Currencies

Highlights Deep-seated economic and political forces will undermine the trade truce between China and the United States. U.S. economic momentum is strong enough to allow the Fed to deliver more rate hikes next year than what the market is discounting. Global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year as China picks up the pace of stimulus and the dollar peaks. Until then, a cautious stance towards global equities and other risk assets is warranted. Global bond yields will fall further in the near term, but will rise by a faster-than-expected pace over a horizon of 6-to-18 months. Feature Trade War Roller Coaster Investors breathed a short-lived sigh of relief following the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this past weekend. During the course of a two-and-a-half hour dinner on the sidelines of the summit, President Donald Trump agreed to postpone raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports by two months to March 1st. For his part, President Xi Jinping pledged to engage in substantive talks to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. imports, while addressing U.S. concerns about forced technology transfers and IP theft. In one of the more ironic moments in history, China also agreed to restrict opioid exports to the West. Unfortunately, the euphoria did not last very long. By Tuesday, President Trump was back to his old self, calling himself “Tariff Man” and ominously warning that “We are going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.” News reports indicated that the Chinese were “puzzled and irritated” by Trump’s change in tone. The mood brightened on Wednesday. Trump sounded more conciliatory, perhaps reflecting China’s decision to immediately resume importing soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States. By Wednesday night, however, global equities were in turmoil again due to revelations that a high-ranking Chinese tech executive had been arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government on suspicion of violating sanctions against Iran. U.S. stocks recouped some of their losses Thursday afternoon, but the S&P 500 still finished down fractionally for the day. Political Stumbling Blocks To A Trade Deal At times like this, it is crucial to focus on the big picture, which is that major hurdles remain to consummating a trade deal that satisfies both sides. As our geopolitical strategists have argued, the trade war is just as much a tech war.1 China wants access to western technology, but the West, fearful of China’s ascent, is reluctant to provide it. The fact that China has had a history of appropriating western technology without due compensation only makes things worse. It is notable that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.2 Domestic U.S. politics will also undermine prospects for a lasting trade war ceasefire. Protectionism against China remains popular in the U.S., especially in the Midwestern swing states. If Trump agrees on a permanent deal to end the trade war, who will he blame if the trade deficit continues to widen? This is not just idle speculation. Trump’s trade goals are inconsistent with his fiscal policy. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a wider trade deficit. This does not mean that Chinese stocks cannot rally for a few weeks. The MSCI China investable index is in oversold territory, trading at less than 11-times forward earnings, compared to 14-times at the start of the year (Chart 1). Given that China represents nearly one-third of EM stock market capitalization, any sentiment-driven rally that pushes up Chinese stocks is likely to give a solid lift to the aggregate EM equity index (Chart 2). However, for EM equities to put in a durable bottom, two things need to happen: Chinese growth needs to stabilize and the dollar needs to peak. We do not see either happening until the middle of next year. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 2China Is Large Enough To Give EM A Lift Waiting For A Bottom In Chinese Growth The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in trade. Chinese exports to the U.S. have actually increased by 13% in the first ten months of the year compared to the same period last year. A lull in the trade war, a weaker yuan, and lower energy input costs are all beneficial to Chinese exporters. However, the collapse in the new export order component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI suggests that these positive developments will not be enough to prevent exports from decelerating sharply in the first half of 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 3China: An Ominous Sign For Exports If Chinese growth is to rebound, domestic demand will need to reaccelerate. While the Chinese government has loosened fiscal and monetary policy at the margin, this has not been sufficient to revive animal spirits. Growth continues to sag, as measured by a variety of activity measures (Chart 4). After a brief rebound, credit growth relapsed in October, pushing the year-over-year change to a multi-year low (Chart 5). Chart 4Still Waiting For Growth To Stabilize Chart 5The Chinese Credit Spigot Has Not Been Opened Looking out, there is a risk that undue optimism over the resolution of the trade war will prompt the government to redouble its efforts on its reform agenda. This agenda has been focused on reducing debt-financed investment spending – exactly the sort of expenditure commodity producers and capital goods exporters around the world rely on. Ultimately, China will be forced to pick up the pace of stimulus, as it becomes increasingly clear that the economy needs it. However, this is likely to be a story only for the second or third quarter of 2019, suggesting Chinese growth may continue to disappoint until then. No Help From The Fed The equity sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by comments by New York Fed President John Williams who noted that the Fed should continue raising rates “over the next year or so.”3 Williams is regarded as one of the thought-leaders at the Federal Reserve. He is also generally seen as a centrist on monetary policy. As such, his words often echo the views of the majority of FOMC members.  Williams said that the U.S. economy was “on a very strong path with a lot of momentum.” We tend to agree with this assessment. Despite weakness in a few areas such as housing, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker is pointing to growth of 2.7% in the fourth quarter. Personal consumption is set to rise by 3.4%, one full percentage point above the average during the recovery. The manufacturing sector remains robust. The ISM manufacturing index rose to 59.3 in November from 57.7 the prior month. The all-important new orders component jumped 4.7 points to a three-month high of 62.1. The non-manufacturing ISM index also surprised on the upside. Strong wage growth, lower gasoline prices, and a declining savings rate will boost consumer spending next year. High levels of capacity utilization, easing lending standards, and rising labor costs will also support business investment. Residential investment should stabilize as well, given the recent decline in bond yields (Chart 6). We see the fed funds rate rising by 125 basis points through to end-2019. This stands in sharp contrast to current market pricing, which foresees only 40 basis points of hikes during this period (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Residential Investment Should Stabilize Chart 7The Market Is Ignoring The Fed Dots Don’t Fear A Flatter Yield Curve… Yet The flattening of the yield curve would seem like a major rebuke to our positive U.S. economic outlook. The 10-year/2-year Treasury spread has declined to 14 basis points. The 5-year/2-year spread has fallen into negative territory, marking the first notable inversion of any part of the Treasury curve.  How worried should we be? Some concern is clearly warranted. Policymakers have been too quick to downplay the signal from the yield curve in the past. In 2006, they blamed the “global savings glut” for dragging down long-term yields. In 2000, they argued that the U.S. federal government’s budget surplus was reducing the supply of long-term bonds. In both cases, the bond market turned out to be seeing something more ominous than they were. Nevertheless, one should keep two points in mind. First, part of the recent decline in long-term bond yields reflects a fall in inflation expectations stemming from lower oil prices (Chart 8). As we discussed last week, lower oil prices should give consumers more spending power without hurting energy capex to the degree that they did in 2015.4 Chart 8Oil Price Decline Is Dragging Down Inflation Expectations Second, the term premium – the extra compensation that investors demand for buying long-term bonds compared to rolling over short-term bills – is currently negative (Chart 9). This partly stems from the fact that investors see long-term Treasurys as a good hedge against recession risk (i.e., bond prices tend to go up when the economy weakens). Chart 9The U.S. Term Premium Is Negative Partly Because Bonds Are A Good Hedge Against A Weaker Economy Quantitative easing has also driven down the term premium. While this effect has diminished as the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk, estimates by the New York Fed indicate that the 10-year yield is still 65 points lower than it would have been in the absence of asset purchases.5 If the term premium were 84 basis points – the average between 2004 and 2007 – the 10-year/3-month slope would be 195 basis points. Empirically, the 10-year/3-month slope is the best recession predictor of any yield curve measure. It still stands at 50 basis points. If long-term yields stay put and the Fed raises rates once per quarter, this part of the yield curve will not invert until the second half of next year. It usually takes about 12-to-18 months for an inversion in the 10-year/3-month slope to culminate in a recession (Chart 10). In the last downturn, the slope fell into negative territory in February 2006, 22 months before the start of the recession. This suggests that the next recession will not occur until late 2020 at the earliest. Chart 10The U.S. Yield Curve: An Admirable Track Record In Forecasting Recessions Investment Conclusions The signal for global equities from our tactical MacroQuant model has improved since early October, mainly because the sell-off has gone a long way towards discounting some of the negative macro developments that have occurred. Nevertheless, the model continues to signal downside risks for global stocks stretching into early 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 11The MacroQuant Equity Score Has Improved, But Is Still In Bearish Territory The model utilizes a “what you see is what you get” approach, meaning that it only relies on observable data rather than estimates of unobservable variables like the neutral rate of interest. Right now, global growth is decelerating and financial conditions have tightened, which has caused the model to turn bearish on the near-term outlook for stocks. If we are correct that China will be forced to step up the pace of stimulus; that worries over Italian debt will fade, at least temporarily, with an agreement over next year’s budget; and that U.S. growth will remain buoyant even in the face of higher rates (implying that the neutral rate is higher than widely believed), then global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year. The dollar tends to weaken whenever global growth accelerates, which should provide a further reflationary impulse to the world economy (Chart 12). Chart 12Accelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bearish For The Dollar Equity bull markets typically end about six months before the onset of a recession (Table 1). If the next global recession does not occur for at least another two years, this will provide enough time for a blow-off rally in stocks starting in mid-2019. Hence, investors should stay tactically cautious towards global equities over a 3-month horizon, but be prepared to turn cyclically opportunistic over a 6-to-18 month horizon. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Over the past few months, we have argued that bond yields will temporarily decline due to slower global growth amid widespread bearish bond sentiment. This has indeed happened. Yields are likely to remain under downward pressure into early 2019, but should then begin to stabilize and move higher, ultimately rising much more than expected as global inflation accelerates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018; and “Trump’s Demands On China,” dated April 4, 2018. 2      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 3      Jonathan Spicer, “Fed's Williams says rate hikes 'over next year or so' still make sense,” Reuters, December 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018. 5      Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, “The Effect of the Federal Reserve’s Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates,” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The key and necessary condition for a new secular EM bull market to emerge is the end of abundant financing. The latter is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. The cyclical EM outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. The slowdown in China is broad-based and will deepen. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. Feature As we head into 2019, the past decade is shaping up to be a lost one for emerging markets (EM) assets. In particular: EM stocks have underperformed DM markets substantially since the end of 2010 (Chart I-1). In absolute terms, EM share prices are at the same level as they were in early 2010. Chart I-1EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM For Eight Years EM currencies have depreciated substantially since 2011, and the EM local currency bond index (GBI-EM) on a total-return basis has produced zero return in U.S. dollar terms since 2010 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Lost Decade For Investors In EM Local Currency Bonds? Finally, EM sovereign and corporate high-yield bonds have not outperformed U.S. high-yield corporate bonds on an excess-return basis. Will 2019 witness a major reversal of such dismal EM performance? And if so, will it be a structural or cyclical bottom? The roots underneath this lost decade for EM stem neither from trade wars nor from Federal Reserve tightening. Therefore, a structural bottom in EM financial markets is contingent neither on the end of Fed tightening nor the resolution of current trade tussles. We address the issues of Fed tightening and trade wars below. A Lost Decade: Causes And Remedies What led to a lost decade for EM was cheap and plentiful financing. When the price of money is low and financing is abundant, companies and households typically rush to borrow and spend unwisely. Capital is misallocated and, consequently, productivity and real income growth disappoint – and debtors’ ability to service their debts worsens. This is exactly what has happened in EM, as easy money splashed all over developing economies since early 2009. There have been three major sources of financing for EM: Source 1: Chinese Banks Chinese banks have expanded their balance sheets by RMB 198 trillion to RMB 262 trillion (or the equivalent of $28.8 trillion) over the past 10 years (Chart I-3, top panel). When commercial banks expand their balance sheets by lending to or buying an asset from non-banks, they create deposits (money). Consistently, the broad money supply has expanded by RMB 175 trillion to RMB 234 trillion (or the equivalent of $25.5 trillion). Chart I-3Enormous Boom In Chinese Banks' Assets And Money Supply Notably, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has increased commercial banks’ excess reserves by RMB 1.5 trillion to RMB 2.8 trillion (or the equivalent of $0.22 trillion) (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Hence, the meaningful portion of money supply expansion has been due to the money multiplier – money created by mainland banks – not a provision of excess reserves by the PBoC (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Attribution Of Rise In Money Supply To Excess Reserves And Money Multiplier Not only has such enormous money creation by commercial banks generated purchasing power domestically, but it has also boosted Chinese companies’ and households’ purchases of foreign goods and services. The Middle Kingdom’s imports of goods and services have grown to $2.5 trillion compared with $3.2 trillion for the U.S. (Chart I-5). China’s spending has boosted growth considerably in many Asian, Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, and even select advanced economies. Chart I-5Imports Of Goods And Services: China And The U.S. Source 2: DM Central Banks’ QE By conducting quantitative easing, the central banks of several advanced economies have crowded out investors from fixed-income markets, incentivizing them to search for yield in EM. The Fed, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have in aggregate expanded their balance sheets by $10 trillion (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Quantitative Easing In DM This has led to massive inflows of foreign portfolio capital into EM, and reflated asset prices well beyond what was warranted by their fundamentals. Specifically, since January 2009, foreign investors have poured $1.5 trillion on a net basis into the largest 15 developing countries excluding China, Taiwan and Korea (Chart I-7, top panel). For China, net foreign portfolio inflows amounted to $560 billion since January 2009 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-7Cumulative Foreign Portfolio Inflows Into EM And China Source 3: EM Ex-China Banks EM ex-China began expanding their balance sheets aggressively in early 2009, originating new money (local currency) and thereby creating purchasing power. This was especially the case between 2009 and 2011. Since that time, money creation by EM ex-China banks has decelerated substantially due to periodic capital outflows triggering currency weakness and higher borrowing costs. Out of these three sources, China’s money/credit cycles remain the primary driver of EM. The mainland’s imports from developing economies serves as the main nexus between China and the rest of EM. Essentially, Chinese money and credit drive imports, influencing growth and corporate profits in the EM universe (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China's Credit Cycle Leads Its Imports In turn, EM business cycle upturns attract international capital. Meanwhile, credit creation by local banks in EM ex-China – primarily in economies with high inflation or current account deficits – is a residual factor. In these countries, domestic credit creation is contingent on a healthy balance of payments and a stable exchange rate. The latter two, in turn, transpire when exports to China and international portfolio capital inflows are improving. The outcome of easy financing is over-borrowing and capital misallocation. The upshot of the latter is usually lower efficiency and productivity growth. Not surprisingly, productivity growth in both China and EM ex-China has decelerated considerably since 2009 (Chart I-9). EM return on assets has dropped a lot in the past 10 years and is now on par with levels last seen during the 2008 global recession (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Falling Productivity Growth In EM And China =... Chart I-10... = Low Profit Margins And Low Return On Capital Accordingly, the ability to service debt by EM companies has deteriorated considerably in the past decade – the ratios of cash flows from operations to both interest expenses and net debt have dropped (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM: Deteriorating Ability To Service Debt These observations offer unambiguous confirmation that money has been spent inefficiently – i.e., misallocated. Credit booms and capital misallocations warrant a period of corporate restructuring and banking sector recapitalization. Without this, a new cycle cannot emerge. A secular bull market in equities and exchange rates arises when productivity growth and hence income-per-capita growth accelerates, and return on capital begins to climb. This is not yet the case for most developing economies. The end of cheap and abundant financing is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. These are necessary conditions to create the foundation for a new secular bull market. Ironically, the best remedy for an addiction to easy money is a period of tight money. For example, U.S. share prices would not be as high as they currently are if the U.S. did not go through the Lehman crisis. This 10-year bull market in U.S. equities was born from the ashes of the Lehman crisis. Vanished financing and the private sector’s tight budgets in 2008-‘09 compelled corporate restructuring as well as a focus on efficiency and return on equity. Has EM financing become scarce and tight? Cyclically, China’s money creation and credit flows have slowed, pointing to a cyclical downturn in EM share prices and commodities (please see below for a more detailed discussion). International portfolio flows to EM have also subsided since early this year. There has been selective corporate restructuring post the 2015 commodities downturn, including in the global/EM mining and energy sectors, China steel and coal industries as well as among Russian and Brazilian companies. However, there are many economies and industries where corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms have not been undertaken. Yet from a structural perspective, China’s money and credit growth remain elevated and excesses have not been purged. Besides, international portfolio flows to EM have had periodic “stop-and-gos” but have not yet retrenched meaningfully (refer to Chart I-7 on page 4). Consequently, structural overhauls and corporate restructuring in China/EM have by and large not yet occurred – in turn negating the start of a new secular bull market. Bottom Line: Conditions for a structural bull market in EM/China are not yet present. EM/China: A Cyclical Bottom Is Not In Place From a cyclical perspective, China is an important driving force for the majority of EM economies, and its deepening growth slowdown will continue to weigh on EM growth and global trade. In fact, odds are that global trade will contract in the first half of 2019: In China, tightening of both monetary policy as well as bank and non-bank regulation from late 2016 has led to a deceleration in money and credit growth. The latter has, with a time, lag depressed growth since early this year. Policymakers have undertaken some stimulus since the middle of this year, but it has so far been limited. Stimulus also works with a time lag. Besides, even though the broad money impulse has improved, the credit and fiscal spending impulse remains in a downtrend (Chart I-12). Therefore, there are presently mixed signals from money and credit. Chart I-12China's Stimulus Leads EM And Commodities As illustrated in Chart I-12, the bottoms in the money and combined credit and fiscal spending impulses, in July 2015, preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months and their peak led the top in financial markets by about 15 months in January 2018. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in the money and credit impulses did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Hence, even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today, it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend, and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). Growth in capital spending in general and construction in particular have ground to a halt (Chart I-13). Chart I-13China: Weak Capital Spending Not only has capital spending decelerated but household consumption has also slowed since early this year, as demonstrated in the top panel of Chart I-14. Chart I-14China: A Broad-Based Slowdown Finally, mainland imports are the main channel in terms of how China’s growth slowdown transmits to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, EM share prices and industrial metals prices correlate extremely well with the import component of Chinese manufacturing PMI (Chart I-15). Chart I-15China's Imports And EM And Commodities Bottom Line: The slowdown in China is broad-based, and our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by households and companies both point to further weakness (Chart I-14, middle and bottom panels). Constraints And Chinese Policymakers’ Dilemma Given the ongoing slowdown in the economy, why are Chinese policymakers not rushing to the rescue with another round of massive stimulus? First, policymakers in China realize that the stimulus measures of 2009-‘10, 2012-‘13 and 2015-‘16 led to massive misallocations of capital and fostered both inefficiencies and speculative excesses in many parts of the economy – the property markets being among the main culprits. Indeed, policymakers recognize that easy money does not foster productivity growth, which is critical to the long-term prosperity of any nation. For China to grow and prosper in the long run, the economy’s addiction to easy financing should be curtailed. Second, policymakers are currently facing a dilemma. The real economy is saddled with enormous debt and is slowing. This warrants lower interest rates – probably justifying bringing down short-term rates close to zero. Yet, despite enforcing capital controls, it seems the exchange rate has been correlated with China’s interest rate differential with the U.S. since early 2010 (Chart I-16). Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. Notably, the PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion are only equivalent to 10-14% of broad money supply (i.e., all deposits in the banking system) (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Chinese Currency And Interest Rates Chart I-17China: Foreign Currency Reserves Are Very Low Compared To Money Supply/Deposits The current interest rate differential is only 33 basis points. If the PBoC guides short-term rates lower and the Fed stays on hold or hikes a few more times, the spread will drop to zero or turn negative. Based on the past nine-year correlation, the narrowing interest rate spread suggests yuan depreciation. This will weigh on EM and probably even global risk assets. In a scenario where policymakers prioritize defending the yuan’s value, they may not be able to reduce borrowing costs and assist indebted companies and households. As a result, the downtrend in the real economy would likely worsen. Consequently, EM and global growth-sensitive assets will drop further. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-bad outcome. Yet this will rattle Asian and EM currencies and risk assets. What About The Fed And Trade Wars? The Fed and EM: Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are relevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary driver of EM economies are their own domestic fundamentals as well as global trade – not just U.S. growth. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-18). On this chart, we have shaded the five periods over the past 38 years when EM stocks rallied despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart I-18The Fed And EM Share Prices: A Historical Perspective There were only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates: the 1982 Latin American debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals – elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Trade Wars: China’s current growth slowdown has not originated from a decline in its exports. In fact, Chinese aggregate exports and those to the U.S. have been growing at a double-digit pace, largely due to the front running ahead of U.S. import tariffs. More importantly, China’s exports to the U.S. and EU account for 3.8% and 3.2% of its GDP, respectively (Chart I-19). Total exports amount to 20% of GDP, with almost two-thirds of that being shipments to developing economies. This compares with capital spending that makes up 42% of GDP and household consumption of 38% of GDP. Hence, capital expenditures and household spending are significantly larger than shipments to the U.S. Chart I-19Structure Of Chinese Economy There is little doubt that the U.S.-China confrontation has affected consumer and business sentiment in China. Nevertheless, the slowdown in China has - until recently - stemmed from domestic demand, not exports. Investment Recommendations It is difficult to forecast whether the current EM down leg will end with a bang or a whimper. Whatever it is, the near-term path of least resistance for EM is to the downside. “A bang” scenario – where financial conditions tighten substantially and for an extended period – would likely compel corporate and bank restructuring as well as structural reforms. Therefore, it is more likely to mark a structural bottom in EM financial markets. “A whimper” scenario would probably entail only moderate tightening in financial conditions. Thereby, it would not foster meaningful corporate restructuring and structural reforms. Hence, such a scenario might not mark a secular bottom in EM stocks and currencies. In turn, the EM cyclical outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. If and when Chinese policymakers reflate aggressively, the mainland business cycle will revive, producing a cyclical rally in EM risk assets. At the moment, Chinese policymakers are behind the curve. With respect to investment strategy, we continue to recommend: Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. For dedicated EM equity portfolios, our overweights are: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our underweights are: South Africa, Peru, Indonesia, India, the Philippines and Hong Kong stocks. We are neutral on the remaining bourses. In the currency space, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, IDR, MYR and KRW. The latter is a play on RMB depreciation. The full list of our recommendation across EM equity, fixed-income, currency and credit markets is available on pages 14-15. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights We are exploring the key FX implications of the views presented in BCA’s 2019 annual outlook. Global growth is set to weaken further in the first half of the year. As a result, the U.S. dollar should benefit from a last hurrah before beginning a long painful period of depreciation. The euro will mirror these dynamics and should depreciate below EUR/USD 1.10 before appreciating significantly during the second half. The yen is likely to rally against the EUR in the first half of the year, but the JPY will be left very vulnerable once global growth picks up again. The Swiss franc might be a safe-haven currency, but risks are rising that the Swiss National Bank will increasingly fight against the CHF’s upside vis-à-vis the euro. Thus, EUR/CHF has limited downside while global growth slows, and plenty of upside once global growth firms. The GBP could continue to experience some volatility, but we recommend using any additional weaknesses to buy cable. The commodity and Scandinavian currencies will suffer in the first half of the year, but they should prove the stars of the currency market in the second half. Feature Key View From The Outlook This past Monday we sent you BCA’s Annual Outlook, exploring the key macroeconomic themes that we expect will shape 2019. This year, the discussion between BCA’s editors and Mr. X, and his daughter, Ms. X, yielded the following key views:1 The collision between policy and markets that we discussed last year finally came to a head in October. Rather than falling as they normally do when stocks plunge, U.S. bond yields rose as investors reassessed the Federal Reserve’s willingness to pause hiking rates, even in the face of softer growth. Likewise, hopes that China would move swiftly to stimulate its economy were dashed as it became increasingly clear that the authorities were placing a high emphasis on their reforms agenda of deleveraging and capacity reduction. The ongoing Brexit saga and the stalemate between the populist Italian government and the EU have increased uncertainty in Europe at a time when the region was already beginning to slow. We expect the tensions between policy and markets to be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the U.S. unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it will take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Despite the deterioration in economic data over the past month, real final domestic demand is still tracking to expand by 3% in the fourth quarter, well above estimates of a sustainable pace of economic growth. Ultimately, the Fed will deliver more hikes next year than discounted in the markets. This will push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar should peak midway next year. China will also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which will boost global growth. However, until both of these things happen, emerging markets will remain under pressure. For the time being, we continue to favor developed-market equities over their EM peers. We also prefer defensive equity sectors such as health care and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the U.S. will outperform Europe and Japan for the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. A stabilization in global growth could ignite a blow-off rally in global equities. If the Fed is raising rates in response to falling unemployment, this is unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply side constraints begin to fully bite in early 2020 and inflation rises well above the Fed’s 2% target, stocks will begin to buckle. This means a window exists next year where stocks will outperform bonds. We are maintaining a benchmark allocation to stocks for now but will increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit will underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in spreads is unlikely so long as the economy is still expanding, but spreads could still widen modestly given their low starting point. U.S. shale companies have been marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale at close to $50/bbl, crude prices are unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, over the next 12 months, we expect production cuts in Saudi Arabia will push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. Essentially, global growth is likely to stay weak in the first half of 2019. However, even if it experiences a benign slowdown, the U.S. economy continues to run above trend, and a U.S. recession next year is a low-probability event (Chart 1). This suggests the Fed will continue to increase rates at a gradual pace of one hike per quarter until U.S. financial conditions become tight enough to force a re-assessment of the U.S. growth outlook. This configuration is likely to result in additional market stress globally and a stronger dollar. As a result, a defensive stance in the FX market seems warranted. Chart 1The Fed Isn't Ready To Capitulate However, China has a role to play in this script as well. The Chinese authorities are getting very uncomfortable with the continued deceleration in Chinese activity. They will likely further support their economy, which should cause global growth to trough toward the middle of the year. This will result in a major selling opportunity for the dollar, and a buying opportunity for the most pro-cyclical currencies. Implications For The FX Markets What are the key implications of these views for currency markets? Based on this outlook for global growth and the Fed, the USD should generate a healthy performance in the first half of the year. As Chart 2 illustrates, the dollar is often strong when global growth and global inflation weaken. However, if global growth is indeed set to rebound in the second half of the year, then, at this point, the dollar should depreciate considerably. This is even more likely as speculators are already very long the greenback, and thus there will be ample firepower to sell the USD once macroeconomic conditions warrant it (Chart 3). As a result, a DXY dollar index above 100 could represent an interesting opportunity for long-term investors to lighten up their dollar exposure. Chart 2The Dollar And The Global Business Cycle   Chart 3Fuel For The Dollar's Downside The euro continues to behave as the anti-dollar; since buying EUR/USD is the simplest, most liquid vehicle for betting against the dollar, and vice versa. Our bullish dollar stance is therefore synonymous with a negative take on the euro. Also, while American growth is showing budding signs of deceleration, slowing global trade and Chinese economic activity have a more pronounced impact on Europe. As a result, euro area growth is underperforming the U.S. Finally, since the Great Financial Crisis, EUR/USD has lagged the differential between European and U.S. core inflation by roughly six months. Today, this inflation spread does point to a weaker EUR/USD for the opening quarters of 2019, but it also highlights that the euro may rebound toward the end of the second quarter (Chart 4). Chart 4The Euro Will Rebound, But This Will Not Happen Immediately Additionally, since momentum has a great explanatory power for the dollar, it tends to work well for the anti-dollar, the euro. Currently, momentum suggests that the euro has also more downside. Our favored fair value model for EUR/USD – which includes real short rate differentials, the relative slope yield curves, and the price of copper relative to lumber – stands at 1.11 (Chart 5). Since the euro tends to bottom at discounts to its equilibrium, this suggests that the common currency is likely to find a floor toward 1.08. Chart 5The Euro Will Fall Between 1.08 And 1.05 On a long-term basis, the yen is cheap, and therefore, already reflects the fact that the Bank of Japan’s balance sheet has now grown to 100% of GDP (Chart 6). However, this is of little comfort for the next 12 months. Over this period, movements in global bond yields will determine the yen’s gyrations. Since we expect global growth to slow further in the first half of the year, global yields are likely to remain contained until the second half of 2019. The impact on the yen of fluctuating global yields will be magnified by Japan’s incapacity to generate much inflationary pressure, with core inflation stuck at 0.4%. This means that while JGB yields have limited downside when global bonds rally, they only have very limited upside when global yields rise. Hence, during the first six months or so of the new year the yen is likely to experience limited downside against the dollar and may even experience significant upside against the euro (Chart 7). However, the second half of 2019 is likely to witness a significant reversal of this trend, with a weaker yen against the dollar, and a much stronger EUR/JPY. Chart 6The Yen Is Very Cheap   Chart 7Selling EUR/JPY Should Be A Winner In H1 At this juncture, the pound remains the trickiest currency to forecast. We are entering the last innings of the Brexit negotiations, and Prime Minister Theresa May looks particularly frail. Bad news out of Westminster will most likely continue to hit the pound at regular intervals. However, GBP/USD is cheap enough on a long-term basis that after the month of March, it could experience meaningful upside against the dollar (Chart 8). We are therefore reluctant to sell the pound at current levels, and instead are looking to buy cable each time undesirable headlines knock it down. As the probability grows that the ultimate form of divorce agreement will be a “soft Brexit,” this also means that once the ultimate deal between London and Brussels is set to be ratified by the British Parliament, EUR/GBP could experience significant downside as well (Chart 9). Chart 8Start Buying The Pound Chart 9Substantial Downside In EUR/GBP The Swiss franc benefits against the euro when global growth weakens and asset market volatility rises. This safe-haven attribute of the franc lies behind the 5.4% decline in EUR/CHF since April. Therefore, our view on global growth would suggest that EUR/CHF could experience additional downside in the first half of 2019. However, we are not willing to make this bet. The Swiss National Bank continues to characterize the Swiss franc as being expensive, and Swiss inflation, retail sales and industrial production have all decelerated. In fact, the Economic Expansion Survey indicator is plunging at its quickest pace since the Swiss economy relapsed directly after the botched re-evaluation of the franc in January 2015 (Chart 10). This suggests the SNB will likely soon put a cap on the franc’s strength as it is causing potent damage to the country. This means that EUR/CHF has limited downside in the first half of 2019, even if global growth deteriorates, and should have large upside in the second half of the year as global growth perks up. Chart 10The SNB Will Not Seat On Its Hands: Buy EUR/CHF Commodity currencies could perform very well in the second half of the year, once global growth finds a firmer footing. The oil currencies should perform best over that period, as BCA’s oil view remains firmly bullish, with a 2019 target of $82/bbl if OPEC agrees to a deal. Moreover, the CAD and the NOK are still the cheapest currencies within this group. However, in the first half of the year, the commodity currency complex remains at risk. Slowing global growth and a Fed committed to lifting interest rates to levels more consistent with the U.S. neutral rate are likely to cause the volatility of the currency market to trend higher (Chart 11). Historically, commodity currencies perform poorly when this happens. This is because when FX volatility picks up, carry trades suffer, which hurts global liquidity conditions and hampers global growth further (Chart 12). The AUD is particularly vulnerable as it is the currency most exposed to China’s capex and construction cycles. Moreover, the Reserve Bank of Australia is still very dovish, as there are no inflationary pressures in Australia. Chart 11The Global Macro Outlook Points To Higher FX Vol... Chart 12...And Higher FX Vol Hurts Global Growth Via The Carry Trades Scandinavian currencies are traditionally very pro-cyclical. This reflects the high sensitivity of the Swedish and Norwegian economies to the global business cycle. As a result, when global growth weakens and global inflation disappoints, they are likely to perform as poorly as the AUD and the NZD (Chart 13). Chart 13Weak Global Growth Will Hurt Scandinavian Currencies In H1 2019... Despite this clouded outlook for the beginning of the year, the scandies should perform very well in the second half of 2019, once global growth stabilizes. With their economies at full employment and exhibiting growing imbalances, both the Riksbank and the Norges Bank are in the process of slowly moving away from extremely easy monetary policy settings. However, they have a long way to go before reaching tight monetary conditions, which implies plenty of upside for real interest rates in both countries. This means that the boost to the SEK and the NOK from rising global growth in the second half of the year will be magnified by domestic factors. Finally, both the SEK and the NOK are very cheap, adding upside risks to these currencies (Chart 14). Chart 14...But Scandies Will Have A Stellar H2 2019   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 The full report – a BCA Research Special – titled “OUTLOOK 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence”, dated November 26, 2018, is available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Dear Client, In addition to today’s report, we sent you our 2019 Outlook earlier this week, featuring a discussion between BCA editors and Mr. and Ms. X. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Today’s macroeconomic backdrop of slowing global growth, plunging oil prices, falling equity prices, widening credit spreads, and a strong dollar is reminiscent of what transpired in 2015. We do not expect global capital spending to contract as much as it did back then, partly because Saudi output cuts should preclude the need for shale producers to slash capex plans. Nevertheless, global growth is likely to slow further into the first half of next year, suggesting that equities and other risk assets could face renewed near-term pressures. The sell-off in the dollar following Powell’s speech is unwarranted. We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Global bond yields will rise by more than currently discounted over a 12-to-18 month horizon, but are likely to fall somewhat over the next few months. Feature Echoes From The Past Today’s macroeconomic backdrop is starting to look increasingly similar to 2015, a year when the global economy slowed sharply and commodity prices took it on the chin. In 2014, the Fed was gearing up to raise rates while other central banks were still in full-out easing mode. The divergence in monetary policies between the U.S. and the rest of the world caused the U.S. dollar to surge. The broad trade-weighted dollar strengthened by 16% between July 2014 and March 2015 (Chart 1). Chart 1Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? The effects of the stronger dollar rippled across the global economy. Notably, since China had a de facto currency peg to the dollar at the time, the resurgent greenback made Chinese companies less competitive in global markets. The appreciation of the yuan came at a time when the Chinese government was tightening both monetary and fiscal policy. The year-over-year change in total social financing (TSF) reached as high as 23% in April 2013 but fell to 12% in May 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Eager to give its export sector a competitive boost, China allowed the currency to weaken by about 4% in August 2015 (Chart 3). The “mini-devaluation” backfired. Rather than instilling confidence in the economy, it caused investors to bet on further currency declines. Capital outflows intensified as the yuan came under further pressure. Between June 2014 and January 2016, China lost almost US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Chart 3China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired The combination of a stronger dollar and sagging Chinese growth led to a steep decline in commodity prices. The London Metals Exchange index fell by nearly 40% between July 2014 and January 2016. Brent crude oil prices plunged from $110/bbl to as low as $26/bbl during this period (Chart 4). Capital spending in the commodity sector collapsed. Fears over the financial health of commodity producers and related firms caused credit spreads to widen (Chart 5).  Chart 4Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Chart 5Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Throughout the course of 2015, the Fed refused to back off from its plans to start raising rates. It hiked rates in December of that year and signaled four more hikes for 2016. However, as markets continued to swoon, the FOMC quickly backed off. The Fed would not raise rates again for a full 12 months. The Federal Reserve’s decision to temper its hawkish rhetoric, along with China’s decision to ramp up stimulus in early 2016, put a floor under risk assets. Fast forward to the present and investors are again wondering if the Fed is about to blink and whether the Chinese authorities are set to deliver a massive dose of global reflationary stimulus. We would not exclude either option. However, we think that a lot more pain is required before either occurs. China’s Begrudging Stimulus Program The Chinese government’s reform agenda remains focused on curbing credit growth and reducing excess capacity. China has historically stimulated its economy with ever-more debt and investment spending (Chart 6). There is an obvious tension here – one that is likely to make the authorities reluctant to turn on the credit spigot unless the economy slows further. Chart 6China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand Of course, China can try to stimulate its economy without relying on more debt-financed investment spending. In particular, it can try to boost consumption or net exports. The problem is that neither of these two options would be welcome news for other nations. Capital goods and raw materials account for more than 80% of Chinese imports. The rest of the world relies on Chinese investment, not Chinese consumption. Similarly, while stricter capital controls have given the authorities greater scope to weaken the yuan than they had in 2015, such a move would only hurt China’s competitors and curb Chinese imports.  The Fed Will Keep Hiking Stocks rallied and the dollar sold off on Wednesday after Chairman Powell seemingly suggested that the fed funds rate was already close to neutral. This appeared to be a sharp recanting of his statement in early October that the Fed was a “long way” from neutral. We think the financial media and many pundits overreacted to Powell’s remarks. What he actually said was that “interest rates are still low by historical standards, and they remain just below the broad range of estimates of the level that would be neutral for the economy.”1 The “broad range” of estimates that Powell was referring to is drawn from September’s Summary of Economic Projections, which showed that FOMC members saw the appropriate “longer run” level of the fed funds rate as ranging between 2.5% and 3.5%. Given that the current target for the fed funds rate is 2%-to-2.25%, Powell was merely stating a fact about the current position of the Fed dots, not offering new forward guidance. In any case, investors are focusing too much on what Powell may or may not be thinking. The Fed does not know where the neutral rate is. True to its “data-dependent” approach, it will keep raising rates until the economy slows by enough that it needs to stop. Our base-case scenario envisions only a modest slowdown in U.S. growth, driven in part by increasing capacity constraints (the latter should make the Fed more, not less, eager to raise rates). So far, the data are consistent with this benign slowdown scenario. Holiday sales have been stronger than expected, based on data from Johnson-Redbook and Adobe Digital Insights. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to increase by 2.6% in the fourth quarter. Net exports and inventory destocking are expected to shave about half a percentage point off growth. This means that real final domestic demand is still growing at a healthy 3% pace. GDP growth could slow to about 2.5% next year as the fiscal impulse declines and the lagged effects from the recent tightening in financial conditions make their way through the economy. Nevertheless, given that most estimates peg potential growth at around 1.7%-to-1.8%, this should still be enough to push the unemployment rate towards 3% by the end of 2019, bringing it to the lowest level since the Korean War. This should keep price and wage inflation on an upward trajectory (Chart 7). Chart 7Does The Fed Like It Hot? The “dots” in the September Summary of Economic Projections foresaw one rate increase this December and three additional hikes next year. The market is currently pricing in only two hikes through to end-2019 and no hikes beyond then (Chart 8). If our baseline scenario for the U.S. economy unfolds as expected, the Fed will raise rates four times next year, which will keep the U.S. dollar well bid.  Chart 8The Market Does Not Buy The Dots Oil And The Global Economy: Why It Will Not Be As Bad This Time Around As in 2015, a key question today is how the recent drop in oil prices will affect both the U.S. and the global economy. Here there is some good news. The balance sheets of U.S. energy companies have improved markedly over the past few years. Rapid productivity has allowed shale producers to boost production to record levels without having to incur substantially higher costs. In fact, capital spending in the energy sector is far lower as a share of GDP today than it was in the lead-up to the 2015 shale bust (Chart 9). Chart 9Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the slide in oil prices is also likely to be different this time around. In 2015, the Saudis refrained from cutting output in the hope that this would undermine Iran and decimate the fledgling U.S. shale industry. In the end, the Iranian regime endured, and while U.S. production did fall temporarily, it quickly rebounded (Chart 10). Chart 10Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Going into September, the Saudis ramped up production after President Trump indicated his intent to tighten sanctions on Iranian oil exports. In the end, Trump declined to reimpose the sanctions. This left the market with a surfeit of crude. There is a limit to how much Saudi Arabia can cut output. Now that the stock market is well off its highs, President Trump has started to take credit for low oil prices. Nevertheless, the Saudis are keenly aware that they need crude to trade at about $83 per barrel just to balance their budget. Our geopolitical and energy strategists expect the Kingdom to cut production by enough to push up prices from current levels. Russia has also hinted at restraining supply. If U.S. producers fill part of the void created by Saudi and Russian production cutbacks, U.S. energy sector capital spending will hold up much better than it did in 2015. Provided that oil prices do not return all the way to their September highs, U.S. consumers will also benefit from an increase in spending power. Investment Conclusions We do not expect the global economy to weaken as much as it did in 2015. Nevertheless, most forward-looking economic indicators point to slower growth over the next few quarters (Chart 11). Global growth will likely bottom out by the middle of 2019, but until then, investors should continue to favor developed over emerging market stocks. They should also overweight defensive equity sectors, such as consumer staples and health care, relative to deep cyclicals, such as materials and industrials. Given sector skews, this implies a regional preference for the U.S. over Europe and Japan. Chart 11Global Growth Is Slowing As far as the near-term absolute direction of stocks is concerned, the equity score from our MacroQuant market-timing model has risen from its recent lows thanks to an improvement in sentiment/technical components. Nevertheless, the model is still pointing to heightened downside risks to global equities over the remainder of the year and into early 2019 due to slowing growth and the lagged effects of the recent tightening in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12MacroQuant Equity Model* Score Is Off Its Lows, But Is Still Warning Of More Downside For Stocks Slower global growth and ongoing Fed rate hikes should keep the dollar well bid. Consistent with our qualitative analysis, our model is currently sending a very bullish signal on the greenback (Chart 13). We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Chart 13MacroQuant U.S. Dollar Model Is Pointing To Further Upside For The Greenback The model’s near-term outlook on bonds has improved greatly in recent weeks after having spent the better part of the last 18 months in bearish territory (Chart 14). To be clear, this is a tactical signal: The model’s cyclical fair-value estimate for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield stands at 3.71% – 67 basis points above current levels – which implies that the 12-to-18 month path for yields remains to the upside (Chart 15). Nevertheless, with global growth slowing and lower energy prices dragging down inflation, there is a good chance that the 10-year yield will temporarily fall below 3% before resuming its structural uptrend. Chart 14MacroQuant Recommended Portfolio*: Tactically Favor Bonds Over Stocks   Chart 15MacroQuant U.S. Bond Model*: Treasury Yields Are Still Well Below Fair Value, But The Upside Is Capped Tactically Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Jerome H. Powell, “The Federal Reserve’s Framework for Monitoring Financial Stability,” Federal Reserve, November 28, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights On a 6-month horizon, go long a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds. The recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Stay short oil and gas versus financials. During December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound… …and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekBanks And Bond Yields Were Connected At The Hip... Until This Year Back in June, in Oddities In The 1st Half, Opportunities In The 2nd Half we pointed out two striking oddities in financial market behaviour. One oddity was the sharp decoupling of crude oil from industrial commodity prices (Chart I-2). It is highly unusual for crude oil to outperform copper by 50 percent in the space of just six months. We argued that such an extreme deviation would have to correct one way or another. Which of course it did… Chart I-2Crude Oil Abruptly Decoupled From Industrial Commodities... Then Abruptly Recoupled The other oddity was the abrupt decoupling of bank equity performance from bond yields (Chart I-3 and Chart of the Week). Bank equity prices and bond yields are usually connected at the hip. The tight connection exists because higher bond yields tend to signal stronger economic growth, either real or nominal. Stronger growth should be good for banks as it is associated with both accelerating credit growth and lower provisions for non-performing loans. Chart I-3Banks Decoupled From Bond Yields... But Will Recouple On the back of these two striking oddities, we recommended a compelling trade: short oil and gas versus financials. This trade is now in profit and has further to run, but today we want to introduce a new trade: go long a combination of banks and bonds. Explaining The Oddities Of 2018 The underperformance of banks from February through September was entirely consistent with similar underperformances in the other classically growth-sensitive sectors – industrials, and basic materials as well as the decline in industrial commodity prices (Chart I-4). Furthermore, these underperformances started well before any inkling of a trade war. This suggests that the cyclical sector underperformances were correctly reflecting a common or garden down-oscillation in global growth. Chart I-4Oil And Gas Was The Odd Man Out Oil was a striking oddity because its supply dynamics, rather than its demand dynamics, were dominating its price action, at one point lifting its year-on-year inflation rate to 70 percent for Brent and 80 percent for WTI. Part of this surge in year-on-year inflation was also to do with the ‘base effect’, the dip in the oil price to $45 in the summer of 2017. The base effect shouldn’t really bother markets. After all, most people do not consciously compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago. The problem is that central banks do compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago in their inflation targets. Clearly, when oil price inflation was running at 80 percent, it was underpinning headline CPI inflation, central bank reaction functions, and thereby bond yields. Hence, the two striking oddities – oil abruptly decoupling from industrial commodities (Chart I-5) and bond yields abruptly decoupling from banks – are two sides of the same coin. From February through September, bond yields were taking their cue, at least partly, from the rising price of oil, given its major impact on headline inflation and on central bank reaction functions. Whereas banks, industrials, and industrial commodity prices were taking their cue from fading global growth and industrial activity. Chart I-5It Is Highly Unusual For Oil To Outperform Copper By 50% In Six Months A Banks Plus Bonds Combination Could Be A Win-Win The oddities of 2018 are now correcting. With the oil price sharply lower, its year-on-year inflation rate has plunged to -10 percent (Chart I-6). Furthermore, as we have pointed out in recent reports, the sharp deceleration in global credit growth from February through September has clearly arrested and even reversed. The upshot is that banks and bond yields will recouple, one way or the other. Chart I-6Oil Inflation Down from 70% To -10% Most likely, global growth will rebound somewhat and the beaten-down bank equity prices have considerable scope for recovery (Chart I-7), while the restraint on headline CPI inflation will keep bond yields in check. Indeed, as President Trump recently tweeted: Chart I-7Global Growth Will Rebound, So Will Banks “Inflation down, are you listening Fed!” But if we are wrong and growth disappoints, bank equities are already beaten-down while a further downdraft in inflation will pull down bond yields. Either way, on a six month horizon a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds should be a win-win strategy. Given the different betas of the two investments, the recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Focus On Sectors And Currencies The remainder of this report is a reminder that successful macro investing requires the application of the Pareto Principle, also known as 80:20 rule. In macro investing, the vast majority of performance outcomes, ‘the 80’, are explained by a very small number of drivers, ‘the 20’. We find that the vast majority of a region’s or a country’s stock market relative performance is explained just by its distinguishing sector fingerprint combined with its currency (Chart I-8 - Chart I-12). Chart I-8Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-10FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-11FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-12FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Major stock markets comprise of multinational companies whose sales and profits are internationally diversified. But each major stock market has a distinguishing ‘long’ sector in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as a distinguishing ‘short’ sector in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint (Table I-1): FTSE100 = long energy, short technology. Eurostoxx50 = long banks, short technology. Nikkei225 = long industrials, short banks and energy. S&P500 = long technology, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long technology, short healthcare. Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Distinguishing Fingerprint The other important factor is the currency. The FTSE100 oil and gas stock, BP, receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In other words, BP’s global business is currency neutral. But BP’s stock price is quoted in London in pounds. Hence, if the pound strengthens, the company’s multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. This means that the domestic economy can impact its stock market through the currency channel. Albeit it is a counterintuitive relationship: a strong economy via a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak economy via a weak currency helps the stock market. What does all of this mean for our European country allocation right now? From a sector perspective, a stance that is short oil and gas versus financials penalises the FTSE100 versus the Eurostoxx50, given the FTSE100’s oil and gas fingerprint and the Eurostoxx50’s banks fingerprint. Against this, a weakening pound would support the FTSE100. Given that Theresa May’s Brexit agreement will meet stiff resistance when it comes to Parliament in the second week of December, the point of maximum risk for the pound is still ahead of us. But as we argued last week, we ultimately expect relief for the pound as: either the Article 50 process is extended, or the U.K. moves into a transition period within a negotiated Brexit.1 Hence, during December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound, and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that this year’s sell-off in Italian equities is technically very stretched. Therefore, in a continued de-escalation of the budget spat between Italy and the EU, Italian equities would be ripe for a strong countertrend burst of outperformance. On this basis, our recommended trade is long MIB versus the Eurostoxx with a profit target of 5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas”, November 22, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights So What? A trade deal is unlikely at the G20. Stay short CNY/USD. Why? The odds of a U.S.-China tariff ceasefire are around 30%-40%. Investors should see any ceasefire as a temporary reprieve. Stay neutral on Chinese equities. Expect a weaker CNY/USD. Fade any rally in U.S. China-exposed equities. In Taiwan, local elections do not herald a decline in geopolitical risk, which is elevated. Feature The scheduled meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1 has generated a fair amount of speculation that the trade war will be resolved or at least put on pause. A major de-escalation would bring some consolation to global equity markets that have fallen by 11% since their peak in late January, 2018, especially to Chinese and Asian cyclicals, which have fallen by 27% and 21% respectively over the same time period (Chart 1). Chart 1Desperate For Good News We are doubtful that the summit will cause a major positive catalyst for markets. Yes, it is tempting to think that President Trump could wrap up the whole trade war promptly, just as he wrapped up negotiations with Mexico and Canada in October. If President Xi could add a few sweeteners to concessions he has already made, then Trump could proclaim a “historic new deal” and roll back the tariffs. Equity markets would celebrate. The past year would seem like a bad dream. But this is all fantasy. U.S.-China relations have gotten worse every year since 2008 for a host of economic, political, military, and strategic reasons. Is the current stock market selloff really enough to force Trump into a major capitulation, given that trade tensions were not the primary cause either of the October correction or of the earlier pullback in February? And is Xi really going to make significant concessions with Trump holding bigger threats over his head? We admit that some kind of improvement is plausible – say, a tariff ceasefire and an agreement to launch a new round of talks. We attach a 30%-40% subjective probability to such a scenario. But our base case – which is driven as always by structural factors – is that the summit will turn out to be a flop and the trade war will escalate in 2019. How Likely Is A Tariff Ceasefire? Presidential summits can have major consequences, but context is everything. Trump’s impending meeting with President Xi will be the third since he took office. The first two – in April and November 2017 – did not prevent the trade war. Neither did high-level negotiations in May 2018, which produced a “trade truce” that did not last a week. However, much has changed since then: the U.S. has imposed tariffs on half of Chinese imports, while China has suffered a bear market and some signs of domestic economic stress (Chart 2). Chart 2Signs Of Economic Weakness Over the past month, some developments suggest that the U.S. and China are managing their strategic tensions a bit better than they were earlier this year. Tensions peaked in early October, when the U.S. imposed sanctions on China’s People’s Liberation Army for purchasing Russian Sukhoi-25 jets and S400 surface-to-air missiles, under a law designed to punish Russia for meddling in the U.S.’s 2016 election. Meanwhile CNN reported that the U.S. military was considering staging a “global show of force” in November, a show that would have included sensitive operations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Since then, however, positive signs have emerged: Presidents Trump and Xi confirmed their meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires. The two sides have exchanged letters and will bring trade negotiators to the summit, making it at least possible for substantive work to be done. Various preparatory discussions have been held, including a phone call between Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and top Chinese economic adviser and negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. Beijing offered to hold military-to-military talks that it had previously canceled between Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. The two officials met in Singapore and in Washington for the second round of the U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue. The U.S. and China tentatively agreed to a multilateral protocol for avoiding accidental encounters by military aircraft, supplementing a similar agreement covering unplanned encounters at sea.1 Treasury Secretary Mnuchin met with People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia in October, and afterwards refrained from accusing China of currency manipulation in the Treasury’s biannual foreign exchange report. Director of the National Trade Council Peter Navarro, a fierce trade hawk on China, is reportedly not attending the G20 summit. National Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow publicly chastised Navarro for criticizing the new negotiations as a Wall Street capitulation to China.2 This piece of anecdotal evidence has captured the imagination of sell-side analysts and many of our clients. These developments, in addition to Trump’s positive tweets on the subject, suggest that both China and the U.S. are trying to step back from the brink and accomplish something at the upcoming summit. However, there are many reasons to take these developments with a grain of salt: China is negotiating under duress: In statements over the past month, and reiterated by President Trump as we go to press, the U.S. has warned that if the G20 summit does not go well, it will ratchet up the pressure. In early December, it might move forward with the third round of threatened tariffs, covering the remaining $267 billion in imports from China. On December 19, the U.S. Department of Commerce will conclude consultations on whether to impose new export controls on “emerging technologies.” And on January 1, 2019, the existing tariff rate on $200 billion worth of imports (the second round) is supposed to rise from 10% to 25%, which implies that a third round of tariffs would eventually have the same rate. Indeed, since the confirmation of the G20 summit, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Chinese technology companies like Fujian Jinhua. It has also begun implementing a new law strengthening the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States and its foreign investment reviews, which already mostly target China (Chart 3). Chart 3Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Further, the U.S. has taken the occasion in the recent military and diplomatic dialogue to demand, for the first time ever, that China remove its missile systems from the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.3 Some of these moves can be read as evidence that the U.S. will impose penalties for various grievances even if China agrees to some of its key trade demands. The demands on the South China Sea and arms purchases, for instance, will stand even if China makes major concessions on key trade issues like technology acquisition. At minimum, the above details suggest that Xi Jinping will be negotiating with a sword over his head and thus may refuse to make concessions on principle, despite the negative impact on China’s stock market and export sector (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impending Tariff Impact Leaks from the negotiations do not suggest any breakthroughs: China’s written response to Trump’s letter reportedly contains no new, significant trade concessions.4 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the sine qua non of any trade deal, has issued a hawkish report on the eve of the summit arguing that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that prompted the tariffs so far.5 The report, an update to his initial Section 301 report, makes grave accusations about China’s use of cyber theft and corporate espionage over the past year alone, in addition to earlier years. These activities go far beyond trade disputes and clearly affect national security: a tariff freeze is hardly possible without substantial commitments by China to rein in these operations. Lighthizer also argues that China’s trade concessions so far are merely “incremental” and in several cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies (Chart 5), but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 6). Chart 5China’s High-Tech Protectionism Chart 6More High-Tech Protectionism Lighthizer further claims that China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley continues despite a headline reduction in capital flight to the United States. And he also presents evidence that the full range of U.S. government agencies as well as the U.S.’s major allies are observing the same malicious or abusive practices from China and share the U.S.’s concerns. As for China hawk Navarro – who is far less important than Lighthizer to trade negotiations – his status today is not worse than it was in 2017, when his office was subordinated to that of former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Of course, Cohn got fired, while Navarro’s office was upgraded and his pro-tariff argument won out. Trump’s olive branch is suspicious: Trump and his administration adopted friendly rhetoric during the lead-up to the midterm election, when it might have been desirable to show “progress” in the trade negotiations. It would have been impossible to engineer credible signs of progress without genuinely engaging the Chinese. Now, however, the midterms are over and there is no pressing political need for Trump to agree to a deal. Many of our clients – and almost all broker research – believe that Trump has a financial need to agree to a deal – i.e. to calm the stock market. However, there are two problems with this thesis. First, it is not clear that stock performance has had any relationship with President Trump’s approval rating (Chart 7). Chart 7Trump No Slave To Stock Market Second, both of the U.S. stock market pullbacks this year were catalyzed by sharp rises in treasury yields, not disruptive news on the trade front (Chart 8). As such, positive news about the trade war will yield only a passing relief rally in the United States. Chart 8Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff On this basis, we doubt that President Trump will agree to a hurried, watered-down trade deal that the Democrats will slam as a “giveaway” to China for the remaining two years of his presidency. With the U.S. economy fired up, the trade deficit is likely to widen regardless of tariffs (Chart 9), rendering any weak Trump-China deal a humiliation. Chart 9Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs However, while a trade deal is out of reach, there is a logic to suspending further tariff impositions: Trump may wish to disperse the negative impact of the trade tariffs over a longer period of time. This would give him room to try to settle a very tricky trade agreement before the 2020 election. Then, if the talks succeed, he can present himself as a great dealmaker. If the talks fail, he has all the more ammunition to launch a third round of tariffs. (And on this time frame, the effects of the third round would not be felt by consumers until after the election.) Xi, for his part, may wish to “lock in” Trump with concessions today rather than wait to see how aggressive Trump will become as 2020 draws near. True, Xi cannot afford to “lose face” by capitulating abjectly. But he is the dictator of a regime that has full control of the media; he will be able to suppress domestic criticism of his concessions. In fact, the most insidious criticism of Xi is that he flouted the maxims of both Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping by provoking the wrath of China’s greatest enemy prematurely. Thus, if he stays Trump’s hand on tariffs in exchange for a new round of talks or minor concessions, then he comes out of Buenos Aires looking okay. The reason we put this ceasefire scenario at only 30%-40% probability is that we still do not see Trump as heavily constrained by the trade war. His greatest constraint is political and works against a trade deal: it comes from the Democrats, whose protectionist candidates performed very well in the midterm election in the Rust Belt states that are critical for Trump’s reelection (Table 1). Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Economically, our assessment is that the selloff in U.S. financial markets is a correction, not a bear market, and that there is no sign that the U.S. economy is likely to slip into recession (Chart 10). Trump is constrained by the unemployment rate, not by the stock market alone. As long as Trump shares this assessment, he will not be lulled into a politically damaging capitulation to China. Chart 10No Sign Of Recession Yet Also, Xi will fear that difficult concessions will encourage Washington to continue what Chinese government officials have called “trade bullyism,” i.e. using coercive measures and upping its demands. In other words, the main argument for a tariff ceasefire is that Trump might simply prefer one to boost the stock market and thus may accept few or no concessions. And that preference is not enough to change our baseline view in light of his political constraints. Bottom Line: There is no basis for a resolution of the trade war at present, but there is a basis for a tariff ceasefire and a new effort at trade negotiations. Still, it is not our base case. Xi has good reason not to make major concessions under duress and Trump does not want to get outflanked by his political opponents by freezing tariffs without major Chinese concessions. Do Presidential Summits Matter? Have presidential summits between the U.S. and China ever brought about major breakthroughs? Yes, but not since the Great Recession. As Table 2 demonstrates, looking at 50 U.S.-China leadership summits since 1972, only 18 qualify as true “green light” summits in which the outcome was a concrete improvement in relations over the period before the next summit – and 10 of these were during the first decade of the 2000s, the heyday of “Chinamerica,” when China and Emerging Market economies roared ahead while George W. Bush courted China’s cooperation on terrorism and North Korea. Table 2U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology Only eight summits mark truly historic positive inflection points: Nixon 1972, Carter 1979, Reagan 1984, Clinton 1997, Clinton 2000, Bush 2002, Bush 2005, and arguably Obama 2009. Since 2009, under four different leaders (two from each country), Sino-American relations have categorically worsened. Moreover, both President Obama’s and President Trump’s major meetings with President Xi, at the Sunnylands estate in California in 2013 and at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in 2017, saw much fanfare at the time but were followed by a significant deterioration in relations. Indeed, the Obama administration launched a more aggressive China policy in September 2015, including freedom of navigation operations in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This was after President Xi declared that China “does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands – a statement that American officials have repeatedly cited when arguing that China’s foreign policy is increasingly aggressive and that China is not following through with diplomatic promises. Investors should focus not on the Trump-Xi summit on December 1 but rather on the two governments’ actions afterwards. The substance of any positive outcome will depend, in particular, on whether Trump indicates that he will proceed with the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 and/or the initiation of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of U.S. imports from China.6 Bottom Line: History does not give reason for optimism about the summit – especially not recent history, in which heavily hyped summits have not been able to arrest the secular decline in U.S.-China cooperation due to underlying strategic distrust. Investment Implications The primary driver of the recent selloff in global risk assets is not the trade war but the divergence between U.S. and Chinese economic policy writ large. The U.S. economy continues to support the case for Fed normalization, while China’s stimulus continues to disappoint. The result is a double whammy for commodity prices and EM assets as the dollar strengthens and exports of resources and capital goods to China soften (Chart 11). Chart 11A Bad Combination For EM Given that China’s December Central Economic Work Conference will likely reinforce the message of greater policy support, and that China tends to frontload new credit expansion in the beginning of the year (Chart 12), it is entirely possible that a rally in global risk assets on the back of positive trade news in late November could gain traction in December and the New Year. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy will continue to hedge against the risk of substantial reflation in China by means of our Foreign Exchange Strategy’s long “China Play Index” trade (Chart 13). Chart 12China May See A Q1 Credit Spike Chart 13Monitoring The Risk To Our View Fundamentally, however, we would view a December-January rally as a short-term movement that is not worth playing. We expect the Xi administration to remain disciplined in its use of stimulus measures, for the purposes of economic restructuring. Ever worsening trade tensions give Xi the option of blaming the American administration for the economic pain incurred due to his reform agenda. Therefore we think global divergence can persist, which is positive for the dollar and USD/CNY exchange rate. While acknowledging the potential for a near-term rally, we remain neutral Chinese stocks relative to their global counterparts over a 6-12 month horizon and continue to favor low-beta stocks within the Chinese equity universe. We also remain neutral on Taiwanese equities. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) loss in local elections on November 24 was severe (Chart 14), though not unexpected. The election result does not change Geopolitical Strategy’s view that Taiwan faces heightened geopolitical risk. Chart 14Taiwanese Voters Seek More Conciliatory Approach To Beijing Indeed, the election suggests that the Tsai Ing-wen administration may only have 14 months remaining in power, and hence that it will try rapidly to finalize some material improvement in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Since the Trump administration will also try to exploit this closing window of opportunity, the potential is rising for a controversy to erupt over diplomatic or military relations. This could prompt a negative, market-relevant reaction from Beijing. It is also too soon to bottom-fish within the tech sector in China and the U.S., and we remain pessimistic about the earnings outlook for companies exposed to the U.S.-China trade relationship.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      While these agreements do not ensure collisions will not occur, given the USS Decatur incident earlier this year, they are at least a sign of coordination. 2      Navarro had said the following at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Consider the shuttle diplomacy that’s now going on by a self-appointed group of Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers between the U.S. and China. As part of a Chinese government influence operation, these globalist billionaires are putting a full-court press on the White House in advance of the G-20 in Argentina. The mission of these unregistered foreign agents – that’s what they are; they’re unregistered foreign agents – is to pressure this president into some kind of deal.” Please see “Economic Security as National Security: A Discussion with Dr. Peter Navarro,” CSIS, November 13, 2018, available at www.csis.org. 3      Please see U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue,” November 9, 2018, available at www.state.gov.   For the proposed export controls, open for public comment until December 19, 2018, please see U.S. Department of Commerce, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Bureau of Industry and Security, November 19, 2018, available at www.bis.doc.gov. 4      Please see Jeff Mason and David Shepardson, “Exclusive: China sends written response to U.S. trade reform demands - U.S. government sources,” Reuters, November 14, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at https://ustr.gov/ 6      It is very unlikely, but perhaps not impossible, that China would accept a ceasefire that allows the January 1 tariff hike to go forward but forswears the third round of tariffs on the remaining Chinese imports.