Emerging Markets

Highlights The strong tailwinds behind China's recovery since early 2016 are likely to wane in the coming months. Diminishing reflationary forces will not immediately lead to a growth relapse, as the domestic economy has developed some self-feeding momentum. China's PPI inflation will continue to drift lower. Disinflation in PPI is less positive for the economy, but is not outright negative, unless PPI deflates. Odds are low that PPI will deflate anytime soon. Without a major growth relapse and PPI deflation, the upturn in the Chinese profit cycle should have further to run, which bodes well for asset prices - particularly for investable Chinese shares and corporate bonds. Feature China's GDP figures to be released next week will likely show that the economy continued to accelerate in the second quarter, as indicated by recent high-frequency macro indicators (Chart 1). Looking forward, the near-term outlook remains promising, but the strong tailwinds behind China's recovery since early 2016 are likely to wane in the coming months, which could lead to softer growth down the road. However, the Chinese economy has regained some self-sustaining momentum, which will allow it to glide at cruising speed without major growth difficulties. For investors, H-shares and onshore corporate bonds should continue to advance, aided by the profit cycle upturn and a largely accommodative policy setting over the next six to nine months. Chart 1Chinese GDP Likely Accelerated In Q2 Chinese GDP Likely Accelerated In Q2 Chinese GDP Likely Accelerated In Q2 Chart 2Exports And Monetary Conditions ##br##Drive Chinese Industrial Activity Exports And Monetary Conditions Drive Chinese Industrial Activity Exports And Monetary Conditions Drive Chinese Industrial Activity Tailwinds Are Waning... China's seemingly static GDP growth figures disguise much greater volatility in the underlying economy, especially in the industrial sector. The famed Keqiang index, named after China's incumbent premier which incorporates electricity consumption, railway transportation and bank lending, has shown dramatic swings in the past two decades (Chart 2). The index has roared back from rock bottom in late 2015 to currently a one sigma overshoot above its long-term trend, underscoring a sharp recovery in industrial activity. Some have attributed this to a massive dose of fiscal and monetary stimuli - we disagree. In our view, the swings in China's industrial sector performance can be fully explained by the performance of exporters and the country's Monetary Conditions Index (MCI). Our "Reflation Indicator," a combination of export growth and MCI, shows a very tight correlation with the Keqiang Index in the past several cycles. In other words, the rapid recovery in industrial activity since early 2016 was boosted by tailwinds from both accelerating export growth and easing monetary conditions. Currently, the tailwinds are likely passing maximum strength and will wane on both fronts going forward: Global demand appears to be in a synchronized upturn, which bodes well for Chinese exports. The manufacturing PMI new export orders component has been in expansionary territory for eight consecutive months and made a new recovery high in June, pointing to upside surprises in export growth in the near term. Looking further out, our model predicts export growth will likely peak out before the end of the year (Chart 3). After all, it is unrealistic to expect Chinese exports to always grow at double-digit rates - particularly with global trade having downshifted structurally post-global financial crisis. On monetary conditions, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB, a major reflationary force for the Chinese economy since late 2015, has stalled in recent weeks. Broad dollar weakness of late has failed to further push down the trade-weighted RMB - either because of the People's Bank of China's intervention, or because bearish bets on the RMB by investors are now off the table (Chart 4). Regardless, a stable RMB exchange rate decreases investors' anxiety on China's macro situation, but also reduces a reflationary source for the overall economy. Overall, recent changes in China's macro environment suggest growth tailwinds are diminishing, but have not yet become headwinds. This on margin is bad news for the economy, but should not lead to a significant growth slowdown. Chart 3Exports: Upside Is Limited Exports: Upside Is Limited Exports: Upside Is Limited Chart 4The RMB Is No Longer Falling The RMB Is No Longer Falling The RMB Is No Longer Falling ...But Growth Drivers Remain Largely In Place We expect Chinese business activity to remain reasonably buoyant going into the second half of the year. It is not realistic to expect growth figures, measured by year-over-year growth rates, to accelerate in perpetuity, but downside risks to the economy will stay low. Some major growth drivers in the economy remain largely in place. Looking at the consumer sector, the growth recovery and labor market improvement have significantly lifted consumer confidence, which historically is positive for retail sales (Chart 5). Chinese households are under-levered and over-saved, and improving confidence should on margin reduce savings and further boost consumption. Retail sales have already bottomed out and will likely accelerate. The corporate sector's inventory restocking cycle is likely still at an early stage, as the inventory component of the manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) surveys has never moved above 50 since 2012, underscoring increasingly lean stock of finished goods. Industrial firms' inventory levels relative to sales are still standing at close to record low levels (Chart 6). Going forward, inventory re-stocking may supercharge production, should new orders remain elevated. At a minimum, very lean inventory levels limit the downside in industrial production - even if the improvement in new orders stalls. Chart 5Consumer Spending Should Remain Strong Consumer Spending Should Remain Strong Consumer Spending Should Remain Strong Chart 6Inventory Restocking Has Further To Go Inventory Restocking Has Further To Go Inventory Restocking Has Further To Go Furthermore, China's capital spending cycle has likely bottomed out, especially among private enterprises and in the resource sectors. The corporate profit cycle recovery has continued to unfold, and business confidence has improved sharply - both of which are conducive for private sector expansion (Chart 7). There has been dramatic improvement in resource sector profits, which at a minimum will put a floor under the relentless contraction in capex these industries have experienced in recent years. Overall, it is premature to expect a major boom, but the case for a modest upturn in private capital spending continues to strengthen. Finally, the risk of a significant housing growth slowdown due to the government's tightening measures, a major concern among investors earlier this year, has abated. Home sales have cooled off due to local government restrictive policies, but developers' inventories have declined substantially following booming sales in previous years. Therefore, housing starts have continued to improve, which should lift real estate investment going forward (Chart 8). Anecdotal evidence suggests land purchases by developers have been buoyant. Meanwhile, developers' stocks have been outperforming the benchmark, which historically has led housing transactions. All of this means a sharp reduction in real estate investment is highly unlikely, at least from a cyclical point of view. Chart 7Private Sector Capex ##br##Will Likely Accelerate Private Sector Capex Will Likely Accelerate Private Sector Capex Will Likely Accelerate Chart 8Real Estate: Near Term Outlook Improving ##br##The Chain Reactions In Housing Real Estate: Near Term Outlook Improving The Chain Reactions In Housing Real Estate: Near Term Outlook Improving The Chain Reactions In Housing In short, we see limited downside risks in the Chinese economy in the near term. Diminishing reflationary forces will not immediately lead to a growth relapse, as the domestic economy has developed some self-feeding momentum. Will PPI Deflate Again? Chinese producer prices have quickly rolled over in the past several months, falling from a peak of 7.8% in February to 5.5% in June. Rising PPI last year was regarded as a key signpost of China's reflationary trend; in this vein, the latest deterioration in PPI indeed raises a red flag. Our model predicts that PPI inflation will likely drift even lower, reaching 3% before year end (Chart 9). We rely on our models to understand the trend rather than to make number forecasts. It now appears a sure bet that Chinese PPI will continue to surprise to the downside in the coming months. How investors will react to likely increasingly disappointing PPI numbers remains to be seen. Our sense is that disinflation in PPI is less positive, but is not outright negative, unless PPI deflates. For now, we see low odds that PPI will deflate anytime soon. Chart 9PPI Will Continue To Moderate PPI Will Continue To Moderate PPI Will Continue To Moderate Chart 10Industrial Goods Prices Are Fairly Robust Industrial Goods Prices Are Fairly Robust Industrial Goods Prices Are Fairly Robust A key reason for the rapid decline in PPI inflation is an increasingly unfavorable "base effect," where the year-over-year growth rate naturally tapers off after a period of rapid acceleration. In terms of levels, overall PPI should remain largely stable, according to our model. The recent softness in Chinese PPI largely reflects weakness in crude oil prices, while prices of most basic industrials prices have been fairly robust, including some products that are widely perceived as suffering chronic overcapacity (Chart 10). This suggests the weakness in PPI is fairly concentrated, and likely reflects the unique supply demand dynamics of the oil market, rather than a demand slowdown in the broader economy. More importantly, China's PPI deflation that lasted between February and June was to a large extent due to policy tightening by the Chinese authorities, which, together with weak global demand amplified strong deflationary pressures in the Chinese economy. This time around, the PBoC is highly unlikely to repeat the policy mistakes of draconian credit and monetary tightening. Even if the central bank intends to tighten policy, it will be a lot more cautious and data-dependent. We will follow up on this issue in the coming weeks. The bottom line is that falling PPI inflation should be closely monitored. For now, we expect continued disinflation rather than outright PPI deflation. Profits And Markets Without a major growth relapse and PPI deflation, the upturn in the Chinese profit cycle should have further to run, which bodes well for asset prices - particularly for investable Chinese shares and corporate bonds. For stocks, net earnings revisions of Chinese companies have been rising, confirming the profit cycle upturn (Chart 11). Even if profit growth rolls over along with other macro numbers, a profit contraction is unlikely. Meanwhile, Chinese stocks are among the cheapest of the major bourses (Chart 12), particularly H shares. Overall, Chinese stocks should continue to do well from a cyclical perspective, and will outperform global and EM peers. For bonds, we went long onshore corporate bonds after the sharp selloff earlier this year - namely because the selloff was entirely triggered by the authorities' liquidity tightening rather than corporate fundamentals. The upturn in the profit cycle should also improve the corporate sector's balance sheet, which should be good news for corporate bonds. This trade has been profitable so far, but we expect further narrowing in corporate bond spreads, as they are still elevated both compared with their global counterparts and their historical norms (Chart 13). Investors should hold. Chart 11Earnings Outlook ##br##Will Continue To Improve Earnings Outlook Will Continue To Improve Earnings Outlook Will Continue To Improve Chart 12Chinese Stocks Multiples ##br##Are Among The Lowest Globally Chinese Stocks Multiples Are Among The Lowest Globally Chinese Stocks Multiples Are Among The Lowest Globally Chart 13Chinese Corporate Bond Spreads Set ##br##To Narrow Further Chinese Corporate Bond Spreads Set To Narrow Further Chinese Corporate Bond Spreads Set To Narrow Further Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The market will not give OPEC 2.0 until March to sort out a durable modus operandi to manage supply and maintain the discipline required to defend crude oil prices. While the odds of Libya and Nigeria being able to keep production at current levels - much less grow output - are less than 50:50 in our estimation, the fact remains the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia need to start communicating post-haste how OPEC 2.0 will manage higher Libyan and Nigerian production. Critically, these leaders will need to follow through on whatever they guide the market to expect. We think OPEC 2.0 will stand by its "whatever it takes" proclamations. Not acting in the face of more than 300k b/d of unexpected supply from a once-moribund Libya placed in the market since October will send a signal, as well: OPEC 2.0 will not defend its Agreement. Should this occur, it likely would result in a breakdown in production discipline within the coalition, sending crude oil prices lower. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain under pressure as markets price the likelihood of continued increases in production in Libya and the U.S. Spoiler alert: We think OPEC 2.0 will act to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's return to export markets. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at the Zaldivar copper mine owned by Antofagasta and Barrick Gold voted to strike earlier this week. If government mediation fails to resolve the issues separating labor and management this week, workers will walk. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is recovering from last week's "flash crash" in silver, but markets continue to process recent hawkish guidance from systematically important central banks that could lift real rates and pressure precious metals. Ags/Softs: The USDA's WASDE was published just before our deadline. We will review it in next week's publication. Feature Markets may have tacitly assumed OPEC 2.0 would have until March to figure out how KSA, Russia, and their respective allies would work together to re-gain some control over oil prices. However, given almost-daily reductions in banks' oil-price forecasts in the wake of steadily increasing Libyan and U.S. production, belief in OPEC 2.0's strategy and commitment appears to be all but exhausted. Stronger-than-expected output from Libya and Nigeria - up some 400k b/d vs. the October production levels OPEC 2.0 benchmarks to (Chart of the Week) - is being offset by strong inventory draws in high-frequency data from the U.S. and Europe, as we expected. In addition, a reduction in 2018 U.S. shale-growth forecasts in the EIA's just-released estimates of global supply and demand boosted sentiment some. Even so, markets remain skeptical. Libya's production now is estimated at 850k b/d, and accounts for 300k b/d of newly arrived OPEC supply since October. Nigeria, at close to 1.6mm b/d, accounts for another 90k b/d of the unexpected supply on the market since October. OPEC's total crude output is running at just over 32.6mm b/d, down 470k b/d from October's levels, based on the EIA's tally.1 This was 300k b/d more than May's output. Taking Libyan and Nigerian output out of the tally leaves OPEC crude production at 30.21mm b/d, or 860k b/d below October's level. Close to 26mm b/d of OPEC's output is being exported, according to Thompson Reuters data, surpassing OPEC's 4Q16 export levels when Cartel members' output was surging ahead of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts that took effect in January.2 Although benchmark crude oil prices had recovered from their bear-market lows of late June, the steady increase in Libyan production, in particular, reversed this recovery, taking $2.70 and $2.80/bbl off the interim highs registered by WTI and Brent prompt contracts between July 3 and July 10 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekLibya, Nigeria Add Close ##br##To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Libya, Nigeria Add Close To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Libya, Nigeria Add Close To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Chart 2Libya's Resurgence Clobbers ##br##Benchmark Prices Libya's Resurgence Clobbers Benchmark Prices Libya's Resurgence Clobbers Benchmark Prices Prices have since moved higher of the back on larger-than-expected draws in crude and products in the OECD, led by the U.S. On Wednesday, the EIA reported U.S. crude inventories declined by a whopping 10.7 million barrels, although product inventories grew by 3.7 million barrels for the week ended July 7. These sharp draws (over 17 million barrels of crude storage reduction in the past two weeks, including SPR withdrawals) are what we have been expecting, so we are not surprised, although this is the second week in a row in which the inventory draws exceeded market expectations for the EIA's reporting week. WTI was trading just above$45/bbl, while Brent was just over $47.60/bbl as we went to press. OPEC 2.0's Problem The problem for OPEC 2.0 is that Libya's unexpectedly strong return will retard the drawdown in OECD inventories around which the reformed Cartel is organized. This is compounded by higher U.S. production, which the EIA's latest estimates put at 9.2mm b/d. U.S. crude production in June was up 410k b/d vs. 4Q16 levels, and 510k b/d yoy, by the EIA's reckoning. The bulk of this increase comes from shale-oil production, which is running at ~ 5.1mm b/d (Chart 3). Lower prices will slow the growth of U.S. shale-oil output, but it won't reverse the absolute increase unless prices once again push below $40/bbl for an extended period. We do not expect such an evolution of prices, and continue to expect Brent will average $55/bbl and will reach $60/bbl by the end of the year, with WTI trading at ~ $58/bbl by then. OPEC 2.0's production is not as sensitive to price as the U.S. shales. The coalition banded together to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market, and, based on media reports, continues to maintain production discipline. We reckon actual cuts have been on the order of 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d from OPEC 2.0, favoring the lower end of that range, given the latest estimates of the EIA. Given demand growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d on average this year and next, we are expecting a net physical deficit this year of ~ 900k b/d (Chart 4). This will draw OECD inventories down by March below five-year average levels (Chart 5). Chart 3Higher Prices Lifted U.S. ##br##Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Higher Prices Lifted U.S. Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Higher Prices Lifted U.S. Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Chart 4Output Declines And Demand ##br##Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Output Declines And Demand Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Output Declines And Demand Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, ##br##If OECD Inventories Are To Fall OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, If OECD Inventories Are To Fall OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, If OECD Inventories Are To Fall It is worth remembering Libya and Nigeria are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 deal. Nor did the leaders of this coalition anticipate a sustained increase in production by these states when the OPEC 2.0 deal was agreed at the end of last year. This is particularly true for Libya, which is a failed state. The suggestion by Kuwait that Libya and Nigeria be brought into the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement beggars belief: The Arab Spring destroyed Libya as a state, and its oil production. Since March 2011, when the state collapsed, Libya's oil production has averaged 650kb/d, versus 1.65mm b/d in 2010. Even if there were a government in place, it is unlikely it would agree to cap its production. Nigeria's production also has been hampered by civil unrest, particularly in the Niger Delta region, where insurgents periodically sabotage pipelines and loading platforms, which forces oil exports to be suspended until repairs can be made. Nigeria's production averaged over 2mm b/d until 2013, when it fell to 1.83mm b/d. Since then, it has averaged 1.66mm b/d, with 2017 production to June averaging 1.43mm b/d. Any increase in production resulting in export sales is "found money" for these states. And their need for this money is as great, if not greater, than that of the OPEC 2.0 coalition members. Who In OPEC 2.0 Is Likely To Cut Production? KSA, Kuwait and the UAE were producing close to 2.4mm b/d more in June than they were in 2010, the last year Libya was an intact state, even with the cuts agreed under the OPEC 2.0 deal accounted for. Even at its recent high of 850k b/d of production, Libya still is producing 800k b/d less than it did in 2010. We believe an accommodation involving KSA, and possibly Kuwait and the UAE, can and will be reached at the upcoming OPEC 2.0 technical committee meeting in St. Petersburg on July 24. Something on the order of 500k b/d from these Gulf Arab producers will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher production without undermining the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal. The stakes are sufficiently high for the OPEC 2.0 members - KSA and Russia in particular - that an accommodation for Libya will be found. Libya's maximum production likely is no more than 1mm b/d, given the damage years of neglect has caused its fields and productive capital. Rebuilding this province will take years, if a way can be found to reconstitute the organs of a functioning state. Absent an accommodation, OPEC 2.0's leaders risk undermining the credibility of the coalition and causing production discipline to collapse as each state in the group rushes to increase output before prices take their inevitable dive. This would severely reduce the proceeds KSA could expect from IPO'ing Aramco, and would again put Russia's revenue under pressure, forcing it to draw down foreign reserves. OPEC 2.0's End Game Hasn't Changed Neither KSA nor Russia wants to re-visit the conditions that prevailed in 1Q16, when markets were pricing a global full-storage event that would require prices to push through $20/bbl to kill off supply so that storage could drain. For this reason, both have shown their commitment to the production-cutting pact they negotiated at the end of last year. Both, we are convinced, are working closely to map a strategy to allow U.S. shale production to co-exist - within limits - with OPEC and Russian production. In earlier research, we laid out a strategy that could work to achieve this result - draw storage down enough to backwardate the WTI forward curve so that deferred prices trade below prompt-delivery prices. This will moderate - but not stop - the rate at which horizontal rigs return to the shale fields.3 OPEC 2.0's leaders will have to find a way to use their production and storage - which is why it is critical to open some space now - to guide markets to expect higher production and crude availability in the future and tighter market conditions in the present. Bottom Line: We expect OPEC 2.0 to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's increased production with further cuts in their own production, particularly from KSA, Kuwait and the UAE. This will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher output, should they find a way to maintain it going forward. We continue to believe the odds of sustained higher production from these states is less than 50:50, but that does not matter. What matters is that markets see OPEC 2.0 defending their production-cutting strategy so that inventories continue to draw. OPEC 2.0's end-game has not changed. But the leaders of the coalition will have to adapt if they are to succeed in drawing storage to five-year averages or lower. Critically, they must begin to communicate their longer-term strategy to the market, or risk undermining their coalition. 2Q17 Trade Recommendations Re-Cap We closed out 2Q17 with an average loss of 77% on trades recommended and closed during the quarter (Table 1). The primary driver of this underperformance was a return to contango in the WTI and Brent forward curves, as inventories failed to draw as quickly as we expected. Directional trade recommendations anticipating higher prices also performed poorly. Table 1Trade Recommendation Performance In 2Q17 Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Open trades at the end of 2Q17 were up an average of 26%, led by good performances in option recommendations - i.e., long call spreads in WTI and Brent in Dec/17. Year to date, our trade recommendations are up 72.6%, on the back of strong 1Q17 results. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 This is adjusted for the inclusion of Equatorial Guinea and the recent opting out of Indonesia. We will be updating our global supply-demand balances next week. 2 Please see "Oil slides as OPEC exports rise, prices end 8 days of gains," published by reuters.com July 5, 2017. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy reports of April 6, 2017, entitled "The Game's Afoot in Oil, But Which One," and March 30, 2017, entitled "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil." Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Open And Closed In 2017 Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016 Trades Closed In 2017 Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table

Highlights The G20 summit highlighted our theme of multipolarity, which encourages global instability; U.S.-China tensions have resumed their escalation after a brief pause; The Middle East is still a "red herring" for investors this year, but tail risks are rising; Any negative impact on oil production from these risks should be minor; Iran stands to benefit; Egypt is a buy on the back of cyclical recovery and Saudi support. Feature For the first time in the history of G20 summits, the "sherpas" (emissaries) who prepared the event failed to reach any notable policy agreements. Allegedly, the only policy that the U.S. administration endorsed prior to the summit was women's entrepreneurialism, Ivanka Trump's pet project. Why should investors care? G20 meetings have always been abstract, retroactive (as opposed to proactive), and barely able to move the markets. But they have occasionally mattered. The summits in Washington D.C. (November 2008) and London (April 2009) set the agenda for economic stimulus and global financial regulatory reform that brought the world back from the brink of abyss. The London summit, in particular, set the stage for coordinated, global, fiscal policy that reflated the economy. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh summit, the G20 replaced the Western-dominated G8 as the premier economic governance platform. (The latter is now the G7 because of Russia's exclusion after annexing Crimea.) The idea behind the expanded forum was to give emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil a say in the global economic architecture. It was the forum's expansion that ultimately doomed its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no multilateral framework has ever successfully coordinated global affairs. Global stability has always been underpinned by hegemony, which is why we have warned our readers since 2011 that emerging global multipolarity - caused by America's relative geopolitical decline - would lead to instability.1 The press will inevitably blame President Trump's "America First" for the failures of the G20. We do not disagree, but there is more to it than just politics. "America First" is a natural political reaction to the reality of American geopolitical decline. It is also a reaction to nearly two decades of foreign policy decisions to commit massive amounts of U.S. hard and soft power to pursuing nation-building policies in the Middle East. As such, "America First" is a symptom, not the cause, of global multipolarity. The "Trump Doctrine" could indeed be highly destabilizing, if followed through to its logical conclusion.2 Ostensibly, President Trump seeks to renegotiate global security and economic arrangements that have taken advantage of American magnanimity. But it was America that initially designed these arrangements, at the height of its power in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, to secure its own interests. Institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank underpin, they do not undermine, American hegemony. Without these institutions, American allies will seek their own negotiated arrangements more freely and frequently with U.S. adversaries, slowly eroding Washington's global influence. Over the long term, the Trump Doctrine could also undermine the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency. The dollar's reserve currency status is a privilege that monetizes American geopolitical hegemony. America's allies are essentially already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets.3 Chart 1 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege."4 Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability of the market, and its deep liquidity, but also because the U.S. provides them with assurances of peace through security. If Washington raises barriers to its markets and becomes a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and thus diversify more rapidly. They could also be forced to diversify by new security guarantors, regional hegemons, and geopolitical bullies. Chart 1Exorbitant Privilege G19 G19 The concept of exorbitant privilege - and its economic benefits - cannot easily be explained to voters. What voters understand is that China's rapid industrialization has been accomplished at the cost of American manufacturing jobs. Candidate Trump successfully tapped into this angst during the campaign. President Trump, however, initially shied away from seriously applying the "America First" doctrine. The April Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago was hailed as evidence that fears of global protectionism were overblown and that the "globalist" camp of advisers in the White House were prevailing over the nationalists. As we expected, however, the détente did not last long. Over the past several weeks, China and the U.S. have clashed over several key issues: Taiwan: On June 29, the U.S. announced that it will sell $1.42 billion worth of arms to the island nation.5 Secondary sanctions: At the end of June, the Trump administration sanctioned a Chinese shipping company, bank, and two citizens for their ties to North Korea. Human rights: Also at the end of June, the U.S. State Department announced it would list China among the worst human trafficking offenders, which could trigger punitive actions and complicate trade negotiations in the future. Steel tariffs: President Trump asked the Department of Commerce back in April to study whether steel imports were harming national security, under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and a potential decision by Trump on tariffs is due within days. While China only accounts for 2% of U.S. steel imports, new tariffs could set in motion more protectionist measures that target additional industries. Sovereignty claims: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have made sojourns into disputed maritime areas. The navy conducted a "freedom of navigation" operation in the South China Sea in July, with USS Stethem steaming within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island. The air force also conducted separate missions sending B-1 bombers over the South China Sea, and over the Korean peninsula and East China Sea along with Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighter jets. This flurry of brinkmanship has largely emanated from Washington, not Beijing. As Trump's domestic political agenda stalled - with both health care and tax reform now in doubt - the administration has set its sights on the policy realm where the U.S. president has few constraints: foreign and trade policy. That is not to say that Beijing has not invited these actions. It has continued to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea and has failed to impose meaningful sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is clearly disappointed that its Mar-a-Lago summit failed to produce any tangible effect on these fronts, particularly with North Korea having launched a purported intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. It is the Trump administration itself, however, that is to be blamed for China's lack of enthusiasm. One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to bring into question Washington's "One China" policy. As we remarked at the time, this would have serious implications for Sino-American policies. Defending sovereignty is a core pillar of the Chinese Communist Party; it is part of its "creation myth," and this is nowhere truer than in regard to Taiwan. When Trump brought into question the "One China" principle, he signaled to Beijing policymakers that Washington is not to be trusted. North Korea is both formally and in practical terms a Chinese ally. Though the Xi administration evidently wishes that the North was not providing the U.S. with excuses to enhance the American position on the Korean Peninsula, nevertheless it is longstanding Chinese policy to avoid destabilizing the North Korean regime. A collapse, possibly followed by a unified Korean Peninsula, could benefit the U.S. in the region. In other words, China will pressure the North enough to encourage a new round of talks but not enough to risk fracturing the regime. Chart 2Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over What investors are seeing today is the impact of words - "signaling" to be technical - in geopolitics. To be fair to President Trump, he has not pursued a revolutionary foreign policy yet. However, his mere words - literally dithering on NATO's Article V and calling into question the "One China" policy - have pushed other global powers into realignment. The rest of the world takes Trump very seriously because he may one day act on his unorthodox policies, or because American voters may elect someone in the future who will. The likely result is further erosion of U.S. global influence. Notably, the U.S. president stood alone on several crucial global issues at the G20 summit in Germany, making it look more like a "G19" summit. American isolation makes sense from Trump's short-term, domestic-political vantage. In the long term, however, it accelerates the drift toward geopolitical multipolarity and thus encourages global instability. Over the near term, we are particularly concerned that Sino-American tensions could escalate and spill over into a trade war. Since Donald Trump's election, and particularly since the Mar-a-Lago summit, the market has largely priced out economic tensions between the two superpowers, with China-exposed S&P 500 equities outperforming the market (Chart 2). We would bet against the continuation of this trend. Lack of cooperation over North Korea is a sign that the Sino-American relationship is systematically broken. Middle East Update: Watch Power Vacuums In Iraq And Syria At the beginning of this year, we made a forecast that geopolitics in the Middle East would not be investment relevant.6 So far we are correct. However, we continue to worry that vacuums in Iraq and Syria - in the Sunni-dominated territories formerly occupied by the now-collapsing Islamic State - could become greater sources of instability in the region. We are particularly concerned about three potential flash points: North Iraq, North Syria, and East Syria. East Syria In East Syria, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - as well as its Lebanese Shia ally Hezbollah - has aggressively moved to establish control over the Syrian-Iraqi border. As indicated on Map 1, SAA forces have created a land-bridge through Islamic State territory to Tayyara on the Iraqi border. This has put SAA troops in close proximity to "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) forces operating in the southeast of the country. Map 1Syria's Army Has Created A Land-Bridge To Iraq G19 G19 The FSA was created by the U.S. and its allies. Its forces are trained by the U.S., and the U.S. Air Force provides cover for its territory. The recent downing of Syrian fighter jets and Iranian drones have occurred near the U.S. FSA base, which is based in the proximity of the FSA stronghold at Al Tanf. Without committing land troops, however, the best the U.S. can hope for is to limit SAA incursions into FSA-held territory. The push by SAA and Hezbollah to the Iraqi border creates an all-important land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. It allows Tehran to reinforce Assad's SAA and Hezbollah by land, rather than relying on sea routes - which can be intercepted by the U.S. and Israel's superior naval capabilities in the Mediterranean - or through air. Not only will Iran and Shia-dominated Iraq be able to supply Assad with weapons, but also with troops. After a five-year war of attrition, the main resource that has been depleted on all sides is manpower. A significant influx of "fresh blood" means that the power balance will shift more easily in favor of Assad. Following the collapse of the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq will be able to deploy significant resources from its Shia militias to Syria. This could be the game changer that ends the conflict in Syria in Assad's favor over the next 12 months. The SAA penetration to Tayyara has now set up the next target: Al Bukamal to the north and also on the Iraqi border. From there, the SAA will be able to round back deep into Islamic State territory and capture Deir ez-Zor. This will give Assad control over most of Syria's border with Iraq as well as the country's highway infrastructure. It will also pin the U.S.-backed FSA to a largely irrelevant corner of Syria. The success of Iranian and Russian-backed SAA in Eastern Syria is very important for the geopolitics of the region. By creating a land-bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean, Syrian forces have now opened up the possibility of one day hosting massive natural gas and oil pipeline infrastructure that would link natural gas from the Persian Gulf, developed jointly by Qatar and Iran, and oil from Iran and Iraq to European markets (Map 2). Map 2The Path Is Opening For Iranian Pipelines Through Syria G19 G19 Such an alternative route to Iranian energy exports would give Tehran an upper hand over Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. In a hypothetical conflict scenario between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, Tehran would be more willing to try to close shipping in the Straits of Hormuz if it possessed an alternative route for energy exports. This is clear to Saudi Arabia, which is why it has lashed out against Qatar in recent weeks. The main Saudi demand of Qatar is that it abandon its pro-Iranian foreign policy. It is becoming clear to Saudi Arabia that Iran's power is set to grow in the wake of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria. As such, Saudi Arabia is trying to tie loose ends in its own coalition, starting with Qatar. Despite the reported Trump-Putin ceasefire agreed at the G19, U.S. and Russian forces could still become entangled as their proxies battle in the strategic regions near the Syrian-Iraqi border. SAA troops have also begun to operate near Raqqa, where the Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. are currently encircling the Islamic State capital. Final stages of wars tend to be erratic and even more violent. As belligerents glimpse the end of conflict they rush to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin. This is effectively what is happening in East Syria and around Raqqa today. Northern Syria In the Kurdish dominated northern Syria, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have massively increased the territory under their control. Supported by the U.S., YPG have encircled Raqqa and will soon defeat the Islamic State in the North. Assad's SAA will concede Raqqa in order to move onto the more strategic Resafa and Deir ez-Zor, effectively abandoning northern Syria to the Kurds to focus on establishing the land-bridge with Iraq. Turkey, however, is not interested in conceding northern Syria to YPG. The latter are allied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. With SAA focused on controlling population centers and the Syrian-Iraqi border, northern Syria will descend further into Kurdish domination. This would give PKK militants a large territory from which to regroup and resupply operations in Turkey. It is therefore a real possibility that Turkey will invade YPG-controlled northern Syria as soon as the operations against the Islamic State end. This will put the U.S. into a difficult position. On one hand, Turkey is a NATO ally. On the other, the Kurds are informal U.S. allies. The YPG have fought valiantly against the Islamic State and are perhaps the group most deserving of thanks for the defeat of its so-called Caliphate. Northern Iraq In northern Iraq, a similar dynamic has emerged where the Kurds have benefited the most from the rise of the Islamic State (Map 3). Operations in Mosul will soon end the Islamic State's dominion over parts of Iraq, which will allow Iraqi forces to focus on two tasks. First, resupplying Assad's SAA with weapons and troops. Second, turning to Kurdish gains in the north, particularly in the city of Kirkuk. Map 3Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey G19 G19 Iraqi Kurds, for their part, have called an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. President Masoud Barzani will not necessarily proclaim an independent Kurdistan following the referendum. The exercise could be a bid to negotiate more autonomy with Baghdad or a pre-election ploy to secure a majority in upcoming general elections and bolster the eventual presidential bid of his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani (current Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan). Iraqi Kurds may be able to find some sort of an arrangement with Baghdad for greater autonomy. The problem is that both sides claim parts of the region. Kirkuk, for example, is not officially part of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Kurds see it as their ancient capital and thus seized it in June 2014 as a preventative move to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the Islamic State. Not only is Kirkuk a major Iraqi population center, but it is also a significant oil-producing region. Investment Implications Over the next several months, we would expect tensions in these three geographies to increase. Given the proximity of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and American forces, we would expect the probability of accidents to rise significantly. This could temporarily move the markets and assign some geopolitical risk premium to oil prices. However, investors should realize that the regions involved are not major producers of oil, aside from Iraqi Kurdistan where we do not expect large-scale warfare. As such, any effect on oil production would be a minor blip in the global supply. Over the long term, the clear winner in the region remains Iran. Bashar al-Assad, Iran's ally in Syria, will stay in power. It is also clear that the Sunni Islamic State Caliphate will disappear, giving back the Shia-dominated Iraqi government control over its territory. For Saudi Arabia, this is a reality that cannot be changed at the moment. As we have pointed out before, low oil prices are a constraint to war.7 They reduce government revenue and force leaders to focus on domestic stability. A major conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is therefore unlikely. However, Saudi Arabia will respond by building a Sunni alliance against Iran. With Syria and Iraq now in the Iranian sphere, the imperative for Saudi Arabia is to counter Iranian regional hegemony through alliances. Egypt will remain a clear beneficiary of this strategy. The country is already the Middle East's candidate for the "too big to fail" moniker. Its population, economy, demographics, and security challenges all make it the main candidate for chief regional security risk. As such, it will continue to receive support from the international community. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt is a way to diversify its security portfolio away from the aloof United States. As such, we would expect the Saudis to continue to prop up the Egyptian economy with loans and grants in return for being able to call on the Egyptian military in time of need. Given a cyclical recovery in Egypt, which BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy has recently elucidated, this creates a structural buying opportunity in the country's equity market.8 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 The closest the world ever got to a powerful and effective multilateral structure was the nineteenth-century "Concert of Europe," which kept general peace in Europe for a century (1814-1914), but at the cost of dividing up the rest of the planet into imperial spheres of influence where European states could play out their mercantilist rivalries. Ultimately, even that architecture crumbled as the British hegemony that underpinned it weakened after the 1870s. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive almost nothing for holding U.S. assets, while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 5 The deal is not particularly significant in a military sense, and it is smaller in value than the last deal in December 2015, but it still sends a signal that angers Beijing, which also expects more controversial deals to be forthcoming given the Trump administration's signals that it plans to strengthen the Taiwan alliance. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust?" dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Egypt: A Cyclical Recovery Amid Lingering Structural Challenges," dated June 20, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights EM growth is set to falter due to budding weakness in Asia's trade, a decline in commodities prices, and the frailty of EM banking systems. U.S./DM bond yields are heading higher for now and China's money/credit growth is set to decelerate. Together, these will trigger a selloff in EM risk assets. The EM equity outperformance versus DM has been extremely narrow and, hence, it is unsustainable. The EM tech sector is unlikely to support the equity rally much further because these stocks are overbought, and the Asian semiconductor cycle is entering a soft patch. Take profits on the yield curve flattening trade in Mexico. Stay long MXN on crosses versus BRL and ZAR and continue overweighting Mexican bonds. Feature Higher bond yields within the advanced economies and policy tightening in China remain the key threats to EM risk assets in the near term (the next three months). In the medium-term (the next three to 12 months or so), the principle risk is weaker growth in EM/China, and hence contracting corporate profits in EM. While this rally has lasted longer and has gone further than we had anticipated, we find the risk-reward for EM risk assets extremely unattractive. In fact, the huge amount of money that has flown into EM equity and debt markets in the past year amid poor fundamentals suggests to us that the next move will not be a simple correction but rather a major bear market. EM Recovery To Falter Although on the surface global growth appears to be on solid footing, there are early signs of a slowdown in Asian exports. Both Taiwanese exports of electronic parts and the country's overall exports to China have rolled over - the latter two lead global export volumes by a few months, as shown in Chart I-1. The reason why Taiwanese exports of electronic parts lead global trade cycles is because these parts are used in the assembly of final products, and producers order and receive these parts before final products are made and shipped. Similarly, a lot of Taiwanese exports to China serve as inputs into final products assembled in China and shipped worldwide. This is why Taiwan's overall shipments to China lead global trade cycles. On top of this, Korea's overall manufacturing and semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratios have relapsed. Historically, these ratios have correlated with the KOSPI (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Signs Of Slowdown ##br##In Asian Trade Signs Of Slowdown In Asian Trade Signs Of Slowdown In Asian Trade Chart I-2Korea's Manufacturing ##br##Growth Has Peaked Korea's Manufacturing Growth Has Peaked Korea's Manufacturing Growth Has Peaked Outside the manufacturing-based Asian economies, most other EMs are basically commodities plays, except for India and Turkey. The latter two countries are not only relatively small, but Indian stocks are also expensive and overbought while Turkey is sufferings from its own malaise. In short, if the Asian tech cycle rolls over, China slows down and commodities prices relapse, EM growth will falter. That is why the focus of our analysis has been and remains on China's growth, commodities prices and the Asian trade cycle. Meanwhile, many banking systems in the developing world remain frail following the credit excesses of the preceding years. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service remains bearish on commodities, and believes the breakdown in the correlation between commodities prices and EM risk assets since the beginning of this year is temporary and unsustainable. As for the increased importance of the technology sector in the EM equity benchmark, we offer further analysis on page 10. Our negative view on EM growth is not contingent on a relapse in U.S. and euro area growth. In fact, our current baseline scenario is that DM growth will remain solid, and government bond yields in these markets will rise further. Although growth in both the U.S. and euro area is robust, their importance for EM has become small. For example, exports to the U.S. and EU altogether account for 35% of total exports in China, 22% in Korea and 20% in Taiwan. All in all, if commodities prices continue to downshift and Asian trade slows, as we expect, EM growth will decelerate. Bottom Line: EM growth is set to falter notably, despite solid demand growth in DM. Liquidity Backdrop To Deteriorate Investors and market commentators often use the term "liquidity" loosely, and denote numerous things by it. We use the term 'liquidity' to signify the level and/or direction of interest rates as well as the level and/or direction of money/credit growth. Below we review some different perspectives of liquidity: EM narrow money (M1) growth points to both lower share prices and a relapse in EPS growth in the months ahead (Chart I-3). Chart I-3EM: Narrow Money (M1) Points To EPS Downturn And Lower Stock Prices EM: Narrow Money (M1) Points To EPS Downturn And Lower Stock Prices EM: Narrow Money (M1) Points To EPS Downturn And Lower Stock Prices This is an equity market cap-weighted aggregate of narrow money growth. M1 growth in China - the largest market cap in the EM equity benchmark - has been essential in driving aggregate EM M1 cycles in recent years. More importantly, China has been tightening liquidity, yet the majority of investors remain complacent about its impact on growth. In this regard, investors should remind themselves that monetary policy works with time lags, and the considerable rise in China's interbank rates and corporate bond yields will produce a growth slowdown in the real economy later this year. Chart I-4 demonstrates that China's broad money growth (M2) - which has in effect dropped to an all-time low - leads bank and non-bank credit origination. This suggests the odds of a slowdown in bank and non-bank credit flows are considerable. There has been no stable correlation between the size of DM central banks' balance sheets and EM stock prices, bond yields and currencies since 2011. Therefore, the Fed's move to reduce its balance sheet by itself should not matter for EM risk assets from a fundamental perspective. Nevertheless, EM risk assets have been negatively correlated with U.S. TIPS yields (Chart I-5), and the potential further rise in U.S./DM real and nominal yields will hurt EM sentiment, with flows to EM drying up. Chart I-4China: M2 Heralds ##br##Slowdown In Credit Growth China: M2 Heralds Slowdown In Credit Growth China: M2 Heralds Slowdown In Credit Growth Chart I-5EM Currencies To Depreciate ##br##As U.S. Real Yields Drift Higher EM Currencies To Depreciate As U.S. Real Yields Drift Higher EM Currencies To Depreciate As U.S. Real Yields Drift Higher Importantly, traders' bets on U.S. yield curve flattening have risen, as evidenced by large short positions in 2-year U.S. notes and considerable long positions in 10- and 30-year bonds. The unwinding of these positions will drive bond yields higher. Chart I-6Precious Metals Signal ##br##Higher Real Yields Ahead Precious Metals Signal Higher Real Yields Ahead Precious Metals Signal Higher Real Yields Ahead Notably, precious metal prices have failed to break out amid a weak U.S. dollar and have lately relapsed (Chart I-6). Precious metals prices could be sensing a further rise in U.S. real yields and/or an upleg in the U.S. dollar. Both the rise in U.S. yields and a stronger dollar will be negative for EM. Bottom Line: We maintain that U.S./DM bond yields are heading higher in the months ahead and China's money/credit growth is set to decelerate. Altogether these will trigger a selloff in EM risk assets. Underwhelming EM Technicals It is a well-known fact that flows into EM debt funds have been enormous, making EM fixed-income markets vulnerable to a reversal of these flows at the hands of tightening liquidity and EM growth disappointments, as argued above. This section focuses on a number of bearish technical signals for EM share prices. In particular: The EM equity implied volatility curve - 12-month VOL minus 1-month VOL - is at a record steep level, based on available history (Chart I-7). Periods of VOL curve flattening have historically coincided with a selloff in EM share prices, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Given that the VOL curve is record steep, the odds of flattening are substantial. Consistently, the probability of an EM selloff is considerable. Chart I-7A Sign Of Top In EM Share Prices? A Sign Of Top In EM Share Prices? A Sign Of Top In EM Share Prices? In absolute terms, EM equity implied 1-month VOL is at an all-time low and reflects enormous complacency about EM. EM equity breadth has also been poor. The MSCI EM equally weighted stock index (where each stock commands an equal weight) has considerably underperformed the EM market cap-weighted index since May 2016 (Chart I-8). This suggests the EM rally has been very narrowly driven. The same measure for DM stocks has done relatively better (Chart I-8). Remarkably, EM has underperformed DM based on equal-weighted equity indexes since July 2016 (Chart I-9). This confirms that EM outperformance against DM since early this year has been largely driven by a few stocks, namely the five companies accounting for the bulk of the EM tech index. Furthermore, EM ex-tech stocks have also failed to establish a bull market, in that the index remains below its prior low (Chart I-10). Chart I-8EM Equity Breadth ##br##Has Been Poor EM Equity Breadth Has Been Poor EM Equity Breadth Has Been Poor Chart I-9EM Versus DM: Relative ##br##Equity Performance EM Versus DM: Relative Equity Performance EM Versus DM: Relative Equity Performance Chart I-10EM Ex-Technology Stocks: ##br##Rebound But No Bull Market EM Ex-Technology Stocks: Rebound But No Bull Market EM Ex-Technology Stocks: Rebound But No Bull Market Finally, the magnitude of the EM rally this year is somewhat misleading. Only three out of 11 sectors - technology, real estate and consumer discretionary (mainly, autos) - have outperformed the EM benchmark this year. Table I-1 illustrates that these three sectors have been responsible for about 50% of the EM rally year-to-date while their market cap is only 36% of total. Table I-1EM Rally In 2017: Return Decomposition The Case For A Major Top In EM The Case For A Major Top In EM Bottom Line: The EM equity outperformance versus DM has been extremely narrow: it has been due to five tech companies that are currently very overbought (see Chart I-8 on page 7). Valuations EM equity valuations are not cheap, as most of the rally since the early 2016 bottom has been driven by a multiple expansion rather than a rise in corporate earnings (Chart I-11). We are not suggesting EM stocks are expensive, but they do not offer good value either. In fact, good companies/countries/sectors are expensive, while those, that appear "cheap", command low multiples for a reason. As for currencies, they are not cheap either. The real effective exchange rate of EM ex-China is rather elevated after the rally of the past year or so (Chart I-12). Finally, not only are EM sovereign and corporate spreads close to record lows, but also local government bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys are at multi-year lows (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Decomposing EM Equity ##br##Return Into P/E And EPS Decomposing EM Equity Return Into P/E And EPS Decomposing EM Equity Return Into P/E And EPS Chart I-12EM Ex-China Currencies ##br##Are Not Cheap And Vulnerable EM Ex-China Currencies Are Not Cheap And Vulnerable EM Ex-China Currencies Are Not Cheap And Vulnerable Chart I-13EM Local Bond Yields Spreads ##br##Over U.S. Treasurys Is Low EM Local Bond Yields Spreads Over U.S. Treasurys Is Low EM Local Bond Yields Spreads Over U.S. Treasurys Is Low Bottom Line: Adjusted for fundamentals, EM equity, currency and credit market valuations are rather expensive. The odds are that the reality will underwhelm expectations, and that EM risk assets will sell off. A Word On EM Tech: Is This Time Different? During our recent trip to Europe, many clients argued that the increased weight of technology in the EM equity benchmark will cause EM share prices to decouple from the traditional variables they have historically been correlated with, like commodities prices, commodities stocks and others. In brief, the argument is that EM has entered a new paradigm, and past correlations will not work. The last time we at BCA heard similar arguments was back in early 2000 at the peak of the global tech bubble. At the time, the argument was that this time was truly different - that tech stocks could drive the market higher regardless of the old indicators and the performance of other sectors. Chart I-14 portrays that in 2000 the EM equity index, for several months, decoupled from global mining and energy stocks when tech and telecom stocks went ballistic. Chart I-14EM And Commodities Stocks: Can The Recent Decoupling Persist? EM And Commodities Stocks: Can The Recent Decoupling Persist? EM And Commodities Stocks: Can The Recent Decoupling Persist? Back in 2000, the bubble was in tech and telecom stocks. These two sectors together comprised 33% of the EM benchmark as of January 2000 (Chart I-15). This compares with a 27% weighting of technology stocks alone in the EM benchmark now. The combined weight of energy and materials is currently 14% versus 19% in January 2000, as can been seen in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM Equities Sector Composition Now And In Late 1990s The Case For A Major Top In EM The Case For A Major Top In EM To be sure, we are not suggesting that tech stocks are in a bubble as they were in 2000, and that a bust in share prices is imminent. However, several observations are noteworthy: Chart I-16EM Equities Sector ##br##Composition Now And In Late 1990s EM Equities Sector Composition Now And In Late 1990s EM Equities Sector Composition Now And In Late 1990s Just because EM tech stocks have skyrocketed in the past six months does not mean they will continue to do so. In fact, EM tech is already extremely overbought and likely over-owned (Chart I-16). As global bond yields rise, high-multiples stocks, especially social media/internet companies, could selloff. We, like all macro strategists, can add little value on how to value internet/social media companies and assess their business models. However, we can shed some light on the business cycle in the semiconductor sector that influences performance of heavyweight companies like TSMC and Samsung. As Chart I-1 and I-2 on pages 1 and 3 demonstrate, there are signs that the semi/electronics cycle in Asia has peaked. We do not mean that this sector is headed toward recession. But this is a very cyclical sector, and some slowdown is to be expected following the growth outburst of the past 18 months. This will be enough to cause a correction in semi stocks from extremely overbought levels. The tight correlation between EM share prices and energy and mining stocks has persisted for the past 20 years (Chart I-14 on page 10), and we believe it will re-establish as technology stocks' shine diminishes. Finally, we have been recommending an overweight position in Taiwanese, Korean, and Chinese stocks primarily because of their large tech exposure. For now we maintain this strategy. Bottom Line: While the technology sector could make a difference for EM economies and equity markets in the long run, it is unlikely to support the current rally and outperformance much further. Indeed, tech stocks are heavily overbought, and the Asian semiconductor cycle is entering a soft patch. In brief, the overall EM equity benchmark is at a major risk of relapse and underperformance versus the DM bourses. Stay underweight. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Take Profits On Yield Curve Flattener And Stay Long MXN On Crosses Mexico's 10/1-year swap curve has inverted for the first time in history and we are taking a 160 basis points profit on our yield curve flattening trade recommended on June 8, 2016 (Chart II-1). Will the central bank begin cutting interest rates soon? Is it time to get bullish on stocks? We do not think so: Inflation is well above the central bank's target and is broad based (Chart II-2). Notably, wage growth is elevated (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Mexico's Yield Cruve Has Inverted: Take Profits Mexico's Yield Cruve Has Inverted: Take Profits Mexico's Yield Cruve Has Inverted: Take Profits Chart II-2Mexico: Inflation Is Above The Target Mexico: Inflation is Above The Target Mexico: Inflation is Above The Target Chart II-3Mexico: Wage Inflation Is High Mexico: Wage Inflation Is High Mexico: Wage Inflation Is High Provided productivity growth is meager in Mexico, unit labor costs - which are calculated as wage per hour divided by productivity (output per hour) - are rising. This will depress companies' profit margins and make them eager to hike selling prices. This will in turn prevent inflation from falling and, consequently, hamper Banxico's ability to cut rates for now. Meanwhile, the impact of higher interest rates will continue filtering through the economy. High interest rates entail further slowdown in money and credit growth and, hence, in domestic demand. Both consumer spending and capital expenditure by companies are set to weaken a lot (Chart II-4). This will weigh on corporate profits and share prices. Fiscal policy is not going to support growth either because policymakers will opt to consolidate the recent improvement in the fiscal deficit. This is especially true given the latest selloff in oil prices. Notably, oil accounts for about 20% of government revenues. Even though non-oil exports and manufacturing output are accelerating (Chart II-5), non-oil exports - that make about 30% of GDP - are not large enough to offset the deceleration in domestic demand from monetary tightening. Chart II-4Mexico: Domestic Demand To Buckle Mexico: Domestic Demand To Buckle Mexico: Domestic Demand to Buckle Mexico: Domestic Demand To Buckle Mexico: Domestic Demand to Buckle Chart II-5Mexico: Exports Are Robust Contracting Non-Oil Exports Signal Headwinds For Manufacturing Mexico: Exports are Robust Contracting Non-Oil Exports Signal Headwinds For Manufacturing Mexico: Exports are Robust Investment Conclusions The outlook for Mexican stocks in absolute terms is poor as domestic demand will slump, further hampering corporate profits. Meanwhile, inflation is still elevated to justify rate cuts by the central bank. Within an EM equity portfolio, we recommend neutral allocation to this bourse mainly due to our expectations of the peso outperforming other EM currencies. The Mexican peso is still cheap (Chart II-6). Therefore, we continue to recommend long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. If EM currencies depreciate and oil prices drop further as we expect, it will be hard for the peso to appreciate versus the U.S. dollar. However, the peso will outperform many other EM currencies. Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit offer good value relative to their EM counterparts. (Chart II-7). Fixed income investors should continue to overweight Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Chart II-6Mexico: Peso Is Cheap Mexico: Peso is Cheap Mexico: Peso is Cheap Chart II-7Continue Overweighting Mexican Bonds Continue Overweighting Mexican Bonds Continue Overweighting Mexican Bonds Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights EM equity breadth has moved into negative territory, DM-based excess liquidity measures are set to roll-over, and China-based liquidity measures are also weak. Individually, each of these factors are not enough to raise alarm bells, but together they point to a period of heightened risks for EM assets and commodity currencies. AUD/CAD and NZD/JPY are set to suffer in this environment. EUR/USD will rise to 1.15-1.16, but unlike in 2015, it should not receive much of a fillip from EM volatility. Feature Chart I-1Technical Risk In EM Technical Risk In EM Technical Risk In EM An interesting development has unfolded in emerging markets. While the pause in the EM rally has hit investors' radar screens, the more puzzling event concerns breadth. Not only has the advanced/decline line rolled over, but more worrisomely, it has recently moved into negative territory. Historically, when more stocks are declining rather than advancing, EM equities tend to experience sharp selloffs (Chart I-1). This development is important when put into a global context. EM stocks and related assets like commodity currencies have been buoyed by plentiful global liquidity conditions. However, global liquidity is set to deteriorate. A rocky second half may emerge in EM assets. Global Liquidity Is Slowing Following in the Federal Reserve's footsteps, DM central banks are moving away from monetary accommodation. Last week, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi made a speech that was interpreted as representing an abandonment of the ECB's dovish bias. With the anticipation that its bond-buying program will be tapered early in 2018 and reports that the ECB is having problems buying its quota of German and Finnish bonds, global bonds suffered, with Bund and T-Note yields moving up 33 and 23 basis points since June 27, respectively. The ECB is not the only central bank to have changed its tack. The Bank of Canada's communications have been crystal clear that it intends to increase rates this summer, or early fall at the latest. Even the perennially dovish Riksbank is moving away from its easy bias, as Sweden's resource utilization points to a continued acceleration in core inflation. But does this even matter? The global economy is strong, and beginning to remove accommodation is not quite the same thing as pushing rates into tight territory. The advanced economies are unlikely to suffer much from this development. However, the picture for EM is more concerning. Some key leading indicators of EM activity have already begun to roll over. For example, Taiwanese IP, a key bellwether of overall EM strength, is now contracting on a year-on-year basis (Chart I-2, top panel). Meanwhile EM PMIs rolled over three months ago and EM narrow money growth, a key forecaster of EM profits, is slowing sharply (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Despite these negative developments, EM stocks have remained resilient. The factor underpinning this impressive performance has been the rise in global liquidity. More technically, the rise in the global Marshallian K - the ratio of money to nominal GDP - over the past six months. Excess money has had to go somewhere. Among the many refuges, EM has been a key pole of attraction, with massive inflows supporting assets prices. The 8% appreciation in EM currencies versus the dollar since their January 2016 trough has been a vivid illustration of this phenomenon. The driver of the rise in excess money has been the ratio's numerator, dollar-based liquidity. The Fed's various QE programs were key determinants of dollar-based liquidity (Chart I-3). However, its tapering in late 2014 was enough to prompt a contraction of the measure. Now that the Fed is intent on decreasing its balance sheet while the ECB tapers and other smaller DM central banks begin increasing rates, the small improvement witnessed in the past three months is likely to end. The recent weakness in gold prices, despite the softness in the dollar, could be a sign that markets are beginning to sniff out the imminent tightening of global liquidity conditions. Chart I-2EM/China Profits Growth To Roll Over (I) EM Growth ##br##Has Deteriorated, Profits Will Suffer EM/China Profits Growth To Roll Over (I) EM Growth Has Deteriorated, Profits Will Suffer EM/China Profits Growth To Roll Over (I) EM Growth Has Deteriorated, Profits Will Suffer Chart I-3The Fed Balance Sheet Runoff ##br##Will Hurt Global Liquidity The Fed Balance Sheet Runoff Will Hurt Global Liquidity The Fed Balance Sheet Runoff Will Hurt Global Liquidity Additionally, not only are global central banks, led by the Fed, tightening or looking to tighten policy, they are doing so despite an absence of actual inflation. As a result, this means DM real yields are set to rise. As Chart I-4 illustrates, rising real DM yields have historically been a harbinger of poor EM bond performance. In fact, the action in DM real yields since mid-2016 already points to a problematic second half for EM bonds. As a result, EM bond investors are likely to suffer some losses in the coming months. Such losses would not only tighten EM financial conditions, but would also be symptomatic of capital leaving the region. Less money in those markets simply means less liquidity. With EM corporate spreads near historical lows, a repricing of credit risk on the back of softening global and EM liquidity is likely to prompt both a selloff in EM stocks and in EM currencies (Chart I-5). As a result, DM commodity currencies, the NZD and AUD in particular, could suffer. Chart I-4EM Financial Conditions##br## Are Set To Deteriorate EM Financial Conditions Are Set To Deteriorate EM Financial Conditions Are Set To Deteriorate Chart I-5If Liquidity Dries, Spreads Widen ##br##And EM Stocks Fall If Liquidity Dries, Spreads Widen And EM Stocks Fall If Liquidity Dries, Spreads Widen And EM Stocks Fall Bottom Line: In November 2016, a new leg of the EM rally began - a move driven by an expansion in global liquidity, even as a key bellwether of EM economic activity rolled over in the interim. Global excess liquidity is set to roll over as DM central banks abandon their dovish biases and the Fed begins to let its balance sheet run off. With EM weaker from a technical perspective, the second half of 2017 could be a tough environment for EM plays. Chinese Liquidity Joins The Fray In May 2015, EM equities in U.S.-dollar terms peaked just before global liquidity began to roll over. Compounding the risks, back then Chinese economic conditions were also problematic. Excess capacity and massive deflationary forces were wearing down on profits and investment. China is thus another key factor to watch. In this optic, beyond DM liquidity, a key driver of the rebound in EM last year was actually Chinese liquidity conditions. In the second half of 2015, China's own Marshallian K - based on M2 relative to nominal GDP growth - was rebounding sharply, as the PBoC was easing policy and the fiscal authorities were pressing on the gas pedal, expanding both public expenditures and pushing credit growth through the economy. However, that was then. Today, China has joined the tightening party. The quarterly moving average of Chinese interbank rates has increased by 100 basis points over the past year. Crackdowns on real estate and excess leverage have also resumed. Most importantly, the issuance of bonds by small and medium banks - a key source of grease to total social financing - has also massively decelerated, which points to a sharp slowdown and even a contraction in the Chinese credit impulse (Chart I-6). Thanks to this development, the Chinese Marshallian K is now in negative territory. The global impact of tighter Chinese monetary conditions is also flashing a red flag. Our indicator is based on the relative performance of Chinese bank stocks and USD/HKD. Underperformance of Chinese banks tends to send warning signs that tightening policy is beginning to negatively affect the outlook for Chinese credit growth. Additionally, USD/HKD is at an 18-month high because Hong Kong interest rates have not been able to follow U.S. ones, as loan demand by mainland-China entities has been poor. Most of the time, this indicator tends to move with EM stock prices, providing very little information. However, as Chart I-7 illustrates, this gauge is at its most useful when it diverges from EM equity prices. In each case, such as in 2007, 2011, and 2014, the divergences between the falling price-based Chinese liquidity indicator and rising EM stock prices was resolved by a correction in the latter. Today, the indicator points to a large amount of downside risk for EM stocks. Chart I-6Chinese Credit Impulse Will Slow Chinese Credit Impulse Will Slow Chinese Credit Impulse Will Slow Chart I-7A Worrying Divergence A Worrying Divergence A Worrying Divergence Again, it is important to reiterate that in and of itself, such a divergence is not enough to prompt investors to run for the hills and ditch EM stocks and related plays. However, when this happens as DM liquidity is also set to deteriorate, and most crucially, when EM breadth turns negative, decreasing EM exposure makes sense. Bottom Line: Chinese liquidity conditions are also deteriorating. The People's Bank of China may not want to push the economy into another slowdown cycle, which will most likely limit how far the Chinese central bank will tighten policy. However, this tightening has not been priced in by EM equities, and is happening as DM central banks are also reducing accommodation and as EM breadth has greatly deteriorated. A sizeable correction in EM plays is becoming increasingly likely. Investment Implications Chart I-8Global Liquidity Leads EM ##br##By More Than A Year Global Liquidity Leads EM By More Than A Year Global Liquidity Leads EM By More Than A Year A tightening of dollar-based liquidity and Chinese-based liquidity is a big problem for non-China EM economies. EM economies outside of China and OPEC nations still run an annual current account deficit of more than US$200 billion. They need liquidity. Moreover, they still have at least US$3.6 trillion in foreign-currency debt. With liquidity conditions deteriorating, we should expect a widening of EM spreads, falling EM stock prices and falling commodity currencies. In fact, we are today in the window of maximum risk. Chart I-8 shows the combined G7 and Chinese Marshallian K, standardized. This indicator tends to have long leads over EM equity prices. It turned negative in the summer of 2006, though EM stock prices did not peak until the fourth quarter of 2007. It turned negative again in the early days of 2010, but EM equity prices did not peak until April 2011. The indicator moved below zero in mid-2014, yet EM equities only sold off in the second quarter of 2015. This time around, the combined liquidity indicator became negative in early 2016, suggesting great risks for EM assets and related plays in the second half of 2017. High carry EM currencies like the BRL or the TRY are at risk. The ZAR looks especially poorly positioned as well but the RUB seems better cushioned against these risks. The MXN could suffer too as Mexico has a lot of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Nonetheless, MXN remains much cheaper than the BRL and could still outperform its Brazilian brethren. The SGD is very sensitive to global liquidity conditions, as Singapore is a key banking center for EM, and could also suffer substantially against the USD. In terms of timing for the G10 currency markets, the deterioration of EM breadth has historically been a dangerous sign for commodity currencies (Chart I-9). This combination of deteriorating liquidity and breadth is often associated with a sharp selloff in NZD/JPY (Chart I-10). Investors should short this cross, and we are re-opening this trade this week. Chart I-9Commodity Currencies##br## Prefer A Fresh Breadth... Commodity Currencies Prefer A Fresh Breadth... Commodity Currencies Prefer A Fresh Breadth... Chart I-10...So Does ##br##NZD/JPY ...So Does NZD/JPY ...So Does NZD/JPY The dynamics highlighted above also explain why despite our positive stance on Canada and the CAD, we are not willing to chase the selloff in USD/CAD further, and prefer to play the CAD's strength through its crosses. The risk-reward ratio seems better this way, as we are not as negatively exposed to an EM selloff as we would be buying the CAD against the USD. Indeed, a cleaner way to play the BoC's change of tone while gaining exposure to an EM-risk off theme, is to short AUD/CAD, a trade that is already on our book. On the domestic front, this week the Reserve Bank of Australia disappointed markets and did not try to indicate a change in stance away from its dovish bias. Markets have taken notice, with the AUD incapable of rallying against a weak USD, despite very strong trade data yesterday. Meanwhile, the BoC is telegraphing a rate hike in the very near future. Additionally, an abnormal gap has emerged between AUD/CAD and AUD/USD. As Chart I-11 shows, historically, AUD/CAD and AUD/USD have tracked one another. This makes sense. The Australian economy is very levered to Asian growth and liquidity dynamics, while Canada is a crucial link in the North American supply chain. With the U.S. and Canadian business cycles so tightly integrated, the CAD tends to mimic the greenback when compared to non-USD currencies. Chart I-11AUD/CAD Is A Short AUD/CAD Is A Short AUD/CAD Is A Short The points in time when AUD/CAD has been much stronger than the AUD/USD deserve closer attention. They are periods of booms in EM Asia, such as the middle of the 1990s, or 2004 to 2005. Today, AUD/CAD is again out of line with AUD/USD, reflecting the boom in EM assets prices in 2016 and in the first half of 2017. However, if our view is correct that EM is entering a dangerous zone, AUD/CAD should weaken further. Chart I-12When Investors Are Short, ##br##EUR/USD Likes EM Selloffs When Investors Are Short, EUR/USD Likes EM Selloffs When Investors Are Short, EUR/USD Likes EM Selloffs Last but certainly not least the euro. EUR/USD has much momentum and could continue to rally into the 1.15-1.16 zone. In fact, historically, EM shocks have been able to lift the euro, albeit temporarily. This definitely was the case in 2015 when EM sold off: in April 2015, when EM began to weaken, in August 2015, when a temporary selling climax emerged after the Chinese floated the CNY, and in December 2015, after the Fed hiked. The euro spiked in all three instances. However, investors were very short EUR/USD entering each of these periods, and the ensuing rallies were short-covering rallies (Chart I-12). This time around, investors are very long the euro, suggesting that the euro has not been used as a funding vehicle to the same extent as it was in 2015. Additionally, in all these previous episodes, EUR/USD traded at a small discount to the fair value implied by real rate differentials, today it is trading at a premium. Thus, the same kind of short-covering rally is unlikely. As a result, we do not anticipate EUR/USD to break out of its range on the back of an EM risk-off event. That being said, EUR could outperform GBP in this type of environment. The pound remains very dependent on global liquidity conditions to finance its current account deficit of more than 4% of GDP. With big financial institutions announcing more divesture from the U.K., these hot-money flows could prove even more crucial. As a result, we are removing our call to short EUR/GBP if it moves above 0.88, and expect a move in EUR/GBP toward 0.92-0.93 in the second half of 2017. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The greenback slipped on weak as the ADP employment, the ISM-non manufacturing employment component, and continuing as well as initial jobless claims all underperformed expectations. While the dollar reacted negatively to this news, the Fed's hawkish stance should ultimately help the USD. Supplementing the increases in interest rates, are plans to reverse the multi-year quantitative easing program.The FOMC is also increasingly worried about the "quite high" stock valuations which, could lead to financial instability. U.S. 10-year yields have gone up 4 basis points following the release of the minutes, after the 20 bps spike following initial Fed comments on June 27. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 The euro's strength extends as the union experienced strong services and composite PMI measures this Wednesday. While it is true that the ECB may be looking to draw back its excessively easy monetary policy, Draghi and Praet have highlighted that accommodative policy is still needed as inflationary pressures are not yet entrenched. The euro's recent appreciation and weak producer price numbers could vindicate this view. The euro's strength has also weighed on manufacturing activity, as PMIs underperformed expectations. This is likely to weigh on EUR/USD going forward, especially as European stocks have been underperofming U.S. ones in recent weeks. EUR/SEK can face considerable pressure ahead due to the Riksbank's change in rhetoric. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio - June 21, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: National inflation came in at 0.4%, while Tokyo ex fresh food and energy inflation contracted by 0.2%. Both of these measures underperformed expectations. On the other hand, Japan's job-to-applicant ratio continues to climb, coming in at 1.49, and outperforming expectations. This last data point is key, as it highlights that the Japanese labor market is very tight, and that the stage is set for inflation to come back to Japan. However, as evidenced by the recent disappointments in data, the currency holds the key to unleash inflation in Japan. Thus, not only is a selloff in the yen needed for inflation to remerge, but this selloff would feed on itself, as a falling currency and a tight labor market would raise inflation (and thus lower real rates, as Japanese 10-year rates are anchored at 0), which would push the yen down further. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Markit manufacturing PMI declined from last month's reading and also came in below expectations at 54.3. Construction PMI also declined and came in below expectations at 53.4 However credit had a strong showing as net lending to individuals, consumer credit and mortgage approvals all came in above expectations at 5.3 billion pounds, 1.73 billion pounds and 65 thousand respectively. Various BoE members have stated that rising interest rates might be necessary to keep a lid on the island's high inflation. Although there are still some voices within the BoE who are more cautious, given the uncertainty that Brexit poses, overall the BoE has shown a much more hawkish tone in recent weeks. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 The AUD has experienced considerable weakness this week, following a drawback in inflation estimates for June by the TD Securities measure, of 2.3% from 2.8% and a less hawkish than anticipated RBA. While retail sales beat expectations of 0.2% - coming in at 0.6% - the pace of appreciation in the RBA Commodity Index in SDR terms continues to slow Nevertheless, these factors were not the only contributors to the recent AUD weakness. Australia remains highly levered to emerging markets, and the Fed tightening remains a major risk for the AUD. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The annual trade balance underperformed expectations, coming in at a deficit of 3.75 billion U.S. dollars. However the ANZ business confidence index continued climbing, and now stands at the highest level in 8 months Overall the New Zealand economy continues to be one of the best performing in the G10. If one were to be guided merely by domestic factors, the RBNZ should be the next central bank to hike after the Fed. However the picture is slightly more nuanced, as the RBNZ is still worried about foreign developments, particularly EM weakness. This justifies why they continue to state that "monetary policy will remain accommodative for a considerable period". Thus, we continue to be bullish on the NZD against the AUD, while we are shorting it against the JPY, as a mean to benefit from a potential EM dislocation. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 USD/CAD has broken down from a crucial technical level following Poloz's statements about the Canadian economy. He states that the "cuts have done their job". When asked about oil, the reply was reassuring, declaring that the expected level of WTI is at USD 40-50 bbl, which implies that fluctuations within that band should not influence movements the BoC path, helping the CAD in the process. He also suggested that "the adjustment we've been talking about... is largely complete now". While inflation is weak, the BoC governor highlighted that forward looking indicators for inflation should be monitored instead of current inflation. These variables are pointing to stronger growth, and are in line with the bank's expectations of a closing output gap in the first half of 2018. While this may be true, a strengthening CAD will remain a risk for inflation. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Although real retail sales yearly growth came in negative at -0.3%, it outperformed expectations and was better than last month. Additionally, the SVME PMI came also blew away expectations, increasing from last month's 55.6 reading to 60.1. However Consumer price inflation came in at -0.1%, underperforming expectations. The Swiss economy continues to be haunted by the ghost of deflation. Nonetheless, some economic indicators appear to be ticking up, most likely as a result of the sharp rally in EUR/CHF. We continue to believe that a rally of EUR/CHF beyond 1.1 is unlikely, as most of the good news in the euro area are already priced into the euro. Furthermore, any disappointments, particularly in EM could trigger a selloff in this cross. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 The Labor Force survey, which measures the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the total civilian labor force came in at 4.6%, increased since last month. This measure shows that despite the increase in oil prices the Norwegian labour market continues to be tepid. The Norges Bank agrees with our assessment, as it lowered its projected near term policy rate path. Furthermore, they projected that rates in Norway will not rise until the beginning of 2019. The reasons for this are two fold: first, inflation should continue to remain weak, as the pass through from the collapse in the currency has faded. Additionally, bubbly real estate prices, which were the only factor, which could incite the Norges Bank to become more hawkish, have gone down, following reform in lending standards. Thus, despite its good value, the NOK will continue to underperform amongst commodity currencies. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 It is true that the Riksbank recently hinted towards a more neutral stance, acknowledging "that inflation has recently been slightly higher than expected", which has made it "less likely than before that the Riksbank will cut the repo rate in the near term". However, the Riksbank also highlighted the fact that the bank is "prepared to implement further monetary policy easing if necessary to stabilize inflation". A very nuanced statement referred to the exchange rate, which "is important that [it] does not appreciate too rapidly", further stating that "this could happen if, for example, the Riksbank's monetary policy deviates clearly from that of other countries." This conclusively highlights that the bank is wary of diverging rates lifting undesirably on the krona, which is a limiting factor for substantial krona strength in the near term. However, the change of guard at the helm of this central bank in early 2018 could change all this caution. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The rise in global bond yields has been largely "reflective" of stronger global growth rather than "restrictive." Stay cyclically overweight global equities. The Fed has more scope to raise rates than the ECB. Not only is labor market slack much higher in the euro area, but the neutral rate is considerably lower there too. Financial conditions have eased a lot more in the U.S. than in the euro area, which should support relative U.S. growth in the months ahead. U.S. inflation will bounce back in the second half of 2017, removing a key obstacle to further Fed rate hikes. Short-term momentum is working in the euro's favor, but we expect EUR/USD to fall to 1.05 by the end of the year. We are closing our short January 2018 fed funds futures trade for a gain of 11 basis points and rolling it into the June 2018 contract. Oil prices are heading higher. Go long the Russian ruble. Feature Bond Bulls Turned Into Steak Global bond yields continued to move up this week on the back of rising rate expectations (Chart 1). A brighter growth picture helped drive the bond selloff. The ISM manufacturing index jumped to a three-year high in June. The euro area manufacturing PMI clocked in at 57.4, the strongest level since April 2011. That solid PMI report follows on the heels of a record-high German Ifo reading last week. Central bankers are taking note of the better economic data. The FOMC minutes indicated that downside risks to growth have diminished and that the decline in core inflation is likely to be temporary. In fact, the Fed staff upgraded its inflation forecast from the May meeting to show an earlier return to 2%. On the other side of the Atlantic, the ECB minutes expressed confidence about the domestic growth outlook. The release of the minutes followed an upbeat speech by Mario Draghi in late June in which he noted that all signs point to "a strengthening and broadening recovery in the euro area" and that "the past period of low inflation is ... on the whole temporary." We expect ECB asset purchases to be scaled back at the start of next year. However, a full-fledged tightening cycle still looks to be some way off. Labor market slack in the euro area is 3.2 percentage points higher than it was in 2008 and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany (Chart 2). And even when the ECB does start hiking, it is doubtful that it will be able to raise rates all that much. This is because the neutral rate is extremely low in the euro area. Chart 1Rate Expectations Have Adjusted Higher Rate Expectations Have Adjusted Higher Rate Expectations Have Adjusted Higher Chart 2Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany The Importance Of The Neutral Rate Some commentators have alleged that the concept of a neutral rate is of little practical importance. They are wrong. At the start of 2010, 10-year German bund and U.S. Treasury yields stood at 3.4% and 4%, respectively. Much of the rally in bonds since then can be attributed to the slow realization among investors that the equilibrium interest rate in Europe and the U.S. has fallen. Those who understood this point at the outset made a lot of money. Why did the neutral rate decline? Part of the answer has to do with demographics. Slower labor force growth has reduced the incentive for companies to expand capacity. This has weighed on investment spending, leading to lower aggregate demand. Compared to the U.S., the euro area has been more afflicted by deteriorating demographics. For a while, the region was able to make up for the shortfall in population growth by expanding labor participation. But with participation rates in the euro area now higher than in the U.S., that avenue has closed (Chart 3). The end of the debt supercycle also caused the neutral rate to plummet around the world. Here again, Europe was disproportionately affected. Private-sector debt soared across the region in the years leading up to the Great Recession. This was particularly the case in the Mediterranean economies, which benefited from plunging real interest rates and a seemingly insatiable appetite for their debt among banks and foreign investors (Chart 4). When the music stopped, panic ensued. Greece was driven into default. Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Portugal survived by the skin of their teeth. Chart 3Rising Participation Boosted Euro Area Labor Force Growth Rising Participation Boosted Euro Area Labor Force Growth Rising Participation Boosted Euro Area Labor Force Growth Chart 4Private Debt Levels Soared In The Run-Up To The Great Recession Private Debt Levels Soared In The Run-Up To The Great Recession Private Debt Levels Soared In The Run-Up To The Great Recession True, financial stresses have receded since then. But all the spending that rising debt generated has not come back. This is a critical point and one that is often overlooked: If the ratio of private debt-to-GDP simply ends up being flat in the future - rather than rising by an average of 3.9 percentage points per year as it did in the euro area during the 2000s - this will still translate into significantly less demand than what the region was once used to.1 The ECB will need to offset this loss of demand by keeping interest rates lower for longer. Put differently, low rates in the euro area look to be more of a structural phenomenon than a cyclical one. The Shackles Of The Common Currency Chart 5Markets See Only A Small Gap In Neutral Rates Between The U.S. And The Euro Area Markets See Only A Small Gap In Neutral Rates Between The U.S. And The Euro Area Markets See Only A Small Gap In Neutral Rates Between The U.S. And The Euro Area The now all-too-evident drawbacks of euro area membership only amplify the need to keep rates low. As many European countries have discovered, loosening fiscal policy during a recession is nearly impossible when one loses guaranteed access to a central bank that can serve as a lender of last resort. The inability to devalue one's currency also means that competitive adjustments must occur through weak wage growth or even outright declines in nominal wages. Such outcomes can only occur in the presence of high unemployment. An economy which cannot respond effectively to adverse economic shocks with either fiscal easing or a cheaper currency is one that is likely to experience higher levels of labor market slack over the long haul. This, in turn, implies that interest rates will end up being lower than they would otherwise be. Has the market adequately discounted the fact that the neutral rate is lower in the euro area than in the U.S.? We don't think so. Chart 5 shows market estimates of the neutral real rate based on the difference between 5-year, 5-year forward interest rate index swaps and 5-year, 5-year forward CPI swap rates. The market is currently saying that the neutral rate is 26 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area. We think the true gap is close to 100 basis points. A Higher Hurdle For The Euro Think about what this means for currencies. If interest rates are lower in one country than they are in another, investors will only purchase bonds in the low-yielding economy if they expect that country's currency to appreciate. What will cause them to expect a stronger currency? The answer is that the low-yielding currency has to first depreciate to a level below its long-term fair value. Consider a concrete example: German bunds and U.S. Treasurys. The latter yields 1.82% more than the former for 10-year maturities. This implies that investors expect the euro to appreciate by about 20% over the next decade. As such, whatever one thinks is the true long-term fair value for EUR/USD, the euro currently should trade at a substantial discount to that value. And, of course, the longer one thinks the neutral rate in the U.S. will exceed that of the euro area, the larger that discount should be. Thus, whenever someone tells you that it is "obvious" that the euro will strengthen over the long haul, ask them where they think the euro will be trading against the dollar in ten years' time. If their answer is less than 1.36, they will lose money by being long EUR/USD. Short-Term Momentum Favors The Euro, But The Cyclical Picture Is Still Dollar Bullish Ten years is a long time, of course. Over the next couple of months, we would not be surprised if investors extrapolate the euro area's economic recovery too far into the future, leading to higher bond yields across the region. In fact, BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service downgraded core European bonds this week largely for this reason. If that were to happen, EUR/USD could move to as high as 1.18 over the next few weeks. Such euro strength, however, will not last. We are confident that the Fed will deliver more tightening than the ECB over a 12-month horizon compared to what investors are currently anticipating. Despite the decline in the euro area unemployment rate over the past four years, it is still five points higher than in the U.S., greater than at virtually any point during the 2000s! (Chart 6). U.S. financial conditions have eased substantially so far this year - indeed, considerably more so than in the euro area (Chart 7). Our empirical work has shown that financial conditions lead growth by about 6-to-9 months. This suggests that U.S. growth could trump growth in the euro area over the balance of the year, even on a per capita basis. Chart 6There Is More Slack In The Euro Area There Is More Slack In The Euro Area There Is More Slack In The Euro Area Chart 7Easier Financial Conditions Will Support U.S. Growth Over The Coming Months Easier Financial Conditions Will Support U.S. Growth Over The Coming Months Easier Financial Conditions Will Support U.S. Growth Over The Coming Months U.S. Inflation Will Rise U.S. inflation should also bounce back, removing a key obstacle to further Fed rate hikes. Chart 8 presents a breakdown of U.S. core PCE inflation based on its various components. A few points stand out: About one-third of the decline in core PCE inflation between January and April can be attributed to lower wireless data prices, partly reflecting recent methodological changes undertaken by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to better measure inflation in this segment. We see this largely as statistical noise, which will wash out from the data over the next few quarters. Core goods inflation has been weighed down by the lagged effects of the dollar's appreciation in 2014-15. Given that the broad trade-weighted dollar has weakened by 4.3% this year, goods inflation should begin to move higher, as already foreshadowed by the jump in import prices (Chart 9). Health care inflation rose in the lead-up to the U.S. elections, reportedly because some health care providers feared they would not be able to jack up prices once Hillary Clinton became president. Thus, the ebbing in health care costs over the past few months is not too surprising. Going forward, health care inflation is likely to rise as insurers raise premiums, particularly for policies sold through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. Service inflation has decelerated a notch. We do not expect this to last. Chart 10 shows that underlying wage growth has been accelerating on the back of a tightening labor market. Historically, wage growth has been the dominant driver of service inflation. The deceleration in rent inflation looks more durable, given rising apartment supply (Chart 11). However, one could argue that weaker rent growth could actually make the Fed more hawkish. After all, if builders are now churning out too many new apartments, keeping interest rates low would just encourage overbuilding. Chart 8U.S. Inflation Will Compel The Fed To Hike Rates U.S. Inflation Will Compel The Fed To Hike Rates U.S. Inflation Will Compel The Fed To Hike Rates Chart 9Goods Inflation Will Move Up Goods Inflation Will Move Up Goods Inflation Will Move Up Chart 10Deceleration In Service Inflation Will Not Last Deceleration In Service Inflation Will Not Last Deceleration In Service Inflation Will Not Last Chart 11Rent Inflation Has Peaked Rent Inflation Has Peaked Rent Inflation Has Peaked Investment Conclusions The jump in global bond yields in recent weeks raises the odds of a near-term pullback in stocks. Still, history suggests that equities almost always outperform bonds and cash outside of recessions. If global growth remains strong over the next 12 months, as we expect, stocks are likely to climb to new highs. Chart 12Euro Area Business Cycle Follows The U.S. Euro Area Business Cycle Follows The U.S. Euro Area Business Cycle Follows The U.S. The combination of faster U.S. growth and rising inflation should allow the Fed to raise rates at least three or four more times between now and next June. This is more than the 30 basis points of rate hikes that the market is currently pricing in over this period. We have been positioned for higher rate expectations by being short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. We are closing this trade today for a gain of 11 basis points and rolling it into the June 2018 contract. While a somewhat more hawkish ECB will blunt the dollar's ascent to some extent, it will not fully counteract it. This is simply because the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions while the ECB does not. The ECB would be happy if the euro were to weaken. In contrast, further dollar weakness would cause the Fed to ramp up its hawkish rhetoric. This asymmetry means that it is the Fed, rather than the ECB, that is in the driver's seat when it comes to the outlook for EUR/USD. We expect the euro to weaken to 1.05 against the dollar by the end of the year, possibly reaching parity in early 2018. When will the dollar peak? The answer is when U.S. growth finally falters and the Fed stops raising rates. As we discussed last week in our Third Quarter Strategy Outlook, this could happen towards the end of 2018.2 Historically, the euro area business cycle has lagged the U.S. cycle by 6-to-12 months (Chart 12). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that euro area growth will remain resilient late next year, even if the U.S. economy begins to slip into recession. That is when the euro will finally take off. New Trade: Go Short EUR/RUB Chart 13Falling Oil Inventories Should Lead To Higher Crude Prices Falling Oil Inventories Should Lead To Higher Crude Prices Falling Oil Inventories Should Lead To Higher Crude Prices Until then, the euro will remain under pressure. In contrast, the Russian ruble is likely to strengthen over the next 12 months. Russian industrial production surprised to the upside in May, growing at the fastest pace since 2014. Retail sales also accelerated thanks to a pickup in wage growth. The growth revival should reduce the pressure on the Russian central bank to cut rates aggressively. A recovery in oil prices will also help the ruble. Our energy strategists expect global production to increase by only 0.7 MMB/d in 2017, compared to 1.5 MMB/d growth in consumption. While shale output continues to rise, this is largely being offset by falling production from conventional oil fields. Consequently, oil inventories should fall in the remainder of this year. If history is any guide, this will boost oil prices (Chart 13). With this in mind, investors should consider going short EUR/RUB. The ruble has lost 15% against the euro since April, making it ripe for a rebound. The juicy 9.4% in carry that the ruble currently offers over the euro should also benefit this trade. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 In equilibrium, aggregate demand must equal GDP. Since debt is a stock variable while GDP is a flow variable, it is the change in debt that influences GDP. Likewise, it is the change in the change in debt - the so-called "credit impulse" - which influences GDP growth. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Third Quarter 2017: Aging Bull," dated June 30, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The long-term interests of both Chinese policymakers and foreign investors are aligned regarding the Chinese onshore bonds. There is a strong case for higher demand for Chinese bonds going forward. The Bond Connect program may not immediately lead to a massive influx of foreign capital into the Chinese onshore bond market, but it holds the promise of improving the efficiency of China's financial system over the long run, making the economy less dependent on the banking sector for financial intermediation. Chinese domestic bonds will become increasingly more "investable" to foreigners, and investors' interest in Chinese bonds will only grow. This week we review some basics of this asset class. Feature The Bond Connect program, which launched early this week, has established another channel for foreign investors to tap into China's massive onshore bond markets. Like Chinese A shares' inclusion in the MSCI indices announced last month, the Bond Connect scheme offers little near term impact but marks yet another milestone in China's financial market liberalization. Together with some existing channels, the new program opens up China's vast fixed-income assets to world financial markets, which have yet to be explored by global investors. There is a clear case for rising interest among global investors in Chinese onshore bonds going forward. This also holds the promise of improving the efficiency of China's financial system over the long run. It Takes Two To Tango For Chinese regulators, the benefits of opening up the bond market to foreigners are straightforward. First, it helps develop a deep and more efficient bond market, which is instrumental in allowing market forces to set interest rates for the overall economy.1 Although already one of the largest in the world, the Chinese bond market is primarily for the government and government-related entities. Corporate issuers also tend to be state-owned enterprises, which overwhelmingly carry investment-grade ratings from local rating agencies - i.e. little differentiation in credit quality (Chart 1). The primitive state of the corporate bond market (and financial markets in general) is a key reason why China's financial resources are predominantly channeled by the banking sector. A key target of China's financial sector reforms is to improve the efficiency of financial markets and reduce the reliance on the banking sector. Along with the Bond Connect initiative, Chinese regulators also granted access to overseas rating agencies to its domestic bond market, which should also help Chinese investors properly price credit risks. Chart 1Outstanding Corporate Bonds##br## By Credit Ratings Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds Second, it also facilitates further internalization of the RMB, as it offers a vast asset class for foreign investors to park their RMB exposure. A major consideration for the Chinese authorities to internationalize the RMB has been to reduce exchange rate risk for domestic entities both for trade and financing. Governments and companies in the developed world mostly issue bonds in their respective local currencies, while developing countries typically issue bonds in foreign "hard currencies" such as the dollar and the euro, which makes them vulnerable to exchange rate volatility. By joining the IMF Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket, the Chinese authorities aim to foster the RMB to be an international "hard currency." This, together with a sufficiently deep and efficient RMB bond market, allows Chinese corporate borrowers to issue local currency bonds that are immune to exchange rate fluctuations. Finally, there is clearly a short-term intention to support the RMB exchange rate. The newly established Connect program only allows for "northbound" flows, meaning foreigners are only able to purchase onshore bonds through Hong Kong. This is designed to offset domestic capital outflows and mitigate any downward pressure on the RMB exchange rate. A reciprocal "southbound" channel that allows domestic investors to purchase foreign bonds will inevitably be established. However, the timing will be contingent on conditions of cross-border capital flows and exchange rate performance. For foreign investors, the Connect program and onshore RMB bonds will also prove attractive. Unlike existing programs facilitating foreign bond purchases such as Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors (QFII), RMB QFII (RQFII) and foreign eligible institutions' direct participation in the onshore interbank bond market, the Bond Connect program bypasses China's often lengthy and complicated regulatory procedures, making it easier and more flexible for foreign investors to directly hold Chinese onshore bonds. Holding RMB fixed income assets offers diversification benefits. Foreigners' exposure to Chinese bonds is practically nonexistent, which will inevitably increase. It is worth noting that foreign holdings in most emerging countries' bonds have been rising over time, despite exchange rate fluctuations (Chart 2). The volatility of the RMB exchange rate against the dollar is the smallest among SDR currencies, and Chinese onshore bonds offer the highest yields - both of which will prove attractive for foreign bond investors over the long run (Chart 3). China's structurally higher economic growth should also deliver higher returns for investors over the long run. Chart 4 shows that total returns of Chinese stocks and bonds have been almost identical since 2004 (when Chinese bond data became available) - both of which significantly outperformed global benchmarks. However, the volatility of Chinese stocks has been much greater than bonds. In other words, Chinese bonds offer an attractive risk-return trade off for investors to capitalize on China's growth outlook. Chart 2Foreign Holdings Of Chinese Bonds ##br##Are Set To Grow Foreign Holdings Of Chinese Bonds Are Set To Grow Foreign Holdings Of Chinese Bonds Are Set To Grow Chart 3China's Yield Advantage China's Yield Advantage China's Yield Advantage Chart 4Chinese Bonds: A Long Term Play ##br##To Capitalize On Chinese Growth Chinese Bonds: A Long Term Play To Capitalize On Chinese Growth Chinese Bonds: A Long Term Play To Capitalize On Chinese Growth All in all, the Bond Connect program may not immediately lead to a massive influx of foreign capital into the Chinese onshore bond market. However, it is clear that the long-term interests of both Chinese policymakers and foreign investors are aligned, which builds a strong case for higher demand for Chinese bonds going forward. A Synopsis Of The Chinese Onshore Bond Market Regardless of any near-term considerations, Chinese domestic bonds, and onshore assets in general, will become increasingly more "investable" to foreigners, and investors' interest in Chinese bonds will only grow. It is useful to review some basics of this asset class. At the onset, China's total outstanding bonds currently stand at RMB 69 trillion, or US$10.2 trillion, the majority of which are issued by government and related entities (Table 1). Treasurys and bonds issued by policy banks are backed by the central government. Municipal bonds issued by local governments are not explicitly backed by Beijing, but in reality the odds of a local government defaulting on its bonds are very low. Bonds issued by the corporate sector account for about 20% of the market, but corporate issuers also tend to be state-owned enterprises. Bonds and Certificates of Deposits (CDs) issued by banks are also state-owned. The Bond Connect program allows foreigners to tap into Chinese onshore bonds traded in the interbank market (CIBM), where the majority of Chinese bond transactions take place. CIBM hosts about 70% of total Chinese onshore bonds, while the rest are listed on securities exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) markets (Chart 5). Chinese bonds are primarily held by commercial banks (and credit co-ops), accounting for about 65% of total outstanding bonds. In recent years, investment funds have become increasingly active, currently holding 15% of the market, compared with 10% three years ago. This, together with increasing foreign participation, will over time help improve the efficiency of the onshore bond market. Table 1Chinese Bond Market Breakdown Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds Chart 5Where Are The Bonds Traded? Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds Bond issuance increased sharply in previous years, mostly boosted by municipal bonds and more recently by banks' CDs (Chart 6). The Chinese authorities' regulatory tightening to rein in financial excesses has led to a notable slowdown in overall bond issuance, which is likely to be temporary.2 Overall, the country's financial reforms will continue to encourage bond issuance and reduce the economy's overreliance on the banking sector for financial intermediation. Chart 6The Growing Importance Of Bond Market Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds The importance of bond issuance for the corporate sector to raise capital has been increasing in recent years, but is still marginal. Currently, corporate bond issuance accounts for over 10% of total social financing (TSF), up from practically zero in the early 2000s (Chart 7). As stated earlier, corporate bonds are primarily issued by state-owned enterprises or listed firms, while small and private enterprises' access to bond issuance is still very restrictive. Maturities of the majority of Chinese corporate bonds are less than five years, while long-dated corporate bonds are rare. Corporate bonds with over 10-year maturities account for about 1% of total outstanding bonds (Chart 8). Chart 7The Growing Importance Of Corporate Bonds The Growing Importance Of Corporate Bonds The Growing Importance Of Corporate Bonds Chart 8Maturity Profile Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds China's bond market liberalization measures have allowed some ETFs to be established to track the onshore bond market - a trend that is set to accelerate going forward with the latest Bond Connect scheme (Table 2). Onshore bonds will likely follow A shares to progressively enter major international bond indexes over time, which will further stoke global investors' interest. Table 2ETFs For Chinese Onshore Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds Embracing Chinese Bonds An Update On The Chinese Economy Chart 9The Economy Will Remain Resilient The Economy Will Remain Resilient The Economy Will Remain Resilient Recent growth numbers from China confirm that the economy has remained resilient amid the regulatory crackdown by Chinese regulators. Both official and privately sourced manufacturing PMI numbers have improved, and both have moved above the 50 threshold. The regained momentum is also reflected in the rebound in raw materials prices in the global market (Chart 9, top panel). The regained strength in the Chinese economy, in our view, is probably due to easing in monetary conditions, primarily through the exchange rate. Although the RMB has stopped depreciating against the dollar of late, it has relapsed in trade-weighted terms, thanks to weakness in the greenback. This has led to a period of easing in monetary conditions, which in turn has helped the economy reflate (Chart 9, bottom panel). Looking forward, we maintain the view that China's business activity will remain reasonably buoyant. It is not realistic to expect growth figures, measured by year-over-year growth rates, to accelerate in perpetuity, but downside risks in the economy will remain low. China's growth improvement since early last year was primarily due to easing in monetary conditions rather than a massive dose of fiscal and monetary stimuli,3 and it is highly unlikely that the authorities will tighten their overall policy stance significantly, causing major growth problems. As such, we remain positive on both the economy and Chinese H shares. Overall, China's growth performance has been largely in line with our expectations outlined in our 2017 outlook report published in January.4 We will offer a mid-year revisit on the cyclical trends of the economy and financial markets next week. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Financial Tightening: Passing The Phase Of Maximum Strength," dated June 22, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Financial Tightening: Passing The Phase Of Maximum Strength," dated June 22, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Chinese Slowdown: How Much Downside?” dated June 08, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights With crude-oil inventory transfers from OPEC to western refining centers slowing, OPEC 2.0's production cuts will begin to show up in high-frequency OECD inventory data in the form of lower stock levels. The coalition has been bedeviled by higher production from Libya and Nigeria, and a push from Iraq asserting its right - in line with its huge reserves - to increase production. U.S. imports from Iraq are growing this year, even as other OPEC members slow shipments. In addition, Iraqi crude oil inventories also were increasing while other OPEC states were running their stocks down, which suggests Iraq may be preparing to lift production and exports in the near future. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil rallied sharply over the past week, despite reports of higher Libyan production. We remain long via Dec/17 $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Brent and WTI. Base Metals: Neutral. The U.S. reportedly is using a national security review of the U.S. steel industry, to determine whether it will impose tariffs on steel imports at this week's G20 meeting in Germany. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered after selling off last week on the back of more aggressive guidance from central bankers. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's acreage reports for grains were less bearish than expected, rallying markets into this week. We remain bearish, but also recommend investors continue to avoid shorting these markets. Feature Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Prices Rally,##BR##Despite Reports Of Higher Production Crude Oil Prices Rally, Despite Reports Of Higher Production Crude Oil Prices Rally, Despite Reports Of Higher Production Oil rallied 9.6% over the past week from recent lows, despite news reports of Libya pushing crude oil production toward 1mm b/d by the end of this month, and further indications Iraq is gearing up to increase production and exports (Chart of the Week). We expect prices to continue to be well supported in 2H17, as the production cuts engineered by OPEC 2.0 - the OPEC and non-OPEC producers' coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, respectively - finally begin showing up in the high-frequency storage data for the U.S. and the OECD. This is because, we believe, the massive crude-oil inventory transfers between OPEC and OECD refining centers is winding down. OPEC Inventory Transfer Winding Down Crude oil inventories in major oil importers with significant refining capabilities - in particular, the U.S. and the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) refining center in the Netherlands and Belgium - grew by a bit more than 35mm barrels (bbl) year-on-year (yoy) on average over the January - April period, based on data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI), a transnational group made up of producing and consuming interests headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The January - April period marked the first four months of the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement, in which OPEC pledged to reduce output by 1.2mm b/d, and non-OPEC obliged itself to cut an additional 600k b/d of production. The yoy builds in the U.S. and ARA inventories were a mirror-image of the average yoy inventory withdrawals occurring in OPEC states that reported their stock levels to JODI in the first four months of this year (Chart 2). The JODI inventory data indicates that even as OPEC 2.0 was cutting production in the first four months of the year - by some estimates by more than 100% of the pledged 1.8mm b/d of reductions - these states were draining stocks from inventories during this period to maintain sales to key clients. The declining trend in high-frequency U.S. inventory data from the EIA for the U.S. East coast (PADD 1), the Midwest (PADD 2), and the U.S. Gulf (PADD 3), and declining weekly import estimates support our contention that OPEC inventories will continue to decline, and that the production surge by OPEC in 4Q16 will finally be worked off (Chart 3). Given the downtrend in the weekly high-frequency crude oil import data for the U.S., we expect crude-oil shipments from OPEC to continue to slow as production cuts no longer are masked by inventory draws (Chart 4). Among the top 10 crude oil exporters to the U.S., KSA shipments are down an average 55k b/d in yoy 2Q17 vs. an increase of slightly more than 150k b/d in 1Q17. KSA shipped 1.09mm b/d to the U.S. in 2Q17 vs. 1.23mm b/d in 1Q17. The rates at which Iraq and Nigeria were shipping oil to the U.S. also slowed, but are still above year-ago levels, as is to be expected given the civil strife from which both are recovering - Iraq's 2Q17 exports to the U.S. were up 279k b/d vs. 316k in 1Q17 yoy at 663k and 592k b/d, while Nigeria's exports to the U.S. were up 67k b/d yoy in 2Q17 and 69k b/d in 1Q17, at 286k b/d and 270k b/d, respectively. Chart 2OPEC Inventory Transfer##BR##Winds Down In 2017 OPEC Inventory Transfer Winds Down In 2017 OPEC Inventory Transfer Winds Down In 2017 Chart 3Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production##BR##Is Being Worked Off Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production Is Being Worked Off Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production Is Being Worked Off Continued high levels of U.S. refining runs and exports of crude and products also will accelerate draws in the U.S., even though refining runs are not growing at rates seen last year when the overall level of refining was lower (Chart 5). Chart 4OPEC Exports To##BR##The U.S. Are Slowing OPEC Exports To The U.S. Are Slowing OPEC Exports To The U.S. Are Slowing Chart 5U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports##BR##Remain High U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports Remain High U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports Remain High Watch Iraq Chart 6Libya, Nigeria Increase Production,##BR##But The Big Story Will Be Iraq Libya, Nigeria Increase Production, But The Big Story Will Be Iraq Libya, Nigeria Increase Production, But The Big Story Will Be Iraq The OPEC 2.0 agreement has been bedeviled by higher-than-expected production from Libya, where officials claim they will be producing at 1.0mm b/d by the end of July, and Nigeria.1 In our balances, we have Libyan production up some 100k b/d from last month at ~ 800k b/d. Nigeria currently is producing ~ 1.5mm b/d, after falling to as low as 1.2mm b/d due to sabotage of its export facilities. But, without doubt, the OPEC state with the greatest potential for production growth is Iraq, which currently is producing ~ 4.5mm b/d (Chart 6). Iraqi local inventories were up 43% yoy in April at just over 11mm bbl. Iraqi exports to the U.S. were up more than 50% yoy to just over 640k b/d in June. Ordinarily, this would not warrant much attention, given the harmony that so far has characterized OPEC 2.0's performance since year-end 2016. However, Iraqi officials have begun advocating for higher production levels, which, in their protestations, would be consistent with their high reserve levels. Just this week, the country's oil minister, Jabar al-Luaibi, asked rhetorically, "Why should Iraq be deprived from increasing its production? Not to disturb or disrupt OPEC at all, or the prices, but it is our right to have our production that corresponds to our reserves."2 He observed, "We have gas, we have oil. We have the right to do well. As simple as that." Iraq certainly has the reserves necessary to increase production significantly, but would require significant time and capital to grow production materially above the record levels reached in Q4 2016, which were about 200,000-300,000 b/d above current levels. "Whatever It Takes" May Require KSA To Cut Again If Libya can hold to its higher production level, and even reach 1mm b/d, and Iraq decides to exercise its "right" to produce more, OPEC 2.0 will have to cut additional barrels from the coalition's production to accommodate the higher output. Given Russia's apparent reluctance to do so, this could mark the first significant test of the durability of the agreement that created OPEC 2.0. The stakes are high if these production cuts are not addressed. As Russians go to the polls in March 2018, and, later in the year, KSA seeks to IPO Aramco, multiple problems will present themselves: Another production free-for-all that collapses prices would trigger another round of high consumer-level inflation in Russia, as the rouble falls once again, and KSA's IPO would value Aramco far below the $2 trillion Saudi officials are hoping for. Our bullish price view - we're expecting Brent to trade to $60/bbl by year-end - will be deep-sixed if production cannot be controlled. As it stands, we have total OPEC crude production just over 32mm b/d in 2017, and slightly over 32.5mm b/d in 2018. Given the stout demand growth we expect this year and next, we expect close to 900k b/d more demand growth over supply growth, based on our modelling. Next year, we expect supply growth of 2.25mm b/d, and demand growth of 1.62mm b/d, so supply growth exceeds demand growth in 2018 by 630k b/d, moving oil markets from undersupplied to balanced/slightly over-supplied. Obviously, higher production would change these balances. The big questions for the market going forward: Will OPEC states that have drained inventories supporting sales to key clients maintain production discipline, allowing inventories in the U.S. and ARA to drain? Will OPEC 2.0 unravel under pressure from Russia and KSA assessments of the need for additional cuts? Can Libya and Nigeria maintain higher output? Libya is a failed state, and warring tribes almost surely will seek to take control over as much of the revenue-generating capacity of the oil-export facilities in the East and West of the country as possible. Nigeria, although not a failed state, faces similar difficulties containing the sabotage that has disabled export capacity on and off for the past few years. Whither Iraq? A price collapse would definitely reduce U.S. shale output, as the 2015 - 1H2016 experience demonstrated. If domestic U.S. prices stayed lower for longer, we would expect rig counts to decline, reducing the rate of growth in U.S., supply. Right now, we expect U.S. shale output to grow 340k b/d this year and by ~ 1mm b/d next year based on earlier, higher price levels. Our research has shown the very high correlation between U.S. shale output and WTI prices along the forward curve out to 3 years forward, and a low price definitely will lead to lower rig counts. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 still is holding together. Going into its ministerial meeting at the end of this month, it must provide clear guidance to the market over how it will handle a sustained increase in Libyan production. In addition, Iraq's intentions must be clear - otherwise, the market will assume the worst. We remain bullish, and continue to recommend low-risk long positions - we are long Dec/17 $50 vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Brent and WTI. Once markets are given greater clarity, we will look for higher-risk alternatives for putting new length on. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Libya's Oil Production Nears 4 Year High," in oilprice.com's June 29, 2017, online edition. 2 The minister's remarks were reported in the July 5, 2017, issue of, Iraq Daily Journal's online edition. Please see "Iraq Has Right To Achieve Oil Output In Line With Reserves - Minister." Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 OPEC's Oil Inventory Shift Winding Down OPEC's Oil Inventory Shift Winding Down Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Unilateral economic sanctions show that geopolitical risks are rising in Asia Pacific; China is using sanctions to get its way with its neighbors; South Korea was the latest victim, and will be rewarded for its pro-China shift; Trump's Mar-a-Lago honeymoon with Xi Jinping is over; Tactically, go long South Korean consumers / short Taiwanese exporters. Feature Geopolitical risk is shifting to the Asia Pacific region - and the increasing use of economic sanctions is evidence of the trend. Korean stocks have rallied sharply since the leadership change from December 2016 through May of this year (Chart 1). The impeachment rally was entirely expected after a year of domestic political turmoil.1 The election is also eventually expected to decrease Korean geopolitical risks - the country's new President Moon Jae-in, of the left-leaning Democratic Party, aims to patch up relations with China and revive diplomacy with North Korea.2 Chart 1South Korean Impeachment Rally Over South Korean Impeachment Rally Over South Korean Impeachment Rally Over A key barometer of Moon's success will be whether he convinces China to remove economic sanctions imposed since last summer as punishment for his predecessor's agreement to host the U.S. THAAD missile defense system. Moon has suspended the system's deployment in a nod to China.3 South Korea is thus the latest example of an important trend in the region: China's successful use of "economic statecraft" to pressure wayward neighbors into closer alignment with its interests. Since 2014, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines have each sought in different ways to reorient their foreign policies toward China, either to court Chinese assistance or get relief from Chinese pressure. Judging by our research below, the rewards are palpable, and a sign of Beijing's rising global influence. Because U.S.-China tensions are rising structurally, we see these country-by-country shifts toward China not as a decisive loss for the U.S. alliance but rather as the latest phase in a long game of tug-of-war that will intensify in the coming years.4 Hence the trend of unilateral economic sanctions will continue. Who is next on China's hit list? How will the U.S. respond? What countries are most and least likely to be affected? And what are the market implications? China's Economic Statecraft The United States launched a "pivot to Asia" strategy under the Obama administration to reassert American primacy in Asia Pacific and address the emerging challenge from China. The U.S.'s Asian partners largely welcomed this shift. Over the preceding decade, they had struggled with China's emergence as a military and strategic superior. The most prominent flashpoints came in the East and South China Seas. Beijing's newfound naval and air power caused regional anxiety. As the allies invited a larger U.S. role, Beijing began to assert its sovereignty claims over disputed waters and rocks, most ambitiously by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea and fortifying them with military capabilities. In three notable periods since the Great Recession, China's tensions with its neighbors have splashed over into the economic realm, prompting Beijing to impose punitive measures: Chart 2Japan's 2012 Clash With China Japan's 2012 Clash With China Japan's 2012 Clash With China Chart 3Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Japan 2010-2012: In 2010, China and Japan clashed as the former challenged Japan's control of the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands in the East China Sea. In the September-November 2010 clash, China notoriously cut off exports of rare earths to Japan.5 A greater clash occurred from July-November 2012. Chinese people rose up in large-scale protests, damaging Japanese and other foreign property and assets. Impact: The growth of Japanese exports to China slowed noticeably between the 2010 and 2012 clashes, underperforming both that of China's neighbors and Europe (Chart 2). In particular, Chinese consumers stopped buying as many Japanese cars and switched to other brands (Chart 3). Chinese investment in Japan, which is generally very small, fell sharply in the year after the major 2012 clash, by contrast with the global trend (Chart 4). Chinese tourism to Japan also fell sharply after both incidents, though only for a short period of time (Chart 5). Chart 4...And Cut Investments In Japan... ...And Cut Investments In Japan... ...And Cut Investments In Japan... Chart 5...While Tourists Went Elsewhere ...While Tourists Went Elsewhere ...While Tourists Went Elsewhere Philippines 2012-2016: Tensions between China and the Philippines over the contested Spratly Islands and other rocks in the South China Sea have a long history. The latest round began in the mid-2000s, and the two countries have skirmished many times since then, including in a major showdown at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 that required the intercession of the United States to be resolved. The pressure intensified after January 2013, when the Philippines brought a high-profile case against China's maritime-territorial claims to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. The U.S. and the Philippines upped the ante in April 2014 by signing an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. Ultimately, the court dealt a humiliating blow to China's maritime-territorial claims in July 2016, but a bigger confrontation was avoided because of what had happened in the remarkable May 2016 Philippine elections, which put China-friendly populist President Rodrigo Duterte in Manila on July 1. Impact: China tightened phytosanitary restrictions on Philippine bananas during the 2012 crisis and Philippine exports to China underperformed those of its neighbors after the onset of diplomatic crisis in 2013 (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall impact on headline exports is debatable. Tourism suffered straightforwardly both after the 2012 showdown at sea and after the new U.S.-Philippines military deal in 2014 (Chart 7). As with Japan, the impact was temporary. Chart 6Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Chart 7Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Vietnam 2011-14: China's quarrels with Vietnam go back millennia, but in recent years have centered on the South China Sea. As with the Philippines, frictions began rising in the mid-2000s and flared up after the global financial crisis. In the summer of 2012, Vietnam and China engaged in a dispute over new laws encompassing their territorial claims. In May 2014, the two countries fought a highly unorthodox sea-battle near the Paracel Islands. Anti-Chinese protests erupted throughout Vietnam, prompting China to restrict travel.6 Impact: It is not clear that China imposed trade measures against Vietnam - export growth was plummeting in 2012 because of China's nominal GDP slowdown as well - but certainly exports skyrocketed after the two sides began tothaw diplomatic relations in August 2014 (Chart 8).7 Direct investment from China into Vietnam fell in 2014, even as that from the rest of the world rose. Chinese tourism to Vietnam shrank in the aftermath. Chart 8Vietnam Reboots China Trade Vietnam Reboots China Trade Vietnam Reboots China Trade The above incidents complement a growing body of academic research demonstrating China's use of unilateral economic sanctions and their trade and market impacts.8 Bottom Line: China has employed unilateral, informal, and discrete economic sanctions and has encouraged or condoned citizen boycotts and popular activism against Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, and other states since at least the early 2000s. Moreover, three international confrontations since 2010 suggest that China's foreign policy is growing bolder - it is not afraid to throw its economic weight around to get what it wants politically or to deter countries from challenging its interests. How Significant Is China's Wrath? Both our evidence and the scholarly literature reveal that China-inflicted economic damage tends to be temporary and sometimes ambiguous from a macro-perspective.9 For instance, if there were negative trade effects of Vietnam's 2014 clash with China, they were overwhelmed by Vietnam's rising share of China's market in the following years (Chart 9). And, as hinted above, Chinese sanctions on Philippine banana exports in 2012 can be overstated according to close inspection of the data.10 Nevertheless, since 2016, three new episodes have reinforced the fact that China's punitive measures are a significant trend with potentially serious consequences for Asian economies: Taiwan 2016: Taiwanese politics have shifted away from mainland China in recent years. The "Sunflower Protests" of 2014 marked a shift in popular opinion away from the government's program of ever-deeper economic integration with the mainland. Local elections later that year set the stage for a sweeping victory by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), taking both the presidency and, for the first time, the legislature, in January 2016.11 Tsai is a proponent of eventual Taiwanese independence and dissents from key diplomatic agreements with the mainland, the "One China Policy" and "1992 Consensus." Within six months of the election Beijing had cut off diplomatic communication. Impact: The number of mainland visitors has nosedived, by contrast with global trends (Chart 10). Taiwan's exports and access to China's market are arguably weaker than they would otherwise be. Given the historic cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement in 2010, and the strong export growth in the immediate aftermath of that deal, it is curious that exports have been so weak since 2014 (Chart 11). Chart 9China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam Chart 10Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Chart 11So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? South Korea 2016-17: China and South Korea are on the cusp of improving relations after a year of Beijing-imposed sanctions. The former government of President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December 2016 and removed from office in March this year, moved rapidly with the U.S. to deploy the THAAD missile defense system on South Korean soil while her government was collapsing, so as to make it a fait accompli for her likely left-leaning (and more China-friendly) successor. Her government agreed to the deployment in July 2016 and since then China has exacted substantial economic costs via Korean exports and Chinese tourism.12 The new President Moon Jae-in is now calling on China to remove these sanctions, while initiating an "environmental review" that will delay deployment of THAAD, possibly permanently. Impact: South Korean exports to China have underperformed the regional trend throughout the downfall of the Park regime and its last-minute alliance-building measures with both the U.S. and Japan (Chart 12). South Korea has also lost market share in China since agreeing to host THAAD in July 2016 (Chart 13). Furthermore, Korean car sales on the mainland have deviated markedly both from their long-term historical trend and from Japan's contemporary sales (Chart 14), the inverse of what occurred in 2012 (see Chart 3 above). Chinese tourism to South Korea has sharply declined. Chart 12China Cools On Korean Imports China Cools On Korean Imports China Cools On Korean Imports Chart 13China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Chart 14Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump North Korea 2016-17: Ironically, China brought sanctions against both Koreas last year - the South for THAAD, the North for its unprecedented slate of missile and nuclear tests. These provoked the United States into pressuring China via "secondary sanctions." Impact: China's sanctions on the North - which include a potentially severe ban on coal imports - are limited so far, according to the headline trade data, as China is wary of destabilizing the hermit kingdom (Chart 15). But if China does grant President Trump's request and increase the economic pressure on North Korea, it will be no less of a sign of a greater willingness to utilize economic statecraft, especially given that the North is China's only formal ally. Other countries will not fail to see the implications should they, like either Korea, cross Beijing's interests. Bottom Line: Doubts about China's new foreign policy "assertiveness" are overstated. China is increasing its unilateral use of economic levers to pressure political regimes in its neighborhood, including major EMs like Taiwan and South Korea over the past year. Korean President Moon Jae-in's rise to power is likely to produce better Sino-Korean relations, but neither it nor Taiwan is out of the woods yet, according to the data. Moreover, the rest of the region may be cautious before accepting new U.S. military deployments or contravening China's demands in other ways. The Asian "Pivot To China" Over the past two years, several Asian states have begun to vacillate toward China, not because they fear American abandonment but because the U.S. "pivot" gave them so much security reassurance that it threatened to provoke conflict with China - essentially risking a new Cold War. They live on the frontlines and wanted to discourage this escalation. At the same time, the growth slump in China/EM in 2014 - followed by China's renewed stimulus in 2015 - encouraged these states to improve business with China. Thailand began to shift in 2014, when a military junta took power in a coup and sought external support. China's partnership did not come with strings attached, as opposed to that of the U.S., with its demands about democracy and civil rights.13 The rewards of this foreign policy shift are palpable (Chart 16). China signed some big investment deals and improved strategic cooperation through arms sales. It did the same with Malaysia for similar reasons.14 China's "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) economic development initiative provided ample opportunities for expanding ties. Chart 15No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet Chart 16China Opens Doors To Thai Junta China Opens Doors To Thai Junta China Opens Doors To Thai Junta The year 2016 was a major turning point. Three of China's neighbors - two of which U.S. allies - underwent domestic political transitions ushering in more favorable policies toward China: Vietnam: The Vietnamese Communist Party held its twelfth National Congress in January 2016. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, a pro-market reformer from the capitalist south, failed to secure the position of general secretary of the party and retired. The incumbent General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong retained his seat, and oversaw the promotion of key followers, strengthening Vietnam's pro-China faction. Since then Trong has visited President Xi in Beijing and signed a joint communique on improving strategic relations. As mentioned above, Vietnamese exports to China have exploded since tensions subsided in 2014. South Korea: In April 2016, South Korean legislative elections saw the left-leaning Democratic Party win a plurality of seats, setting the stage for the 2017 election discussed above, when Korea officially moved in a more China-friendly direction under President Moon. The Philippines: In May 2016, the Philippines elected Duterte, a firebrand southern populist who declared that the Philippines would "separate" itself from the U.S. and ally with Russia and China. Though Duterte has already modified his anti-American stance - as we expected - he is courting Chinese trade and investment at the expense of the Philippines' sovereignty concerns.15 Trump's election contributed to this regional trend. By suggesting a desire for the U.S. to stop playing defender of last resort in the region, Trump reinforced the need for allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea to go their own way. And by canceling the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump forced Malaysia and Vietnam to make amends with China, while vindicating those (like Thailand and Indonesia) that had remained aloof. Bottom Line: Having brandished its sticks, China is now offering carrots to states that recognize its growing regional influence. These do not have to be express measures, given that China is stimulating its economy and increasing outbound investment for its own reasons. All China need do is refrain from denying access to its market and investment funds. Whom Will China Sanction Next? Geopolitical risk on the Korean peninsula remains elevated given that North Korea remains in "provocation mode" and Trump has prioritized the issue. However, we expect that Moon will cooperate with China enough to give a boost to South Korean exports and China-exposed companies and sectors. With South Korea's shifting policy, Beijing has a major opportunity to demonstrate the positive economic rewards of pro-China foreign policy. If a new round of international negotiations gets under way and North Korean risk subsides for a time (our baseline view),16 then East Asian governments will turn to other interests. We see two key places of potential confrontation over the next 12-24 months: Taiwan is the top candidate for Chinese sanctions going forward. The cross-strait relationship is fraught and susceptible to tempests. The ruling DPP lacks domestic political constraints, which could be conducive to policy mistakes. Moreover, Trump has signaled his intention to strengthen the alliance with Taiwan, which could cause problems. China is likely to oppose the new $1.4 billion package of U.S. arms more actively than in the past, given its greater global heft. Trump's initial threat of altering the One China Policy has not been forgotten. In terms of timing, China may not want to give a tailwind to the DPP by acting overly aggressive ahead of the 2018 local elections, which are crucial for the opposition Kuomintang's attempt to revive in time for the 2020 presidential vote. But this is not a hard constraint on Beijing's imposing sanctions before then. Japan is the second-likeliest target of Chinese economic pressure. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is up for re-election no later than December 2018 and is becoming more vulnerable as he shifts emphasis from pocketbook issues to Japan's national security.17 Needless to say, the revival of the military is the part of Abe's agenda that Beijing most opposes. China would like to see Abe weakened, or voted out, and would especially like to see Abe's proposed constitutional revisions fail in the popular referendum slated for 2020. China would not want to strengthen Abe by provoking Japanese nationalism. But if Abe is losing support, and Beijing calculates that the Japanese public is starting to view Abe and his constitutional revisions as too provocative and destabilizing, then a well-timed diplomatic crisis with economic sanctions may be in order.18 Next in line are Hong Kong and Singapore, though Beijing has already largely gotten its way in recent disputes with the two city-states.19 Other possibilities on the horizon: The eventual return to a fractious civilian government in Thailand, or improved U.S.-Thai relations, could spoil China's infrastructure plans and sour its willingness to support an otherwise lackluster Thai economy. Also, a surprise victory by the opposition in Malaysian general elections (either this year or next) could see the recent rapprochement with China falter. The latter would be cyclical tensions, whereas suppressed structural tensions with Vietnam and the Philippines could boil back up to the surface fairly quickly at any time and provoke Chinese retaliation. Bottom Line: The most likely targets of Chinese economic sanctions in the near future are Taiwan and Japan. South Korea could remain a target if events should force Moon to abandon his policy agenda, though we see this as unlikely. Hong Kong and Singapore also remain in the danger zone, as do Vietnam and the Philippines in the long run. Investment Implications Cyclical and structural macro trends drive exports and investment trends in Asia Pacific. The biggest immediate risk to EM Asian economies stems not from Chinese sanctions - given that most of these economies have adjusted their policies to appease China to some extent - but from China's economic policy uncertainty, which remains at very elevated levels (Chart 17). It was after this uncertainty surged in 2015 that China's neighbors took on a more accommodating stance with a focus on economic cooperation rather than strategic balancing. Chart 17Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty Still Asia's Biggest Risk Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Currently Chinese economic policy uncertainty is hooking back up as a result of the decision by state authorities to intensify their financial crackdown - the so-called "deleveraging campaign." BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out that China's slowing fiscal and credit impulse will drag down both Chinese import volumes and emerging market corporate earnings in the coming months (Chart 18). Already commodity prices and commodity currencies have dropped off, heralding a broader slowdown in global trade as a result of China's policy tightening. This trend will overwhelm the effect of almost any new geopolitical spats or sanctions. The same can be said for Chinese investment as for Chinese trade. Over the past couple of decades, China has emerged as one of the world's leading sources of direct investment (Chart 19). This is a secular trend. Thus while foreign relations have affected China's investment patterns - most recently in giving the Philippines a boost under Duterte - the general trend of rising Chinese investment abroad will continue regardless of temporary quarrels. This is particularly true in light of China's efforts to energize OBOR. Chart 18China: Stimulus Fading China: Stimulus Fading China: Stimulus Fading Chart 19China's Emergence As Major Global Investor Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Does It Pay To Pivot To China? The key question is how will China's political favor or disfavor impact neighboring economies on the margin, in relative terms, on a sectoral basis, or in the short term? The evidence above feeds into several trends in relative equity performance: China fights either Japan or Korea: Going long Korea / short Japan would have paid off throughout the major Sino-Japanese tensions 2010-12, and would have paid off again during the South Korean impeachment rally (Chart 20). Of course, geopolitics is only one factor. But even Japan's economic shift in 2012 (Abenomics) is part of the geopolitical dynamic. Chart 20China Fights Either Japan Or Korea China Fights Either Japan Or Korea China Fights Either Japan Or Korea Chart 21Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's loss is Japan's gain: China's measures against Japanese exporters from 2010-12 coincided with a period of intense cross-strait economic integration that benefited Taiwanese exporters. Then Japan adopted Abenomics and dialed down tensions with China, and Taiwan underwent a pro-independence turn, provoking Beijing's displeasure (Chart 21). If one of these countries ends up quarreling with China in the near future, as we expect, the other country's exporters may reap the benefit. If relations worsen with both, South Korea stands to gain. Favor EM reformers: Vietnamese and Philippine equities outperformed EM from 2011-16 despite heightened tensions in the South China Sea (Chart 22). During this time, we recommended an overweight position on both countries relative to EM, even though we took the maritime tensions very seriously, because we favored EM reformers and both countries were undertaking structural reforms.20 Later, in May 2016, we downgraded the Philippines to neutral, expecting a loss of reform momentum after Duterte's election. The Philippines has notably underperformed the EM equity benchmark since that time.21 The "One China Policy": We closed out our "long One China Policy" trade on June 14 as a result of China's persistence in its crackdown on the banks, which we see as very risky.22 However, we may reinitiate the trade in the future, as Hong Kong and Taiwan remain vulnerable both to the slowdown in globalization and to Beijing's sanctions over deepening political differences (Chart 23). Chart 22Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Chart 23The 'One China Policy' As A Trade The 'One China Policy' As A Trade The 'One China Policy' As A Trade From Sunshine to Moonshine: South Korea's Moon Jae-in has substantial political capital and we expect that he will succeed in boosting growth, wages, and the social security net, all of which will be bullish for South Korean consumer stocks. Yet we remain wary of the fact that North Korea is not yet falling into line with new negotiations. A way to hedge is to go long the South Korean consumer relative to Taiwanese exporters (Chart 24), which will live under the shadow of Beijing's disfavor at least until the 2020 elections, if not beyond. Taiwan has also allowed its currency to appreciate notably against the USD since Trump's post-election phone call with President Tsai, which is negative for Taiwanese exporters. Chart 24Go Long Korean Consumer /##br## Short Taiwanese Exporter Go Long Korean Consumer / Short Taiwanese Exporter Go Long Korean Consumer / Short Taiwanese Exporter China's sanctions are essentially a "slap on the wrist" in economic terms. But sometimes they reflect deeper structural tensions, and thus they may foreshadow far more damaging clashes down the road that could have longer term consequences, just as the Sino-Japanese incident of 2012 demonstrated. That is all the more reason to hedge one's bets on Taiwan today. These sanctions are bound to recur and will provide investors with trading opportunities, if not long-term investment themes. It will pay to capitalize quickly at the outset of any serious increase in tensions going forward. As a final word, the Trump administration's recent moves to impose economic penalties on China - namely through "secondary sanctions" due to North Korea, but also through potential trade tariffs and/or penalties related to human trafficking and human rights - highlight the fact that the use of unilateral sanctions is not limited to China. Geopolitical risk is rising in Asia as a result of actions on both sides of the Pacific. Sino-American antagonism in particular poses the greatest geopolitical danger to global markets, as we have frequently emphasized.23 And as Trump's domestic agenda struggles he will seek to get tougher on China, as he promised to his populist base on the campaign trail. In the event of a major geopolitical crisis in the region, we recommend the same mix of safe-haven assets that we have recommended in the past: U.S. treasuries, Swiss bonds, JGBs, and gold.24 Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our longstanding investment theme of rising geopolitical risk in East Asia, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Market Equity Sector and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" dated June 27, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, Moon is walking a tight rope in relation to the United States. During his visit to Washington on June 29, he assured Congressman Paul Ryan among others that he did not necessarily intend to reverse the THAAD agreement as a whole. That would depend on the outcome of the environmental review and due legal process in South Korea as well as on whether North Korea's behavior makes the missile defense system necessary. Please see Kim Ji-eun, "In US Congress, Pres. Moon Highlights Democratic Values Of Alliance With US," The Hankyoreh, July 1, 2017, available at English.hani.co.kr. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeffrey R. Dundon, "Triggers of Chinese Economic Coercion," Naval Postgraduate School, September, 2014, available at calhoun.nps.edu. 6 For a very conservative estimate of China's actions during the Haiyang Shiyou 981 incident, please see Angela Poh, "The Myth Of Chinese Sanctions Over South China Sea Disputes," Washington Quarterly 40:1 (2017), pp. 143-165. 7 Please see "Vietnam Party official heads to China to defuse tensions," Thanh Nien Daily, August 25, 2014, available at www.thanhniennews.com. 8 Please see Faqin Lin, Cui Hu, and Andreas Fuchs, "How Do Firms Respond To Political Tensions? The Heterogeneity Of The Dalai Lama Effect On Trade," University of Heidelberg Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series 628, August 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. This study improves upon earlier ones, notably Andreas Fuchs and Nils-Hendrik Klann, "Paying A Visit: The Dalai Lama Effect On International Trade," Journal Of International Economics 91 (2013), pp 164-77. See also Christina L. Davis, Andreas Fuchs, and Kristina Johnson, "State Control And The Effects Of Foreign Relations On Bilateral Trade," October 16, 2016, MPRA Paper No. 74597, available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74597/ ; Yinghua He, Ulf Nielsson, and Yonglei Wang, "Hurting Without Hitting: The Economic Cost of Political Tension," Toulouse School of Economics Working Papers 14-484 (July 2015), available at econpapers.repec.org; Raymond Fisman, Yasushi Hamao, and Yongxiang Wang, "Nationalism and Economic Exchange: Evidence from Shocks to Sino-Japanese Relations," NBER Working Paper 20089 (May 2014) available at www.nber.org; Scott L. Kastner, "Buying Influence? Assessing the Political Effects of China's International Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution 60:6 (2016), pp. 980-1007. 9 The "Dalai Lama effect," in which countries that host a visit from the Dalai Lama suffer Chinese trade retaliation, has been revised downward over the years - the trade costs are only statistically significant in the second quarter after the visit. Please see "How Do Firms Respond," cited in footnote 8. 10 See "Myth Of Chinese Sanctions," cited in footnote 6. Chinese sanctions on Norwegian salmon exports after Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 also fall under this category. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Lee Ho-Jeong, "Thaad may lead to $7.5B in economic losses in 2017," Joongang Daily, May 4, 2017, available at www.joongangdaily.com. 13 Please see Ian Storey, "Thailand's Post-Coup Relations With China And America: More Beijing, Less Washington," Yusof Ishak Institute, Trends in Southeast Asia 20 (2015). 14 Malaysia began to move closer to China after its 2013 election, which initiated a period of political turbulence and scandal. This trend, along with economic slowdown, prompted the ruling coalition to turn to Beijing for support. 15 He is also, as current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), assisting China's negotiations toward settling a "Code of Conduct" in the South China Sea. This is not likely to be a binding agreement - China will not voluntarily reverse its strategic maritime-territorial gains - but it could dampen tensions for a time in the region and encourage better relations between China and Southeast Asia. For the 2016 Asian pivot to China discussed above, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The LDP's dramatic defeat in Tokyo's local elections on July 2 is the first tangible sign that the constitutional agenda, Abe's corruption scandals, and the emergence of a competing political leader, Yuriko Koike, are taking a toll on the LDP. 18 Also, Beijing may at any point rotate its maritime assertiveness back to the East China Sea, where tensions with Japan have quieted since 2013-14. Further, Beijing will want to exploit worsening relations between Japan and South Korea, and drive a wedge between Japan and Russia as they attempt a historic diplomatic thaw. 19 Beijing is attempting to steal a march on these states, especially in finance, while putting pressure on them to avoid activities that undermine Beijing's regional influence. So far there is only small evidence that tensions have affected trade. First, Hong Kong saw a drop in tourists and a block on cultural exports amid the Umbrella Protests of 2014. China's central government has acted aggressively over the past year to suppress Hong Kong agitation, by excluding rebel lawmakers from office and by drawing a "red line" against undermining Chinese sovereignty. Yet agitation will persist because of the frustration of local political forces and the youth, both of which resent the mainland's increasing heavy-handedness. Meanwhile, China and Singapore are in the process this month of improving relations after the November-January spat relating to Singapore-Taiwanese military ties. But China's encroachment on Singapore's traditional advantages - finance, oil refining, freedom of navigation, strong military relations with the U.S. and Taiwan, political stability - is likely to continue. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, "Geopolitical Risk: A Golden Opportunity?" dated July 9, 2014, and "In Need Of Global Political Recapitalization," dated June 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Buy Vietnamese Stocks," dated July 17, 2015, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk," dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Unilateral economic sanctions show that geopolitical risks are rising in Asia Pacific; China is using sanctions to get its way with its neighbors; South Korea was the latest victim, and will be rewarded for its pro-China shift; Trump's Mar-a-Lago honeymoon with Xi Jinping is over; Tactically, go long South Korean consumers / short Taiwanese exporters. Feature Geopolitical risk is shifting to the Asia Pacific region - and the increasing use of economic sanctions is evidence of the trend. Korean stocks have rallied sharply since the leadership change from December 2016 through May of this year (Chart 1). The impeachment rally was entirely expected after a year of domestic political turmoil.1 The election is also eventually expected to decrease Korean geopolitical risks - the country's new President Moon Jae-in, of the left-leaning Democratic Party, aims to patch up relations with China and revive diplomacy with North Korea.2 Chart 1South Korean Impeachment Rally Over South Korean Impeachment Rally Over South Korean Impeachment Rally Over A key barometer of Moon's success will be whether he convinces China to remove economic sanctions imposed since last summer as punishment for his predecessor's agreement to host the U.S. THAAD missile defense system. Moon has suspended the system's deployment in a nod to China.3 South Korea is thus the latest example of an important trend in the region: China's successful use of "economic statecraft" to pressure wayward neighbors into closer alignment with its interests. Since 2014, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines have each sought in different ways to reorient their foreign policies toward China, either to court Chinese assistance or get relief from Chinese pressure. Judging by our research below, the rewards are palpable, and a sign of Beijing's rising global influence. Because U.S.-China tensions are rising structurally, we see these country-by-country shifts toward China not as a decisive loss for the U.S. alliance but rather as the latest phase in a long game of tug-of-war that will intensify in the coming years.4 Hence the trend of unilateral economic sanctions will continue. Who is next on China's hit list? How will the U.S. respond? What countries are most and least likely to be affected? And what are the market implications? China's Economic Statecraft The United States launched a "pivot to Asia" strategy under the Obama administration to reassert American primacy in Asia Pacific and address the emerging challenge from China. The U.S.'s Asian partners largely welcomed this shift. Over the preceding decade, they had struggled with China's emergence as a military and strategic superior. The most prominent flashpoints came in the East and South China Seas. Beijing's newfound naval and air power caused regional anxiety. As the allies invited a larger U.S. role, Beijing began to assert its sovereignty claims over disputed waters and rocks, most ambitiously by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea and fortifying them with military capabilities. In three notable periods since the Great Recession, China's tensions with its neighbors have splashed over into the economic realm, prompting Beijing to impose punitive measures: Chart 2Japan's 2012 Clash With China Japan's 2012 Clash With China Japan's 2012 Clash With China Chart 3Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Chinese Boycotted Japanese Cars... Japan 2010-2012: In 2010, China and Japan clashed as the former challenged Japan's control of the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands in the East China Sea. In the September-November 2010 clash, China notoriously cut off exports of rare earths to Japan.5 A greater clash occurred from July-November 2012. Chinese people rose up in large-scale protests, damaging Japanese and other foreign property and assets. Impact: The growth of Japanese exports to China slowed noticeably between the 2010 and 2012 clashes, underperforming both that of China's neighbors and Europe (Chart 2). In particular, Chinese consumers stopped buying as many Japanese cars and switched to other brands (Chart 3). Chinese investment in Japan, which is generally very small, fell sharply in the year after the major 2012 clash, by contrast with the global trend (Chart 4). Chinese tourism to Japan also fell sharply after both incidents, though only for a short period of time (Chart 5). Chart 4...And Cut Investments In Japan... ...And Cut Investments In Japan... ...And Cut Investments In Japan... Chart 5...While Tourists Went Elsewhere ...While Tourists Went Elsewhere ...While Tourists Went Elsewhere Philippines 2012-2016: Tensions between China and the Philippines over the contested Spratly Islands and other rocks in the South China Sea have a long history. The latest round began in the mid-2000s, and the two countries have skirmished many times since then, including in a major showdown at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 that required the intercession of the United States to be resolved. The pressure intensified after January 2013, when the Philippines brought a high-profile case against China's maritime-territorial claims to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. The U.S. and the Philippines upped the ante in April 2014 by signing an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. Ultimately, the court dealt a humiliating blow to China's maritime-territorial claims in July 2016, but a bigger confrontation was avoided because of what had happened in the remarkable May 2016 Philippine elections, which put China-friendly populist President Rodrigo Duterte in Manila on July 1. Impact: China tightened phytosanitary restrictions on Philippine bananas during the 2012 crisis and Philippine exports to China underperformed those of its neighbors after the onset of diplomatic crisis in 2013 (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall impact on headline exports is debatable. Tourism suffered straightforwardly both after the 2012 showdown at sea and after the new U.S.-Philippines military deal in 2014 (Chart 7). As with Japan, the impact was temporary. Chart 6Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Philippine Clash With China Over Sovereignty Chart 7Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Chinese Tourists Snub The Philippines Vietnam 2011-14: China's quarrels with Vietnam go back millennia, but in recent years have centered on the South China Sea. As with the Philippines, frictions began rising in the mid-2000s and flared up after the global financial crisis. In the summer of 2012, Vietnam and China engaged in a dispute over new laws encompassing their territorial claims. In May 2014, the two countries fought a highly unorthodox sea-battle near the Paracel Islands. Anti-Chinese protests erupted throughout Vietnam, prompting China to restrict travel.6 Impact: It is not clear that China imposed trade measures against Vietnam - export growth was plummeting in 2012 because of China's nominal GDP slowdown as well - but certainly exports skyrocketed after the two sides began tothaw diplomatic relations in August 2014 (Chart 8).7 Direct investment from China into Vietnam fell in 2014, even as that from the rest of the world rose. Chinese tourism to Vietnam shrank in the aftermath. Chart 8Vietnam Reboots China Trade Vietnam Reboots China Trade Vietnam Reboots China Trade The above incidents complement a growing body of academic research demonstrating China's use of unilateral economic sanctions and their trade and market impacts.8 Bottom Line: China has employed unilateral, informal, and discrete economic sanctions and has encouraged or condoned citizen boycotts and popular activism against Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, and other states since at least the early 2000s. Moreover, three international confrontations since 2010 suggest that China's foreign policy is growing bolder - it is not afraid to throw its economic weight around to get what it wants politically or to deter countries from challenging its interests. How Significant Is China's Wrath? Both our evidence and the scholarly literature reveal that China-inflicted economic damage tends to be temporary and sometimes ambiguous from a macro-perspective.9 For instance, if there were negative trade effects of Vietnam's 2014 clash with China, they were overwhelmed by Vietnam's rising share of China's market in the following years (Chart 9). And, as hinted above, Chinese sanctions on Philippine banana exports in 2012 can be overstated according to close inspection of the data.10 Nevertheless, since 2016, three new episodes have reinforced the fact that China's punitive measures are a significant trend with potentially serious consequences for Asian economies: Taiwan 2016: Taiwanese politics have shifted away from mainland China in recent years. The "Sunflower Protests" of 2014 marked a shift in popular opinion away from the government's program of ever-deeper economic integration with the mainland. Local elections later that year set the stage for a sweeping victory by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), taking both the presidency and, for the first time, the legislature, in January 2016.11 Tsai is a proponent of eventual Taiwanese independence and dissents from key diplomatic agreements with the mainland, the "One China Policy" and "1992 Consensus." Within six months of the election Beijing had cut off diplomatic communication. Impact: The number of mainland visitors has nosedived, by contrast with global trends (Chart 10). Taiwan's exports and access to China's market are arguably weaker than they would otherwise be. Given the historic cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement in 2010, and the strong export growth in the immediate aftermath of that deal, it is curious that exports have been so weak since 2014 (Chart 11). Chart 9China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam China Flings Open Doors To Vietnam Chart 10Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Chart 11So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? So Much For Cross-Strait Trade Deals? South Korea 2016-17: China and South Korea are on the cusp of improving relations after a year of Beijing-imposed sanctions. The former government of President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December 2016 and removed from office in March this year, moved rapidly with the U.S. to deploy the THAAD missile defense system on South Korean soil while her government was collapsing, so as to make it a fait accompli for her likely left-leaning (and more China-friendly) successor. Her government agreed to the deployment in July 2016 and since then China has exacted substantial economic costs via Korean exports and Chinese tourism.12 The new President Moon Jae-in is now calling on China to remove these sanctions, while initiating an "environmental review" that will delay deployment of THAAD, possibly permanently. Impact: South Korean exports to China have underperformed the regional trend throughout the downfall of the Park regime and its last-minute alliance-building measures with both the U.S. and Japan (Chart 12). South Korea has also lost market share in China since agreeing to host THAAD in July 2016 (Chart 13). Furthermore, Korean car sales on the mainland have deviated markedly both from their long-term historical trend and from Japan's contemporary sales (Chart 14), the inverse of what occurred in 2012 (see Chart 3 above). Chinese tourism to South Korea has sharply declined. Chart 12China Cools On Korean Imports China Cools On Korean Imports China Cools On Korean Imports Chart 13China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Chart 14Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump Korean Car Sales And Tourist Sales Slump North Korea 2016-17: Ironically, China brought sanctions against both Koreas last year - the South for THAAD, the North for its unprecedented slate of missile and nuclear tests. These provoked the United States into pressuring China via "secondary sanctions." Impact: China's sanctions on the North - which include a potentially severe ban on coal imports - are limited so far, according to the headline trade data, as China is wary of destabilizing the hermit kingdom (Chart 15). But if China does grant President Trump's request and increase the economic pressure on North Korea, it will be no less of a sign of a greater willingness to utilize economic statecraft, especially given that the North is China's only formal ally. Other countries will not fail to see the implications should they, like either Korea, cross Beijing's interests. Bottom Line: Doubts about China's new foreign policy "assertiveness" are overstated. China is increasing its unilateral use of economic levers to pressure political regimes in its neighborhood, including major EMs like Taiwan and South Korea over the past year. Korean President Moon Jae-in's rise to power is likely to produce better Sino-Korean relations, but neither it nor Taiwan is out of the woods yet, according to the data. Moreover, the rest of the region may be cautious before accepting new U.S. military deployments or contravening China's demands in other ways. The Asian "Pivot To China" Over the past two years, several Asian states have begun to vacillate toward China, not because they fear American abandonment but because the U.S. "pivot" gave them so much security reassurance that it threatened to provoke conflict with China - essentially risking a new Cold War. They live on the frontlines and wanted to discourage this escalation. At the same time, the growth slump in China/EM in 2014 - followed by China's renewed stimulus in 2015 - encouraged these states to improve business with China. Thailand began to shift in 2014, when a military junta took power in a coup and sought external support. China's partnership did not come with strings attached, as opposed to that of the U.S., with its demands about democracy and civil rights.13 The rewards of this foreign policy shift are palpable (Chart 16). China signed some big investment deals and improved strategic cooperation through arms sales. It did the same with Malaysia for similar reasons.14 China's "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) economic development initiative provided ample opportunities for expanding ties. Chart 15No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet No Chinese Embargo On North Korea... Yet Chart 16China Opens Doors To Thai Junta China Opens Doors To Thai Junta China Opens Doors To Thai Junta The year 2016 was a major turning point. Three of China's neighbors - two of which U.S. allies - underwent domestic political transitions ushering in more favorable policies toward China: Vietnam: The Vietnamese Communist Party held its twelfth National Congress in January 2016. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, a pro-market reformer from the capitalist south, failed to secure the position of general secretary of the party and retired. The incumbent General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong retained his seat, and oversaw the promotion of key followers, strengthening Vietnam's pro-China faction. Since then Trong has visited President Xi in Beijing and signed a joint communique on improving strategic relations. As mentioned above, Vietnamese exports to China have exploded since tensions subsided in 2014. South Korea: In April 2016, South Korean legislative elections saw the left-leaning Democratic Party win a plurality of seats, setting the stage for the 2017 election discussed above, when Korea officially moved in a more China-friendly direction under President Moon. The Philippines: In May 2016, the Philippines elected Duterte, a firebrand southern populist who declared that the Philippines would "separate" itself from the U.S. and ally with Russia and China. Though Duterte has already modified his anti-American stance - as we expected - he is courting Chinese trade and investment at the expense of the Philippines' sovereignty concerns.15 Trump's election contributed to this regional trend. By suggesting a desire for the U.S. to stop playing defender of last resort in the region, Trump reinforced the need for allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea to go their own way. And by canceling the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump forced Malaysia and Vietnam to make amends with China, while vindicating those (like Thailand and Indonesia) that had remained aloof. Bottom Line: Having brandished its sticks, China is now offering carrots to states that recognize its growing regional influence. These do not have to be express measures, given that China is stimulating its economy and increasing outbound investment for its own reasons. All China need do is refrain from denying access to its market and investment funds. Whom Will China Sanction Next? Geopolitical risk on the Korean peninsula remains elevated given that North Korea remains in "provocation mode" and Trump has prioritized the issue. However, we expect that Moon will cooperate with China enough to give a boost to South Korean exports and China-exposed companies and sectors. With South Korea's shifting policy, Beijing has a major opportunity to demonstrate the positive economic rewards of pro-China foreign policy. If a new round of international negotiations gets under way and North Korean risk subsides for a time (our baseline view),16 then East Asian governments will turn to other interests. We see two key places of potential confrontation over the next 12-24 months: Taiwan is the top candidate for Chinese sanctions going forward. The cross-strait relationship is fraught and susceptible to tempests. The ruling DPP lacks domestic political constraints, which could be conducive to policy mistakes. Moreover, Trump has signaled his intention to strengthen the alliance with Taiwan, which could cause problems. China is likely to oppose the new $1.4 billion package of U.S. arms more actively than in the past, given its greater global heft. Trump's initial threat of altering the One China Policy has not been forgotten. In terms of timing, China may not want to give a tailwind to the DPP by acting overly aggressive ahead of the 2018 local elections, which are crucial for the opposition Kuomintang's attempt to revive in time for the 2020 presidential vote. But this is not a hard constraint on Beijing's imposing sanctions before then. Japan is the second-likeliest target of Chinese economic pressure. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is up for re-election no later than December 2018 and is becoming more vulnerable as he shifts emphasis from pocketbook issues to Japan's national security.17 Needless to say, the revival of the military is the part of Abe's agenda that Beijing most opposes. China would like to see Abe weakened, or voted out, and would especially like to see Abe's proposed constitutional revisions fail in the popular referendum slated for 2020. China would not want to strengthen Abe by provoking Japanese nationalism. But if Abe is losing support, and Beijing calculates that the Japanese public is starting to view Abe and his constitutional revisions as too provocative and destabilizing, then a well-timed diplomatic crisis with economic sanctions may be in order.18 Next in line are Hong Kong and Singapore, though Beijing has already largely gotten its way in recent disputes with the two city-states.19 Other possibilities on the horizon: The eventual return to a fractious civilian government in Thailand, or improved U.S.-Thai relations, could spoil China's infrastructure plans and sour its willingness to support an otherwise lackluster Thai economy. Also, a surprise victory by the opposition in Malaysian general elections (either this year or next) could see the recent rapprochement with China falter. The latter would be cyclical tensions, whereas suppressed structural tensions with Vietnam and the Philippines could boil back up to the surface fairly quickly at any time and provoke Chinese retaliation. Bottom Line: The most likely targets of Chinese economic sanctions in the near future are Taiwan and Japan. South Korea could remain a target if events should force Moon to abandon his policy agenda, though we see this as unlikely. Hong Kong and Singapore also remain in the danger zone, as do Vietnam and the Philippines in the long run. Investment Implications Cyclical and structural macro trends drive exports and investment trends in Asia Pacific. The biggest immediate risk to EM Asian economies stems not from Chinese sanctions - given that most of these economies have adjusted their policies to appease China to some extent - but from China's economic policy uncertainty, which remains at very elevated levels (Chart 17). It was after this uncertainty surged in 2015 that China's neighbors took on a more accommodating stance with a focus on economic cooperation rather than strategic balancing. Chart 17Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty Still Asia's Biggest Risk Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Currently Chinese economic policy uncertainty is hooking back up as a result of the decision by state authorities to intensify their financial crackdown - the so-called "deleveraging campaign." BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out that China's slowing fiscal and credit impulse will drag down both Chinese import volumes and emerging market corporate earnings in the coming months (Chart 18). Already commodity prices and commodity currencies have dropped off, heralding a broader slowdown in global trade as a result of China's policy tightening. This trend will overwhelm the effect of almost any new geopolitical spats or sanctions. The same can be said for Chinese investment as for Chinese trade. Over the past couple of decades, China has emerged as one of the world's leading sources of direct investment (Chart 19). This is a secular trend. Thus while foreign relations have affected China's investment patterns - most recently in giving the Philippines a boost under Duterte - the general trend of rising Chinese investment abroad will continue regardless of temporary quarrels. This is particularly true in light of China's efforts to energize OBOR. Chart 18China: Stimulus Fading China: Stimulus Fading China: Stimulus Fading Chart 19China's Emergence As Major Global Investor Does It Pay To Pivot To China? Does It Pay To Pivot To China? The key question is how will China's political favor or disfavor impact neighboring economies on the margin, in relative terms, on a sectoral basis, or in the short term? The evidence above feeds into several trends in relative equity performance: China fights either Japan or Korea: Going long Korea / short Japan would have paid off throughout the major Sino-Japanese tensions 2010-12, and would have paid off again during the South Korean impeachment rally (Chart 20). Of course, geopolitics is only one factor. But even Japan's economic shift in 2012 (Abenomics) is part of the geopolitical dynamic. Chart 20China Fights Either Japan Or Korea China Fights Either Japan Or Korea China Fights Either Japan Or Korea Chart 21Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's Loss = Japan's Gain Taiwan's loss is Japan's gain: China's measures against Japanese exporters from 2010-12 coincided with a period of intense cross-strait economic integration that benefited Taiwanese exporters. Then Japan adopted Abenomics and dialed down tensions with China, and Taiwan underwent a pro-independence turn, provoking Beijing's displeasure (Chart 21). If one of these countries ends up quarreling with China in the near future, as we expect, the other country's exporters may reap the benefit. If relations worsen with both, South Korea stands to gain. Favor EM reformers: Vietnamese and Philippine equities outperformed EM from 2011-16 despite heightened tensions in the South China Sea (Chart 22). During this time, we recommended an overweight position on both countries relative to EM, even though we took the maritime tensions very seriously, because we favored EM reformers and both countries were undertaking structural reforms.20 Later, in May 2016, we downgraded the Philippines to neutral, expecting a loss of reform momentum after Duterte's election. The Philippines has notably underperformed the EM equity benchmark since that time.21 The "One China Policy": We closed out our "long One China Policy" trade on June 14 as a result of China's persistence in its crackdown on the banks, which we see as very risky.22 However, we may reinitiate the trade in the future, as Hong Kong and Taiwan remain vulnerable both to the slowdown in globalization and to Beijing's sanctions over deepening political differences (Chart 23). Chart 22Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Reforms Pay... Even During Island Tensions Chart 23The 'One China Policy' As A Trade The 'One China Policy' As A Trade The 'One China Policy' As A Trade From Sunshine to Moonshine: South Korea's Moon Jae-in has substantial political capital and we expect that he will succeed in boosting growth, wages, and the social security net, all of which will be bullish for South Korean consumer stocks. Yet we remain wary of the fact that North Korea is not yet falling into line with new negotiations. A way to hedge is to go long the South Korean consumer relative to Taiwanese exporters (Chart 24), which will live under the shadow of Beijing's disfavor at least until the 2020 elections, if not beyond. Taiwan has also allowed its currency to appreciate notably against the USD since Trump's post-election phone call with President Tsai, which is negative for Taiwanese exporters. Chart 24Go Long Korean Consumer /##br## Short Taiwanese Exporter Go Long Korean Consumer / Short Taiwanese Exporter Go Long Korean Consumer / Short Taiwanese Exporter China's sanctions are essentially a "slap on the wrist" in economic terms. But sometimes they reflect deeper structural tensions, and thus they may foreshadow far more damaging clashes down the road that could have longer term consequences, just as the Sino-Japanese incident of 2012 demonstrated. That is all the more reason to hedge one's bets on Taiwan today. These sanctions are bound to recur and will provide investors with trading opportunities, if not long-term investment themes. It will pay to capitalize quickly at the outset of any serious increase in tensions going forward. As a final word, the Trump administration's recent moves to impose economic penalties on China - namely through "secondary sanctions" due to North Korea, but also through potential trade tariffs and/or penalties related to human trafficking and human rights - highlight the fact that the use of unilateral sanctions is not limited to China. Geopolitical risk is rising in Asia as a result of actions on both sides of the Pacific. Sino-American antagonism in particular poses the greatest geopolitical danger to global markets, as we have frequently emphasized.23 And as Trump's domestic agenda struggles he will seek to get tougher on China, as he promised to his populist base on the campaign trail. In the event of a major geopolitical crisis in the region, we recommend the same mix of safe-haven assets that we have recommended in the past: U.S. treasuries, Swiss bonds, JGBs, and gold.24 Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our longstanding investment theme of rising geopolitical risk in East Asia, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Market Equity Sector and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" dated June 27, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, Moon is walking a tight rope in relation to the United States. During his visit to Washington on June 29, he assured Congressman Paul Ryan among others that he did not necessarily intend to reverse the THAAD agreement as a whole. That would depend on the outcome of the environmental review and due legal process in South Korea as well as on whether North Korea's behavior makes the missile defense system necessary. Please see Kim Ji-eun, "In US Congress, Pres. Moon Highlights Democratic Values Of Alliance With US," The Hankyoreh, July 1, 2017, available at English.hani.co.kr. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeffrey R. Dundon, "Triggers of Chinese Economic Coercion," Naval Postgraduate School, September, 2014, available at calhoun.nps.edu. 6 For a very conservative estimate of China's actions during the Haiyang Shiyou 981 incident, please see Angela Poh, "The Myth Of Chinese Sanctions Over South China Sea Disputes," Washington Quarterly 40:1 (2017), pp. 143-165. 7 Please see "Vietnam Party official heads to China to defuse tensions," Thanh Nien Daily, August 25, 2014, available at www.thanhniennews.com. 8 Please see Faqin Lin, Cui Hu, and Andreas Fuchs, "How Do Firms Respond To Political Tensions? The Heterogeneity Of The Dalai Lama Effect On Trade," University of Heidelberg Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series 628, August 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. This study improves upon earlier ones, notably Andreas Fuchs and Nils-Hendrik Klann, "Paying A Visit: The Dalai Lama Effect On International Trade," Journal Of International Economics 91 (2013), pp 164-77. See also Christina L. Davis, Andreas Fuchs, and Kristina Johnson, "State Control And The Effects Of Foreign Relations On Bilateral Trade," October 16, 2016, MPRA Paper No. 74597, available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74597/ ; Yinghua He, Ulf Nielsson, and Yonglei Wang, "Hurting Without Hitting: The Economic Cost of Political Tension," Toulouse School of Economics Working Papers 14-484 (July 2015), available at econpapers.repec.org; Raymond Fisman, Yasushi Hamao, and Yongxiang Wang, "Nationalism and Economic Exchange: Evidence from Shocks to Sino-Japanese Relations," NBER Working Paper 20089 (May 2014) available at www.nber.org; Scott L. Kastner, "Buying Influence? Assessing the Political Effects of China's International Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution 60:6 (2016), pp. 980-1007. 9 The "Dalai Lama effect," in which countries that host a visit from the Dalai Lama suffer Chinese trade retaliation, has been revised downward over the years - the trade costs are only statistically significant in the second quarter after the visit. Please see "How Do Firms Respond," cited in footnote 8. 10 See "Myth Of Chinese Sanctions," cited in footnote 6. Chinese sanctions on Norwegian salmon exports after Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 also fall under this category. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Lee Ho-Jeong, "Thaad may lead to $7.5B in economic losses in 2017," Joongang Daily, May 4, 2017, available at www.joongangdaily.com. 13 Please see Ian Storey, "Thailand's Post-Coup Relations With China And America: More Beijing, Less Washington," Yusof Ishak Institute, Trends in Southeast Asia 20 (2015). 14 Malaysia began to move closer to China after its 2013 election, which initiated a period of political turbulence and scandal. This trend, along with economic slowdown, prompted the ruling coalition to turn to Beijing for support. 15 He is also, as current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), assisting China's negotiations toward settling a "Code of Conduct" in the South China Sea. This is not likely to be a binding agreement - China will not voluntarily reverse its strategic maritime-territorial gains - but it could dampen tensions for a time in the region and encourage better relations between China and Southeast Asia. For the 2016 Asian pivot to China discussed above, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The LDP's dramatic defeat in Tokyo's local elections on July 2 is the first tangible sign that the constitutional agenda, Abe's corruption scandals, and the emergence of a competing political leader, Yuriko Koike, are taking a toll on the LDP. 18 Also, Beijing may at any point rotate its maritime assertiveness back to the East China Sea, where tensions with Japan have quieted since 2013-14. Further, Beijing will want to exploit worsening relations between Japan and South Korea, and drive a wedge between Japan and Russia as they attempt a historic diplomatic thaw. 19 Beijing is attempting to steal a march on these states, especially in finance, while putting pressure on them to avoid activities that undermine Beijing's regional influence. So far there is only small evidence that tensions have affected trade. First, Hong Kong saw a drop in tourists and a block on cultural exports amid the Umbrella Protests of 2014. China's central government has acted aggressively over the past year to suppress Hong Kong agitation, by excluding rebel lawmakers from office and by drawing a "red line" against undermining Chinese sovereignty. Yet agitation will persist because of the frustration of local political forces and the youth, both of which resent the mainland's increasing heavy-handedness. Meanwhile, China and Singapore are in the process this month of improving relations after the November-January spat relating to Singapore-Taiwanese military ties. But China's encroachment on Singapore's traditional advantages - finance, oil refining, freedom of navigation, strong military relations with the U.S. and Taiwan, political stability - is likely to continue. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, "Geopolitical Risk: A Golden Opportunity?" dated July 9, 2014, and "In Need Of Global Political Recapitalization," dated June 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Buy Vietnamese Stocks," dated July 17, 2015, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk," dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.