Policy

HighlightsDuration: The Fed will probably signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. However, rate hikes will ramp up again after a brief pause, and the Fed will ultimately deliver more tightening than is currently priced. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.Credit Spreads: Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators does not yet signal a tactical buying opportunity in credit. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist.Fed Balance Sheet: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band.FeatureThis will be the last U.S. Bond Strategy report of 2018. Publication will resume on January 8 with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2019. Until then, we extend our best wishes for a wonderful holiday and a Happy New Year. With the stock market well off its highs and credit spreads in the midst of an uptrend, there is an uncommon amount of pressure on tomorrow’s FOMC meeting. For their part, interest rate curves have already moved to discount a substantial dovish shift in Fed policy. In fact, our 12-month fed funds discounter has fallen all the way down to 36 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1All Eyes On The Fed With the market even more focused on the Fed than usual, there is a chance that a dovish signal tomorrow could spark a rally in risk assets. Conversely, a more hawkish Fed could prolong the market’s pain. Against that back-drop, in this week’s report we discuss what we are likely to hear from the Fed tomorrow and over the course of 2019.The Fed’s RoadmapIn our view, a recent speech from Fed Governor Lael Brainard gives a good indication of the Fed’s current thinking:1Our goal now is to sustain the expansion by maintaining the economy around full employment and inflation around target. The gradual path of increases in the federal funds rate has served us well by giving us time to assess the effects of policy as we have proceeded. That approach remains appropriate in the near term, although the policy path increasingly will depend on how the outlook evolves.This passage strongly suggests that the Fed is committed to delivering one more 25 basis point rate hike this week. But starting next year, the Fed is likely to abandon the predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace that has been in place since December 2016, and shift to a regime in which rate hikes at any given meeting are much more dependent on the incoming economic and financial market data.What To Look For TomorrowFirst off, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate hike tomorrow, a move that is widely anticipated. Failure to do so would constitute a major dovish surprise that would lead to a bounce in risk assets. We agree with the market that a rate hike tomorrow is highly probable.The DotsBeyond the actual policy move, the most important thing to watch will be the changes to FOMC participants’ forecasts for where the fed funds rate will be at the end of 2019, aka the 2019 dots. This is the easiest place to look to get a sense for how the recent market turmoil and global growth weakness is impacting the Fed’s thinking. At present, the median 2019 dot is between 3% and 3.25%. This suggests that, after lifting rates once more this week, the median Fed member anticipates three more rate hikes in 2019. We expect that the median 2019 dot will shift lower tomorrow, and that the magnitude of the shift will determine the reaction in financial markets. If the downward revision is considered sufficiently dovish, then expect risk assets to rally. If not, then risk assets could sell off.As always, it will be interesting to see whether Fed members revise their longer run rate expectations, i.e. their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate. However, we expect very little movement in neutral rate estimates tomorrow. In any case, the market will be much more focused on the expected policy path for 2019.The StatementIn tomorrow’s post-meeting statement, the following passage will likely be edited:The Committee expects that further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term.The minutes from November’s FOMC meeting suggest that the committee is increasingly uncomfortable with the phrase “further gradual increases”. The Fed will probably remove this phrase from tomorrow’s statement and replace it with guidance that is more consistent with the above excerpt from Governor Brainard’s speech. In general, the Fed wants to signal that it is transitioning away from a predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace and toward a reaction function that is much more data dependent.The Press ConferenceSince the beginning of his tenure, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has preached a message of uncertainty and data dependence.2 These themes will be stressed again tomorrow and we expect his forward guidance will be consistent with what we already heard from Governor Brainard. As such, we view any revisions to the 2019 dots as having more potential to move markets than what Powell says in the press conference.Other BusinessAs was the case in June, tomorrow’s rate hike will result in a 25 bps shift higher in the target range for the fed funds rate, from 2%-2.25% to 2.25%-2.5%, but only a 20 bps increase in the interest rate paid on excess reserves (IOER). This means that the IOER will rise to 2.4%, 10 bps below the upper-end of the Fed’s target range.The smaller IOER increase will occur because the Fed is trying to pressure the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range. The funds rate has been creeping higher in recent months and the Fed is taking steps to limit its rise. This will continue to be an operational issue for the Fed next year, which we discuss in more detail below.Investment ImplicationsWe think tomorrow’s Fed meeting could be more important for credit spreads than for Treasury yields. In recent reports we discussed why the combination of weakening global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy is causing credit spreads to widen, and suggested that a significant dovish turn from the Fed could prompt a recovery in global growth and a near-term rally in credit.Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators (Charts 2A & Chart 2B) does not yet decisively signal a tactical buying opportunity in corporate credit, but we have seen the 12-month discounter fall and the gold price rally in recent weeks. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist, and thus closer to a near-term peak in spreads. Chart 2AChecklist For Peak Spreads: Global Growth  Chart 2BChecklist For Peak Spreads: Fed Capitulation   On the duration front, with the market already priced for essentially no further rate hikes in 2019 (after a rate hike tomorrow), we view any potential dovish move as already in the price. Since we expect the economic environment will support further rate hikes in 2019, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration while we look for an opportunity to tactically buy credit.What To Expect In 2019More important for portfolios than what to expect from tomorrow’s Fed meeting is what to expect from the Fed over the course of next year. As we have already mentioned, the path for rate hikes will be much less predictable in 2019. An increased focus on the incoming data will replace the Fed’s current predilection for consistent quarterly rate hikes.The Fed will also hold a press conference after all eight FOMC meetings in 2019. Until now, press conferences have only occurred four times per year – in March, June, September and December – and the Fed has shown a reluctance to change interest rates at meetings without a scheduled press conference. Next year, with press conferences after every meeting, the Fed will have more flexibility to vary the pattern of hikes.But what will determine the number of rate hikes in 2019? We focus on three main areas.1) Financial ConditionsBy tightening policy, the Fed is trying to both prevent a future overshoot of its inflation target and tighten financial conditions at the margin. The Fed also increasingly recognizes the importance of financial conditions relative to inflation. As Governor Brainard noted in her recent speech:The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.But overheating is not the only concern. Excessive tightening in financial conditions could also force the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy stance. In fact, this is exactly what we see happening in the next few months. Financial conditions are already tightening (Chart 3), and will continue to do so until the Fed moderates its pace of rate hikes. At that point, financial conditions will probably ease, and that will allow the Fed to speed up the pace of hikes in the back half of 2019. Chart 3Financial Conditions Are Tightening 2) InflationCore inflation remains relatively close to the Fed’s target. While year-over-year core PCE fell back to 1.78% in October, year-over-year core and trimmed mean CPI came in at 2.24% and 2.22%, respectively, in November (Chart 4). We expect that inflation will move higher in 2019, but will remain relatively close to the Fed’s target. Base effects will pose a high hurdle for year-over-year inflation during the next few months, but inflationary pressures in the economy continue to rise. Survey data on firms’ input prices (Chart 4, panel 3) and planned selling prices (Chart 4, bottom panel) remain very strong. Chart 4Expect Higher Inflation In 2019 Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at odds with the economy’s inflationary backdrop. They remain below levels that have historically been consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 4, panel 2). Relatively low TIPS breakeven rates give the Fed cover to slow the pace of rate hikes during the next few months. However, long-maturity breakevens can also rise quickly, and we anticipate that they will return to our target 2.3%-2.5% range in 2019.3) Recession SignalsIn last week’s Key Views for 2019 report, we discussed in detail why we think the Fed’s rate hike cycle will continue throughout 2019, and also why it will probably slow down during the next few months.3 In summary, we see tighter financial conditions causing the Fed to slow the pace of hikes in the near term, but we also doubt that interest rates will get high enough next year to send the U.S. economy into recession.That said, in our Key Views report we flagged several economic indicators to watch that could force us to change our view. Specifically, if the 12-month moving averages in housing starts and new home sales turn down, or if the unemployment rate rises, then it would suggest that a recession is closer than we currently anticipate.Concerning the unemployment rate, it will also be important to watch the trend in initial jobless claims (Chart 5). Rising claims tend to precede increases in the unemployment rate and claims have bounced during the past few weeks. We expect the bounce will prove temporary, but are monitoring it closely. Chart 5Rising Claims A Risk Bottom Line: The Fed is likely to signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. This move will be in response to financial conditions that are tightening more quickly than is desirable. But after a pause, we see rate hikes resuming in the second half of 2019 and the Fed will ultimately deliver more rate hikes than are currently priced into the Treasury market.The Balance Sheet In 2019It is also possible that the Fed will have to take steps to deal with its balance sheet in 2019. Right now, the runoff of the balance sheet is proceeding quite smoothly, but as mentioned above, there is some concern that the effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of its target range.Table 1 shows the Fed’s balance sheet compared to just before it started to run down its assets. The table illustrates how the size of the Fed’s securities portfolio determines the amount of reserves supplied to the banking system. The concern is that for the Fed to maintain control of the funds rate using its current “floor system”, it needs to supply more reserves to the banking system than are demanded.4 If it fails to do so, then the fed funds rate will rise above the upper-end of its target range. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet A further complication is that the strict post-crisis regulatory regime makes it difficult to know what level of reserves are currently in demand. In essence, the Fed does not know when it will be time to stop shrinking its balance sheet. The plan appears to be that it will wait for signs that the effective fed funds rate is breaking above the upper-end of its target range, and will then decide that balance sheet run-off needs to stop.Last September, we projected that the Fed would continue to run down its balance sheet until bank reserves reached a steady state of $650 billion. Using that same assumption today, the Fed would shrink its portfolio until March 2021 and would still have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3 trillion at that time (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFed Balance Sheet: $650 Billion Steady-State Reserves  Chart 6BFed Balance Sheet: $1.1 Trillion Steady-State Reserves However, the fact that the effective fed funds rate has mostly been near the upper-end of its target range this year has caused many market participants to revise their estimates for the steady state of bank reserves higher. In fact, we infer from responses to the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Primary Dealers that most dealers think that the steady state for bank reserves is above $1 trillion.5If we use an assumption of $1.1 trillion for steady state bank reserves, then we project that the Fed will stop running down its portfolio in March 2020 and will have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3.3 trillion at that time (Chart 6B).Bottom Line: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band. Ryan Swift, Vice PresidentU.S. Bond Strategyrswift@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Powell Doctrine Emerges”, dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com4 For a detailed description of the floor system for controlling interest rates please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com5 The survey shows that the median dealer thought that a reserve balance of $1 trillion would cause IOER to trade 5.5 bps below the effective fed funds rate. In other words, reserve balances would be sufficiently scarce for the effective fed funds rate to rise relative to the rates controlled directly by the Fed. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/markets/survey/2018/nov-2018-spd-results.pdfFixed Income Sector PerformanceRecommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, This will be the last Global Investment Strategy report of 2018. Publication will resume on January 4th. On behalf of the entire Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Healthy New Year! Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature 1.  Will the Fed raise rates more or less than what is priced into the futures curve? Answer: More. The fed funds futures curve is pricing in less than one rate hike in 2019 and rate cuts beyond then. In contrast, we think the Fed will raise rates three or four times next year and continue hiking into 2020. For all the worries about a slowdown, U.S. real GDP growth is still tracking at 3% in Q4 according to the Atlanta Fed, while consumption is set to rise by 4.1%. Ongoing fiscal stimulus, decent credit growth, rising wages, and a decline in the savings rate should continue to support the economy in 2019. Housing construction should also stabilize thanks to a low vacancy rate and a pickup in household formation. The fact that mortgage applications for purchase have rebounded swiftly in recent weeks is evidence that the housing market is not as weak as many people believe (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firming 2.  Will U.S. 10-year Treasury yields rise more or less than expected? Answer: More. Treasurys almost always underperform cash when the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is discounting (Chart 2). We expect a modest bear flattening of the yield curve in 2019, with rising bond yields nearly offsetting the increase in short-term rates. Most of the flattening is likely to come in the next six months, as slower global growth and the disinflationary effects of lower oil prices keep bond yields contained. As we enter the second half of next year, global growth should reaccelerate as the effects of Chinese stimulus measures fully kick in and the drag on global growth from the recent tightening in financial conditions dissipates. By that time, the U.S. unemployment rate will be in the low 3% range, a level that could trigger material inflationary pressures. Chart 2Treasurys Will Underperform If The Fed Hikes Rates By More Than Expected 3. Will the yield spreads between U.S. Treasurys and other developed economy bond markets widen? Answer: Yes, particularly at the short end of the curve. The Fed is still the one central bank that is most likely to hike rates multiple times in 2019, which will support wider differentials between Treasurys and non-U.S. bond yields. The greatest potential for spread widening will be for Treasurys versus JGBs. With Japanese inflation still stubbornly low and fiscal policy set to tighten from a hike in the sales tax, the BoJ will be in no position to abandon its yield curve control regime. The 10-year Treasury-gilt spread could also widen if the Bank of England is forced to stay on the sidelines until Brexit uncertainty is resolved. Likewise, the U.S.-New Zealand spread will widen as the RBNZ stays on hold due to underwhelming growth and inflation momentum. The U.S.-Canada spread will be range-bound, with the Bank of Canada coming close to matching, but not surpassing, Fed tightening in 2019. While the ECB will refrain from raising rates next year, the U.S. Treasury-German bund spread should narrow marginally if the end of ECB QE lifts bund yields via a recovery in the German term premium. There is more (albeit still modest) scope for a narrowing in the 10-year U.S.-Australia and U.S.-Sweden spreads, as both the RBA and Riksbank begin a tightening cycle. 4. What will happen to U.S. corporate credit spreads? Answer: They are likely to finish 2019 close to current levels. As a rule of thumb, corporate bond returns are highest when the yield curve is very steep, and lowest when it is inverted (Table 1). The former generally corresponds to the early stages of business-cycle expansions, while the latter encompasses the period directly preceding recessions. We are still in the intermediate phase, when excess corporate bond returns (relative to cash) are positive but low. This conclusion is consistent with the observation that corporate balance-sheet leverage has increased over the past four years, but not by enough to instigate a major wave of defaults. Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Given The Slope Of The Yield Curve (1975-Present) 5. Will the U.S. dollar continue to strengthen? Answer: The dollar will strengthen until the middle of 2019 and then begin to weaken. Three main factors determine the short-to-medium term direction of the dollar: 1) momentum; 2) interest rate spreads between the U.S. and its trading partners; and 3) global growth. In general, the dollar does well when it is trending higher, spreads relative to the rest of the world are wide and getting wider, and global growth is slowing (Chart 3). For the time being, momentum continues to work in the greenback’s favor. Spreads have narrowed a bit recently, but the dollar still looks cheap relative to what one would expect based on the current level of spreads (Chart 4). As in 2017, the direction of global growth will likely be the key driver of the dollar next year. If growth bottoms in mid-2019, as we expect, the dollar will probably put in a top. Chart 3Dollar Returns Driven By Momentum, Rate Differentials, And Global Growth   Chart 4Wider Spreads Bode Well For The Dollar   6. Will global equities rise or fall? Answer: Rise. Our tactical MacroQuant stock market timing model finally moved back into neutral territory on Monday after having successfully flagged the correction that began in October (Chart 5). Having downgraded global equities this past summer, we will return to overweight if the ACWI ETF drops to $64, which is only 2.4% below yesterday’s close. The cyclical backdrop for stocks is reasonably constructive. We expect the MSCI All-Country World Index to rise by about 10%-to-15% in dollar terms from current levels by the end of 2019. The higher end of this range would leave it slightly below its January 2018 peak (Chart 6). The index is currently trading at 13.3-times forward earnings, similar to where it was in early-2016. The U.S. accounts for over 50% of global stock market capitalization (Chart 7). As such, the U.S. equity market tends to influence non-U.S. stocks more than the other way around. Sustained U.S. equity bear markets are rare outside of recessions (Chart 8). With another U.S. recession unlikely to occur at least until late-2020, that gives global stocks enough room to rally. Indeed, history suggests that the late stages of business-cycle expansions are often the juiciest for equity investors (Table 2).  Chart 5The MacroQuant Equity Score* Improves To Neutral   Chart 6Global Stocks Have Cheapened Chart 7The U.S. Is The Dominant Equity Market   Chart 8Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap     Table 2Too Soon To Get Out 7. Will cyclical stocks outperform defensives? Answer: Yes, although this is likely to be more of a phenomenon for the second half of 2019. Cyclicals typically outperform defensives when bond yields are climbing (Chart 9). Rising bond yields are usually a sign of stronger growth — manna from heaven for capital goods and commodity producers. As long as global growth is under pressure, cyclicals will struggle. But once growth bottoms in the middle of next year, cyclical stocks will have their day in the sun. Chart 9Cyclicals Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise 8. Will U.S. equities continue to outperform other global stock markets? Answer: Yes, but probably only until mid-2019. The U.S. stock market has less exposure to cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, energy, and financials than the rest of the world (Table 3). Therefore, it stands to reason that an inflection point for cyclicals versus defensives will correspond to an inflection point for U.S. versus non-U.S. stocks. If this were to happen, it would resemble the period between October 1998 and April 2000, a time when bond yields rose, the dollar rally stalled, cyclicals outperformed defensives, and non-U.S. equities outperformed (Chart 10). Table 3Tech And Health Care Stocks Are Heavily Weighted In The U.S., While Financials And Materials Are Overrepresented In Markets Outside The U.S.   Chart 10Will The Late-1990s Pattern Be Repeated?   9. Will oil prices rise more than expected? Answer: Yes. The December-2019 Brent futures contract is currently trading at $61/bbl (Chart 11). Our energy strategists expect Saudi Arabia and Russia to cut production by enough to push prices to an average of $82/bbl in 2019. Looking further out, the outlook for oil prices is less favorable. As every first-year economics student learns, prices in a competitive market eventually converge to average costs. Shale companies are now the swing producers in the global petroleum market. Their breakeven costs are in the low-$50 range, a number that has been trending lower due to productivity gains. If that is the long-term anchor for oil prices, it means that any major rally in oil is unlikely to extend deep into the next decade. Chart 11Oil Prices Will Recover 10. Will gold prices finally rally? Answer: Yes, but only in the second half of 2019. Gold prices typically fall when the dollar is strengthening (Chart 12). Given our view that the dollar will rally into mid-2019, now is not the time to be loading up on bullion. However, once the dollar peaks and U.S. inflation moves decidedly higher late next year, gold should become a star performer. Chart 12Gold Will Shine Bright After The Dollar Peaks     Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Differences of opinion are what make a market, and we’ve got a big one when it comes to the Fed: The money market says the fed funds rate goes no higher than 2.75%; BCA says 3.5% by the end of 2019, and possibly 4% sometime in 2020. We are confident in our assessment of the economy’s underlying strength, … : Fiscal stimulus will keep the economy growing above trend in 2019, and the unemployment rate will almost certainly continue to grind lower. ... even if many commentators are accentuating the negative: The experts quoted in Barron’s found abundant fault with the November employment situation report, and the yield curve is out-trending all of the Kardashians combined. Amidst all the uncertainty, we’re sticking with an investment strategy that is more cautious than our outlook: The monetary backdrop is still too accommodative to spell the end of the equity bull market, but we are waiting for a better entry point to put our cash overweight to work. Feature Dear Client, This is our last report of 2018. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on Monday, January 7th. We wish you a happy, healthy and prosperous new year. Best regards, Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy   We have often remarked how we feel that we are watching a different game than the money market when it comes to the gap in our respective terminal fed funds rate expectations. Both we and the market expect a 25-basis-point (“bps”) hike to 2.5% at the conclusion of the FOMC’s two-day meeting on Wednesday, but from there our paths diverge sharply. The market grudgingly allows that one more hike, to 2.75%, is possible, though it is by no means certain. It sees about a 60% chance that the Fed will make that additional rate hike toward the end of 2019, but then proceeds to price that hike out by the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Chart 1Mind The Gap The terminal rate’s ultimate destination, and the path it follows along the way, is not just an academic matter. Once the fed funds rate crosses above the equilibrium fed funds rate (r-star, in economics-speak), monetary policy will become restrictive for the first time since the crisis began to break. We expect the shift to a restrictive policy setting will herald the end of the expansion. Most importantly for investors, it will mark the point when asset allocation should become considerably more defensive. Getting the Fed right, then, is of the utmost importance, and we need to get to the bottom of our differences with the market. We suspect they come down to disparate assessments of the state of the economy and the state of policy. The money market seems to believe that the economy is weaker than we perceive, and that the fed funds rate is currently much closer to equilibrium than we realize. In both cases, we are vulnerable if it is later in the cycle than we think, because we are not positioned for an imminent inflection. Is The Business Cycle Closer To Ending Than We Think? Real GDP growth will slow in 2019, just as one would expect when 60 bps of fiscal thrust is taken away from an economy that was already operating at its full 2-2.25% capacity (Chart 2). Per the IMF’s fiscal estimates, 2020 shapes up as the real challenge for the economy, especially once the Fed crosses the equilibrium-rate Rubicon. In October and November, however, financial markets acted as if they feared the beginning of the recession was considerably nearer (Chart 3). Our clients’ concerns seemed to coalesce around the implications of a slowdown in housing. Chart 2Lessened Thrust, Lessened Growth   Chart 3Growth Scare We do not worry about residential investment pulling down the economy,1 but we do pay close attention to nonfarm payrolls. Employment may be a coincident indicator, but it is powerfully self-reinforcing, and the sub-NAIRU2 unemployment rate looms large in the Fed’s policy calculus. Payrolls growth is robust, and our model projects that it will continue to be over the near term (Chart 4, top panel), as all of its components are in fine fettle, especially initial jobless claims (Chart 4, second panel), and small businesses’ hiring intentions (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Payrolls Should Keep Growing, ... As we have noted before, it only takes about 110,000 net new jobs every month to keep unemployment at a steady state. Even if our model turns out to be overly optimistic, the unemployment rate appears to be several months away from bottoming, unless the participation rate rises enough to materially increase the size of the labor force. Demographics argue against that, as the baby boomers, ages 54 to 72, exit the work world in a nearly interminable conga line. The participation rate has done well to stabilize in the face of the boomer headwind (Chart 5), but there’s a limit to how much more it can close the gap when businesses are already lamenting the difficulty of finding qualified workers (Chart 6). Chart 5... But The Part Rate Probably Won't   Chart 6Good Help Is Hard To Find A robust labor market suggests that households in the aggregate will have the means to support consumption. Now that payrolls have expanded for a record 98 straight months, the lowest-income households are finally in line to capture some of the benefits. Those households have the highest marginal propensity to consume, which may provide spending with an additional fillip. With the savings rate now back to its late-‘90s levels, better-heeled households are also in a position to do their part to keep consumption humming (Chart 7). Chart 7Plenty Of Dry Powder For Spending The near-term consumption outlook is additionally supported by the expectations component of the Conference Board’s consumer confidence survey, which has been a reliable coincident indicator throughout its entire history (Chart 8). The unusual divergence between the two series suggests that consumers may have more of an appetite to spend than they’ve demonstrated so far. Employment gains and real consumption also have a well-established history of traveling together (Chart 9). Chart 8Consumers' Optimism Points To More Spending ...\   Chart 9... And So Do Solid Employment Gains Bottom Line: We find it hard to believe the economy is set to weaken in a worrisome way when the labor market still has plenty of momentum, and consumption is well supported on multiple fronts. Is The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Further Along Than We Realize? The Real Economy Our equilibrium fed funds rate model continues to suggest that the target fed funds rate is well below its equilibrium level and will not exceed it until late next year.3 Equilibrium is only a concept, however, so we actively seek out objective data that may confirm or disprove our assessment. Our approach is to trust our modeled estimate of a concept, but verify it with as much real-time evidence as we can muster. Based on the current level of activity, housing seems to be the only major segment that is experiencing some indigestion from higher rates. Corporate investment may not have lived up to the most optimistic post-tax-cut estimates, but there is no evidence that corporations are holding back because of higher rates. A back-of-the-envelope proxy, calculating the difference between the S&P 500’s return on capital and the after-tax interest rate on BBB-rated corporate bonds, suggests that prospective returns to borrowing are near their best level in 30 years, even with the reduction in the debt tax shield4 (Chart 10). Through December 14th, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model was projecting an increase of 3.8% in fourth-quarter final domestic demand, forcefully pushing back against the notion that r-star is at hand. Chart 10Higher Rates Aren't Biting Yet The ongoing application of fiscal thrust to an economy already operating at capacity argues for a higher equilibrium rate than would otherwise apply. The equilibrium rate is also higher because the unemployment rate is well below NAIRU (4.5%, per the dots), suggesting that the Fed will have to push harder against the economy than it otherwise would to keep it from overheating. Tepid post-crisis investment, mixed with unnecessary fiscal stimulus, and combined with a red-hot labor market, is a recipe for inflation pressures that can only be neutralized by a higher r-star. Financial Conditions As last week’s Google Trends chart of yield-curve searches made clear, investors have developed something of an obsession with an inverted yield curve. The yield curve’s ability to flag overly tight monetary policy in real time has made it a reliable leading indicator of recessions, and it is a key input into our simple recession indicator. The curve has flattened over the last five-plus weeks as the 10-year Treasury yield has melted, stoking recession fears. Before they get too worked up, however, investors should bear in mind that the depressed term premium has the potential to distort its signal in this cycle. The term premium is the yield differential between a Treasury note or bond, and a strip of T-bills, laddered to match the note or bond’s maturity. In line with its name, the term premium is typically positive, as investors have typically demanded compensation for bearing the increased interest-rate volatility embedded in longer-maturity instruments. That volatility may well have been restrained by the Fed’s large-scale asset purchase program, along with long yields themselves, though the entire matter of QE’s impact is subject to spirited debate. Whatever the mechanism, the term premium is considerably lower than it has been across the five decades that the yield curve has had a nearly perfect record of calling recessions (Chart 11). If the term premium were in line with its historical mean value, the yield curve would be nowhere near inverting. We continue to trust in the yield curve’s propensity to sense danger, but concede that the anomalously low term premium may render it somewhat less timely now. Given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, we are not concerned that it is signaling that r-star is materially closer than our equilibrium fed funds rate model estimates. Chart 11The Bar For Inversion Is A Lot Lower In This Cycle QE raises one more issue for our equilibrium fed funds rate model, which does not account for any tightening of monetary conditions occasioned by the unwinding of the Fed’s balance sheet. We assume that such tightening occurs only at the margin, but it could delay our recognition that policy has shifted from accommodative to restrictive. Attempting to isolate the impact of balance sheet reduction on monetary conditions would be more trouble than it’s worth, however, and we simply assume that it will cause the confidence interval around our equilibrium estimate to widen a little. Bottom Line: Our equilibrium fed funds rate model projects that policy is not nearing restrictive territory, and our interpretation of the whole of the real-time data supports that view. We think that the Fed is still several hikes away from reaching r-star. Investment Implications As we noted in last week’s 2019 outlook, the view that the economy is strong enough to overheat undergirds all of our recommendations. The potential for overheating is what will impel the Fed to hike aggressively through 2019 and possibly beyond. Investors should therefore underweight Treasuries in balanced portfolios, while maintaining below-benchmark duration. The idea that the economy will gather more momentum on its way to overheating keeps us constructive on equities. We do not believe the bull market is over, and are therefore keeping an eye out for an opportunity to overweight the S&P 500 before it makes new highs. We are confident that the unemployment rate will continue to decline, but must concede that the key outcome for Fed policy – higher wages – has been slow to materialize. Several investors have become impatient with waiting for the Phillips Curve to assert itself, and we cannot blame them. Shorn of its fancy trappings, though, the Phillips Curve is just a supply-and-demand story, and we have always found it hard to argue against supply-and-demand stories’ plain logic. The action in the 10-year Treasury nonetheless has us reviewing our call closely in search of anything that we may be missing. It appears that the decline in yields is better explained by the unwinding of lopsided positioning and sentiment (Chart 12), than by anything connected to economic growth. We are acutely conscious of how a worsening of U.S.-China trade tensions could impair global growth and subvert our constructive take on risk assets. U.S. equities may shine on a relative basis in the worst-case scenario, but absolute losses would be assured. We remain in wait-and-see mode, open to deploying our cash overweight if the opportunity presents itself, but happy to have it for ballast and insurance in the meantime. Chart 12Stretched Rubber Bands Snap Back   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Housing: Past, Present And (Near) Future,” and “Housing Seminar,” published November 19 and December 3, 2018, respectively, at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 NAIRU, the non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment (also known as the natural rate of unemployment), is the unemployment rate that can be sustained over time without causing the economy to overheat. 3 Our model estimates that equilibrium fed funds is currently around 3%, will be around 3.25% by the middle of 2019, and will settle near 3⅜% at year end. 4 Before the 2017 tax reform act, corporations faced a top marginal rate of 35%, and could deduct interest expense without limit. After-tax interest expense for large corporations amounted to (1-.35), or 65% of the pre-tax expense. Now that the top marginal rate is 21%, after-tax interest expense is (1-.21), or 79% of pre-tax expense.

Highlights A progressing Sino-U.S. trade truce, rallying commodities and EM FX as well as improving Swedish economic activity point to a respite in the global growth slowdown. This should support commodity currencies and cause a correction in the dollar – moves we would fade. Ultimately, tightening U.S. policy and a rising Chinese marginal propensity to save point to both slower growth and a stronger dollar over the coming six to nine months. The European Central Bank is extremely data dependent, and in our view, our outlook on global growth will compromise the ECB’s ability to lift rates in September 2019. A tactical trade: Sell EUR/GBP. Feature Glimmers of hope are emerging for dollar bears and EM bulls. The Sino-U.S. trade truce seems to be progressing: Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, was released on bail this week, and U.S. President Donald Trump suggested he would lean in her favor; China dropped its tariffs on U.S. auto imports to 15%; and the communication channels between China and the U.S. are clearly open. Green shoots for global growth have also emerged, with commodity prices staging a bit of a rebound, and data in some small, open economies very levered to global growth showing improvement. These developments can easily help risk assets temporarily rebound, lifting EM currencies and G-10 commodity currencies in the process while hurting the greenback for a month or two. However, we remain doubtful that these glimmers of hope for global growth will morph into a sustained rebound in global industrial activity. Consequently, we are inclined to use any weakness in the greenback to buy the dollar, and any rebound in EM and commodity currencies to sell them in anticipation of deeper lows. A Set Up For Some Dollar Weakness… The continued warming up in Sino-U.S. relations is encouraging, but as we argued last week, a more important consideration is whether global growth is finding a floor.1 In recent weeks, a few market signals have offered some hope. The growth-sensitive CRB Raw Industrials index has been firming, and the Baltic Dry index has recouped 40% of its loss from August to November (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Green Shoots In The Commodity Space... EM FX has also staged a bit of a rebound, led by the Turkish lira. The most positive development on this front has been the recent gains in the yuan. Its rebound keeps at bay a large deflationary shock for the global economy, and the stability in EM FX means that EM financial conditions are not deteriorating further (Chart I-2). Chart I-2...Green Shoots In EM FX... In our view, the greatest source of optimism comes from the Swedish economy. Sweden is a small, open economy where industrial and intermediate goods account for 25% of exports, or 11% of GDP. Its manufacturing PMI have been rebounding – a phenomenon repeated across multiple data sets. In fact, our diffusion index of 15 Swedish economic variables has been recovering. Based on history, the current recovery in the Swedish economic advance/decline line points to an upcoming rebound in EM exports growth, and to a temporary stabilization in the Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-3). Chart I-3...And Green Shoots In Sweden As Well! Any sign of stabilization in global economic activity will generate a period of weakness in the dollar, a traditionally countercyclical currency, which has now been made more vulnerable to good global growth by extended long speculative positioning. However, before bailing on the greenback, we need to see if this period of respite for the world will prove durable. Bottom Line: Indications that the Sino-U.S. trade truce has staying power for now, coupled with signs from both financial market prices and from Sweden – one of the G-10’s most growth sensitive economies – are likely to prompt a dollar correction over the next month or two. Short-term traders are likely to be able to take advantage of this move. ...But Not For A Cyclical Top… Even the most ferocious dollar bull markets can be punctuated by periods of weakness. This was the case throughout the first half of the 1980s and the second half of the 1990s. There is no reason why this rally will prove different. Thus, a period of stabilization in global growth prompting a dollar correction should not come as a surprise. However, at this juncture, the global policy set up still favors remaining long the dollar and using any correction to build up bigger long-dollar bets. Today, our BCA central bank monitor continues to point to the need of tightening U.S. monetary policy. However, the same cannot be said about the rest of the G-10 in aggregate. We estimated the performance of G-10 currency pairs versus the dollar when, like today, the BCA central bank monitors showed a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. What we found was during the past 26 years, this kind of environment is associated with depreciations versus the U.S. dollar in the euro, the yen, the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc and the Scandinavian currencies (Chart I-4). Interestingly, the GBP and the NZD seem to buck this trend. Chart I-4The Current Currency Setup Is Dollar Bullish The EUR/USD pair is of particular interest, as it accounts for 58% of the DXY dollar index and is often the preferred vehicle for investors to bet on the dollar’s trend. Right now, in sharp contrast with the U.S., the euro area central bank monitor points to a need for easing policy in Europe (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Economic Conditions Warrant More Hikes In The U.S., But Not In Europe... We expect our monitors to continue to point toward the need for tighter U.S. than European monetary policy. Today, European growth has decelerated, and the slowdown in euro area M1 money supply indicates that continental growth will slow further before finding a bottom (Chart I-6, top panel). The European Central Bank is not immune to growth risks. Chart I-6...And This Is Not About To Change Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is fixated on inflationary developments, especially those emanating from the labor market. While U.S. core PCE has disappointed, U.S. wages, as measured by average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, are all trending higher (Chart I-6, middle panel). Moreover, while there has been a concerning slowdown in the U.S. housing sector, mortgage applications are beginning to regain some vigor (Chart I-6, bottom panel). The Fed may thus pause in March, but we do not think it is done hiking for the remainder of 2019, as markets currently expect. As a result, we anticipate one-year-ahead policy differentials between the U.S. and the DXY-weighted G-10 central banks to widen, lifting the dollar in the process (Chart I-7). Therefore, any dollar correction should be short-lived. Investors with longer investment horizons than three months should ride the volatility and remain long the dollar. Chart I-7More Dollar Upside Bottom Line: BCA’s Fed monitor is pointing to the need for further U.S. rate hikes. Meanwhile, outside the U.S., G-10 policy should remain easy. Historically, this set-up is associated with dollar strength. The dichotomy between slowing European growth and growing U.S. wages suggests expected policy differentials will remain negative for EUR/USD. Stay long the dollar. ...Especially As China Remains Challenged China is now such an important diver of the global industrial cycle that it could nullify any of the conclusions noted above. However, at this point, Chinese economic dynamics seem to reinforce the dollar-bullish outcome, not weaken it. Chinese policy rates have collapsed, and the People’s Bank of China has cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio to 14.5%, injecting RMB 750 billion into the interbank market. This apparent easing in policy lifted hopes that we would see a significant rebound in the credit number in November. However, as Chart I-8 illustrates, total social financing excluding equity issuance has not picked up and continues to crawl along at a 16-year low. Moreover, the shadow-banking sector remains weak. Chart I-8Despite Stimulus, Chinese Credit Is Still Slowing Why is the Chinese economy not responding to what seems like an easing in liquidity conditions? First, it is far from clear that Beijing has abandoned its desire to limit the growth of indebtedness in China. As a result, bankers remain reluctant to open the lending taps aggressively. Second, Chinese borrowers themselves have curtailed their appetite for credit. After binging on easy credit, state-owned enterprises have misallocated vast amounts of capital and are now unable to generate sufficient returns on assets to cover their costs of borrowing (Chart I-9). Meanwhile, the private sector is also reluctant to borrow aggressively amid uncertainty regarding the Chinese growth outlook. Chart I-9Too Much Debt Leads To Misallocated Capital The result is a sharp rise in the Chinese marginal propensity to save (MPS). We can approximate China’s MPS by looking at the growth of M2 money supply relative to M1. The difference between the two monetary aggregates are savings deposits. If M2 grows faster than M1, Chinese economic agents are parking their funds in savings deposits faster than they are adding to their checking accounts, despite low interest rates. This suggests a greater desire to save. This means it will take much more stimulus than what has so far been injected into the Chinese economy to put a floor under growth. Indeed, this proxy for China’s MPS has historically been a reliable leading indicator of Chinese economic activity, announcing turning points in the Li Keqiang index (Chart I-10, top panel). The rising MPS is currently signaling a further deceleration in Chinese import volumes growth (Chart I-10, second panel), which is reflected in a call for greater downside to global export growth (Chart I-10, third panel). Finally, China’s MPS also forewarns that global industrial activity, as measured by our nowcast, will slow more (Chart I-10, bottom panel). In aggregate, China’s rising marginal propensity to save clearly points toward further global growth weakness. Chart I-10China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Hurts Global Growth As we have shown many times, slowing global growth is good for the dollar, as it has a more negative impact on economic activity outside the U.S. than inside.2 Additionally, when global growth decelerates in response to slowing Chinese economic activity, Chinese interest rates also normally fall relative to U.S. ones, as China is forced to ease policy vis-a-vis the U.S. This interest rate differential has already narrowed considerably. If the correlation of the past 12 years is any guide, this means the recent rebound in the CNY is to be faded, and that USD/CNY has significant upside in the upcoming six to nine months (Chart I-11). This is deflationary for the global economy. Chart I-11Chinese Rates Will Further Lag U.S. Ones, The Yuan Will Follow The impact of falling Chinese interest rates relative to the U.S. is not limited to the USD/CNY. As Chart I-12 shows, when U.S. one-year rates rise relative to China, the DXY also strengthens. This is again because U.S. rates overtake Chinese rates in an environment where global growth is slowing. Today, U.S. 12-month rates are higher than Chinese rates, and the differential will widen as Chinese policymakers are forced to continue stimulating. Hence, any correction in the USD should prove transitory. Chart I-12When U.S. Rates Rise Relative To China, The DXY Appreciates The impact of these dynamics is most evident in the currencies of the economies most exposed to the Chinese business cycle. As Chart I-13 shows, when Chinese 12-month interest rates fall relative to U.S. 12-month rates, EM FX and G-10 commodity currencies depreciate significantly. A further drop in the Sino-U.S. spread, a consequence of a high and rising MPS hurting Chinese growth, will lead to further weakness in EM FX, the AUD, the NZD, the CAD, and the NOK against the dollar. Thus, it seems any respite these currencies may currently enjoy will prove temporary. Chart I-13Falling Sino-U.S. Spreads Will Hurt EM FX And Commodity Currencies Bottom Line: Despite injections of stimulus, China’s credit growth is not rising because the Chinese marginal propensity to save has risen significantly. It will take much more stimulus before credit growth rises anew. Thus, Chinese and global growth will not find a durable bottom for at least two more quarters. This implies that rate differentials between China and the U.S. will fall further, and hence USD/CNY and the DXY have more upside on a six- to nine-month basis, even if they weaken in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, EM FX and commodity currencies have a lot more downside in their future. ECB: The End Of An Era Yesterday, the ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program, but couched its discussion in rather hedged terms. The ECB focused on the importance of forward guidance and is open to adding to the TLTRO program if need be. The first rate hike being through the summer of 2019 is clearly conditional on economic circumstances. In this regard, the ECB downgraded its growth forecast for 2018 and 2019 to 1.9% from 2% and to 1.7% from 1.8%, respectively. The inflation forecast was revised up to 1.8% from 1.7% in 2018 and was revised down to 1.6% from 1.7% in 2019. Additionally, ECB President Mario Draghi highlighted that risks to the forecasts are balanced, but downside risk is growing. Not only do we agree that downside risk is growing, we also agree on the source of this risk: foreign growth and global protectionism. However, on this front, we are more pessimist than the ECB as we expect a greater deterioration in EM conditions and global trade. As a result, we think that risks are very significant that the ECB will find it difficult to implement a first rate hike in September 2019, yet markets are currently pricing in a 10 basis-point move that month. Hence, we expect that if our view on global growth is correct, the ECB will guide markets to price in the first hike later than September 2019, a process that will weigh on the euro, especially as investors already take a dim view on the capacity of the Fed to lift rates next year. Bottom Line: The ECB is ending its asset purchase program, but it remains committed to supporting growth in the euro area. The ECB is now heavily leaning on forward guidance, and any policy tightening is conditional on economic circumstances. BCA’s view on global growth suggests that it will be hard for the ECB to lift rates in September 2019. Short-Term Trade: Sell EUR/GBP This week’s political survival of Prime Minister Theresa May means that for another year, the hard Brexiters cannot challenge her for leadership of the Conservative Party. While it does not mean that the Brexit saga is over, it does mean that the probability of a Hard, No-Deal Brexit has fallen even further. As such, this implies that the politically driven rally in EUR/GBP since mid November is likely to reverse (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Tactical Trade: Sell EUR/GBP Additionally, the outperformance of British wages relative to the euro area should also support the pound in the short term (Chart I-15). A lower risk of a crash Brexit together with an ECB displaying a somewhat dovish side should cause an upgrade by investors in the expected path of monetary policy in the U.K. relative to the euro area. Moreover, while the euro area current account surplus has rolled over, the U.K.’s is steadily improving, making the pound progressively less dependent on international flows. Chart I-15Relative Wages Favor BoE Hikes Versus ECB Hikes As such, we are opening a tactical trade: selling EUR/GBP with a tight stop at 0.9100 and a target at 0.8700.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Waiting For A Real Deal”, dated December 7, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Appetite For Destruction? FX Investing For Slowing Global Growth And Inflation”, dated November 23, 2018, as well as the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus”, dated August 3, 2018. Both are available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Core inflation came in line with expectations at 2.2%. This measure also increased from last month’s reading. Meanwhile, the JOLTS job openings outperformed expectations, coming in at 7.079 million However, while nonfarm payrolls underperformed expectations, coming in at 155 thousand, U.S. average hourly earnings remains solid DXY has risen by 0.5% this past week. We continue to be bullish on the U.S. dollar. The current environment of falling global growth and inflation has historically been very positive for this currency. Moreover, the market has already priced out any Fed hikes beyond December. This means that the risk for U.S. rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world remains to the upside. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been mixed: Industrial production yearly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.2%. However, the Sentix Investor Confidence index surprised negatively, coming in at -0.3. Finally, Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations coming in at 1.6%. EUR/USD has been flat this week. Yesterday, the ECB downgraded its 2018 and 2019 growth forecasts. Moreover ECB president Mario Draghi hinted at increasing caution, as he remarked that downside risks where growing. We believe that EUR/USD has further downside, towards the 1.08-1.05 range, as the ECB will be unable to tighten monetary policy in the current environment of slowing global growth. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Evaluating The ECB’s Options In December - November 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Machinery orders yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 4.5%. Moreover, the final revisions to GDP annualized growth also surprised downside, coming in at -2.5%. Finally, the leading economic index also surprised negatively, coming in at 100.5. USD/JPY has risen by 0.8% this week. We are positive on the yen for the first quarter of 2019, especially on its crosses. The current risk off environment should be positive for safe havens like the yen. We are particularly negative on EUR/JPY, as this cross is very well correlated with bond yields, which have possess short-term downside. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Industrial production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.8%. Moreover, the claimant count change also surprised negatively, coming in at 21.9 thousand. However, average hourly earnings excluding and including bonus both outperformed expectations, coming in at 3.3%. GBP/USD has fallen by 1.2% this week on political risks. However, on Wednesday PM Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence that would have removed her from the leadership of the tory party. With this win, Prime Minister May is now protected from intra-party challenges for at least a year, strengthening her ability to fend-off demands by hard-brexiters. This event has created a tactical opportunity to sell EUR/GBP. Report Links: Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been positive: The house price index yearly growth came in line with expectations, declining by -1.5%. Moreover, home loans growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.2%. AUD/USD has been flat this week. We believe that the AUD is the currency with the most potential downside in the G10. After all, Australia is the G-10 economy most leveraged to the Chinese industrial cycle, due to Australia’s high reliance on industrial metal and coal exports. This means that the continued tightening by Chinese authorities should be most toxic for this currency. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has fallen by 0.5% this week. After being bullish in the NZD for a couple of months, we have recently turned bearish, as this currency is very likely to suffer in the current environment of declining inflation and global growth. said that being said, we remain bullish on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia’s. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been positive: Net change in employment surprised positively, coming in at 94.1 thousand. Moreover, the unemployment rate also surprised positively, coming in at 5.6%. Finally, housing starts growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 216 thousand. After falling by nearly 1%, USD/CAD finished the week flat. While we are bearish on the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, we are more positive on the CAD against the AUD. Renewed tightening in oil supply should serve as a support for global oil producers. Meanwhile, Chinese deleveraging will continue, hurting base metals in the process. This will cause oil to outperform base metals, which means that the CAD should have upside against currencies like the AUD. Finally, domestic economic conditions favor BoC hikes versus RBA hike, even after the recent pause flagged by the BoC. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has been flat this week. Our bullish view on EUR/CHF is a high conviction view for the first part of 2019. This is because the recent strength in the franc is choking out any inflationary pressures in the Swiss economy. Thus, we are reaching the threshold at which the SNB is very likely to intervene in the currency market to prevent the franc’s strength from derailing the path toward the inflation target. In fact, the SNB even acknowledged this reality this week by downgrading its inflation outlook. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has risen by 0.7% this week. While we maintain a bearish stance toward the krone versus the U.S. dollar, we are short AUD/NOK, as a way to take advantage of stabilizing oil prices and a continued growth slowdown in China. Moreover, AUD/NOK is expensive in PPP terms, and is technically overbought. Finally, this currency is one of the most mean-reverting within the G10, which means that the recent surge in this cross is likely to reverse. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has risen by 0.9% this week. On a short-term basis, we are negative on the krona, given that this currency is very sensitive to global growth dynamics, which means that the continued tightening by both Chinese authorities and the Fed will create a headwind for any SEK rally. That being said, on a longer-term basis we are more positive on the krona, as the Riksbank has a lot of room to lift rates as the Swedish economy is increasingly displaying large internal imbalances that need to be addressed. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? Chart 1U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Chart 2Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Chart 3Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Chart 4Policymakers Fear The Middle Income Trap Chart 5Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Chart 6Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Chart 7The Market Has Already Priced-In A Fed Pause We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Chart 8Global Growth Leading Indicators Chart 9Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? Chart 10A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   Chart 11Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive? Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Chart 13ADon't Focus Just On TSF... Chart 13B...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Chart 14AOpening The Front Door... Chart 14B...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Chart 15Old China Is A Zombie China Chart 16Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Chart 17A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Chart 18Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Chart 19Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Chart 20U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Chart 21Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Chart 22Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Chart 23Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Chart 24Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Chart 25...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Chart 26Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. Chart 27EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Chart 28Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Chart 29Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Chart 30Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. Chart 31Trump Sanctions Boosted Risk Premium We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. Chart 32Barometer Of Trump’s Survival This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Chart 33Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Chart 34Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Chart 35Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights On the bright side, Malaysia’s structural backdrop is improving notably, especially in the semiconductors segment. Yet the cyclical growth outlook remains downbeat. While we are maintaining a market-weight allocation to Malaysian equities within an EM equity portfolio, we are putting this bourse on our upgrade watch list. As a play on the ameliorating structural outlook, we recommend an overweight position in Malaysian small-cap stocks relative to the EM universe – both the small-cap and overall equity benchmarks. Feature Malaysian stocks have performed quite poorly in recent years: the equity index, in U.S. dollars, is close to its 2016 lows in absolute terms, and relative to the emerging markets (EM) benchmark, it is not far from the lows of last decade (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Malaysian Stocks & Commodities Prices: Tight Relationship Odds are that a structural bottom in this bourse’s relative performance versus the EM index may have been reached. Hence, we are putting Malaysian equities on our upgrade watch list while maintaining a market-weight allocation due to tactical considerations. On the negative side, the past credit excesses have not been recognized and provisioned for by Malaysian commercial banks. The latter account for a notable 34% of the MSCI Malaysia index, and they will be a drag on this bourse's performance. Absolute performance also still hinges on global growth, commodities prices and the overall direction of Asian/EM markets. We are still negative on these parameters. Critically, there are various signs indicating an ameliorating structural backdrop in Malaysia. The country is undergoing notable improvements in the semiconductor sector, thereby reducing its dependence on commodities and increasing its exposure to a high-value industry. To capitalize on this theme of an improving structural backdrop, we are recommending an overweight position in Malaysian small-cap stocks relative to the EM universe – both the small-cap and overall equity benchmarks. Shifting Away From Commodities And Toward Electronics Parting Ways With Commodities Malaysia and its financial markets have been very exposed to commodities prices over the past 15 years or so (Chart I-1, top panel). Nevertheless, the country seems to be shifting away from its considerable reliance on the resource sector and moving into other value-added segments: in particular, semiconductors and technology. Such a structural shift – if successful – would be an extremely positive development as it would lead to rising productivity gains and higher per capita income growth. In short, the country would be able to achieve higher rates of sustainable non-inflationary growth, feeding into a sustainable bull market in Malaysian equities. Several points are noteworthy in this regard: The real output of crude and petroleum products as well as palm oil are declining sharply relative to the economy’s real total output (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Malaysia's Commodities Output Is Falling In Importance Exports volumes of palm oil, crude oil and natural gas have all been falling relative to Malaysia’s total overseas shipment volumes (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Commodities Export Volumes Are Declining In Relative Terms Crude oil, gas, and palm oil now account for 4%, 5%, and 7% of total exports in value terms, respectively. Crucially, not only is the importance of commodities in the overall Malaysian economy diminishing in volume terms, it is also falling in nominal terms due to low resource prices. For instance, net export revenues from fuel (i.e. crude oil, petroleum and natural gas) have fallen from US$18 billion in 2013 to US$5 billion today (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-4Commodities' Net Export Revenues Are Also Diminishing Meanwhile, net exports of palm oil (and other plant-based fats) have dropped from US$20 billion to US$10 billion (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Improvement In High-Value-Added Manufacturing There are also some positive structural signs taking place in the Malaysian economy that are signaling an improvement in productivity and competitiveness: Malaysian export volumes of machinery and transport equipment are expanding in absolute terms as well as relative to overall export volumes (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Chart I-5Malaysia's Machinery Exports Are Rocking Remarkably, Malaysian aggregate export volumes are quickly regaining lost global market share (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Further, the ratio of exports to imports has hit a structural bottom and is slowly picking up in volume terms (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Malaysian Overall Exports Are Regaining Lost Market Share This suggests some improvements in the competitiveness of domestic industries is slowly underway. Meanwhile, Malaysian high-skill and technology intensive exports as a share of global high-tech exports seem to have made a major bottom in U.S. dollar terms and will begin to rise (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Bottom In Malaysia's High-Tech Global Share? Advanced education enrollment is high and improving – and is only outpaced by Korea and China in emerging Asia (Chart I-8). Importantly, Malaysia has among the best demographics of mainstream developing countries. The working age population as a share of the total population will continue to be high all the way to 2040. Chart I-8Malaysians Like Going To School Malaysian expenditures on R&D have also been on the rise, outpacing a lot of other countries in the region (Chart I-9, top panel). R&D expenditures in Malaysia could also be catching up to Singapore’s (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-9Malaysia's Expenditure On R&D Is Rising In line with these positives, net FDIs into Malaysia have been rising briskly (Chart I-10). Importantly, these investments have been driven by European companies, meaning the latter are transferring valuable technological know-how to Malaysia. Chart I-10Net FDIs Are Rising The Malaysian ringgit is cheap (Chart I-11) and has reached almost two-decade lows against many Asian currencies. This makes Malaysia increasingly more competitive. Chart I-11The Ringgit Is Cheap Finally, our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy team believe that the recently elected Pakatan Harapan government will improve governance and transparency, which had significantly deteriorated under Najib Razak’s rule. A Marriage To Electronics Malaysia is attempting to reestablish itself as a major semiconductor hub in the region. Remarkably, after declining for 15 years, semiconductor exports are finally rising as a share of GDP (Chart I-12) and Malaysian semiconductor exports are outperforming those of its neighbors. Chart I-12Malaysian Semiconductor Exports Are Booming The Malaysian government since 2010, has identified the semiconductor sector as a key area for development and prosperity. In turn, it has been introducing programs and setting up institutions to support the industry. The 2019 budget reinforces the government’s priority to develop the sector. Several anecdotal observations confirm that Malaysia is moving up the value chain in the semiconductor industry, and is going beyond simple testing and assembly: Growing the semiconductor cluster: The Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic Systems (MIMOS) has established a shared services platform for advanced analytical services in the semiconductor industry to provide support to Malaysian semiconductor companies. The Economic Industrial Design Centre (EIDC) is also providing support to SMEs in order to enhance their efficiency. Similarly, the Semiconductor Fabrication Association of Malaysia (SFAM) has been partnering with local universities to enhance their engineering programs and offer training, internships and research opportunities for students. Developing home-grown semiconductors: In 2015, Malaysian public institutions in partnership with private companies developed the Green Motion Controller (GMS), an integrated circuit that reduces energy consumption. This semiconductor is an energy efficient controller that carries applications in hybrid cars and air conditioners, among other things. Nanotechnology: NanoMalaysia – a nanotechnology commercialization agency – is providing services to SMEs and start-ups to help increase their competitiveness by enabling them to upgrade to more efficient production methods. Light-emitting Diode (LED) manufacturing: Malaysia is becoming a hub for the manufacturing of energy efficient LED chips. This is the result of OSRAM’s – a German light manufacturer – large investment in a high-tech production facility. There are early signs already that the above developments are beginning to bear results. Chart I-13 shows that the difference between exports and imports of semiconductors (in U.S. dollars) have been surging. This shows Malaysia is able to add greater value to the semiconductors it imports and then re-exports. Chart I-13Malaysia Adds Value To The Semis It Imports Bottom Line: Commodities are declining in importance to the Malaysian economy. Meanwhile, Malaysia’s structural backdrop is improving as the semiconductor and hardware technology segments are rising in prominence. Cyclical Weakness Despite the positive structural backdrop, Malaysia’s cyclical outlook remains challenging. Our view on commodities and global trade continues to be negative. Not only are commodities prices deflating but semiconductor prices are also falling, and their global shipments are weakening (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Cyclical Weakness In Global Semiconductor Cycle The epicenter of the global trade slowdown, however, will be in Chinese construction activity. Consequently, industrial resources prices are more vulnerable than electronics in this global growth downturn. The above deflationary forces would negatively shock Asia’s growth outlook, and consequently Malaysian growth as well: The top panel of Chart I-15 shows that Malaysian narrow money growth has already rolled over decisively and is foreshadowing weaker bank loan growth. Chart I-15Malaysian Domestic Growth Set To Weaken Slower bank loan growth will weaken purchasing power and impact domestic consumption. The middle panel of Chart I-15 shows that car sales – having surged this summer because of the abolishment of the GST – are weakening anew. Malaysian companies and banks have among the largest foreign currency debt loads (Table I-1). We expect more currency depreciation in Malaysia, as we do in EM overall. This will make foreign currency debt more expensive to service, and consequently dampen companies’ and banks’ appetites for expansion. Table I-1Malaysia's External Debt Breakdown Finally, the real estate sector remains depressed. Property volume sales are contracting and have dropped to 2008 levels, and housing construction approvals are slumping (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Malaysia's Property Sector Is Depressed While this means that cleansing has been taking place in the property sector, the banking sector has not recognized NPLs and remains the weakest link in the Malaysian economy. Specifically, the top panel of Chart I-17 illustrates that the NPLs in the banking system still stand at a mere 1.5%. This is in spite of the fact that since 2009, non-financial private sector credit to GDP has risen significantly. Therefore, the true level of NPLs is probably considerably higher. Chart I-17Malaysian Banks Are Under-Provisioned Further, Malaysian banks have been lowering provisions to boost profits (Chart I-17, bottom panel). This is unsustainable. As growth weakens, Malaysian banks will see their NPLs rise and will need to raise provisions. Chart I-18 demonstrates that if provisions rise by 20%, bank operating earnings will contract and bank share prices would fall. Chart I-18Malaysian Banks' Share Prices Will Fall Bottom Line: Malaysia’s cyclical growth outlook is still feeble, with the banking system being the weakest link. Banks’ large weight in the equity index makes this bourse still vulnerable in the coming months. Optimal Macro Policy Mix Fiscal Consolidation… Fiscal policy is set to be tighter as per the Malaysian government budget announced on November 2 and its preference to pursue fiscal consolidation to reduce the deficit. The budget projects only a slight increase in expenditures in 2019, which means it will likely slowdown from 8% currently (Chart I-19). Chart I-19Government Expenditure Growth Will Soften The government will also recognize public-sector liabilities not presently shown on its balance sheet and strengthen both transparency and administrative efficiency. Critically, the budget also includes strategies to support the entrepreneurial part of the economy. Overall, this budget bodes very well for the structural outlook. Yet it will not support growth cyclically. …To Be Offset By Easy Monetary Policy Despite continued currency weakness, the Malaysian monetary authorities will not be in a hurry to raise interest rates to defend the ringgit. This is in contrast with other central banks in the region like Indonesia and the Philippines. This is presently an optimal policy mix for Malaysia and is positive for the stock market’s relative performance versus its counterparts in many other EMs. Malaysia’s structural inflation is low: core inflation hovers around zero. Therefore, the central bank will neither raise interest rates nor sell its foreign exchange reserves to defend the currency. Both currency depreciation and low interest rates are needed to mitigate the downturn in exports as well as offset fiscal consolidation. In the meantime, the ringgit is unlikely to depreciate in a sudden and vicious manner but rather will likely fall gradually. First, the current account will remain in surplus, even as global trade contracts. The basis is that if Malaysian exports fall, imports will simultaneously follow. The country imports a lot of intermediate goods to then process and re-export. Second, Malaysia is unlikely to witness pronounced capital flight as occurred in 2015. The new government has increased confidence in the economy among both locals and foreigners. In addition, net portfolio investments have been negative for a while. This means that a large amount of foreign capital has exited already, reducing the risk of further outflows. What’s more, foreign ownership of local currency bonds has fallen from 33% in June 2016 to 24% today. Moreover, at 28% of market cap, foreign ownership of equities is among the lowest in EM. These also limit potential foreign selling. Bottom Line: Policymakers are adopting a wise policy mix for the economy at the current juncture: tight fiscal and easy monetary policies. This is structurally positive, even if it does not preclude cyclical weakness. Investment Conclusions Weighing structural positives versus the cyclical growth weakness and the unhealthy banking system, we are maintaining a market-weight allocation to Malaysian stocks within the EM universe, but are placing this bourse on our upgrade watch list. We need to see a selloff in bank stocks before we upgrade it to overweight. Within Malaysian equities, we recommend shorting/underweighting banks and going long/overweighting small cap stocks. To capitalize on Malaysia’s improving structural growth outlook, we recommend buying Malaysian small caps, but hedging positions by shorting the EM aggregate or small-cap indexes. The ringgit is poised to depreciate further versus the U.S. dollar along with other EM/Asian currencies. We continue to short the ringgit versus the greenback. With respect to sovereign credit and local government bonds, dedicated portfolios should currently have a market-weight allocation. The negative cyclical growth outlook is offset by the right macro policy mix and improving growth potential.   Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com​​​​​​​ Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations