Financial Markets

Highlights Investment Grade: Investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months. The bonds are also likely to outperform duration-matched Treasuries during that period, but excess returns are probably capped at 85 bps. High-Yield: High-yield total returns will fall between -0.29% and +1.80% during the next 12 months, but with a much higher likelihood of being positive than investment grade corporates. Junk will outperform duration-matched Treasuries by between 0.94% and 1.84%, besting the excess returns earned in investment grade. Inflation & The Fed: The Fed will announce asset purchase tapering before the end of this year, and tapering will proceed at a pace that opens the door to a potential rate hike before the end of 2022. Ultimately, whether the Fed lifts rates in 2022 will depend on trends in core CPI excluding COVID-impacted services and autos, along with wage growth and inflation expectations. Feature Chart 1Valuations Are Stretched Valuations Are Stretched Valuations Are Stretched There are two broad factors that must be considered when deciding whether to favor corporate bonds over Treasuries in a US bond portfolio: (i) The cyclical macroeconomic environment and (ii) valuation. The problem is that, as it stands today, these two factors are sending contrasting signals. The cyclical macroeconomic environment is consistent with strong positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. However, corporate bond spreads and yields are extremely low relative to history (Chart 1). We view the slope of the yield curve as the single best indicator of the cyclical macro environment and have shown in prior research that corporate bonds tend to deliver positive excess returns versus Treasuries when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, even when corporate spreads are tight.1 At present, the 3-year/10-year slope sits at 90 bps and our bias will be toward an overweight allocation to corporates until the slope breaks below 50 bps. A flatter yield curve is negative for corporate bond performance because it suggests that monetary conditions are less accommodative. It also makes it more likely that an unforeseen shock will lead to yield curve inversion, a highly reliable recession indicator. While the macro environment is consistent with continued corporate bond outperformance versus Treasuries, valuation suggests that we should anticipate lower returns than usual from corporate bonds. Table 1 shows annualized corporate bond excess returns during each of the past six cycles. Additionally, it splits each cycle into three phases based on the slope of the 3-year/10-year Treasury curve. Phase 1 of the cycle lasts from the end of the prior recession until the slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 lasts from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Table 1Corporate Bond Excess Returns In Different Phases Of The Cycle Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds The first conclusion to draw from Table 1 is that excess returns tend to be lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1 and lower in Phase 3 than in Phase 2. Second, we see that investment grade corporates have returned an annualized 7.55% in excess of duration-matched Treasuries so far this cycle and high-yield corporates have delivered 15.15% of outperformance. These figures are well above even those seen in prior Phase 1 periods. Based on this, an expectation for lower – but still positive – excess corporate bond returns seems like a reasonable base case for the next 6-12 months. Table 2 is identical to Table 1 except that it shows total returns instead of excess returns. We observe that, so far this cycle, junk bond total returns have outpaced prior Phase 1 periods. Investment grade total returns have been slightly lower given the greater exposure to interest rate risk of those securities. Table 2Corporate Bond Total Returns In Different Phases Of The Cycle Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds As noted above, our expectation is that corporate bonds will outperform Treasuries during the next 6-12 months, but that both excess returns and total returns will take a step down. The next section of this report presents a scenario analysis that puts some more specific numbers on the sorts of excess and total corporate bond returns investors might expect to earn during the next year. Corporate Bond Returns: Scenario Analysis Methodology To run our scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns we use the following equations: Excess Return = OAS0  – D0 (dOAS) Total Return = OAS0+ TSY0 – D0 (dOAS+dTSY) Where: Excess Return = The expected corporate index excess return versus duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months Total Return = The expected corporate index total return during the next 12 months OAS0 = Today’s average index option-adjusted spread D0 = Today’s average index duration TSY0 = Today’s Treasury yield that matches the duration of the corporate index dOAS = The expected change in the index option-adjusted spread during the next 12 months dTSY = The expected change in the duration-matched Treasury yield during the next 12 months These equations are obviously simplifications. For example, the impact of convexity is ignored. However, Chart 2 shows that our proxies track actual index returns very closely over time, assuming the estimated yield and spread changes are accurate. Chart 2Estimating IG Returns Estimating IG Returns Estimating IG Returns We use similar equations for assessing high-yield corporate returns, with the additional complication that we must include an assumption for default losses. Excess Return= OAS0 – (DR × (1 - RR)) –D0(dOAS) Total Return= OAS0 + TSY0 – (DR × (1 – RR)) –D0 (dOAS + dTSY) In these equations: DR = The expected issuer-weighted default rate for the next 12 months RR = The expected average recovery rate on defaulted debt for the next 12 months Once again, though these equations are relatively simple, they do a good job of capturing actual returns over time (Chart 3). Chart 3Estimating HY Returns Estimating HY Returns Estimating HY Returns Scenarios With the above equations in hand, we can easily make some educated guesses about future yields, spreads and default losses and translate those assumptions into expected return forecasts. Specifically, we test three different scenarios (bullish, neutral and bearish) for corporate spreads, Treasury yields and default losses. For corporate index spreads, both investment grade and high-yield, our bullish scenario assumes that spreads reach the all-time tight levels seen in the mid-1990s. For investment grade bonds this spread level is 58 bps, 27 bps below the current level. For high-yield bonds this spread level is 233 bps, 41 bps below the current level. Our neutral scenario assumes that index spreads remain at their current levels (85 bps for investment grade and 274 bps for junk). Finally, our bearish scenario assumes that spreads widen back to the average levels seen during the 2017-2019 period (112 bps for investment grade and 369 bps for junk), this implies 27 bps of widening for investment grade and 95 bps of widening for junk. Given our view that bond yields will rise as we approach the next Fed tightening cycle, none of our scenarios assume that Treasury yields will fall during the next 12 months. Our bullish Treasury yield scenario assumes that yields stay flat at current levels. Our neutral Treasury yield scenario assumes that yields follow the path implied by current forward rates, and our bearish Treasury yield scenario assumes that yields rise to levels consistent with fair value estimates assuming the market prices-in a December 2022 Fed liftoff followed by 100 bps of rate hikes per year until the fed funds rate levels-off at 2.08%.2 We use the 7-year and 6-year Treasury yields as our inputs for the investment grade and high-yield scenarios, respectively, as those yields most closely match the interest rate component embedded in the corporate indexes. For default losses, our bullish scenario assumes a 1.8% default rate – consistent with the rate at which defaults are tracking so far this year – and a recovery rate of 50%. Our neutral scenario assumes a 3% default rate and a 40% recovery rate. Our bearish scenario assumes a 4% default rate and 30% recovery rate. Investment Grade Results Table 3 shows the results of our scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns. Table 3Investment Grade Corporate Bond Expected Return Scenarios Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Starting with excess returns, we think it is most likely that spreads remain near current levels, or perhaps widen a bit, during the next 12 months. We think it’s extremely unlikely that spreads will tighten to the levels seen in the mid-1990s because the average duration of the index is much higher today than it was back then. All else equal, it’s generally true that securities with higher duration also have higher OAS. This means we expect investment grade corporate bond excess returns to be between -153 bps and +85 bps during the next 12 months, probably closer to +85 bps. Obviously, this represents a significant step down from the +550 bps earned during the past year. In fact, even the most bullish scenario where spreads tighten back to all-time lows only implies an excess return of +323 bps, well below the recent rate of outperformance. As for total returns, we estimate that a neutral scenario where the index spread holds steady and Treasury yields follow the forward curve will lead to total returns being close to zero during the next 12 months. In fact, our results suggest that it’s highly likely that investment grade corporate bonds will deliver negative total returns during the next 12 months. Yes, the index is expected to deliver a total return of 1.98% if both the index spread and duration-matched Treasury yield remain at their current levels, but an environment where growth is slow enough to keep Treasury yields flat is much more likely to coincide with spread widening than with steady corporate spreads. For some additional historical perspective, the columns labeled “Historical Percentile Rank” show how the returns in each scenario would rank relative to actual returns earned during the past 31 calendar years. For example, even the most bullish total return scenario of 4.36% ranks at the 27th percentile relative to history. This means that it would only be better than 27% of historical 12-month return observations for that index. High-Yield Results Tables 4A, 4B and 4C summarize the results of our high-yield scenario analysis. Table 4A assumes the bullish scenario for default losses, Table 4B assumes the neutral scenario for default losses and Table 4C assumes the bearish scenario for default losses. Table 4AHigh-Yield Corporate Bond Expected Return Scenarios: Bullish Default Loss Scenario* Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Table 4BHigh-Yield Corporate Bond Expected Return Scenarios: Neutral Default Loss Scenario* Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Table 4CHigh-Yield Corporate Bond Expected Return Scenarios: Bearish Default Loss Scenario* Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds Looking at excess returns, the first result that jumps out is that even the most bullish scenario leads to an expected 12-month excess return of +3.43%, this would be equivalent to the median return earned during the past 31 calendar years. In our view, it’s more likely that excess returns will be in the +0.94% to +1.84% range during the next 12 months. This is consistent with flat spreads and a range for default losses between our neutral and bullish scenarios. Our sense is that junk bonds are less likely to deliver negative total returns than investment grade bonds. Though even the most bullish scenario puts expected junk total returns at +4.54%, consistent with the 39th percentile relative to history. Investment Implications To summarize, our expectation is that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months. The bonds are also likely to outperform duration-matched Treasuries during that period, but excess returns are probably capped at 85 bps. Our best guess places high-yield total returns at between -0.29% and +1.80%, but with a much higher likelihood of earning positive total returns than a position in investment grade. We estimate that excess junk returns will fall between +0.94% and +1.84%, above returns earned in investment grade. In general, the message is that investors should remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries, but should retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade and should expect to earn far lower returns than were earned during the past year. Given low expected returns, investors should also seek out creative ways of adding additional spread to a bond portfolio. We offered some suggestions in a recent report.3 CPI Update And FOMC Preview This week’s FOMC meeting could be significant for bond markets. First off, there is a possibility that the Fed will announce a timeline for tapering its asset purchases. Our sense is that last month’s weak employment report probably delays this announcement, but we still expect it to come before the end of the year. We expect that the actual tapering of purchases will start in January 2022 and that net Fed purchases will reach zero by Q3 of next year. More broadly, we continue to think that the market is already priced for a tapering announcement in 2021. In other words, any information about asset purchases probably won’t move bond yields that much. What will move bond yields is any hint about when the Fed thinks it may want to start lifting rates. Such news could come in the form of revisions to the Fed’s interest rate forecasts, or in any information that the Fed provides about the pace of asset purchase tapering. Because the Fed has indicated a strong preference for having net purchases at zero prior to liftoff, any pace of tapering that gets net purchases to zero by the middle of next year opens the door to a possible rate hike before the end of 2022. Of course, the economic data between now and the end of 2022 will have a lot to say about whether the Fed actually starts to hike. In particular, last week’s report made the case that next year’s inflation data will determine when rate hikes begin.4 With that in mind, last week’s CPI release showed a significant deceleration in core inflation, driven by the COVID-impacted service and auto sectors that had previously caused inflation to spike (Chart 4). Interestingly, core inflation excluding COVID-impacted services and autos jumped on the month (Chart 4, bottom panel). From the Fed’s perspective, it ignored the transitory rise of COVID-impacted service and auto inflation on the way up, it will also be inclined to ignore its descent. What will ultimately matter for monetary policy is whether underlying inflationary pressures start to build throughout 2022. It is therefore much more important for us to focus on trends in core inflation excluding the COVID-impacted services and autos, along with wage growth and inflation expectations. Our view is that underlying inflationary pressures will be strong enough for the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022. This will, in large part, be due to an acceleration of shelter inflation (Chart 5). Owner’s Equivalent Rent and Rent of Primary Residence inflation have already jumped, and leading indicators of shelter inflation like the unemployment rate (Chart 5, panel 3) and the Apartment Market Tightness Index (Chart 5, bottom panel) are consistent with further acceleration. Chart 4Looking For Underlying Inflation Looking For Underlying Inflation Looking For Underlying Inflation Chart 5Shelter Inflation Will Keep Rising Shelter Inflation Will Keep Rising Shelter Inflation Will Keep Rising Bottom Line: The Fed will announce asset purchase tapering before the end of this year, and tapering will proceed at a pace that opens the door to a potential rate hike before the end of 2022. Ultimately, whether the Fed lifts rates in 2022 will depend on trends in core CPI excluding COVID-impacted services and autos, along with wage growth and inflation expectations.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 Last week’s report provides more detail on this fair value analysis. Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights We cannot predict how China will manage Evergrande precisely but we have a high conviction that it will do whatever it takes to prevent contagion across the property sector. However, China’s stimulus tools are losing their effectiveness over time. The country is due for a prolonged struggle with financial and economic instability regardless of whether Evergrande defaults. A messy default would obviously exacerbate the problem. China’s regulatory crackdowns target private companies and will continue to weigh on animal spirits in the private sector. The government will be forced to use fiscal policy to compensate. The US’s and China’s switch from engagement to confrontation poses a persistent headwind for investor sentiment toward China. The new consensus that investors should buy into China’s “strategic sectors” to avoid arbitrary regulatory crackdowns is vulnerable to its own logic and to sanctions by the US and its allies. Feature China poses a unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks and global markets are now pricing them. Property giant Evergrande could default on $120 million in onshore and offshore interest payments as early as September 23, or next month, prompting investors to run for cover. Is this crisis fleeting or part of a larger systemic failure? It is a larger systemic failure. We expect a slow-motion, Japanese-style crisis over the coming decade, marked with periodic bailouts and stimulus packages. We recommend investors stay the course: steer clear of China and stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Tactically, stick with large caps, defensive sectors, and developed markets within the global equity universe. Strategically, prefer emerging markets that benefit from forthcoming Chinese (and American) stimulus. 1. A “Minsky Moment” Cannot Be Ruled Out The chief fear is whether the approaching default of Evergrande marks China’s “Minsky Moment.” Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis held that long periods of stable revenues lead to risky financial deals and large accumulations of systemic risk that are underpriced. When revenues cannot cover interest payments, a crash ensues followed by deleveraging. Minsky’s hypothesis speaks to debt crises in an entire economy, yet nobody knows for sure whether China’s economy has reached such a breaking point. China’s national savings rate stands at 45.7% of GDP and nominal growth exceeds the long-term government bond yield. However, a sharp drop in asset prices, especially in the property sector, could change everything, as it could lead to balance sheet recession among corporates and a fall in national income. Evergrande is supposed to make an $84 million interest payment on offshore debt and a $36 million payment on onshore debt this week, and after 30 days it would default. It owes $37 billion in debt payments over the next 12 months but only has $13 billion cash on hand (as of June 30, 2021). Authorities can opt for a full bailout or a partial bailout, in which the company defaults on offshore bonds but not onshore. They could even let the company fail categorically, though that would produce exactly the kind of precipitous drop in property asset prices that would lead to wider financial contagion. State intervention to smooth the crisis is more likely – and the government can easily pressure other companies into acquiring Evergrande’s assets and business divisions. Chart 1Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Chart 1 shows that China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stands head and shoulders above other countries that experienced financial crises in recent decades, courtesy of our Emerging Markets Strategy. While China can undoubtedly bear large debts due to its savings, the implication is that China has large enough financial imbalances to suffer a full-fledged financial crisis, even if the timing is hard to predict. Household credit is also elevated at 61.7% of GDP, and the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now higher than in the United States. About two-thirds of China’s corporate debt is held by state-owned or state-controlled entities, prompting some investors to dismiss the gravity of the risk. However, financial crises often involve the transfer of debt from the state to private sector or vice versa. 59% of bond defaults in H1 2021 have involved state companies. Total debt is the main concern. Don’t take our word for it: China’s Communist Party has warned for the past decade about the danger of “implicit guarantees” and “moral hazard” that encourage financial excesses in the corporate sector. The Xi Jinping administration has tried to induce a deleveraging process since it came to power in 2012-13. Xi’s “three red lines” for the property sector precipitated the current turmoil. Even if Evergrande’s troubles are managed, China’s systemic risks will continue to boil over as its potential growth rate slows and the government continues trying to wring out financial excesses. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher More broadly China is experiencing an unprecedented overlap of economic and political crises: The population is aging and labor force is shrinking; The economic model since 2009 has been changing from export-manufacturing to domestic-oriented, investment-driven growth; Indebtedness is spreading from corporates to households and ultimately the government; The governance model is shifting from “single-party rule” to “single-person rule” or autocracy; The population is reaching middle class status and demanding better quality of life; The international trade environment is turning from hyper-globalization to hypo-globalization; The geopolitical backdrop is darkening with the US and its allies attempting to contain China’s ambitions of regional supremacy. Almost all of these changes bring more risks than opportunities to China over the long haul. The need for rapid policy shifts provides the ostensible reasoning for President Xi Jinping’s decision not to step down but to remain president for the foreseeable future. He will clinch this position at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. The implication is that policy uncertainty will continue climbing up to at least 2019 peaks while offshore equity markets will continue to trend lower, as they have done since the onset of the US trade war (Chart 2). Credit default swap rates have so far been subdued but they are showing signs of life. A sharp rise in policy uncertainty and property sector stress would pull them up. Domestic equities (A-shares) have rallied since 2019 but we would expect them to fall back given China’s historic confluence of structural and cyclical challenges, which will create further negative surprises (Chart 2, bottom panel). 2. Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus Ad Nauseum Evergrande’s future may be in doubt but Beijing will throw all its power at stopping nationwide financial contagion. True, a policy miscalculation is possible. A tardy or failed intervention cannot be ruled out. However, investors should remember that a clear pattern of bailouts and stimulus has emerged over the course of the Xi Jinping administration whenever a “hard landing” or financial collapse loomed. The government tightens controls on bloated sectors until the financial fallout threatens to undermine general economic and social stability, at which point the government eases policy. It is often forced to stimulate the economy aggressively. Chart 3 shows these cycles in two ways: China’s control of credit through the state-controlled banks, and the frequency of news stories mentioning important terms associated with financial and economic distress: defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies. These three terms used to be unheard of among China watchers. Under the Xi administration, a higher tolerance of creative destruction has served as the way to push forward reform. The current rise in distress is not extended, suggesting that more bad news is coming, but it also shows that the government has repeatedly been forced to provide stimulus even under the Xi administration. Chart 3Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Could this time be different? Not likely. The American experience and the pandemic will also force China’s government to ease policy: China learns from US mistakes. The US lurched from Lehman’s failure into a financial crisis, an impaired credit channel, a sluggish economic recovery, a spike in polarization, policy paralysis, a near-default on the national debt, a surge in right- and left-wing populism, the tumultuous Trump presidency, widespread social unrest, a contested leadership succession, and a mob storming the nation’s capitol (Chart 4). This is obviously the nightmare of any Chinese leader and a trajectory that the Xi administration will avoid at any cost. Chart 4Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Chinese households store their wealth in the property sector, so any attempt at policy restraint or austerity faces a massive constraint. Only a few countries are comparable to China with respect to the share of non-financial household wealth (property and land) within total household wealth. All of them are hosts of property sector bubbles, including the bubbles in Spain and Ireland back in 2007 (Chart 5). A property collapse would destroy the savings of the Chinese people over four decades of prosperity. Chart 5Property Is The Bedrock Of Chinese Households Five Points On China’s Crisis Five Points On China’s Crisis Social instability is already flaring up. Almost all China experts agree that “social stability” is the Communist Party’s bottom line. But note that the Evergrande saga has already led to protests, not only at the company’s headquarters in Shenzhen but also in other cities such as Shenyang, Guangzhou, Chongqing. Protests were filmed and shown on social media (posts have been censored). Protesters demanded repayment for wealth management products gone sour and properties they are owed that have not been built. This is only a taste of the cross-regional protests that would emerge if the broader property sector suffered. The lingering COVID-19 pandemic is still relevant. Investors should not underrate the potential threat that the pandemic poses to the regime. Severe epidemics have occurred about 11% of the time over the course of China’s history and they often have major ramifications. Disease has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties – and in four cases it played a major role. It would be suicidal for any regime to add self-inflicted economic collapse to a lingering pandemic (Table 1). Table 1Disease Threatens Chinese Dynasties – Not A Time To Self-Inflict A Recession Five Points On China’s Crisis Five Points On China’s Crisis Easing policy does not necessarily mean bringing out the “bazooka” and splurging on money and credit growth, though that is increasingly likely as the crisis intensifies. Notably the July Politburo statement specifically removed language that said China would “avoid sharp turns in policy.” In other words, sharp turns might be necessary. That can only mean sharp reflationary turns, as there is very little chance of doubling down on policy tightening. A counterargument holds that the Chinese government is now exclusively focused on power consolidation to the neglect of financial and economic stability. Perhaps the leadership is misinformed, overconfident, or thinks a financial collapse will better purge its enemies – along the lines of the various political purges under Chairman Mao Zedong. Wealthy tech magnates and property owners could conceivably challenge the return of autocracy. After all, the US political establishment almost “fell” to a rich property baron – why couldn’t China’s Communist Party? Political purges should certainly be expected ahead of next year’s party congress. But not to the point of killing the economy. The government would not be trying to balance policy tightening and loosening so carefully if it sought to induce chaos. It must be admitted, however, that the change to autocracy means that the odds of irrational or idiosyncratic policy have gone up substantially and permanently. Of course, the high likelihood that Beijing will provide bailouts and stimulus should not be read as a bullish investment thesis, even though it would create a pop in oversold assets. The Chinese system is saturated with money and credit, which have been losing their effectiveness in driving growth. Financial imbalances get worse, not better, with each wave of credit stimulus. Beijing is caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence stimulus comes only reluctantly and reactively. But it does come in the end because a financial crash would threaten the life of the regime and preclude all other policy priorities, domestic and foreign. 3. Yes, China’s Regulatory Crackdown Targets The Private Sector Global growth and other emerging economies will get most of the benefit once China stimulates, since China’s own firms will still face a negative domestic political backdrop. Bullish investors argue that the government’s regulatory tightening is misunderstood and overblown. The claim is that China is not targeting the private sector generally but only isolated sectors causing social problems. Costs need to be reduced in property, education, and health to improve quality of life. China shares the US’s and EU’s desire to rein in tech giants that monopolize their markets, abuse consumer data and privacy, and benefit from distorted tax systems. Most of these arguments are misleading. China does not have a strong record on data privacy, equality, social safety nets, rule of law, or “sustainable” growth (as opposed to “unsustainable,” high-debt, high-polluting growth). China actively encourages state champions that monopolize key sectors. Many developed markets have better records in these areas, notably in Europe, yet China is eschewing these regulatory models in preference for an approach that is arbitrary and absolutist, i.e. negative for governance. As for the private sector, animal spirits have been in a long decline throughout the past decade. This is true whether judging by money velocity – i.e. the pace of economic activity relative to the increase in money supply – or by households’ and businesses’ marginal propensity to save (Chart 6). The 2015-16 period shows that even periodic bouts of government stimulus have not reversed the general trend. Regulatory whack-a-mole and financial turmoil will not improve the situation. Chart 6Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Chart 7Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Surveys of sentiment confirm that the latest developments will have a negative effect (Chart 7). Cumulatively, the changes in China’s domestic and international policy context are being interpreted as negative for business, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom – notwithstanding the government’s claims to expand opportunity in its “common prosperity” plan. 4. The Withdrawal Of US Friendship Is A Headwind For China Chart 8Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired All of the successful Asian economies – including China for most of the past forty years of prosperity – have tried to stay on the good side of the United States. By contrast, China and the US today are shifting from engagement to confrontation and breaking up their economic ties (Chart 8). This is a problem for China because the US and to some extent its allies will seek to undermine China’s economy and its autocratic model as part of this great power competition. The rise in geopolitical risk is underscored by the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement, by which the US will provide Australia with nuclear submarines over the next decade. This was a clear demonstration of the US’s “pivot to Asia” and the fact that the US and China are preparing for war – if only to deter it. China’s return to autocracy and clash with the US and Asian neighbors is also leading to a deterioration of its global image, particularly over issues of transparency and information sharing. The dispute over the origins of COVID-19 is a major source of division with the US and other countries. Transparency is important for investors. The World Bank has discontinued its “Ease of Doing Business” rankings after a scandal was revealed in which China’s ranking was artificially bumped up. The last-published trend is still downward (Chart 9). Most recently China has stepped up censorship of its financial news media amid the current market turmoil, which makes it harder for investors to assess the full extent of property and financial risks.1 The US political factions agree on China-bashing if nothing else. The Biden administration has little political impetus to eschew tariffs and export controls. One important penalty will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is likely to ban Chinese firms from US stock exchanges unless they conform to common accounting standards. Hence the dramatic fall in the share prices of Chinese companies listed via American Depository Receipts (ADRs), in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10, top panel). This threat prompted China’s recent crackdown on its own firms that were attempting to hold initial public offerings on US exchanges. Chart 9US Conflict Exposes China’s Global Influence Campaign Five Points On China’s Crisis Five Points On China’s Crisis The Quadrilateral Forum – the US, Japan, Australia, and India – has agreed to link the semiconductor supply chain to human rights standards, foreclosing China’s participation in that supply chain. US semiconductor firms are among the most exposed to China but they have not suffered over the course of the US-China tech war, suggesting that US vulnerabilities are limited (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down The point is not to exaggerate the strength of the US and its allies but rather the costs to China of actively opposing them. The US has a difficult enough time cobbling together a coalition of states to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, not to mention forming any coalition that would totally exclude and isolate China. China is far more important to US allies than Iran – it is irreplaceable in the global economy (Chart 11). The EU and China’s Asian neighbors will typically restrain the US’s more aggressive impulses so as not to upset the global recovery or end up on the front lines of a war.2 Chart 11No Substitute For China In Global Economy Five Points On China’s Crisis Five Points On China’s Crisis This diplomatic constraint on the US is probably positive for global growth but not for China per se. American allies are still able to increase the costs on China for pursuing its own state-backed development path and geopolitical sphere of influence. Japan, Australia, and others are likely to veto China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while the UK and eventually the US are likely to join it. Investors should view US-China ties as a headwind at least until the two powers manage to negotiate a diplomatic thaw, i.e. substantial de-escalation of tensions. A thaw is unlikely in the lead-up to Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and the US midterm elections in fall 2022. Presidents Biden and Xi are still working on a bilateral summit, not to mention a more substantial improvement in ties. We doubt a diplomatic thaw would be durable anyway but the important point is that until it happens China will face periodic bouts of negative sentiment from the emerging cold war. Other Asian economies thrived under US auspices – China is sailing in uncharted waters. 5. Global Investors Cannot Separate Civilian From State And Military Investments The word on Wall Street is that investors should align their strategies with those of China’s leaders so as not to run afoul of arbitrary and draconian regulators. For example, instead of “soft tech” or consumer-oriented companies – like those that give people rides, deliver food, or make creative video games – investors should invest in “hard tech” or strategic companies like those that make computer chips, renewable energy, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, and capital equipment. There is no question that the trend in China – and elsewhere – is for governments to become more active in picking winners and losers. Industrial policy is back. Investors have no choice but to include policy analysis in their toolbox. However, for global investors, an investment strategy of buying whatever the government says is far from convincing. The most basic investment strategy in keeping with the Xi administration’s goals would be to invest in state-owned enterprises in domestic equity markets. So SOEs should have outperformed the market, right? Wrong. They were in a downtrend prior to the 2015 bubble, the burst of which caused a further downtrend (Chart 12, top panel). Similarly, the preference for “hard tech” over “soft tech” is promising in theory but complicated in practice: hard tech is flat-to-down over the decade and down since COVID-19 (Chart 12, middle panel). It has underperformed its global peers (Chart 12, bottom panel). China’s policy disposition should be beneficial for industrials, health care, and renewable energy. First, China is doubling down on its manufacturing economy. Second, the population is aging and health care is a critical part of the common prosperity plan. Third, green energy is a way of diversifying from dependency on imported oil and natural gas. However, the profile of these sectors relative to their global counterparts is only unambiguously attractive in the case of industrials, which began to outperform even during the trade war (Chart 13). Chart 12State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks Chart 13Beware 'State Approved' Trades Beware 'State Approved' Trades Beware 'State Approved' Trades In Table 2 we outline the valuations and political risks of onshore equity sectors. Valuations are not cheap. Domestic and foreign risks are not fully priced. Table 2China Onshore Equities, Valuations, And (Geo)Political Risks Five Points On China’s Crisis Five Points On China’s Crisis There is a bigger problem for global investors, especially Americans: investing in China’s strategic sectors directly implicates investors in the Communist Party’s domestic human rights practices, state-owned enterprises, and national security goals. “Civil-military fusion” is a well-established doctrine that calls for the People’s Liberation Army to have access to the cutting-edge technology developed by civilians and vice versa. These investments will eventually be subject to punitive measures since the US policy establishment believes it can no longer afford to let US wealth buttress China’s military and technological rise. Investment Takeaways China may or may not work out a partial bailout for Evergrande but it will definitely provide state assistance and fiscal stimulus to try to prevent contagion across the property sector and financial system. Bad news in the coming weeks and months will be replaced by good news in this sense. However, the fact that China will eventually be forced to undertake traditional stimulus yet again will increase its systemic financial risks, in a well-established pattern. The best equity opportunities will lie outside of China, where companies will benefit from global recovery yet avoid suffering from China’s unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks. We prefer developed markets and select emerging markets in Latin America and Asia-ex-China. Chinese households and businesses are downbeat. This behavior cannot be separated from the historic changes in the economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy. It is hard to see an improvement until the government boosts growth and the 2022 political reshuffle is over. American opposition is a bigger problem for China than global investors realize. Not only are the two economies divorcing but other democracies will distance themselves from China as well – not because of US demands but because their own manufacturing, national security, and ideological space is threatened by China’s reversion to autocracy and assertive foreign policy. Investing in China’s “hard tech” and strategic sectors with government approval is not a simple solution. This approach will directly funnel capital into China’s state-owned enterprises, domestic security forces, and military. As such the US and West will eventually impose controls. Investments may not be liquid since China would suffer if capital ever fled these kinds of projects. Both American and Chinese stimulus is looming this winter but the short run will see more volatility. We are closing our long JPY-KRW tactical trade for a gain of 4.4%   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We have often noted in these pages over the past decade that multilateral organizations overrated improvements in China’s governance based on policy pronouncements rather than structural changes. 2 Still, tensions among the allies should not be overrated since they share a fundamental concern over China’s increasing challenge to the current global order. The EU is pursuing trade talks with Taiwan, and there are ways that the US can compensate France over the nullification of its submarine sales to Australia (most of which are detrimental to China’s security).