelerated sharply, and corporate profit growth has most likely peaked in Q2. Therefore, even a small increase in bond yields or market expectations of higher rates will likely trigger risk asset selloffs. Bottom Line: Bond yields will move higher in Q3, risking market selloffs. Chinese Economy Standing On One Leg China’s economic fundamentals also pose downside risks to Chinese stock prices. Macro indicators on a year-over-year comparison will soften further in 2H21 when low base effects wane, although they will weaken from very high levels. This year’s sharp credit growth deceleration will start to drag down domestic demand, with the risk of corporate profits disappointing the market. A positive tailwind from global trade prevented China's old economy from decelerating more in the first half of the year. It is reflected in the nominal imports and manufacturing orders components in the BCA Activity Index (Chart 6). However, while rising commodity prices boosted the value of Chinese imports, the volume of imports has been moving sideways of late (Chart 7). Chart 6Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Chart 7...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over Chart 8Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Moreover, China’s export volume is peaking as the reopening in other countries shifts consumer demand from goods to services. Strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth in the coming 12 months, even though a regression-based approach suggests that export growth will stay above trend-growth if global economic activity remains robust (Chart 8). All three components of the official Li Keqiang Index, which measures China’s industrial sector activity and incorporates electricity consumption, railway transportation and bank lending, have rolled over (Chart 9). Among the three components in BCA’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, only the monetary conditions index improved on the back of lower real rates. Contributions from the money supply and credit expansion components to the overall indicator have been negative (Chart 10). Chart 9The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... Chart 10...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator Chart 11Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard The recovery in household consumption remains well behind the industrial sector in the current cycle (Chart 11). We expect consumption and services to continue recovering very gradually. Apart from China’s long-standing structural issues, such as sliding household income growth and a high propensity to save, the cyclical recovery in consumption is dependent on China’s domestic COVID-19 situation. The country is on track to fully vaccinate 40% of its population by the end of June and 80% by year-end (Chart 12). However, hiccups in the service sector recovery are expected through 2H21, given China’s “zero tolerance” policy on confirmed COVID cases, which could trigger sporadic local lockdowns (Chart 13). Chart 12China Is Racing To Reach “Full Inoculation Rate” By Yearend China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap Chart 13Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Bottom Line: Any moderation in exports in the rest of 2021 may add to the slowdown in China’s economic activity. Don’t Count On Fiscal Support Chart 14Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 During the first five months of the year, fiscal spending has downshifted (Chart 14). The amount of local government special-purpose bonds (SPBs) issued was far less than in the same period of the past two years, and below this year’s approved annual quota. Although we expect fiscal support to increase into 2H21, backloading SPBs would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure rather than a meaningful boost to economic activity. The RMB3 trillion SPBs to be issued in 2H21 represent only about 10% of this year’s total credit expansion. To substantially boost credit impulse and economic activity, the pickup in SPB issuance will need to be accompanied by looser monetary policy and an acceleration in bank loans (Chart 15). We do not expect that liquidity conditions will remain as lax as in 1H21. Additionally, given that the central government’s focus is to rein in the leverage of local governments and their affiliated financial vehicles (LGFV), provincial officers have little incentive to take on more bank loans against a restrictive policy backdrop. Historically, a stronger fiscal impulse linked to hefty increases in local government bond issuance has not necessarily led to meaningful improvements in infrastructure investment, which has been on a structural downshift since 2017 (Chart 16). Following a V-shaped recovery in 2H20, the growth in infrastructure investment will likely continue to slide in 2H21 due to sluggish government spending. Chart 15Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Chart 16Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Bottom Line: There are no signs that the overall policy stance is easing to facilitate a higher fiscal multiplier from an upturn in local government bond issuance. As such, fiscal support for infrastructure spending and economic activity will disappoint in 2H21 despite more SPB issuance. Investment Conclusions Monetary conditions may tighten in Q3 although credit growth will decelerate at a slower pace. Pressures to support domestic demand will be more pronounced next year as tailwinds abate from the global recovery and domestic massive stimulus. Our view is that Chinese authorities will likely ease on the policy tightening brake towards the end of this year and perhaps even signal some reflationary measures in early 2022.  Therefore, while we maintain an underweight stance on Chinese stocks for the time being, investors should remain alert to any improvements in China's policy direction. In particular, any monetary policy easing by end this year/early 2022 may signal a potential catalyst to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight in absolute terms. Although both Chinese onshore and investable equities are currently traded at a discount relative to global stocks, they are richly valuated compared with their 2017/18 highs (Chart 17). China's economy is slowing and the corporate sector has substantially increased its leverage in the past decade. We believe that the current discount in Chinese equities relative to global stocks is warranted. Chart 18 presents a forecast for A-share earnings growth in US dollars, based on earnings’ relationship with the official Li Keqiang index. The chart shows that while an earnings contraction is not probable, without more stimulus the growth rate may fall sharply in the next 12 months from its current elevated level. This aspect, combined with only a minor valuation discount relative to global stocks, paints an uninspiring outlook for Chinese onshore stocks. Chart 17Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chart 18An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook Our baseline view is that Chinese authorities will be more willing to step up policy supports into 2022. Fiscal impulse will likely turn negative for most major economies next year and global economic recovery will have peaked. In this scenario, both China’s economy and stocks will have the potential to outperform their global peers next year.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Spread Product: The macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. High-Yield: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. EM Corporates: Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Feature Chart 1Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Last week’s report looked at how the June FOMC meeting prompted a massive re-shaping of the Treasury curve.1 It didn’t discuss, however, the impact that June’s meeting had on credit spreads. There’s a simple reason for this. Corporate bond spreads didn’t move very much post-FOMC. In fact, neither investment grade nor high-yield spreads have widened significantly during the past two weeks, despite the Fed’s apparent “hawkish turn” (Chart 1). The VIX jumped briefly above 20 in the days following the Fed meeting but it has since re-discovered its lows (Chart 1, bottom panel). This week’s report considers whether the corporate bond market is too complacent. The first section updates our assessment of where we are in the credit cycle based on two indicators that did see large swings post-Fed. The second section updates our outlook for high-yield defaults and considers whether junk spreads continue to offer adequate compensation. Finally, the third section of this report presents an introductory look at valuation in the USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) corporate sector. We find that, for the most part, investment grade EM corporates are attractively valued relative to EM sovereigns and US corporates of the same credit rating and duration. Credit Cycle Update Chart 2Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators As we have repeatedly stated in past research, the slope of the yield curve is a very important credit cycle indicator.2 We have documented that spread product tends to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by a wide margin when the yield curve is steep. This outperformance tapers off once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope falls below 50 bps and it falls off even more when the slope dips below zero.3 With that in mind, it is notable that the Treasury curve flattened dramatically following the June FOMC meeting (Chart 2). At 106 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains well above the 50 bps threshold that would start to get concerning for spread product. However, it’s likely that the yield curve will continue to flatten as we approach a Fed rate hike in 2022. In other words, we expect that monetary conditions will turn sufficiently restrictive for us to reduce our recommended spread product allocation within the next 12-18 months. On the other hand, one positive development for spread product returns is that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate declined following the June FOMC meeting. In fact, it is now below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 2, bottom panel). This is a positive development for spread product because the Fed will strive to ensure that monetary conditions stay accommodative at least until these long-dated inflation expectations are consistent with the 2.3% to 2.5% target. Or put differently, a rebound in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates back to the target range will slow the near-term pace of curve flattening, giving the credit cycle a small amount of extra running room. In short, the macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Investment Grade Corporates The highly supportive macro environment applies to investment grade corporate bonds, just as it does to all spread sectors. However, investment grade corporates have the problem that valuation is extremely tight. Much like a flat yield curve environment, a tight spread environment tends to coincide with low excess corporate bond returns. However, our research reveals that tight spreads alone are not sufficient for investment grade corporates to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. Table 1 classifies each month since May 1973 based on the investment grade corporate bond spread and the 3/10 Treasury slope. It then shows a 90% confidence interval for corporate bond excess returns during the following 12 months. It shows that, even when the corporate bond spread is below 100 bps (it is 81 bps today), investment grade corporates still tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries as long as the 3/10 Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Table 1Expected 12-Month Corporate Bond Excess Return* (BPs) Based On OAS And Yield Curve Slope The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Bottom Line: The yield curve has started to flatten but it remains very steep, consistent with spread product outperforming duration-matched Treasuries. We remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries but will re-consider this position once the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could happen within the next 12-18 months. We maintain only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds because of stretched valuations. We see more attractive opportunities in high-yield corporates (see next section), municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates (see final section below). High-Yield Default Update We last updated our default rate outlook in March.4 At that time, we concluded that junk spreads offered adequate compensation for expected default losses. Since then, we have received nonfinancial corporate sector profit and debt growth data for the first quarter of 2021, crucial inputs to our macro-based default rate model. Our macro-based model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate is based on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage (i.e. pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards (Chart 3). Lending standards enter our model with a lag, but we need a forward-looking estimate of gross leverage for our model to generate predictions. Chart 3Macro-Driven Default Rate Model Macro-Driven Default Rate Model Macro-Driven Default Rate Model To estimate gross leverage we first model corporate profit growth based on real GDP (Chart 4) and assume that real GDP grows by 7% over the next four quarters, consistent with the Fed’s median forecast. This gives us a profit growth expectation of roughly 30%. Chart 4Profit & Debt Growth Profit & Debt Growth Profit & Debt Growth We also need an estimate for corporate debt growth. Corporate debt exploded last year, growing 10% in 2020, but it then slowed to an annualized rate of 4% in Q1 2021. We think corporate debt growth will remain slow going forward. The nonfinancial corporate sector financing gap has been negative in each of the past four quarters (Chart 4, bottom panel), meaning that retained earnings have exceeded capital expenditures. In other words, firms have built up a lot of excess capital that can be deployed in place of debt to finance new investment opportunities. Table 2 shows our model’s predicted 12-month default rate based on different assumptions for profit and debt growth. If we assume corporate profit growth of 30% and corporate debt growth between 0% and 8%, then our model predicts that the 12-month default rate will fall from its current 5.5% to a range of 2.3% - 2.8%. Table 2Default Rate Scenarios The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Next, we need to consider what sort of expected default rate is priced into the High-Yield index. Our analysis of historical junk spreads and returns suggests that we should require a minimum excess spread of 100 bps in the High-Yield index after subtracting default losses to be confident that junk bonds will outperform Treasuries.5 If we also assume a recovery rate of 40% on defaulted debt, then we calculate that the High-Yield index is fairly priced for a 12-month default rate of 2.9% (Chart 5). That is, junk spreads appear slightly cheap compared to the 2.3% - 2.8% range predicted by our macro model.  Finally, it’s worth noting that actual corporate default events have been quite rare in recent months. In the first five months of 2021 we’ve seen between 1 and 3 default events per month. If we extrapolate that trend and assume we see 3 defaults per month going forward, then we calculate that the 12-month trailing default rate will fall to 2.0% by December, before leveling off at 2.2% (Chart 6). In other words, the recent trend has been one of significantly fewer defaults than predicted by our macro model Chart 5Spread-Implied Default Rate Spread-Implied Default Rate Spread-Implied Default Rate Chart 6Recent Default Trends Recent Default Trends Recent Default Trends Bottom Line: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. An Attractive Opportunity In EM Corporates This week we present an introductory look at the risk/reward opportunity in USD-denominated EM corporate bonds. Specifically, we look at the investment grade Bloomberg Barclays USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index. We compare this index to both the investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign index and the US Credit index.6 First, we look at recent performance trends and average index statistics (Table 3). Both the EM Corporate and EM Sovereign indexes have average credit ratings between A and Baa, so we compare their performance to the A-rated and Baa-rated US Credit indexes. We observe a significant option-adjusted spread (OAS) advantage in both the EM indexes, though part of the extra spread offered by the Sovereign index is compensation for its longer duration. The EM Corporate index sticks out as offering an extremely attractive OAS per unit of duration. Table 3Performance Trends & Index Statistics The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment As for performance, we see that the EM Corporate index experienced less of a drawdown (in excess return terms) during the COVID recession, though it has also returned less than both the EM Sovereign index and the Baa Credit index during the recent upswing. Chart 7Spreads Versus Credit Rating & Duration-Matched US Credit The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Next, we look at each individual credit tier of both the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index and the EM Sovereign index, and we calculate the spread relative to a credit rating and duration-matched position in the US Credit index (Chart 7). In general, we see that both EM indexes offer a spread advantage versus duration-matched US Credit across all credit rating tiers. EM sovereigns look better than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. This is the result of attractive spreads on the sovereign bonds of UAE and Qatar. However, EM corporates clearly dominate sovereigns in both the A and Baa credit tiers. Finally, we consider the risk/reward trade-off in our EM indexes by using our Excess Return Bond Map. Our Excess Return Bond Map shows the relationship between expected return (on the vertical axis) and risk (on the horizontal axis). In Chart 8A our risk measure is the 12-month spread widening required for each index to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries divided by that index’s historical spread volatility. It can be thought of as the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for the index to provide an excess return of -100 bps. A higher value corresponds to less risk, and vice-versa. Chart 8B uses the same risk measurement, only we use the spread widening required to lose 500 bps versus Treasuries to assess the risk of a large drawdown. Both Charts 8A and 8B use OAS as the measure of expected return. Chart 8AExcess Return Bond Map (100 BPs Loss Threshold) The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Chart 8BExcess Return Bond Map (500 BPs Loss Threshold) The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The first thing that sticks out in Charts 8A & 8B is that Baa-rated EM corporates offer greater expected return and less risk than the EM Sovereign index and the Baa US Credit Index. This is true whether our loss threshold is set at 100 bps or 500 bps. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient data to split the EM Sovereign index by credit tier in these charts. A-rated EM corporates offer slightly less expected return than the EM Sovereign index but with significantly less risk, they also clearly dominate the A-rated US Credit Index. Aa-rated EM corporates appear to offer a similar risk/reward trade-off as the EM Sovereign index, though we know from Chart 7 that sovereigns have a spread advantage in the Aa credit tier. The bottom line is that USD-denominated EM corporates are attractively valued relative to investment grade US corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating. EM corporates also look preferable to EM sovereigns in the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns are more attractive than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 3 We use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope in place of the more widely tracked 2-year/10-year slope in our credit cycle research only because using the 3-year/10-year slope allows us to include more historical cycles in our analysis. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 5 Please see page 33 of the US Bond Strategy Quarterly Chartpack, “Testing The Limits Of Transitory Inflation”, dated May 18, 2021. 6 The US Credit Index consists predominantly of US corporate bonds, but also some non-corporate credit such as: Sovereigns, Foreign Agencies, Domestic Agencies, Local Authority bonds and Supranationals. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights In the near term, the RMB against the US dollar has ceased to be a one-way bet. Market sentiment will re-focus on economic fundamentals, which are less supportive of further RMB appreciation.  In the longer term, the RMB still has some upside potential, but the pace of its growth should be much slower than in the past 12 months. The sharp rise in the trade-weighted RMB index is starting to threaten China’s export sector and has exacerbated the tightening of domestic monetary conditions. Barring a monetary policy reset by Chinese authorities, even a small increase in the broad-RMB index would heighten the risk of a contraction in corporate profit growth in the coming 12 months. We remain risk adverse to Chinese stocks for the next 6 months. Feature Chart 1The RMB Back On A Fast Ascending Path The RMB Back On A Fast Ascending Path The RMB Back On A Fast Ascending Path After a brief pause in March, China’s currency versus the US dollar extended its steep upward trend began in mid-2020 (Chart 1). Chinese policymakers recently ramped up their strong-worded statements warning against speculating on the RMB. Regulators have also taken steps to stem the rise. Questions we have recently been getting from our clients about the RMB can be summarized as follows: After a 10% appreciation since its trough a year ago, does the RMB have more upside in 2021 and beyond? If the RMB continues to appreciate, what would be the impact on China’s economy and corporate sector? What can the PBoC do to slow the pace of the currency’s appreciation? One could argue that the US dollar will continue to weaken, but we see substantial headwinds to the RMB within the year. A weaker US dollar would support global stock prices outside of the US and foreign inflows have driven the recent rally in China’s onshore stocks. However, we think China’s domestic macro policy and economic conditions pose more downside risks on a cyclical basis. How Far Can The RMB Go? A continued upswing in the CNY relative to the USD can no longer be taken for granted. In the coming months, there is a strengthening case for the RMB to fall against the greenback as factors supporting a strong RMB in the past year start to abate. Economic fundamentals will no longer prop up the RMB’s rise going into 2H21. China’s growth momentum is softening due to significant tightening in the monetary environment in the second half of last year and a rapid deceleration in credit growth this year (Chart 2). Meanwhile, the massive rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines in North America and Europe have successfully reduced new infections and hospitalization rates, allowing these countries to reopen their economies. The economic growth gaps between China and the developed markets (DMs) will narrow more significantly in the coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Economic Fundamentals Will Start To Weaken Chinese Economic Fundamentals Will Start To Weaken Chinese Economic Fundamentals Will Start To Weaken Chart 3China's Growth Gap Relative To DMs Will Narrow China's Growth Gap Relative To DMs Will Narrow China's Growth Gap Relative To DMs Will Narrow Chart 4Global Consumption Recovery In Services Will Likely Outpace Goods Global Consumption Recovery In Services Will Likely Outpace Goods Global Consumption Recovery In Services Will Likely Outpace Goods China’s large current account surplus will likely start narrowing. It has been driven by strong global demand for goods, which is unlikely to be sustained as the pent-up demand for services in DMs will outpace the consumption for goods (Chart 4). Emerging countries (EMs), many of which are China’s export competitors, lag far behind DMs and China on inoculation rates and some have resurging COVID cases (Chart 5). However, EMs will likely benefit from meaningful expansions in global vaccine production in the second half of the year.1 A catchup in vaccinations in these countries will reduce China’s export-sector advantage, reversing the RMB’s gains over other Asian currencies in the past month. Chart 5China's Asian Neighbors Have Been Hit By Resurging COVID Cases China's Asian Neighbors Have Been Hit By Resurging COVID Cases China's Asian Neighbors Have Been Hit By Resurging COVID Cases The future trend of the USD also matters to the USD/CNY exchange rate. The recent strength of the CNY vis-à-vis the dollar was the mirror image of USD weakness, which has been due to low real rates in the US and recovering economic momentum outside the US (Chart 6). However, the broad dollar index is sitting at a critical technical level that could either breakout or breakdown (Chart 7). When the Fed announces the slowing of asset purchases, which our BCA US Bond Strategy expects before the end of 2021, it could lead to higher US real yields and reverse the trend of hot money flows into China. Chart 6The Sharp Rise In The RMB In The Past Two Months Has Been Dollar-Driven The Sharp Rise In The RMB In The Past Two Months Has Been Dollar-Driven The Sharp Rise In The RMB In The Past Two Months Has Been Dollar-Driven Chart 7The Dollar Index: Breakout or Breakdown? The Dollar Index: Breakout or Breakdown? The Dollar Index: Breakout or Breakdown? Furthermore, the financial market does not seem to have priced in unstable US-China relations, which could undermine global risk appetite (Chart 8). Recent actions by US President Joe Biden – from expanding the investment ban on 59 blacklisted Chinese tech companies to calling for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 – point to risks for escalating tensions between the two nations. Longer term, the RMB is at about one standard deviation below its fair value, which suggests that it still has more upside potential (Chart 9). Based on our BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategist’s real effective exchange rate (REER) model, the RMB’s fair value mostly climbed in the past three decades, driven by higher productivity in China relative to its trading partners. However, part of the RMB’s appreciation since mid-2020 has been a catch up to its pre-trade war value and its valuation gap has rapidly narrowed. From the current valuation levels, the pace of RMB appreciation should be much slower going forward. Chart 8Geopolitical Surprises Could Spook The Market Geopolitical Surprises Could Spook The Market Geopolitical Surprises Could Spook The Market Chart 9Valuation Gap Has Rapidly Narrowed Valuation Gap Has Rapidly Narrowed Valuation Gap Has Rapidly Narrowed We also expect China’s real interest rates relative to the US to dwindle in the next three to five years. Demographic headwinds in China herald lower real rates while the Fed is primed to start rate liftoffs within the next two years. Bottom Line: The RMB still has some upside potential in the long run, but the pace of its appreciation should be much slower than in the past 12 months. In the near term, odds are high that economic fundamentals will not boost the RMB any further.  How Does A Stronger RMB Affect China’s Economy? Historically, a stronger RMB relative to the dollar has not had a significant impact on China’s economy. However, if the CNY appreciates considerably versus the greenback so that it pushes up the trade-weighted RMB index, then China’s corporate profits will be negatively affected (Chart 10). Chart 10Strengthening Broad-RMB Index Has Historically Led To Weaker Corporate Profit Growth... Strengthening Broad-RMB Index Has Historically Led To Weaker Corporate Profit Growth... Strengthening Broad-RMB Index Has Historically Led To Weaker Corporate Profit Growth... Chart 11...And Could Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months ...And Could Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months ...And Could Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months Our earnings growth recession probability model confirms our view. If all else is equal, a 3% rise in the trade-weighted RMB index from its current level would more than double the probability of a contraction in earnings growth in the coming 12 months (Chart 11, Scenario 1). On the other hand, all else will not be equal if the broad RMB index goes up by 3%. A quick increase in the RMB’s value against the currencies of its trading partners will impede China’s export growth and tighten domestic monetary conditions. Chart 12Moving Into Restrictive Territory For Chinese Exports Moving Into Restrictive Territory For Chinese Exports Moving Into Restrictive Territory For Chinese Exports Chart 12 shows the impact on export growth from the speed of the RMB’s appreciation; we calculate the rise in an export-weighted RMB index relative to its highs and lows in the past few years. The metric implies that the acceleration in the RMB’s value has reached levels that should be restrictive for exports. The nominal export-weighted RMB index has been significantly above the median value since 2015 and it is approaching the peak reached in that year. Clearly, the strong RMB is linked to a recent weakness in the PMI surveys on export orders. A 3% increase in the trade-weighted RMB from the current level, coupled with a drop in export growth and further deceleration in credit impulse would prop up the earnings contraction probability to more than 50% (Scenario 2 in Chart 11 above). Bottom Line: Our metrics suggest that the RMB’s recent sharp rise is starting to threaten the export sector. An additional 3% appreciation in the broad RMB index would cause a meaningful increase in the probability of a corporate earnings growth contraction in the coming 12 months. What Can The PBoC Do To Halt The RMB Rally? We break this question into two parts: the willingness and the capability of the PBoC to intervene in the currency market.  On the first aspect, the PBoC in recent years has largely refrained from draconian intervention measures in the currency market. Allowing a more market-based currency exchange rate regime is a crucial part of China’s RMB internationalization process. The PBoC seems to be mostly sticking to this long-term goal. Chart 13New FX Regime Began In 2015 Has Significantly Lowered USD Weight In The Broad-RMB Index... New FX Regime Began In 2015 Has Significantly Lowered USD Weight In The Broad-RMB Index... New FX Regime Began In 2015 Has Significantly Lowered USD Weight In The Broad-RMB Index... Importantly, the new exchange rate regime that the PBoC switched to at end-2015 has greatly weakened the link between the USD and the broad RMB trend (Chart 13). Since then China has continuously cut the weighting of the USD in the CFETS currency index basket, which has reduced the impact of dollar moves on the index. Therefore, the PBoC has mostly ignored short-term volatilities in the CNY/USD exchange rate. The central bank tends to intervene only when swings in the CNY/USD exchange rate are large enough and/or the market forms a unilateral view on the Chinese currency to drive sustained movements in the broader RMB index.  For example, the RMB value rose at a much faster rate against the USD compared with its other trading partners in the second half of 2020. However, this year, the pace of growth in the broad RMB index has caught up with that of the CNY/USD appreciation. Moreover, even when the RMB depreciated against the USD in March, the CFETS index basket kept rising and is now breaching its previous peak in April 2018 (Chart 14). As discussed in the previous section, a sharp jump in the trade-weighted RMB would be more detrimental to China’s corporate profits than an increase in the CNY/USD. Chart 14...But The Massive Appreciation In The CNY/USD Of Late Has Pushed The RMB Index To A Three-Year High ...But The Massive Appreciation In The CNY/USD Of Late Has Pushed The RMB Index To A Three-Year High ...But The Massive Appreciation In The CNY/USD Of Late Has Pushed The RMB Index To A Three-Year High Chart 15The PBoC Has Been Trying To Guide Market Expectations Lower On The RMB The PBoC Has Been Trying To Guide Market Expectations Lower On The RMB The PBoC Has Been Trying To Guide Market Expectations Lower On The RMB On the second aspect, the PBoC is unlikely to alter its monetary policy trajectory to tame the RMB’s appreciation. A looser monetary environment would encourage more asset price bubbles domestically and jeopardize policymakers’ ongoing progress in financial and property-market de-risking. If the CFETS strengthens further, Chinese authorities will probably use tools such as managing market expectations and various capital controls to mop up excess FX liquidity generated from capital inflows. In the near term, the PBoC may set a weaker fixing rate against the dollar to dampen market expectations for more RMB growth (Chart 15). An increase in the FX deposit reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate, announced by the PBoC last week, is another example of the central bank trying to prevent a one-sided expectation by market participants. However, the previous three FX deposit RRR hikes –all taken place more than a decade ago—did little to alter the path of the CNY exchange rate; the pace of USD/CNY depreciation actually accelerated following the May 2007 RRR hike.  The two-percentage point bump in the FX deposit RRR rate will drain China’s domestic FX liquidity by about US$20 billion. Its effect on domestic FX liquidity and FX loan rates is rather limited – FX inflows to Chinese financial institutions since 2H20 were more than US$20 billion a month –more than offsetting the tightening from a RRR rate hike.  The PBoC can further loosen outward capital controls to release some pressure on the RMB’s increase. In a report from November last year we wrote that Chinese policymakers attempted to slow the pace of appreciation in the RMB through a build-up in strategic FX assets by commercial banks and other financial institutions . Since August last year, China has relaxed outbound investment regulations and increased quotas to help channel domestic money into offshore financial markets. China’s commercial banks significantly ramped up their FX assets last year (Chart 16). In Q1 this year, commercial banks enriched their FX asset holdings by US$518.5 billion, a record high in the past five years.  Bottom Line: The PBoC is willing to allow more volatility in the USD/CNY exchange rate, but a sharp jump in the RMB’s value against a basket of other currencies would warrant further policy actions. Chart 16Chinese Banks Ramped Up FX Asset Holdings Chinese Banks Ramped Up FX Asset Holdings Chinese Banks Ramped Up FX Asset Holdings Chart 17Chinese Onshore Stocks Propped Up By Foreign Investors Chinese Onshore Stocks Propped Up By Foreign Investors Chinese Onshore Stocks Propped Up By Foreign Investors Investment Conclusions A tightened monetary and credit environment has created headwinds for Chinese equities since early this year. However, the domestic market appears to have found support at a key technical level of late (Chart 17). The recent rebound in China’s onshore stocks on the back of a sharp CNY appreciation and accelerated foreign capital inflows, in our view, are unsustainable on a cyclical basis. Despite buoyant global economic growth, investors should consider deteriorating cyclical conditions in China when judging the appropriate allocation for Chinese equities. While policy tightening has brought multiples closer to earth than last year, the upside in Chinese stock prices will be capped by subsiding stimulus and slower profit growth ahead. As such, a decisive breakout to the upside in Chinese stock prices will require major reflationary catalysts, and it is the reason we are still risk adverse on Chinese equities (Chart 18). Meanwhile, we continue to favor onshore consumer discretionary stocks relative to the broad A-share market. A strong RMB can be a booster to domestic discretionary spending. We initiated this trade in May last year and it has largely outperformed China’s onshore broad market (Chart 19). We will close the trade when the CNY loses its strength and Chinese domestic demand starts to falter. Chart 18Cyclical Performance In Chinese Stocks Is Still Driven By Economic Fundamentals Cyclical Performance In Chinese Stocks Is Still Driven By Economic Fundamentals Cyclical Performance In Chinese Stocks Is Still Driven By Economic Fundamentals Chart 19Keep A Long CD Position, But On A Short Leash Keep A Long CD Position, But On A Short Leash Keep A Long CD Position, But On A Short Leash   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1The UN estimates that as many as 15 billion vaccine doses could be produced by the second half of 2021, enough to inoculate most of the world’s population. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 19 at 10:00 AM EDT, 3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 11:00 PM HKT). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights A slower money and credit growth in China will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on demand for commodities. The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework to target core CPI and the PPI rather than headline CPI. Beijing is scaling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. In the next six to nine months we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. We are long CSI500 relative to China’s A shares. The CSI500 has a larger exposure to the global economy and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market.  Feature As a follow up to last week’s report, we look at another topic raised in recent client meetings: whether rapidly rising producer prices in China will morph into a broad-based inflationary risk and how macroeconomic policies will evolve to counter such a risk. Clients who believe that the ongoing producer price inflation is transitory cited China’s low consumer price inflation, and slowing money and credit growth, as leading indicators of budding disinflationary pressures. Advocates of sustained inflation pointed to robust recoveries and demand among advanced economies, extremely accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, massive fiscal stimulus in the US, a weak US dollar, and supply constraints. It remains to be seen what the worldwide pandemic’s impact will be on the balance between global production capacity and aggregate demand. In this report we analyze the PBoC’s inflation target and policy framework, and conclude that while China’s monetary policy has not become more hawkish, policy tightening seems to be taking place on the fiscal front. Is Inflation In China A Risk? It is debatable whether the strong rebound in GDP growth in Q4 last year and in Q1 this year has closed China’s output gap and will lead to widespread inflation. Given data distortions due to low-base effects from the previous year and uncertainty about China’s productivity and labor force growth, any calculation of the output gap will be unreliable. In addition, China’s employment statistics lack cyclicality and cannot be used to gauge inflationary pressure stemming from wage growth and unit labor costs.     Chart 1A Rollover In Credit Growth Will Weigh On Chinese Demand For Commodities A Rollover In Credit Growth Will Weigh On Chinese Demand For Commodities A Rollover In Credit Growth Will Weigh On Chinese Demand For Commodities Our cyclical view of inflation is therefore based on the framework that the ongoing moderation in China's money and credit growth will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on the country’s demand for and price of commodities (Chart 1).  Furthermore, behind a resilient PPI, there are suggestions that the strength in China’s economy is still bifurcated. A narrow-based uptrend in the PPI lacks the ground for sustained inflation, and is unlikely to trigger a general tightening in monetary policy.  While mounting global prices for raw materials propelled strong upstream PPI, producer prices for consumer goods and core consumer price inflation remain very subdued (Chart 2).  The inconsistency in producer prices among various industries highlight the unevenness of the economic recovery and, importantly, persistently muted household consumption (Chart 3). Chart 2A Bifurcated Economic Recovery A Bifurcated Economic Recovery A Bifurcated Economic Recovery Chart 3A Muted Recovery In Household Consumption A Muted Recovery In Household Consumption A Muted Recovery In Household Consumption Chart 4Weak Price Transmission From Upstream To Downstream Industries Weak Price Transmission From Upstream To Downstream Industries Weak Price Transmission From Upstream To Downstream Industries The transmission from upstream industrial PPI to the middle and downstream sectors has also been weak (Chart 4). It is evidenced in the faster growth of manufacturing output volume compared with price increases (Chart 5). This contrasts with the previous inflationary cycles, as well as mining and ferrous metals where surging prices for raw materials have way surpassed recovery in output volume (Chart 6). Given that price changes are more important to corporate profits than volume changes, Chinese middle-to-downstream industries face downward pressure on their profit margins and will likely deliver disappointing profits, despite a strong rebound in production. Chart 5China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices Chart 6China's Upstream Industries: Prices Surged Faster Than Production China's Upstream Industries: Prices Surged Faster Than Production China's Upstream Industries: Prices Surged Faster Than Production Furthermore, PMI input prices, which lead core CPI by about nine months, rolled over in April (Chart 7). While it is too soon to conclude that input prices have peaked, it is implied that upward pressure on core CPI from input prices may start to ease in 2H21. Bottom Line: So far there is no sign that elevated upstream producer prices will create sustainable inflationary pressure on consumer prices. Hence our view is that the PBoC will not respond to a rising PPI by further tightening monetary policy. Chart 7PMI Input Prices Have Rolled Over PMI Input Prices Have Rolled Over PMI Input Prices Have Rolled Over Chart 8Core CPI And PPI Have Been The PBoC's Inflation Targets Since 2015 Core CPI And PPI Have Been The PBoC's Inflation Targets Since 2015 Core CPI And PPI Have Been The PBoC's Inflation Targets Since 2015 The PBoC’s Inflation Target Since 2015, China’s monetary tightening cycles have closely correlated with a combination of the core CPI and PPI instead of headline CPI (Chart 8). The shift to targeting core CPI and PPI occurred despite the central bank’s frequent mention of headline CPI as its inflation target. The reasons for the shift are twofold. First, swings in food and fuel prices have become much larger since 2014, often dominating fluctuations in headline CPI (Chart 9).  Secondly, the price swings were often driven by supply-side factors and did not reflect changes in demand. Therefore, monetary policies could do little to mitigate inflationary or deflationary pressures. Furthermore, the PPI seems to play a greater role in the PBoC’s monetary policymaking than the headline and core CPI (Chart 10).  The tighter relationship between the de facto policy rate and the PPI is not surprising, given that China’s ex-factory price inflation reflects changes in corporate pricing, profit, and inventory cycles – all are driven by the country’s money supply and credit cycles.  Chart 9Large Swings In Food And Energy Prices Distorted Headline CPI In Recent Years Large Swings In Food And Energy Prices Distorted Headline CPI In Recent Years Large Swings In Food And Energy Prices Distorted Headline CPI In Recent Years Chart 10PPI Plays A Greater Role In The PBoC's Monetary Policymaking PPI Plays A Greater Role In The PBoC's Monetary Policymaking PPI Plays A Greater Role In The PBoC's Monetary Policymaking The relationship between the 7-day repo rate - the de jure policy rate - and the PPI has broken down since 2015 (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the 3-month repo rate has maintained a close relationship with the PPI (Chart 10, bottom panel). The change in the relationship is because the PBoC shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply since 2015 (Chart 12). Moreover, since 2016 the PBoC has generated monetary policy tightening measures through changes in its Macro Prudential Assessment Framework (MPA) rather than directly through interest rate hikes.  Chart 11Relationship Between The 7-Day Repo Rate And The PPI Has Broken Down Since 2015... Relationship Between The 7-Day Repo Rate And The PPI Has Broken Down Since 2015... Relationship Between The 7-Day Repo Rate And The PPI Has Broken Down Since 2015... Chart 12...Due To Monetary Policy Regime Shifted ...Due To Monetary Policy Regime Shifted ...Due To Monetary Policy Regime Shifted Bottom Line:  The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework since 2015. Core CPI and the PPI are now the main inflation targets. A Quiet Fiscal Tightening? Despite a jump in the PPI, the 3-month repo rate fell sharply in the past two months (Chart 10 on page 6, bottom panel).  It is possible that the PBoC considers escalating producer prices as transitory and, therefore, intends to keep its overall policy stance unchanged. However, the PBoC’s relaxed policy response towards inflation risk may be explained by Beijing’s quiet tightening on the fiscal front. Chart 13The Central Bank Has Made Little Interbank Liquidity Injections Lately The Central Bank Has Made Little Interbank Liquidity Injections Lately The Central Bank Has Made Little Interbank Liquidity Injections Lately The PBoC can hold its policy rates steady by supplying adequate liquidity to the interbank system through open market operations or by reducing the demand for liquidity. On a net basis, the PBoC has recently injected very little liquidity into the interbank system, implying that banks’ liquidity demand has likely softened (Chart 13).  This might be a sign of weakening credit origination. In a previous report we discussed how fiscal stimulus has become a more relevant driver of China’s credit origination since the onset of the 2014/15 economic downcycle. A rising 3-month SHIBOR can be the result of rapid fiscal and quasi-fiscal expansions, which occurred in Q3 last year. A flood of local government bond issuance drained liquidity from commercial banks, which boosted the banks’ needs to borrow money from the interbank system and pushed up interbank rates. Despite higher interest rates, credit growth soared in Q3 as fiscal multiplier provided an imminent and powerful reflationary force to the economy. In contrast, local government bond issuance was down sharply in the first four months of this year, compared with 2019 and 2020. Local governments sold 222.7 billion yuan of special-purpose bonds (SPBs) from January to April, a plunge from 730 billion yuan of debt sold in the same period in 2019 and 1.15 trillion yuan in 2020. The total local government bond issuance in Q1 this year has also been 36% and 44% lower than in Q1 2019 and 2020, respectively. A lack of local governments’ appetite to borrow coupled with a shortage in profitable infrastructure projects might have contributed to the sharp drop in bond issuance this year. Local government financing and spending have been under increased scrutiny this year. Following the State Council Executive Meeting in late March, in which Premier Li Keqiang pledged to reduce government leverage ratio and raise regulatory standards on infrastructure investment, Beijing suspended two high-speed rail projects that were initiated by provincial governments. Messages from Politburo’s meeting last week reinforced our view that policymakers may be scaling back fiscal support while further tightening regulations in the property sector. Both aspects have the potential to cool China’s demand for industrial metals and global industrial material prices (Chart 14 and Chart 15). Chart 14A Slowdown In Chinese Manufacturing Demand Will Have A Greater Impact On Global Industrial Material Prices A Slowdown In Chinese Manufacturing Demand Will Have A Greater Impact On Global Industrial Material Prices A Slowdown In Chinese Manufacturing Demand Will Have A Greater Impact On Global Industrial Material Prices Chart 15Lower Housing Demand In China Will Help To Cool Industrial Metal Prices Lower Housing Demand In China Will Help To Cool Industrial Metal Prices Lower Housing Demand In China Will Help To Cool Industrial Metal Prices We expect the intensity of policy tightening to reach its peak between mid-year to third-quarter 2021. It is unclear at this point whether policymakers are willing to allow local governments to significantly undershoot their SPB quota for this year. Local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects towards the end of last year, and thus, parked more than 10% of proceeds from 2020 SPB issuance at the central bank. The central government may be taking a wait-and-see attitude this year, and saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year when the economic slowdown becomes more meaningful. Bottom Line: Beijing is pulling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. The deleveraging efforts will curb China’s demand for commodities, and may work to ease inflationary pressure on prices for raw materials. Investment Conclusions The outlook for China’s risk asset prices remains bearish, at least in the next six months. If the credit and fiscal impulse slow enough to depress corporate pricing power, inflation will not be a problem because disinflationary pressures will resurface. However, the growth of corporate profits will disappoint (Chart 16). Beijing may be saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year. Still, SPBs are only a small part of local governments’ financing source for infrastructure projects. Given the central government’s renewed focus on reducing public debt, policymakers are unlikely to unleash fiscal power to significantly boost infrastructure spending or economic growth. In the next six to nine months, we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. With this week's report, we initiate a long position on the CSI500 index, which has a larger exposure to the global market and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market (Chart 17).  Chart 16Aggregate Corporate Profit Growth Will Slow Even Though Inflation Is No Longer An Issue Aggregate Corporate Profit Growth Will Slow Even Though Inflation Is No Longer An Issue Aggregate Corporate Profit Growth Will Slow Even Though Inflation Is No Longer An Issue Chart 17Long CSI500/Broad Market Long CSI500/Broad Market Long CSI500/Broad Market   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights If fully implemented, President Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. We expect some of the proposed tax measures to be watered down, resulting in a 5% decline in earnings. Investors are likely to shrug off the near-term impact of higher taxes, given strong economic growth and continued support from accommodative monetary policy. Looking further out, however, we see four reasons why US tax rates are likely to keep rising, eventually reaching levels that hurt stock prices: First, the effective US corporate tax rate is still very low; second, the failure of President Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier eventually to fully reverse them; third, rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing; and fourth, and most importantly, the political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The Democrats have been moving leftward on economic matters for some time. For their part, conservative Republicans are starting to ask themselves why they should support tax cuts for a growing list of “woke” companies that seemingly hate them. The US corporate sector is at risk of being left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim. The Biden Tax Plan On March 31st, President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan. The plan proposes $2.25 trillion in new federal spending, spread out over eight years, on public infrastructure and other areas. As outlined in the Made In America Tax Plan, the Biden Administration will seek to raise $2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 15 years in order to fund the new spending package. The three most important provisions in the tax plan are: Raising the domestic corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%. This would bring the tax rate halfway back to where it was prior to the Trump tax cuts (35%). Taking into account the global distribution of corporate profits and other factors, such a tax hike would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 4%. Increasing the minimum tax on the foreign profits of US companies. The Biden administration proposes doubling the minimum tax rate on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) from 10.5% to 21%. It also plans to eliminate the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income deduction (FDII). These two measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about another 3.5%. A 15% minimum tax on “book income” (i.e., the earnings that companies report to shareholders). The tax applies to corporations with annual profits in excess of $2 billion. The Treasury department estimates that 45 companies will be liable for this tax. It would cut S&P 500 earnings by a further 0.5%. Taken together, these provisions would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. In practice, we think the impact will be closer to 5%. The Biden plan includes a variety of tax credits, focusing on areas such as clean energy and R&D, which should offset some of the tax increases. The ultimate corporate tax rate is also likely to fall short of 28%. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, the critical swing voter, has already said he would prefer to cap it at 25%. What Has Been Priced In? Chart 1Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Our reading of the data suggests that very little of the impact from higher taxes has been baked into either analyst earnings estimates or market expectations. Chart 1 displays the performance of Goldman‘s “Formerly High Tax” and “Formerly Low Tax” equity baskets. The formerly high-taxed companies gained the most from Trump’s tax cuts and presumably would lose the most if the tax cuts were rolled back. Yet, they have outperformed their low-taxed peers since the Georgia runoff election, which handed the Senate to the Democrats. Likewise, earnings estimates have not reacted to the prospect of higher taxes. This is not surprising. Chart 2 shows that analysts did not adjust their earnings estimates until shortly after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017. Similar to what happened back then, analysts appear to be waiting for the details of the ultimate tax package before changing their estimates. Chart 2Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes For Now, Business Cycle Dynamics Are More Important Than Taxes While the failure of the investment community to price in higher taxes represents a headwind to stocks, we would characterize it as a modest headwind. IBES estimates still point to earnings growth of 15% for S&P 500 companies in 2022. It would take an unrealistically large tax hit to keep corporate profits from rising next year. The IMF’s latest economic projections, released a few weeks ago, foresee US real GDP growing by 3.5% in 2022, one full percentage point faster than the Fund expected in January (Table 1). Given the strong correlation between equity returns and economic growth, the equity bull market will likely survive a tax increase (Chart 3). Table 1Growth Remains Robust Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 3Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong   Of course, some stocks could still feel the pinch from higher taxes. The tech sector is especially vulnerable, given that it currently enjoys one of the lowest effective tax rates in the S&P 500 (Chart 4). Tech companies have also been very adept at shifting income from intangible assets such as patents to offshore tax havens, which is likely to put them in the crosshairs of the soon-to-be bulked up IRS.1 We currently favor value over growth stocks. The likelihood that higher taxes will have a disproportionately negative effect on growth sectors such as tech only reinforces this view. Chart 4Tech Is Vulnerable To Higher Taxes Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital   Higher Taxes: Start Of A Long-Term Trend? While we are not too worried about the near-term impact of higher taxes on equity prices, we are more concerned about the longer-term consequences. As we discuss below, not only is Biden likely to raise personal income and capital gains taxes to fund future spending initiatives such as the forthcoming American Families Plan, but the pressure to keep raising business taxes will persist well beyond his administration. There are four reasons for this: Reason #1: The effective US corporate tax rate is still very low Chart 5Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low In April 2018, four months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came into effect, the Congressional Budget Office projected that US corporations would pay $276 billion in corporate taxes in 2019. In the end, they paid only $230 billion.2 US corporate income tax receipts stood at only 1% of GDP in 2018-19, half of what they were in 2013-17 (Chart 5). During Ronald Reagan’s second term in office, US corporations faced an effective tax rate of around 30%. Today, it is less than 15% (Chart 6). As a share of GDP, the US government collects less corporate tax revenue than almost all other OECD economies (Chart 7).   Chart 6The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades Chart 7US Corporate Taxation Is Not High Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 8Trump Was Unlucky To Be Singled Out By The IRS Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Moreover, the US government often does not even bother to even collect the money that is owed to it. Audits of corporations with more than $20 billion in assets are down 50% since 2011. Audits of individuals with annual income above $1 million are down 80% (Chart 8). In his testimony to the US Senate this week Chuck Rettig, IRS Commissioner, estimated that tax evasion costs the government $1 trillion per year. Reason #2: The failure of Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier to eventually fully reverse them If the Trump tax cuts had raised investment spending, it would be easier to overlook the negative effect that they had on the budget deficit. The evidence, however, suggests that lower corporate taxes did very little to spur capex. Chart 9 shows that capital spending barely increased as a share of GDP in the two years following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to the International Monetary Fund, only one-fifth of the tax cuts were used to finance capital investment and R&D spending.3 Along the same lines, Hanlon, Hoopes, and Slemrod found that fewer than a quarter of S&P 500 companies discussed plans to increase capex in response to lower taxes during their conference calls.4 Chart 9Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Chart 10Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long   Why did corporate investment fail to rise much? One answer is that a tax on profits is not the same thing as a tax on capital investment. As Appendix 1 explains, lower corporate taxes are unlikely to have much of an effect on debt-financed capital spending when interest costs are tax deductible. Unlike long-lived assets such as homes, most of the corporate capital stock is fairly short-lived (Chart 10). The demand for business equipment and software depends more on the outlook for aggregate demand than on the cost of capital. Finally, as we explained in a report entitled Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around, the majority of corporate profits these days can be attributed to monopolistic power of one form or another. Standard economic theory suggests that taxing monopoly rents will not reduce output or investment. Reason #3: Rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing With interest rates still at exceptionally low levels, there is no immediate need to raise taxes to finance increased government spending. This is especially true for infrastructure spending, which can reasonably be expected to boost economic growth (and hence tax receipts) over the long haul. Chart 11US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo If interest rates were to rise, however, governments would likely find it advantageous to increase taxes rather than face spiralling debt-servicing costs. Public debt levels are very high in the US and in most other economies, so any increase in interest rates would siphon funds from social programs towards bondholders. This would not be popular with voters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal government interest payments will swell rapidly over the coming decades if measures are not taken to rein in budget deficits (Chart 11). As we discuss next, these measures are likely to take the form of higher taxes rather than spending cuts.   Reason #4: The political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy Democrats have been moving leftward for some time. In 2001, 50% of Democrats said that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Today, that number is 83% (Chart 12). Chart 12Democrats Want More Government Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 13Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising While Republicans continue to show a preference for small government, this may not last. Medicare and Social Security consume over 40% of all federal non-interest spending. Outlays on both programs (Medicare in particular) are set to grow rapidly over the coming years (Chart 13). To the extent that the political preferences of older Americans lean Republican, this could make the GOP more inclined to support higher taxes in order to sustain benefits to the elderly. The fact that corporations and the rich increasingly favor socially liberal policies is leading conservative Republicans to ask why they should continue to support tax cuts for people and companies that seemingly hate them. Whereas Joe Biden won the richest US counties by 20 percentage points last November, Trump saw his support rise in the poorest counties (Chart 14). Reflecting this trend, the share of Republicans who expressed “hardly any confidence in Corporate America” rose from 19% in February 2018 to 30% in March 2021 (Chart 15).   Chart 14Democrats Have Made Serious Inroads Among The Better-Off Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 15Republicans Growing More Skeptical Of Corporate CEOs Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital More than twice as many Republicans now favor raising corporate taxes as lowering them (Chart 16). Nationally, 73% of Americans are dissatisfied with the influence that corporations have over the nation, a 25-point jump from 2001 (Chart 17). Chart 16More Americans Want To Soak The Rich Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 17Souring Attitudes Toward Big Corporations Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Given the shift in public opinion, it is not too surprising that the Republican response to Biden‘s tax plan was decidedly “low energy”. After a perfunctory condemnation of the plan, Republican leaders quickly pivoted to attacking “woke” corporations. Addressing the corporate reaction to Georgia’s new election law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell declared “We are witnessing a coordinated campaign by powerful and wealthy people to mislead and bully the American people.” He went on to say, “From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.” If current trends continue, as we suspect they will, the US corporate sector will be left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: When Do Higher Taxes On Corporate Profits Reduce Investment? Suppose a company is considering whether to purchase a piece of machinery for $1000. Let us assume that the company faces an external rate of return, r, of 8%. That is to say, it can borrow and lend at 8%. The accompanying table illustrates how the firm’s profits will vary depending on its internal rate of return (the return on investment that the machine will generate). Let us start with the case where the company finances the purchase of the machine by issuing new debt. For now, assume that the internal rate of return is 10% and that the machine can be used indefinitely (i.e., it never depreciates). In this case, the machine will generate $100 in operating income per year. After subtracting the $80 in interest expense, the company will be left with $20 in pre-tax income (Example A). Suppose the company faces an income tax of 20% and interest is fully tax deductible. Then, the company will pay a tax of $20*0.2=$4, leaving it with $16 in after-tax profits (Example B). Notice that while the tax reduced the company’s after-tax profit, it did not extinguish the incentive to purchase the machine in the first place. After all, while $20 is better than $16, $16 is still better than zero. Thus, in this simple example, we see that when the purchase of capital equipment is financed through debt and interest payments are fully tax deductible, the imposition of a profit tax will not affect the ultimate decision of whether to invest or not. Things change when interest is not tax deductible. In this case, the internal rate of return must rise to r/(1-t) to make the company indifferent between buying the machine or not. In the example above, this means the internal rate of return must increase to 8%/(1-0.2)=10%. Then, the company will make an operating profit of $100, pay $20 in tax on that profit, and after paying $80 in interest, end up breaking even (Example C). The calculus in deciding whether to invest in new capital equipment is similar for equity financing as it is for debt financing when interest payments are not tax deductible. The best way to think about equity financing is to ask how much the market price of the machine will be after the company purchases it. If there is no tax and the internal rate of return is 10%, the market price will be $100/0.08=$1250 (Example D). Since the company can buy the machine for $1000, it makes sense to buy it. If the owner of the machine has to pay a profit tax of 20% on the stream of income that it generates, its market value will only be $80/0.08=$1000 (Example E). At this point, the company is indifferent about whether to purchase the machine or not. How do things change when we abandon the assumption that the machine lasts forever? The main difference is that the decision of whether to buy the machine becomes less sensitive to changes in the cost of capital. For example, suppose the machine only lasts one year. To make it worthwhile for the company to purchase that machine, the revenue that it generates in that one year must rise dramatically (Example F). This makes the decision to purchase the machine much less dependent on the interest rate and more dependent on business cycle considerations, especially the outlook for aggregate demand.   Appendix Table 1 Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Footnotes 1 Jed Graham, “Biden's Tax Plan: What It Means For Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,” Investor’s Business Daily (April 8, 2021). 2 “The Accuracy of CBO’s Baseline Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019,” Congressional Budget Office (December 2019). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “U.S. Investment Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” IMF Working Paper (May 31, 2019). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER Working Paper 25283 (November 2018). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Special Trade Recommendations Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Current MacroQuant Model Scores Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital