South Korea

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? U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.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. Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans 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). 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Debt Still Rising Debt 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. Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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. Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does 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? bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 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.   2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge China's Total Credit Is Weak China'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. Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...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. Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... ...Closing The Back Door ...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). Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Propensity To Save Propensity 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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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. A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A 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. Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing 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. Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump'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? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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. U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.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. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade 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. Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing 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. Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...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. Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers 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. EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU 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. Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain 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.  Start Buying The Pound Start 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. Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: 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. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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. Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico 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). Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Technicals Look Good Too Technicals 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 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 U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.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 Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Chart 3Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans 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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 5Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Debt 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 Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Chart 7The Market Has Already Priced-In A Fed Pause 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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 Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Chart 9Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does 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 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 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? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China'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... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Chart 13B...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...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... Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Chart 14B...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door ...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 Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Chart 16Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Propensity 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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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 A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A 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 Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing 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 Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump'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? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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 U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 22Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade 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 Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing 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... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Chart 25...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...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 Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers 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 EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU 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 Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain 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 Start Buying The Pound Start 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 Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: 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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 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 Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico 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 Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Chart 35Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too Technicals 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

This week we are publishing Part 1 of an overview of the cyclical profiles of emerging market (EM) economies. This all-in-charts presentation illustrates the business cycle conditions of the largest EMs. The aim of this report is to provide investors with a quick assessment of where each EM economy stands. In addition, we provide our view on each market. The rest of the countries will be covered in next week’s Part 2. Chart A CHART A CHART A Chart B CHART B CHART B Korea: Overweight Equities Korea: Overweight Equities CHART 1 CHART 1 Korea: Overweight Equities CHART 2 CHART 2 Korea: Overweight Equities CHART 3 CHART 3 ...But Negative On Currency ...But Negative On Currency CHART 6 CHART 6 ...But Negative On Currency CHART 4 CHART 4 ...But Negative On Currency CHART 5 CHART 5 ...But Negative On Currency CHART 7 CHART 7 Taiwan: Overweight Equities But... Taiwan: Overweight Equities... CHART 8 CHART 8 Taiwan: Overweight Equities... CHART 10 CHART 10 Taiwan: Overweight Equities... CHART 9 CHART 9 Taiwan: Overweight Equities... CHART 11 CHART 11 ...Absolute Return Investors Should Mind Cracks In Semi Sector ...Absolute Return Investors Should ##br##Mind Cracks In Semi Sector CHART 12 CHART 12 ...Absolute Return Investors Should ##br##Mind Cracks In Semi Sector CHART 13 CHART 13 India: Remain Overweight India: Remain Overweight CHART 14 CHART 14 India: Remain Overweight CHART 17 CHART 17 India: Remain Overweight CHART 15 CHART 15 India: Remain Overweight CHART 16 CHART 16 India: Strong Domestic Growth & Advanced NPL Recognition India: Strong Domestic Growth & ##br##Advanced NPL Recognition CHART 18 CHART 18 India: Strong Domestic Growth & ##br##Advanced NPL Recognition CHART 20 CHART 20 India: Strong Domestic Growth & ##br##Advanced NPL Recognition CHART 19 CHART 19 India: Strong Domestic Growth & ##br##Advanced NPL Recognition Cyclical Profiles Of EM Economies: Part 1 Cyclical Profiles Of EM Economies: Part 1 South Africa: On Shaky Foundations - Underweight South Africa: On Shaky Foundations CHART 22 CHART 22 South Africa: On Shaky Foundations CHART 23 CHART 23 South Africa: On Shaky Foundations CHART 24 CHART 24 South Africa: On Shaky Foundations CHART 25 CHART 25 South Africa: Strong Consumption, No CAPEX And No Competitiveness South Africa: Strong Consumption, ##br##No CAPEX And No Competitiveness CHART 26 CHART 26 South Africa: Strong Consumption, ##br##No CAPEX And No Competitiveness CHART 28 CHART 28 South Africa: Strong Consumption, ##br##No CAPEX And No Competitiveness CHART 27 CHART 27 South Africa: Strong Consumption, ##br##No CAPEX And No Competitiveness CHART 29 CHART 29 Brazil: Heading Towards A Fiscal Debacle - Underweight Brazil: Heading Towards A Fiscal Debacle CHART 30 CHART 30 Brazil: Heading Towards A Fiscal Debacle CHART 31 CHART 31 Brazil: Heading Towards A Fiscal Debacle CHART 32 CHART 32 Brazil: More Downside In Financial Assets Brazil: More Downside In Financial Assets CHART 33 CHART 33 Brazil: More Downside In Financial Assets CHART 35 CHART 35 Brazil: More Downside In Financial Assets CHART 34 CHART 34 Brazil: More Downside In Financial Assets CHART 36 CHART 36 Mexico: Domestic Fundamentals Are Improving - Overweight Mexico: Domestic Fundamentals Are Improving CHART 44 CHART 44 Mexico: Domestic Fundamentals Are Improving CHART 45 CHART 45 Mexico: Domestic Fundamentals Are Improving CHART 46 CHART 46 Mexico: External Sector Is Faring Well Mexico: External Sector Is Faring Well CHART 47 CHART 47 Mexico: External Sector Is Faring Well CHART 49 CHART 49 Mexico: External Sector Is Faring Well CHART 48 CHART 48 Russia: Orthodox Monetary And Fiscal Policies Russia: Orthodox Monetary And Fiscal Policies CHART 37 CHART 37 Russia: Orthodox Monetary And Fiscal Policies CHART 38 CHART 38 Russia: Orthodox Monetary And Fiscal Policies CHART 39 CHART 39 Russia: Orthodox Monetary And Fiscal Policies CHART 40 CHART 40 Russia: Gradual Cyclical Improvements - On Upgrade Watchlist Russia: Gradual Cyclical Improvements CHART 40 CHART 40 Russia: Gradual Cyclical Improvements CHART 42 CHART 42 Russia: Gradual Cyclical Improvements CHART 43 CHART 43 Turkey: A Genuine Inflation Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses Turkey: A Genuine Inflation ##br##Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses CHART 50 CHART 50 Turkey: A Genuine Inflation ##br##Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses CHART 51 CHART 51 Turkey: A Genuine Inflation ##br##Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses CHART 54 CHART 54 Turkey: A Genuine Inflation ##br##Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses CHART 52 CHART 52 Turkey: A Genuine Inflation ##br##Breakout Amidst Credit Excesses CHART 53 CHART 53 Turkey: Still In Dangerous Territory - Underweight Turkey: Still In Dangerous Territory CHART 55 CHART 55 Turkey: Still In Dangerous Territory CHART 58 CHART 58 Turkey: Still In Dangerous Territory CHART 56 CHART 56 Turkey: Still In Dangerous Territory CHART 57 CHART 57 Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature Valuations, whether for currencies, equities or bonds, are always at the top of the list of the determinants of any asset's long-term performance. This means that after large FX moves like those experienced so far this year, it is always useful to pause and reflect on where currency valuations stand. In this optic, this week we update our set of long-term valuation models for currencies that we introduced In February 2016 in a Special Report titled, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets". Included in these models are variables such as productivity differentials, terms-of-trade shocks, net international investment positions, real rate differentials and proxies for global risk aversion.1 These models cover 22 currencies, incorporating both G-10 and EM FX markets. Twice a year, we provide clients with a comprehensive update of all these long-term models in one stop. The models are not designed to generate short- or intermediate-term forecasts. Instead, they reflect the economic drivers of a currency's equilibrium. Their purpose is therefore threefold. First, they provide guideposts to judge whether we are at the end, beginning or middle of a long-term currency cycle. Second, by providing strong directional signals, they help us judge whether any given move is more likely to be a countertrend development or not, offering insight on its potential longevity. Finally, they assist us and our clients in cutting through the fog, and understanding the key drivers of cyclical variations in a currency's value. The U.S. Dollar Chart 1Dollar: Back At Fair Value Dollar: Back At Fair Value Dollar: Back At Fair Value 2017 was a terrible year for the dollar, but the selloff had one important positive impact: it erased the dollar's massive overvaluation that was so evident in the direct wake of U.S. President Donald Trump's election. In fact, today, based on its long-term drivers, the dollar is modestly cheap (Chart 1). Fair value for the dollar is currently flattered by the fact that real long-term yields are higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the G-10. Investors are thus betting that U.S. neutral interest rates are much higher than in other advanced economies. This also means that the uptrend currently evident in the dollar's fair value could end once we get closer to the point where Europe can join the U.S. toward lifting rates - a point at which investors could begin upgrading their estimates of the neutral rate in the rest of the world. This would be dollar bearish. For the time being, we recommend investors keep a bullish posturing on the USD for the remainder of 2018. Not only is global growth still slowing, a traditionally dollar-bullish development, but also the fed funds rate is likely to be moving closer to r-star. As we have previously showed, when the fed funds rate rises above r-star, the dollar tends to respond positively.2 Finally, cyclical valuations are not a handicap for the dollar anymore. The Euro Chart 2The Euro Is Still Cheap The Euro Is Still Cheap The Euro Is Still Cheap As most currencies managed to rise against the dollar last year, the trade-weighted euro's appreciation was not as dramatic as that of EUR/USD. Practically, this also means that despite a furious rally in this pair, the broad euro remains cheap on a cyclical basis, a cheapness that has only been accentuated by weakness in the euro since the first quarter of 2018 (Chart 2). The large current account of the euro area, which stands at 3.5% of GDP, is starting to have a positive impact on the euro's fair value, as it is lifting the currency bloc's net international investment position. Moreover, euro area interest rates may remain low relative to the U.S. for the next 12 to 18 months, but the 5-year forward 1-month EONIA rate is still near rock-bottom levels, and has scope to rise on a multi-year basis. This points toward a continuation of the uptrend in the euro's fair value. For the time being, despite a rosy long-term outlook for the euro, we prefer to remain short EUR/USD. Shorter-term fair value estimates are around 1.12, and the euro tends to depreciate against the dollar when global growth is weakening, as is currently the case. Moreover, the euro area domestic economy is not enjoying the same strength as the U.S. right now. This creates an additional handicap for the euro, especially as the Federal Reserve is set to keep increasing rates at a pace of four hikes a year, while the European Central Bank remains as least a year away from lifting rates. The Yen Chart 3Attractive Long-Term Valuation, But... Attractive Long-Term Valuation, But... Attractive Long-Term Valuation, But... The yen remains one of the cheapest major currencies in the world (Chart 3), as the large positive net international investment position of Japan, which stands at 64% of GDP, still constitutes an important support for it. Moreover, the low rate of Japanese inflation is helping Japan's competitiveness. However, while valuations represent a tailwind for the yen, the Bank of Japan faces an equally potent headwind. At current levels, the yen may not be much of a problem for Japan's competitiveness, but it remains the key driver of the country's financial conditions. Meanwhile, Japanese FCI are the best explanatory variable for Japanese inflation.3 It therefore follows that any strengthening in the yen will hinder the ability of the BoJ to hit its inflation target, forcing this central bank to maintain a dovish tilt for the foreseeable future. As a result, while we see how the current soft patch in global growth may help the yen, we worry that any positive impact on the JPY may prove transitory. Instead, we would rather play the yen-bullish impact of slowing global growth and rising trade tensions by selling the euro versus the yen than by selling the USD, as the ECB does not have the same hawkish bias as the Fed, and as the European economy is not the same juggernaut as the U.S. right now. The British Pound Chart 4Smaller Discount In The GBP Smaller Discount In The GBP Smaller Discount In The GBP The real-trade weighted pound has been appreciating for 13 months. This reflects two factors: the nominal exchange rate of the pound has regained composure from its nadir of January 2017, and higher inflation has created additional upward pressures on the real GBP. As a result of these dynamics, the deep discount of the real trade-weighted pound to its long-term fair value has eroded (Chart 4). The risk that the May government could fall and be replaced either by a hard-Brexit PM or a Corbyn-led coalition means that a risk premia still needs to be embedded in the price of the pound. As a result, the current small discount in the pound may not be enough to compensate investors for taking on this risk. This suggests that the large discount of the pound to its purchasing-power-parity fair value might overstate its cheapness. While the risks surrounding British politics means that the pound is not an attractive buy on a long-term basis anymore, we do like it versus the euro on a short-term basis: EUR/GBP tends to depreciate when EUR/USD has downside, and the U.K. economy may soon begin to stabilize as slowing inflation helps British real wages grow again after contracting from October 2016 to October 2017, which implies that the growth driver may move a bit in favor of the pound. The Canadian Dollar Chart 5CAD Near Fair Value CAD Near Fair Value CAD Near Fair Value The stabilization of the fair value for the real trade-weighted Canadian dollar is linked to the rebound in commodity prices, oil in particular. However, despite this improvement, the CAD has depreciated and is now trading again in line with its long-term fair value (Chart 5). This lack of clear valuation opportunity implies that the CAD will remain chained to economic developments. On the negative side, the CAD still faces some potentially acrimonious NAFTA negotiations, especially as U.S. President Donald Trump could continue with his bellicose trade rhetoric until the mid-term elections. Additionally, global growth is slowing and emerging markets are experiencing growing stresses, which may hurt commodity prices and therefore pull the CAD's long-term fair value lower. On the positive side, the Canadian economy is strong and is exhibiting a sever lack of slack in its labor market, which is generating both rapidly growing wages and core inflation of 1.8%. The Bank of Canada is therefore set to increase rates further this year, potentially matching the pace of rate increase of the Fed over the coming 24 months. As a result of this confluence of forces, we are reluctant to buy the CAD against the USD, especially as the former is strong. Instead, we prefer buying the CAD against the EUR and the AUD, two currencies set to suffer if global growth decelerates but that do not have the same support from monetary policy as the loonie. The Australian Dollar Chart 6The AUD Is Not Yet Cheap The AUD Is Not Yet Cheap The AUD Is Not Yet Cheap The real trade-weighted Australian dollar has depreciated by 5%, which has caused a decrease in the AUD's premium to its long-term fair value. The decline in the premium also reflects a small upgrade in the equilibrium rate itself, a side effect of rising commodity prices last year. However, despite these improvements, the AUD still remains expensive (Chart 6). Moreover, the rise in the fair value may prove elusive, as the slowdown in global growth and rising global trade tensions could also push down the AUD's fair value. These dynamics make the AUD our least-favored currency in the G-10. Additionally, the domestic economy lacks vigor. Despite low unemployment, the underemployment rate tracked by the Reserve Bank of Australia remains nears a three-decade high, which is weighing on both wages and inflation. This means that unlike in Canada, the RBA is not set to increase rates this year, and may in fact be forced to wait well into 2019 or even 2020 before doing so. The AUD therefore is not in a position to benefit from the same policy support as the CAD. We are currently short the AUD against the CAD and the NZD. We have also recommended investors short the Aussie against the yen as this cross is among the most sensitive to global growth. The New Zealand Dollar Chart 7NZD Vs Fair Value NZD Vs Fair Value NZD Vs Fair Value After having traded at a small discount to its fair value in the wake of the formation of a Labour / NZ first coalition government, the NZD is now back at equilibrium (Chart 7). The resilience of the kiwi versus the Aussie has been a key factor driving the trade-weighted kiwi higher this year. Going forward, a lack of clearly defined over- or undervaluation in the kiwi suggests that the NZD will be like the Canadian dollar: very responsive to international and domestic economic developments. This gives rise to a very muddled picture. Based on the output and unemployment gaps, the New Zealand economy seems at full employment, yet it has not seen much in terms of wage or inflationary pressures. As a result, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has refrained from adopting a hawkish tone. Moreover, the populist policy prescriptions of the Ardern government are also creating downside risk for the kiwi. High immigration has been a pillar behind New Zealand's high-trend growth rate, and therefore a buttress behind the nation's high interest rates. Yet, the government wants to curtail this source of dynamism. On the international front, the kiwi economy has historically been very sensitive to global growth. While this could be a long-term advantage, in the short-term the current global growth soft patch represents a potent handicap for the kiwi. In the end, we judge Australia's problems as deeper than New Zealand's. Since valuations are also in the NZD's favor, the only exposure we like to the kiwi is to buy it against the AUD. The Swiss Franc Chart 8The SNB's Problem The SNB's Problem The SNB's Problem On purchasing power parity metrics, the Swiss franc is expensive, and the meteoric rise of Swiss unit labor costs expressed in euros only confirms this picture. The problem is that this expensiveness is justified once other factors are taken into account, namely Switzerland's gargantuan net international investment position of 128% of GDP, which exerts an inexorable upward drift on the franc's fair value. Once this factor is incorporated, the Swiss franc currently looks cheap (Chart 8). The implication of this dichotomy is that the Swiss franc could experience upward pressure, especially when global growth slows, which is the case right now. However, the Swiss National Bank remains highly worried that an indebted economy like Switzerland, which also suffers from a housing bubble, cannot afford the deflationary pressures created by a strong franc. As a result, we anticipate that the SNB will continue to fight tooth and nail against any strength in the franc. Practically, we are currently short EUR/CHF on a tactical basis. Nonetheless, once we see signs that global growth is bottoming, we will once again look to buy the euro against the CHF as the SNB will remain in the driver's seat. The Swedish Krona Chart 9What The Riksbank Wants What The Riksbank Wants What The Riksbank Wants The Swedish krona is quite cheap (Chart 9), but in all likelihood the Riksbank wants it this way. Sweden is a small, open economy, with total trade representing 86% of GDP. This means that a cheap krona is a key ingredient to generating easy monetary conditions. However, this begs the question: Does Sweden actually need easy monetary conditions? We would argue that the answer to this question is no. Sweden has an elevated rate of capacity utilization as well as closed unemployment and output gaps. In fact, trend Swedish inflation has moved up, albeit in a choppy fashion, and the Swedish economy remains strong. Moreover, the country currently faces one of the most rabid housing bubbles in the world, which has caused household debt to surge to 182% of disposable income. This is creating serious vulnerabilities in the Swedish economy - dangers that will only grow larger as the Riksbank keep monetary policy at extremely easy levels. A case can be made that with large exposure to both global trade and industrial production cycles, the current slowdown in global growth is creating a risk for Sweden. These risks are compounded by the rising threat of a trade war. This could justify easier monetary policy, and thus a weaker SEK. When all is said and done, while the short-term outlook for the SEK will remained stymied by the global growth outlook, we do expect the Riksbank to increase rates this year as inflation could accelerate significantly. As a result, we recommend investors use this period of weakness to buy the SEK against both the dollar and the euro. The Norwegian Krone Chart 10The NOK Is The Cheapest Commodity Currency In The G-10 The NOK Is The Cheapest Commodity Currency In The G-10 The NOK Is The Cheapest Commodity Currency In The G-10 The Norwegian krone has experienced a meaningful rally against the euro and the krona this year - the currencies of its largest trading partners - and as such, the large discount of the real trade-weighted krone to its equilibrium rate has declined. On a long-term basis, the krone remains the most attractive commodity currency in the G-10 based on valuations alone (Chart 10). While we have been long NOK/SEK, currently we have a tactical negative bias towards this cross. Investors have aggressively bought inflation protection, a development that tends to favor the NOK over the SEK. However, slowing global growth could disappoint these expectations, resulting in a period of weakness in the NOK/SEK pair. Nonetheless, we believe this is only a short-term development, and BCA's bullish cyclical view on oil will ultimately dominate. As a result, we recommend long-term buyers use any weakness in the NOK right now to buy more of it against the euro, the SEK, and especially against the AUD. The Yuan Chart 11The CNY Is At Equilibrium The CNY Is At Equilibrium The CNY Is At Equilibrium The fair value of the Chinese yuan has been in a well-defined secular bull market because China's productivity - even if it has slowed - remains notably higher than productivity growth among its trading partners. However, while the yuan traded at a generous discount to its fair value in early 2017, this is no longer the case (Chart 11). Despite this, on a long-term basis we foresee further appreciation in the yuan as we expect the Chinese economy to continue to generate higher productivity growth than its trading partners. Moreover, for investors with multi-decade investment horizons, a slow shift toward the RMB as a reserve currency will ultimately help the yuan. However, do not expect this force to be felt in the RMB any time soon. On a shorter-term horizon, the picture is more complex. Chinese economic activity is slowing as monetary conditions as well as various regulatory and administrative rules have been tightened - all of them neatly fitting under the rubric of structural reforms. Now that the trade relationship between the U.S. and China is becoming more acrimonious, Chinese authorities are likely to try using various relief valves to limit downside to Chinese growth. The RMB could be one of these tools. As such, the recent strength in the trade-weighted dollar is likely to continue to weigh on the CNY versus the USD. Paradoxically, the USD's strength is also likely to mean that the trade-weighted yuan could experience some upside. The Brazilian Real Chart 12More Downside In The BRL More Downside In The BRL More Downside In The BRL Despite the real's recent pronounced weakness, it has more room to fall before trading at a discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 12). More worrisome, the equilibrium rate for the BRL has been stable, even though commodity prices have rebounded. This raises the risk that the BRL could experience a greater decline than what is currently implied by its small premium to fair value if commodity prices were to fall. Moreover, bear markets in the real have historically ended at significant discounts to fair value. The current economic environment suggests this additional decline could materialize through the remainder of 2018. Weak global growth has historically been a poison for commodity prices as well as for carry trades, two factors that have a strong explanatory power for the real. Moreover, China's deceleration and regulatory tightening should translate into further weakness in Chinese imports of raw materials, which would have an immediate deleterious impact on the BRL. Additionally, as we have previously argued, when the fed funds rate rise above r-star, this increases the probability of an accident in global capital markets. Since elevated debt loads are to be found in EM and not in the U.S., this implies that vulnerability to a financial accident is greatest in the EM space. The BRL, with its great liquidity and high representation in investors' portfolios, could bear the brunt of such an adjustment. The Mexican Peso Chart 13The MXN Is A Bargain Once Again The MXN Is A Bargain Once Again The MXN Is A Bargain Once Again When we updated our long-term models last September, the peso was one of the most expensive currencies covered, and we flagged downside risk. With President Trump re-asserting his protectionist rhetoric, and with EM bonds and currencies experiencing a wave of pain, the MXN has eradicated all of its overvaluation and is once again trading at a significant discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 13). Is it time to buy the peso? On a pure valuation basis, the downside now seems limited. However, risks are still plentiful. For one, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain rocky, at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. Trump's hawkish trade rhetoric is a surefire way to rally the GOP base at the polls in November. Second, the leading candidate in the polls for the Mexican presidential elections this summer is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City. Not only could AMLO's leftist status frighten investors, he is looking to drive a hard bargain with the U.S. on NAFTA, a clear recipe for plentiful headline risk in the coming months. Third, the MXN is the EM currency with the most abundant liquidity, and slowing global growth along with rising EM volatility could easily take its toll on the Mexican currency. As a result, to take advantage of the MXN's discount to fair value, a discount that is especially pronounced when contrasted with other EM currencies, we recommend investors buy the MXN versus the BRL or the ZAR instead of buying it outright against the USD. These trades are made even more attractive by the fact that Mexican rates are now comparable to those offered on South African or Brazilian paper. The Chilean Peso Chart 14The CLP Is At Risk The CLP Is At Risk The CLP Is At Risk We were correct to flag last September that the CLP had less downside than the BRL. But now, while the BRL's premium to fair value has declined significantly, the Chilean peso continues to trade near its highest premium of the past 10 years (Chart 14). This suggests the peso could have significant downside if EM weakness grows deeper. This risk is compounded by the fact that the peso's fair value is most sensitive to copper prices. Prices of the red metal had been stable until recent trading sessions. However, with the world largest consumer of copper - China - having accumulated large stockpiles and now slowing, copper prices could experience significant downside, dragging down the CLP in the process. An additional risk lurking for the CLP is the fact that Chile displays some of the largest USD debt as a percent of GDP in the EM space. This means that a strong dollar could inflict a dangerous tightening in Chilean financial conditions. This risk is even more potent as the strength in the dollar is itself a consequence of slowing global growth - a development that is normally negative for the Chilean peso. This confluence thus suggests that the expensive CLP is at great risk in the coming months. The Colombian Peso Chart 15The COP Is Latam's Cheapest Currency The COP Is Latam's Cheapest Currency The COP Is Latam's Cheapest Currency The Colombian peso is currently the cheapest currency covered by our models. The COP has not been able to rise along with oil prices, creating a large discount in the process (Chart 15). Three factors have weighed on the Colombian currency. First, Colombia just had elections. While a market-friendly outcome ultimately prevailed, investors were already expressing worry ahead of the first round of voting four weeks ago. Second, Colombia has a large current account deficit of 3.7% of GDP, creating a funding risk in an environment where liquidity for EM carry trades has decreased. Finally, Colombia has a heavy USD-debt load. However, this factor is mitigated by the fact that private debt stands at 65% of Colombia's GDP, reflecting the banking sector's conservative lending practices. At this juncture, the COP is an attractive long-term buy, especially as president-elect Ivan Duque is likely to pursue market-friendly policies. However, the country's large current account deficit as well as the general risk to commodity prices emanating from weaker global growth suggests that short-term downside risk is still present in the COP versus the USD. As a result, while we recommend long-term investors gain exposure to this cheap Latin American currency, short-term players should stay on the sidelines. Instead, we recommend tactical investors capitalize on the COP's cheapness by buying it against the expensive CLP. Not only are valuations and carry considerations favorable, Chile has even more dollar debt than Colombia, suggesting that the former is more exposed to dollar risk than the latter. Moreover, Chile is levered to metals prices while Colombia is levered to oil prices. Our commodity strategists are more positive on crude than on copper, and our negative outlook on China reinforces this message. The South African Rand Chart 16The Rand Will Cheapen Further The Rand Will Cheapen Further The Rand Will Cheapen Further Despite its more than 20% depreciation versus the dollar since February, the rand continues to trade above its estimate of long-term fair value (Chart 16). The equilibrium rate for the ZAR is in a structural decline, even after adjusting for inflation, as the productivity of the South African economy remains in a downtrend relative to that of its trading partners. This means the long-term trend in the ZAR will continue to point south. On a cyclical basis, it is not just valuations that concern us when thinking about the rand. South Africa runs a deficit in terms of FDI; however, portfolio inflows into the country have been rather large, resulting in foreign ownership of South African bonds of 44%. Additionally, net speculative positions in the rand are still at elevated levels. This implies that investors could easily sell their South African assets if natural resource prices were to sag. Since BCA's view on Chinese activity as well as the soft patch currently experienced by the global economy augur poorly for commodities, this could create potent downside risks for the ZAR. We will be willing buyers only once the rand's overvaluation is corrected. The Russian Ruble Chart 17The Ruble Is At Fair Value The Ruble Is At Fair Value The Ruble Is At Fair Value There is no evidence of mispricing in the rubble (Chart 17). Moreover the Russian central bank runs a very orthodox monetary policy, which gives us comfort that the RUB, with its elevated carry, remains an attractive long-term hold within the EM FX complex. On a shorter-term basis, the picture is more complex. The RUB is both an oil play as well as a carry currency. This means that the RUB is very exposed to global growth and liquidity conditions. This creates major risks for the ruble. EM FX volatility has been rising, and slowing global growth could result in an unwinding of inflation-protection trades, which may pull oil prices down. This combination is negative for both EM currencies and oil plays for the remainder of 2018. Our favorite way to take advantage of the RUB's sound macroeconomic policy, high interest rates and lack of valuation extremes is to buy it against other EM currencies. It is especially attractive against the BRL, the ZAR and the CLP. The only EM commodity currency against which it doesn't stack up favorably is the COP, as the COP possesses a much deeper discount to fair value than the RUB, limiting its downside if the global economy were to slow more sharply than we anticipate. The Korean Won Chart 18Despite Its Modest Cheapness, The KRW Is At Risk Despite Its Modest Cheapness, The KRW Is At Risk Despite Its Modest Cheapness, The KRW Is At Risk The Korean won currently trades at a modest discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 18). This suggests the KRW will possess more defensive attributes than the more expensive Latin American currencies. However, BCA is worried over the Korean currency's cyclical outlook. The Korean economy is highly levered to both global trade and the Chinese investment cycle. This means the Korean won is greatly exposed to the two largest risks in the global economy. Moreover, the Korean economy is saddled with a large debt load for the nonfinancial private sector of 193% of GDP, which means the Bank of Korea could be forced to take a dovish turn if the economy is fully hit by a global and Chinese slowdown. Moreover, the won has historically been very sensitive to EM sovereign spreads. EM spreads have moved above their 200-day moving average, which suggests technical vulnerability. This may well spread to the won, especially in light of the global economic environment. The Philippine Peso Chart 19Big Discount In The PHP Big Discount In The PHP Big Discount In The PHP The PHP is one of the rare EM currencies to trade at a significant discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 19). There are two main reasons behind this. First, the Philippines runs a current account deficit of 0.5% of GDP. This makes the PHP vulnerable in an environment where global liquidity has gotten scarcer and where carry trades have underperformed. The second reason behind the PHP's large discount is politics. Global investors remain uncomfortable with President Duterte's policies, and as such are imputing a large risk premium on the currency. Is the PHP attractive? On valuation alone, it is. However, the current account dynamics are expected to become increasingly troubling. The economy is in fine shape and the trade deficit could continue to widen as imports get a lift from strong domestic demand - something that could infringe on the PHP's attractiveness. However, on the positive side, the PHP has historically displayed a robust negative correlation with commodity prices, energy in particular. This suggests that if commodity prices experience a period of relapse, the PHP could benefit. The best way to take advantage of these dynamics is to not buy the PHP outright against the USD but instead to buy it against EM currencies levered to commodity prices like the MYR or the CLP. The Singapore Dollar Chart 20The SGD's Decline Is Not Over The SGD's Decline Is Not Over The SGD's Decline Is Not Over The Singapore dollar remains pricey (Chart 20). However, this is no guarantee of upcoming weakness. After all, the SGD is the main tool used by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to control monetary policy. Moreover, the MAS targets a basket of currencies versus the SGD. Based on these dynamics, historically the SGD has displayed a low beta versus the USD. Essentially, it is a defensive currency within the EM space. The SGD has historically moved in tandem with commodity prices. This makes sense. Commodity prices are a key input in Singapore inflation, and commodity prices perform well when global industrial activity and global trade are strong. This means that not only do rising commodity prices require a higher SGD to combat inflation, higher commodity prices materialize in an environment where this small trading nation is supported by potent tailwinds. Additionally, Singapore loan growth correlates quite closely with commodity prices, suggesting that strong commodity prices result in important amounts of savings from commodity producers being recycled in the Singaporean financial system. To prevent Singapore's economy from overheating in response to these liquidity inflows, MAS is being forced to tighten policy through a higher SGD. Today, with global growth softening and global trade likely to deteriorate, the Singaporean economy is likely to face important headwinds. Tightening monetary policy in the U.S. and in China will create additional headwinds. As a result, so long as the USD has upside, the SGD is likely to have downside versus the greenback. On a longer-term basis, we would expect the correction of the SGD's overvaluation to not happen versus the dollar but versus other EM currencies. The Hong Kong Dollar Chart 21The HKD Is Fairly Valued The HKD Is Fairly Valued The HKD Is Fairly Valued The troughs and peaks in the HKD follow the gyrations of the U.S. dollar. This is to be expected as the HKD has been pegged to the USD since 1983. Like the USD, it was expensive in early 2017, but now it is trading closer to fair value (Chart 21). Additionally, due to the large weight of the yuan in the trade-weighted HKD, the strength in the CNY versus the USD has had a greater impact on taming the HKD's overvaluation than it has on the USD's own mispricing. Moreover, the HKD is trading very close to the lower bound of its peg versus the USD, which has also contributed to the correction of its overvaluation. Even when the HKD was expensive last year, we were never worried that the peg would be undone. Historically, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has shown its willingness to tolerate deflation when the HKD has been expensive. The most recent period was no different. Moreover, the HKMA has ample fire power in terms of reserves to support the HKD if the need ever existed. Ultimately, the stability created by the HKD peg is still essential to Hong Kong's relevance as a financial center for China, especially in the face of the growing preeminence of Shanghai and Beijing as domestic financial centers. As a result, while we could see the HKD become a bit more expensive over the remainder of 2018 as the USD rallies a bit further, our long-term negative view on the USD suggests that on a multiyear basis the HKD will only cheapen. The Saudi Riyal Chart 22The SAR Remains Expensive The SAR Remains Expensive The SAR Remains Expensive Like the HKD, the riyal is pegged to the USD. However, unlike the HKD, the softness in the USD last year was not enough to purge the SAR's overvaluation (Chart 22). Ultimately, the kingdom's poor productivity means that the SAR needs more than a 15% fall in the dollar index to make the Saudi economy competitive. However, this matters little. Historically, when the SAR has been expensive, the Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority has picked the HKMA solution: deflation over devaluation. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia is a country that imports all goods other than energy products. With a young population, a surge in inflation caused by a falling currency is a risk to the durability of the regime that Riyadh is not willing to test. Moreover, SAMA has the firepower to support the SAR, especially when the aggregate wealth of the extended royal family is taken into account. Additionally, the rally in oil prices since February 2016 has put to rest worries about the country's fiscal standing. On a long-term basis, the current regime wants to reform the economy, moving away from oil and increasing productivity growth. This will be essential to supporting the SAR and decreasing its overvaluation without having to resort to deflation. However, it remains to be seen if Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman's ambitious reforms can in fact be implemented and be fruitful. Much will depend on this for the future stability of the riyal. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the various variables incorporated in the models, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 For a more detailed discussion of the various variables incorporated in the models, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary

Highlights North Korea is a geopolitical opportunity more than a risk to markets - the key regional risk comes from U.S.-China tensions; China's geopolitical rise, and the fear of a U.S. attack on North Korea, is driving the two Koreas together; The U.S. can accept something less than complete denuclearization - such as inspections and a missile freeze; The path of peace and eventual unification removes the risk of disruption to the global economy and is positive for South Korea's currency and certain assets. Feature We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy have been optimists about the diplomatic tack in North Korea since September 2017.1 Our optimism stands in stark contrast to our pessimism about U.S.-China relations. U.S.-China trade tensions will create an ongoing headwind for assets linked to the status quo of Sino-American engagement (Chart 1). U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to move forward with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods - and his decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on China and others - lends credence to our long-held view that globalization has peaked.2 The seal on protectionism has been broken by the country known as the guarantor of free trade (Chart 2). Chart 1Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Chart 2The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism Trade tensions are also spilling out into strategic areas of disagreement, as we expected.3 This week, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned China that the U.S. will maintain a "steady drumbeat" of freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea (Diagram 1). The goal is to reject China's claims of sovereignty over the sea and the rocks and reefs within it.4 The potential for a geopolitical incident or "Black Swan" event to occur in the South China Sea - or even the Taiwan Strait - is high. Diagram 1The U.S. Is Pushing Back Against China's Maritime-Territorial Claims Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America For investors, the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization" are much more relevant than what happens on the Korean peninsula - as long as the peninsula does not become the central battleground between the two great powers in a replay of the devastating 1950-53 war. In this report we argue that it will not. The current round of diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea is likely to bear fruit in a diplomatic settlement of some kind, even a peace treaty, by 2020.5 Investors should see North Korea as a geopolitical opportunity rather than a geopolitical risk. While North Korea can still contribute to volatility, we recommend investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan as the chief sources of market-relevant geopolitical risk in this region going forward. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. China: Hiding In Plain Sight The current diplomatic effort in the Koreas has a powerful tailwind behind it: the rise of China. China's re-emergence simply cannot be overstated. It is on track to reclaim its historic role as the world's largest economy (Chart 3A) and is developing naval, air, space and cyber-space capabilities that are rapidly eroding the U.S.'s military supremacy (Chart 3B). The rise of China vis-à-vis the U.S. is the single biggest difference between today's attempts to resolve the Korean issue and previous attempts in the 1990s and 2000s. China is reaching a critical mass that is changing the behavior of the states around it (Chart 4). Chart 3AChina's Economic Revival: ##br##The Long View Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 3BChina's Comprehensive ##br##Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising Chart 4EM Economic ##br##Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China As a result, a number of anomalies are occurring throughout the region: The United States is trying to revive its Pacific presence, yet cannot decide how: From 2010-16, the U.S. sought a historic deal with Iran that would enable it to wash its hands of the Middle East and "pivot to Asia." The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was envisioned as an advanced trade deal - excluding China - that would integrate the Pacific Rim economies under a new trade framework; China would have to reform its economy in order to join. Under President Trump, however, the U.S. canceled the TPP and revoked the Iranian deal,6 while maintaining the pivot to Asia through "hard power" tactics. The Washington establishment is unified in its desire to toughen policy on China, but it is divided about how to do so - a sign of the enormity of the challenge. Japan is taking drastic, 1930s-style measures to reflate its economy, which is necessary to revive its overall strategic capability. Military spending is on the rise (Chart 5). Symbolically, the pacifist Article Nine in the post-WWII constitution may be revised next year.7 Taiwan is distancing itself from China, with Beijing-skeptic candidates dominating every level of government since the 2014 and 2016 elections. The Taiwanese increasingly see themselves as exclusively Taiwanese, not also Chinese (Chart 6) - making Taiwan a potential source of "Black Swan" events.8 Chart 5Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Chart 6Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Southeast Asian states are vacillating. Filipinos and South Koreans recently voted against confrontation with China while Malaysians have voted against excessive Chinese influence; Thailand's junta has warmed up to Beijing while Myanmar's junta has sought some distance. The common thread is the desire to do something about China.9 India, long known for its independent foreign policy and "non-aligned" status in the Cold War, has begun courting deeper relationships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, for fear of China. Even Russia, one of Beijing's closest partners, is engaged in talks with Japan that could result in a peace treaty, allowing these two to bury the hatchet and create economic and strategic options outside of China's control.10 Australia - the country with the most favorable view of China in the West (Chart 7) - is in the midst of an internal crisis over China that has recently broken out into a direct diplomatic spat resulting in Beijing imposing discrete economic sanctions. It goes without saying that China's rise is being felt with extreme sensitivity on the Korean peninsula. Korean kingdoms have historically struggled either to maintain their independence from China or to avoid becoming the battleground in China's conflicts with outside powers. North Korea has taken this dependency to the extreme. Trade data shows that its links to China have grown substantially since the Global Financial Crisis. China's stimulus-fueled economic boom increased commodity imports, while international sanctions cut off Pyongyang's access to most other foreign capital. The strategic vulnerability is revealed both before and after China's enforcement of sanctions in 2017 (Chart 8).11 Chart 7Australia And Russia Are China's Best Friends Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 8North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China Chinese President Xi Jinping's ascendancy - marked by his strict personal control of the ruling party and scrapping of term limits - has reinforced the North's vulnerability. Like his predecessor Jiang Zemin (1992-2004), Xi represents a faction in the Communist Party of China that sees Pyongyang as more of a liability than an asset. North Korea's anxiety can be marked by Kim Jong Un's attempts to reduce the "pro-China" faction within the North Korean state. For instance, he has ordered the execution of his uncle, Jang Song Taek, who was close to Beijing, and his half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, who lived in Macao and was China's "alternative" to Kim.12 In effect, the next few years offer what is probably North Korea's last chance to create some new strategic options with South Korea and the rest of the world if it is to avoid being a mere vassal state for the coming centuries. Pyongyang's chief security threat is the United States and it has pursued a nuclear deterrent for decades in order to be able to negotiate with the U.S. for regime survival. The deterrent gives the North some independence, but normalizing ties with South Korea and the U.S. would enable the North to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on China. South Korea is also fearful that the coming decades will bring a Chinese empire that effectively swallows North Korea and surrounds Seoul. Eventually the North must liberalize and industrialize its economy: will South Korea have a part in this process, or will China take it all? South Korean President Moon Jae-in wishes to reduce the risk of war prompted by North Korea's conflict with the United States, but he also wishes to gain leverage over the North so that China does not absorb its economy. In short, the historic re-emergence of China is encouraging Korean integration, as the two Korean states begin to reconsider their relationship and national needs in the face of global "multipolarity" and great power competition.13 The strategic logic is thus pushing toward Korean unification, even if unification is in practice a long way away. A unified Korean peninsula would rise toward the level of Japan in comprehensive geopolitical power (see Chart 3B above). With a population of 75 million, South Korean technological prowess, and at least nuclear potential (if not outright capability), the Koreas would be better prepared to defend their interests against China and other neighbors than they are separately. In a multipolar world, strength in numbers has an appealing strategic logic. Unification, however, will be extremely costly for the ruling elites of both North and South Korea, possibly prohibitive. It is not within our five-year forecast horizon. Instead, economic engagement will be the main focus, a necessary but not sufficient step toward unification. Bottom Line: China's rise, as it pertains to Korea, is underestimated by investors. It is putting pressure on the two Koreas to cooperate, create some solidarity, and expand their economic and strategic options over the long run. It is also putting pressure on the U.S. to encourage this process and try to remove or reduce the nuclear threat through economic engagement rather than war. How Is "Moonshine" Different From "Sunshine"? South Korean President Moon Jae-in won a sweeping victory in the election of May 2017 on a promise to renew South Korea's engagement with the North. His agenda has been nicknamed "Moonshine policy."14 Will Moonshine actually work? In addition to China's rise, several of today's political trends are supportive of a diplomatic settlement: North Korean leadership change: Power succession and consolidation: Kim is not the rash and inexperienced youth that many feared upon his coming to power in 2011. Instead he has consolidated power within the regime and waged high-stakes international negotiations with the U.S. and China. He is also overseeing a generational change in the upper ranks of the party and state. Such a change is necessary if North Korea is ever to revamp its relations with the world.15 Economic reform: In March 2013, not long after coming to power, Kim signaled a shift in national policy. The North Korean governing philosophy under his father was called juche, or "self-reliance," and had a heavy emphasis on putting the military first. But Kim has promised to develop the economy alongside nuclear weapons, creating a governing philosophy known as byungjin, or "parallel development."16 There is substantial evidence of marketization in North Korea, which was formally allowed in 2003 but has been growing faster since the Global Financial Crisis and the country's failed currency reforms at that time. Official statistics, such as they are, do not capture this organic and informal market process (Chart 9). Farmers have been allowed to keep some of their profits; official and unofficial marketplaces have cropped up; informal banking is developing; mobile phones and televisions are more prevalent.17 Foreign policy and strategic deterrence: Kim has demonstrated to the world that his country's nuclear and missile capabilities are more advanced than previously thought (Diagram 2). The American defense and intelligence establishment have been forced, during Kim's rapid phase of tests in 2016-17, to revise upward their expectations of the North's ability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. This creates a new environment in which the U.S. can no longer ignore North Korea. Yet Kim has also proven himself to be a rational actor by discontinuing missile tests when tensions approached a boil in late 2017 and offering an olive branch to the South Koreans and Americans in early 2018.18 Chart 9North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level Diagram 2North Korea's Proven Missile Reach Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America American leadership change: Pivot to Asia: The United States has attempted to "rebalance" its strategic posture by reducing its commitment to the Middle East and "pivoting" to East Asia. This is to confront the China challenge. President Trump's North Korea and China policies are aggressive, despite the fact that Trump is also ramping up pressure on Iran.19 International sanctions tightened: The U.S. has responded to North Korea's nuclear and missile advances by redoubling the international sanctions regime (Chart 10). A credible military threat: The Trump administration has also established a "credible threat" through its use of military drills, aircraft carrier deployments in the region, and Trump's hawkish speeches to the United Nations General Assembly and South Korean National Assembly. The demonstration that the military option is "on the table" is reminiscent of the Iranian nuclear negotiations from 2011-15 (and those to come) (Chart 11).20 Trump's maneuvering room: Few people doubt the current U.S. president's willingness to do something unpredictable, "out of the box," or even "crazy," such as preemptively attacking North Korea, or, on the other hand, withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea (Trump has often expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of U.S. troop commitments). For better or worse, the U.S. has much greater room for maneuver than it used to in making a deal with North Korea. Chart 10U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose Chart 11U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters Chinese leadership change: Xi's irritation with Kim: President Xi Jinping wants to create a Chinese sphere of influence in the region, which includes depriving the U.S. of a reason to bulk up its Asia Pacific presence. However, North Korea's threats and provocations give the U.S. good reason to build up its military assets, including missile defense.21 Pyongyang as an obstacle to Chinese power projection: Xi also wants to focus China's military and strategic development toward new dimensions of defense (sea, air, space, cyber) and improve China's ability to project power globally. But the potential for a crisis in North Korea - whether regime collapse or American invasion - ties China down to a 1950s-style military posture with a heavy focus on its army in the northeast. China enforces sanctions on the North: The above factors, combined with President Trump's sanctions on Chinese companies for dealing with the North, have prompted China to change its policy toward North Korea. China has been enforcing stringent sanctions since mid-2017 (Chart 12). China benefits from North Korean economic opening: China also has an interest in North Korea's economic opening - it has pioneered this process and has also clearly benefited from the recent opening of formerly closed neighboring states like Myanmar and Cambodia (Chart 13). China wants to remain the biggest player in the North's economy as it opens further. China seeks leverage over South Korea: Direct trade and infrastructure links to South Korea will also increase China's leverage over the South. Already President Moon has given China assurances of stopping U.S. missile defense deployments in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions against South Korean companies.22 Xi Jinping is not going anywhere: Xi has consolidated power and removed limits on his term in office, so China's policy shift toward the Koreas cannot be assumed to be easily reversible. Chart 12Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Chart 13China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up South Korean leadership change: The fall of the right-wing: The right-of-center parties and politicians in South Korea have suffered a cyclical drop in support. First, their hawkish policies since 2008 failed to prevent North Korea's belligerence. Second, former President Park Geun-hye was impeached and removed from office in early 2017 due to scandals that marred the right wing's popular standing. The legislative elections of 2016 and the post-impeachment presidential election of 2017 show that the major center-left party (the Minjoo Party) has made a big comeback. Local elections to be held on June 13, 2018 - the day after the planned Trump-Kim summit in Singapore - are likely to reinforce this trend (Chart 14 A&B). Thus the Moon administration is benefiting from a popular tailwind that will support its dovish approach to the North and could last for several years (Chart 15). The next election, for the legislature, is not until April 15, 2020, giving Moon time to implement his policies. Fear of abandonment: President Trump's policies threaten South Korea with the risk of preemptive war or American abandonment, making engagement with the North all the more necessary. Chart 14ASouth Korea's Right-Wing Faltered In 2016... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 14B... And Left-Wing Will Likely Win In 2018 Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 15Ruling Minjoo Party Has Plenty Of Momentum Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America The only other significant players are Russia and Japan, neither of which is willing or able to derail a diplomatic process pursued by both Koreas and the U.S. and China.23 Critically, this peace process is being driven by constraints, not preferences. True, Xi Jinping may be irritated by Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump may yearn for a Nobel peace prize. But the underlying factors are the following constraints on these policymakers: North Korea's regime cannot allow foreign domination, whether through war or economics; The U.S. regime cannot allow its homeland to be attacked by North Korea or its regional presence to be eliminated; China's regime cannot allow a Syria-style influx of North Korean refugees into China's Rust-Belt northeast or an American occupation of North Korea; South Korea's regime cannot allow anyone to trigger a war in which Seoul will be the first to be decimated. In each case, these states are bumping up against their constraints, such that the "Moonshine" diplomatic initiative is supported from all angles. Not only are the current U.S. and North Korean leaders planning to meet for the first time in the history, to build on the Moon-Kim summits, but they have already overcome a moment of cold feet that nearly quashed the June 12 summit.24 If the summit falls through, another summit will be scheduled; such is the underlying pressure of the above constraints. South Korean opinion polls demonstrate the pent-up demand for diplomacy that brought Moon and the Minjoo Party to power. The number of South Koreans who "trust" North Korea to denuclearize and pursue peace has shot up from 15% to 65% in recent polls (Chart 16A). Chart 16ASouth Koreans More Trusting Toward North... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 16B... Yet Doubt Full Denuclearization Will Occur Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 17South Koreans Want Unification... Eventually Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Of course, "denuclearization" is a slippery term - about 64% of South Koreans doubt that the North will really give up its nuclear program. And yet even that number has fallen from 90% at the beginning of this year (Chart 16B). These numbers are volatile but reveal a deeply held public preference for some kind of deal that removes the threat of armed conflict. Indeed, 78% of South Koreans say they ultimately want not only peace but unification with the North (Chart 17). Subjectively, we think the probability of some kind of diplomatic settlement is 95% and the probability of war 5%. The next question is what kind of a settlement will it be? Bottom Line: The current diplomatic track on the Korean peninsula has greater potential than the previous two diplomatic pushes in 2000 and 2007. The different powers remain constrained by the lack of palatable or tolerable options other than diplomacy, yet China's rise and North Korea's missile capabilities have made the status quo unacceptable. Therefore we expect some kind of settlement that reduces tensions and allows for economic engagement. The U.S. Can Accept Less Than Full Denuclearization What about the critical issue of North Korea's strategic standoff with the United States? Will North Korea give up its nuclear program? Can the U.S. accept a deal that does not include complete and verifiable denuclearization? Subjectively, we would put full denuclearization at a 15% probability. It is three times more likely than a war (5% chance), but five times less likely than a lesser settlement (80% chance). The question boils down to whether the United States is capable of a preemptive military strike on North Korea that denies it the ability to inflict devastating casualties on South Korea. Such a strike would require the U.S. to use numerous tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean nuclear and chemical sites as well as artillery units deeply embedded in the hills overlooking Seoul.25 If the U.S. is believed capable of such an attack, then the North will need to retain some of its nuclear deterrent so that it can deter the U.S. from such an attack directly, by threatening U.S. cities. If the U.S. is not believed capable, then the North can afford to trade away its nuclear program and rely on its conventional deterrent of decimating Seoul as its chief security guarantee. Our assessment is that the U.S. is broadly capable of executing such an attack, however little it intends to do so. The U.S. would need to be politically willing to accept the devastation of Seoul, nuclear fallout over Japan, and potentially a second war with China (which might intervene more readily this time than in 1950). This is extremely unlikely to say the least. But given President Trump's hawkishness and the drastic vacillations of today's polarized U.S. public opinion and foreign policy, North Korea cannot gamble that the U.S. would under no circumstances, ever, adopt such a course of action. In other words, North Korea has developed a nuclear deterrent not to trade it away for concessions but to maintain it at some level. National Security Adviser John Bolton said it all in one word: Libya. Libyan President Mohammar Qaddafi unilaterally abandoned his country's nuclear program in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to improve relations with the West. This worked until the Arab Spring, when Qaddafi was brutalized and executed after his regime collapsed under pressure of popular rebellion and a NATO bombing campaign. NATO struck his personal convoy, leaving him exposed to rebel militias. In other words, North Korea could be fully compliant and yet the U.S. could betray it. Regime change would be more likely for the U.S. to pursue if the North did not have a nuclear deterrent. In the negotiations, even an offer of total U.S. troop withdrawal from South Korea for denuclearization - which is extremely unlikely - probably cannot convince Kim Jong Un of his personal safety and his regime's security in an era of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011, Ukraine 2014, and "Zero Dark Thirty."26 Finally, if it is true that North Korea also fears Chinese domination over the long run, then maintaining a nuclear deterrent is all the more important to secure the regime's independence, as it also constrains China. Thus we highly doubt that Pyongyang will fully, verifiably, and irreversibly denuclearize. We reserve a 15% chance simply because its ability to strike Seoul with artillery does give it greater leverage than Libya or other states that faced U.S.-imposed regime change. This fact combined with the possibility of an irresistible package of economic and political benefits from the Americans could conceivably cause the North to change course dramatically. But this is not our baseline case. More likely, Pyongyang can offer, and Washington can accept, mothballing reactors, holding nuclear inspections, freezing the ballistic missile program, and committing to a non-belligerent foreign policy, along with gradual normalization of diplomatic and economic relations. Washington can accept a sub-optimal deal because such a deal preserves the raison d'être for U.S. forces in Korea, yet reduces the threat to the homeland and helps dilute China's influence on the peninsula. As for the 5% chance of war, even if Pyongyang eschews any and all denuclearization, the U.S. may still opt for containment rather than war.27 Bottom Line: The U.S. can settle for "containment" against North Korea, whereas North Korea probably cannot give up its rudimentary nuclear deterrent given its twin fears of American invasion or Chinese domination. The U.S. gains from normalizing relations with the North, given that it enables North Korea to diversify its foreign policy away from China and yet Washington retains its overwhelming nuclear preemptive strike capability in the event that an attack is deemed imminent. North Korea Is The Most Promising Pariah State It is useful to remember how badly communism has served North Koreans relative to their capitalist neighbors. Chart 18 explains the unsustainability of the North's system and the impetus to change. At the same time, South Korea's development path suggests that North Korea has economic potential. There is considerable room to increase basic capital stock - roads, buildings, and basic equipment, etc. - even assuming that North Korea's pace of liberalization prevents the same kind of economic boom that fully capitalist South Korea witnessed in the second half of the twentieth century (Chart 19). Won't liberalizing the economy fatally undermine Kim's totalitarian regime? History teaches otherwise. The reform of communist East Asian regimes like China (1978) and Vietnam (1986) shows that partial liberalization can be pursued without fatally undermining the regime, as long as the regime is willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, i.e. use domestic security and intelligence forces to suppress opposition and dissent. Communist states in other parts of the world - such as Cuba - also attest to this fact. This is not to say that liberalization poses no threat to Pyongyang. First, liberalization itself can lead to economic consequences, like inflation, that trigger instability, as China experienced in the 1980s. Second, successful liberalization increases household wealth, which can result in growing demand for civil rights and political participation, as occurred under South Korea's right-wing military dictatorship in the 1970s-80s, and as will eventually occur even in China.28 Still, North Korea today is faced with the same predicament that Iran, Myanmar, Cambodia, Cuba, and Zimbabwe face. All of them are trying gingerly to open up their economies, as their sclerotic regimes face a greater threat of social instability from economic opportunity costs than from popular political opposition. They are changing not a moment too soon. Global labor force, trade, and productivity have all slowed in recent decades, marking a contrast to the exuberant external environment that the emerging and frontier markets faced when opening their economies in the late twentieth century (Chart 20). They may still have a cheap labor advantage but they will struggle to develop as rapidly with global potential growth falling. Chart 18A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up Chart 19North Korea Could Follow This Path Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 20North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea is better situated than any of these late-bloomers. Its immediate neighbors, South Korea, China, and Japan, each sport current account surpluses and positive international investment positions (Chart 21), giving the North a ready pool of capital to tap as it opens its doors. The global search for yield persists more or less (Chart 22), motivating investors to explore the riskiest and worst-governed countries, and yet North Korea sits in a prosperous corner of the world. South Korean investors can envision high returns from basic productivity-enhancing investments in the North, while accepting that unification and its immense fiscal costs are still a long way away. Chart 21Ample Sources Of Investment For North Korea Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 22North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield This means that North Korea - if it calms its quarrels with the West - will have alternatives to China's outward investment push (Chart 23), albeit with China remaining the biggest player. North Korea is not a large enough economy to have a major global impact when it opens up, but it is big enough to affect South Korea. It will make available a pool of cheap labor for a country that is otherwise suffering from the worst of low fertility and a shrinking workforce (Chart 24). The North's reserves of thermal coal, which are comparable to Indonesia's (Chart 25), and other commodities, are also likely to be exploited given that South Korea and its neighbors are already scouring the globe for resource plays. Chart 23China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative Chart 24Reunification Would Increase Labor Force Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 25North Korea Has Sizable Coal Reserves Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America In reality, of course, it is the North's overexposure to commodities that is putting pressure on the regime to reform (in addition to international sanctions). China's economy is transitioning to a less resource-intensive model, putting the North's coal and metals exports in long-term jeopardy. The North lacks capital to industrialize and develop a manufacturing sector, and it risks missing out on the new wave of industrialization that is rewarding neighbors like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar. The slowdown in global trade and globalization threatens to close the window of opportunity for the North. Bottom Line: Oppressive communist regimes have proved capable of selectively opening up to outside trade and investment while maintaining the regime. North Korea is attempting to create a favorable foreign policy environment to take its nascent economic reforms further. The global search for yield, especially by Northeast Asian states, may still offer an opportunity to attract capital. China's economic transition adds a sense of urgency, given North Korea's need to diversify. Investment Conclusions North Korea is small, but independent, and it is pivoting to South Korea and the United States to increase its strategic and economic options. China has an interest in letting this happen, but will try to remain the dominant power. Almost every peace treaty or major diplomatic settlement in human history has involved a series of dramatic ups and downs in the lead-up to the agreement. Diplomatic volatility should increase the closer the different parties get to an agreement, due to the fears and hesitations of losing out in the final compromise. Investors should stay focused on the structural factors. North Korea is more of a geopolitical opportunity than a geopolitical risk for markets today. War is especially unlikely over 2018-19. Hence the North Korean issue is unlikely to disrupt the global economy or threaten a bullish global equity view over this time period. That would be up to other factors. Only if the new round of diplomacy completely and utterly collapses will the tail-risk of war reemerge. U.S.-China tensions, North Korea's nuclear program, and Trump's re-election bid could conceivably lead to a breakdown of diplomacy by 2020. The Trump administration would then return to its "maximum pressure" campaign and the probability of military strikes would rise. However, we put a low probability on such a breakdown occurring and would argue that the grave implications should be seen as a strong constraint driving the different parties to cut a deal. Assuming diplomacy succeeds, it should provide a small tailwind for South Korea's currency and risk assets, which at the moment face a negative environment due to slowing global growth, Chinese reforms, and a strengthening U.S. dollar. First, the end-game itself - Korean unification - is implicitly a positive for removing the risk and uncertainty of conflict and increasing Korea's potential GDP. Germany's unification remains the best analogy, for better or worse. German unification led to a brief decline in total factor productivity, but also a multi-year rally in equities, the deutschmark, and a bullish curve-steepening relative to world markets (Chart 26A). Chart 26AGermany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Chart 26B...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet South Korea is not yet at the cusp of unification, so the analogy with German assets is premature, but it is not a foregone conclusion that South Korea will suffer as it embarks on the path toward unification. Of course, this year's diplomatic progress has coincided with renewed EM financial turmoil that has clouded any benefits from improved North-South relations (Chart 26 B). Moreover, the burden of unification will be immense given that North Korea is much larger and poorer relative to the South than East Germany was to West Germany, and markets will have to price in this burden by expecting larger South Korean budget deficits in future. Still, we would expect KRW/USD to benefit on the margin, especially given Korea's simultaneous promise to the Trump administration not to engage in competitive devaluation. Second, certain Korean sectors are poised to benefit from integration with the North. Looking at how the different sectors have performed before and after the April 27 inter-Korean summit, relative to their EM counterparts, reveals that industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms are the relative winners (Chart 27).29 Chart 27Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Chart 28AReal Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Chart 28B...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again Third, the signal from real estate along the DMZ is loud and clear. Paju is known as the best proxy for improved Korean relations and transaction volumes have spiked since Moon and Kim met on April 27 and declared an end to the Korean War. The move is particularly notable when contrasted with the rest of Gyeonggi province, which is not inherently a "unification" play (Chart 28A & 28B). Similar moves happened in Paju real estate around the time of the first and second inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, but as this report has shown, there is more reason to be optimistic today. This example speaks to the many opportunities for specialized funds to generate returns as development projects get underway. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Mattis criticized China's militarization of the South China Sea rocks at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of violating his word on this matter. He also criticized China's Belt and Road Initiative. The same week, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told a reporter that "the United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific, taking down small islands," in a thinly veiled hint to China's South China Sea activity. Finally, a report surfaced suggesting that the U.S. is considering sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait. Please see Ben Westcott, "US plans 'steady drumbeat' of exercises in South China Sea: Mattis," CNN, May 31, 2018, available at www.cnn.com; Laignee Barron, "Pentagon Official Says U.S. Can 'Take Down' Man-Made Islands Like Those in the South China Sea," Time, June 1, 2018, available at time.com; "Exclusive: At delicate moment, U.S. weighs warship passage through Taiwan Strait," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Satellite imagery reveals that international sanctions have hindered manufacturing development and increased reliance on trade with China. Please see Yong Suk Lee, "International Isolation and Regional Inequality: Evidence from Sanctions on North Korea," Stanford University, Center on Global Poverty and Development, Working Paper 575 (October 2016), available at globalpoverty.stanford.edu. 12 North Korea's disagreements with China have given rise to a host of academic articles and studies in recent years. For an overview please see Philip Wen and Christian Shepherd, " 'Lips and teeth' no more as China's ties with North Korea fray," Reuters, September 8, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. See also Sebastian Harnisch, "The life and near-death of an alliance: China, North Korea and autocratic military cooperation," Heidelberg University, WISC Conference, Taipei, April 2017; and Weiqi Zhang, "Neither friend nor big brother: China's role in North Korean foreign policy strategy," Palgrave Communications 4:16 (2018), available at www.nature.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The term is a pun on the original "Sunshine" engagement policy of Moon's predecessors Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. President Kim's engagement attempt culminated in the first Inter-Korean summit in 2000, but was ultimately derailed by a hawkish turn in U.S. and North Korean policies and the inclusion of North Korea among the "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 attacks. "Sunshine policy" revived again under President Roh Moo-hyun, leading to the second Inter-Korean summit in 2007. Roh's protégé, Moon, is now reviving the policy. Unfortunately, "moonshine" is saddled with the connotation of fraud and/or poison! 15 The major challenge to his rule came in late 2013 but he nipped it in the bud by executing his uncle Jang Song Taek and purging Jang's faction. He had his half-brother Kim Jong Nam assassinated in Malaysia in 2017. He promoted his sister, Kim Yeo-jong, to deputy chief of the Propaganda Department in the Korean Worker's Party. Kim has taken steps to empower the State Affairs Commission (cabinet), the Korean Worker's Party, and the legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly, vis-à-vis the long-dominant military. He has also reshuffled the military extensively, prior to a significant reshuffle this week that signaled a willingness to compromise with the Americans. See Thomas Fingar et al, "Analyzing The Structure And Performance Of Kim Jong-un's Regime," Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, June 2017, available at fsi.stanford.edu; and Hyonhee Shin, "North Korea's Three New Military Leaders Are Loyal To Kim, Not Policies," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 16 William Brown, "Is 'Byungjin' Working? A Look at North Korea's Money," The Peninsula, Korea Economic Institute of America, September 7, 2016, available at keia.org. 17 Please see Andrei Lankov, "The Resurgence of a Market Economy in North Korea," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2016, available at carnegieendowment.org; Sunchul Choi and Mark A. Myers, "Marketization in North Korea," United States Department of Agriculture, Global Agricultural Information Network Report KS1545, December 9, 2015, available at www.fas.usda.gov. 18 This diplomacy also reinforces Kim's reformist bent. In April 2017 he appointed Ri Su-yong, a close ally, to oversee foreign relations, and resurrected the Foreign Relations Committee within the country's legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly. See Fingar in footnote 15. 19 Please see footnote 6 above. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Presidents Moon and Xi agreed to improve bilateral relations, with China removing economic sanctions, on the basis of South Korea promising the "Three No's" - no additional THAAD deployments, no expansion of U.S. missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with Japan and the U.S. Please see Park Byong-su, "South Korea's "three no's" announcement key to restoring relations with China," Hankyoreh, dated November 2, 2017, available at english.hani.co.kr. 23 Indeed, Russia shares China's desire to prevent North Korea from provoking the U.S. into a greater Pacific military presence, while Japan shares the American desire to reduce the North Korean nuclear and military threat to its homeland. 24 North Korea publicly aired misgivings about the upcoming Trump-Kim summit after the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, implied that the administration would seek "the Libya model" (unilateral and total nuclear disarmament and dismantlement by North Korea) in its negotiations. North Korea criticized Bolton, a war-hawk who has a negative history with North Korea going back to the George W. Bush administration, putting the summit in jeopardy. The North was also angry about the U.S. and South Korean decision to proceed with annual military exercises ahead of the summit. Further, Chinese President Xi Jinping may have urged Kim Jong Un to tread more carefully, or cancel the summit, during a second meeting between these two presidents in early May. The White House rebuked Bolton's comments, saying the negotiations would follow "the Trump model." 25 Please see Christopher Woolf, "The only effective arms against North Korea's missile bunkers are nuclear weapons, says a top war planner," Public Radio International, August 10, 2017, available at www.pri.org; and Uri Friedman, "North Korea: The Military Options," The Atlantic, dated May 17, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.om. 26 Iraq set a precedent for U.S. preemptive invasion; Syria was a fellow nuclear aspirant and member of the Axis of Evil that suffered both Israeli strikes against its nuclear facilities and economic and political collapse due to mismanagement and international isolation; Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum as a guarantee of its security only to suffer Russian invasion in 2014; and "Zero Dark Thirty" refers to the U.S. Seal Team Six covert raid into the heart of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. 27 Our own analysis of the "bloody nose" military strike option, which is more likely than a full-blown war but very difficult to prevent from escalating, can be found in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The global trade slowdown will intensify, even if U.S. domestic demand remains robust. The large emerging Asian bourses will recouple to the downside with their EM peers. Market-neutral EM equity portfolios should consider going long consumer staples while shorting banks. In Chile, receive 3-year swap rates. Continue to overweight stocks relative to the EM benchmark. Short the Colombian peso versus the Russia ruble. Stay neutral on Colombian equities and local bonds but overweight sovereign credit within their respective EM universes. Feature Performance of large equity markets in north Asia - Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese investable stocks -- has been relatively resilient compared with other EM bourses. Specifically, the EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan equity index has already dropped 16% in U.S. dollar terms, while the market cap-weighted index of investable Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks is down only 8% from its peak in late January.1 These three markets account for 60% of the MSCI EM stock index. A pertinent question is whether these North Asian markets will de-couple from or re-couple with the rest of EM. Our bias is that they will re-couple to the downside. Global equity portfolios should continue to underweight Asian stocks versus the DM bourses in general, and the S&P 500 in particular. That said, dedicated EM equity portfolios should overweight Korea and Taiwan and maintain a neutral stance on China and Hong Kong relative to the EM and Asian equity benchmarks. The Global Trade Slowdown Will Intensify Emerging Asian stock markets are very sensitive to global trade cycles. Slowing global trade is typically negative for them. There is growing evidence that the global trade deceleration will intensify: The German IFO index for business expectations in German manufacturing - a good leading indicator for global trade - is pointing to a further slowdown in global exports (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Export volume growth has already slowed across manufacturing Asia (Chart I-2). The most recent data points for these series are as of April. Asia's booming tech/semiconductor industry is also slowing. Both Taiwan's export orders growth and Singapore's technology PMI new orders-to-inventory ratio have relapsed (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Chart I-3Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch One of the causes of weakness in the global semiconductor cycle could be stagnating global auto sales (Chart I-4). The latter are being weighed down by weakness in auto sales in China and the U.S. Cars require a significant amount of semiconductors, and lack of improvement in global auto sales will suppress semiconductor demand. So far, China has not been at the epicenter of investors' concerns, but this will soon change as its growth slowdown intensifies. Credit conditions continue to tighten in China, which entails downside risks to mainland capital spending and consequently imports. China's imports are set to slump considerably, reinforcing the global trade downturn.2 First, China's bank loan approvals have dropped considerably in the past 18 months, suggesting a meaningful slowdown in bank financing and in turn the country's investment expenditures (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Chart I-5China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex Second, not only are bank loan standards tightening but costs of financing are also rising. The share of loans extended above the prime lending rate has risen to a 15-year high (Chart I-6, top panel). This represents marginal tightening. Finally, onshore corporate bond yields as well as offshore U.S. dollar-denominated corporate bond yields have broken to new highs in this cycle (Chart I-6, bottom panels). Mounting borrowing costs and tighter credit standards in China point to further deceleration in credit-sensitive spending such as investment expenditures and property purchases. On the whole, rising interest rates and material currency depreciation in EM ex-China and credit tightening in China will prompt a considerable slump in imports, depressing world trade. EM including Chinese imports account for 30% of global imports, while the U.S. and EU together make up 24% of global imports values. Hence, global trade will disappoint if and as EM and Chinese imports stumble. A final word on the history of de-coupling among EM regions is in order. There have been a few episodes when emerging Asian and Latin American stocks de-coupled: In 1997-'98, the home-grown Asian crisis devastated regional markets, but Latin American stocks continued to rally until mid-1998 - when they plummeted (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6China: Rising Borrowing Costs China: Rising Borrowing Costs China: Rising Borrowing Costs Chart I-7De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America In 2007-'08, emerging Asian equities tumbled along with the S&P 500, but Latin American bourses fared well until the middle of 2008 due to surging commodities/oil prices (Chart I-7, middle panel). Finally, the bottom panel of Chart I-7 illustrates that in early 2015, Asian stocks performed well, supported by the inflating Chinese equity bubble. Meanwhile, Latin American stocks plunged. In all of these episodes, the de-coupling between Asia and Latin America proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside. Bottom Line: Global trade is set to head southward, even if U.S. demand remains robust. China's growth slump will be instrumental to this global trade slowdown. Consequently, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese equities will be vulnerable. Heeding To Market Signals Financial markets often move ahead of economic data, and simply tracking data is not always helpful in gauging turning points in business cycles. By the time economic data change course, financial markets would typically have already partially adjusted. Besides, past economic and financial market performance is not a guarantee of future performance. This is why we rely on thematic fundamental analysis and monitor intermediate- and long-term trends in financial markets to navigate through markets. There are presently several important market signals that investors should be heeding to: EM corporate bond yields are surging, which typically foreshadows falling EM share prices (Chart I-8). Meanwhile, there is no robust correlation between EM equities and U.S. bond yields. Chart I-8EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise The basis: So long as the rise in U.S. bond yields is offset by compressing EM credit spreads, EM corporate bond yields decline and EM share prices rally. But when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields rise, irrespective of whether this is due to rising U.S. Treasury yields or widening EM credit spreads, EM equity prices come under considerable selling pressure. Lately, both EM credit spreads have been widening, offsetting the drop in U.S. bond yields. Hence, a drop in U.S. bond yields is not in and of itself sufficient to halt a decline in EM share prices. So long as EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are widening by more than the decline in U.S. Treasury yields, EM corporate and sovereign bond yields will rise, heralding lower EM share prices. The ratio of total return (including carry) of six commodities currencies relative to safe-haven currencies3 is breaking below its 200-day moving average after having bounced from this technical support line several times in the past 12 months (Chart I-9). This could be confirming that the bull market in EM risk assets is over, and a bear market is underway. Chinese property stocks listed onshore have broken down, and those trading in Hong Kong seem to be forming a head-and-shoulder pattern (Chart I-10). In the latter case, such a technical formation will likely be followed by a considerable down-leg. Chart I-9An Important Breakdown bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s1_c9 Chart I-10Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Further, China's onshore A-share index has already dropped by 15% from its cyclical peak in late January. Finally, both emerging Asia's relative equity performance against developed markets, as well as the emerging Asian currency index versus the U.S. dollar (ADXY) seem to be rolling over at their long-term moving averages (Chart I-11). The same technical pattern is presenting itself for global energy and mining stocks in absolute terms, and also in the overall Brazilian equity index (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Asian Equities And Currencies Are ##br##At Critical Juncture Asian Equities And Currencies Are At Critical Juncture Asian Equities And Currencies Are At Critical Juncture Chart I-12Commodity Equities And Brazil ##br##Are Facing Technical Resistance Commodity Equities And Brazil Are Facing Technical Resistance Commodity Equities And Brazil Are Facing Technical Resistance The failure of these markets to break above their long-term technical resistance levels may be signalling that their advance since early 2016 has been a cyclical - not structural - bull market, and is likely over. These technical chart profiles so far confirm our fundamental analysis that the EM and commodities rallies since early 2016 did not represent a multi-year secular bull market. If correct, the downside risks to EM including Asian markets are substantial, and selling/shorting them now is not too late. Bottom Line: EM including Asian stocks, currencies and credit markets are at risk of gapping down. Absolute-return investors should trade these markets on the short side. Asset allocators should underweight EM markets relative to DM in general and the U.S. in particular. A complete list of our currency, fixed-income and equity recommendations is available on pages 20-21. An EM Equity Sector Trade: Long Consumer Staples / Short Banks EM consumer staples have massively underperformed banks as well as the overall EM index since January 2016 (Chart I-13). The odds are that their relative performance is about to reverse. Equity investors should consider implementing the following equity pair trade: long consumer staples / short banks: Consumer staples are a low-beta sector because their revenues are less cyclical. As EM growth downshifts, share prices of companies with more stable revenue streams will likely outperform. Bank stocks are vulnerable as local interest rates in many EMs rise in response to the selloff in their respective currencies (Chart I-14). Consumer staples usually outperform banks when local borrowing costs are rising. Chart I-13Go Long EM Consumer Staples / ##br##Short EM Banks Go Long EM Consumer Staples / Short EM Banks Go Long EM Consumer Staples / Short EM Banks Chart I-14EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With##br## EM Local Bond Yields EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With EM Local Bond Yields EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With EM Local Bond Yields We expect more currency depreciation in EM, which will exert further upward pressure on local rates, including interbank rates. Further, growth weakness in EM economies typically leads to rising non-performing loan (NPL) provisions. Chart I-15A and Chart I-15B demonstrates that weakening nominal GDP growth (shown inverted on the charts) leads to higher provisioning. Hence, a renewed EM growth slowdown will hurt bank profits. Chart I-15AWeaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails ##br##Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Chart I-15BWeaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails ##br##Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Our assessment is that banks in many EM countries have provisioned less than what is probably necessary following years of a credit boom. Indeed, in the last 12-18 months or so, many banks have even been reducing their NPL provisions to boost profits. Hence, a reversal of these dynamics will undermine banks' earnings. Bottom Line: Market-neutral EM equity portfolios should consider going long consumer staples while shorting banks. This is in addition to our long-term strategy of shorting EM banks versus U.S. banks as well as shorting banks in absolute terms in individual markets such as Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia and small-cap banks in China. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 These calculations are done using MSCI investible stock indexes in U.S. dollars terms. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports", dated May 24, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total returns (including carry) relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry). Chile: Stay Overweight Equities, Receive Rates 31 May 2018 Chart II-1Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices It is often assumed that Chilean financial markets are a play on copper. While this largely holds true for the Chilean peso, it is not always correct regarding its stock market's relative performance to its EM peers. Chile has outperformed in the past amid declining copper prices (Chart II-1). Despite our negative view on copper prices, we are reiterating our overweight allocation to this bourse within an EM equity portfolio. There are convincing signs that growth in the Chilean economy is moving along fine for now (Chart II-2). While weakness in global trade will weigh on the economy, the critical variable that makes Chile stand out from other commodities producers in the EM universe is its ability to cut interest rates amid currency depreciation. Chart II-3 illustrates that interest rates in Chile can and do fall when the peso depreciates. This stands in stark contrast with many others economies in the EM universe. There are a number of factors that suggest inflationary pressures will remain dormant for some time. This will allow the Central Bank of Chile (CBC) to cut rates as and when required. Chart II-2Chile: Economic Conditions Chile: Economic Conditions Chile: Economic Conditions Chart II-3Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates First, the output gap is negative and has been widening, which has historically led to falling core inflation (Chart II-4). Second, a wide range of consumer inflation measures - services and trimmed-mean inflation rates - are very low and remain in a downtrend (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chart II-5Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Finally, there are no signs of wage inflation, which is the key driver of genuine inflation. In fact, wage growth is decelerating sharply (Chart II-6). Odds are that this disinflationary rout will go on for longer, given Chile's demographic and labor market dynamics. The country's labor force growth has accelerated and the economy does not seem able to absorb this excess labor supply (Chart II-7). Consistently, our labor surplus proxy - calculated as the number of unemployed looking for a job divided by the number of job vacancies - has surged to all-time highs (Chart II-8). Chart II-6Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chart II-7Chile: Rising Labor Force Chile: Rising Labor Force Chile: Rising Labor Force Chart II-8Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Interestingly, this is not happening because of weak employment. Chart II-9 shows that the employment-to-working population ratio is at a record high, while employment growth is robust. This upholds that decent job growth is not sufficient to absorb the expanding supply of labor. All in all, a structural excess supply of labor as well as a cyclical slowdown in global trade and lower copper prices altogether will likely warrant a decline in interest rates in Chile. Consequently, we recommend a new fixed income trade: Receive 3-year swap rates. The recent rise provides a good entry point (Chart II-10). Chart II-9...Despite Robust Employment Growth ...Despite Robust Employment Growth ...Despite Robust Employment Growth Chart II-10Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates The ability to cut interest rates will mitigate the effect of weaker exports on the economy. We recommend dedicated EM investors maintain an overweight allocation in Chile in their equity, local currency bond and corporate credit portfolios. For absolute return investors, the risk-reward profiles for Chilean stocks and the currency are not attractive. The peso will depreciate considerably, and shorting it versus the U.S. dollar will prove profitable. Consistent with our negative view on copper prices, we have been recommending a short position in copper with a long leg in the Chilean peso. This allows traders to earn some carry while waiting for copper prices to break down. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Colombia: The Currency Will Be A Release Valve The structural long-term outlook for Colombia is positive, as a combination of pro-market orthodox policies and reform initiatives amid positive tailwinds from demographic should ensure a reasonably high potential GDP growth rate. In the first round of presidential elections held last weekend, the gap between right wing candidate Ivan Duque and left-wing candidate Gustav Petro came out large enough to make a Duque victory highly likely in the second round to be held on June 17. His election would entail a positive backdrop for the reform agenda and business investment over the coming years. Yet despite the positive structural backdrop, Colombia is still facing a major imbalance - excessive reliance on oil in sustaining stable balance of payments (BoP) dynamics. The trade balance deficit - including oil - is $8 billion, while excluding oil it stands at $20 billion, or 7.5% of GDP (Chart III-1). Hence, if oil prices drop materially in the second half of this year - as we expect - Colombia's balance of payments will be strained. Consequently, the currency will come under depreciation pressure. The peso is presently fairly valued as the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs is at its historical mean (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Chart III-2The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The central bank has adopted a "hands-off" approach toward the exchange rate, and is likely to allow the peso to depreciate if the BoP deteriorates. Weak economic conditions will likely prevent it from hiking interest rates to bolster the peso: Even though the central bank has reduced its policy rate by 350 basis points since the end of 2016, lending rates remain restrictive when compared with the nominal GDP growth rate (Chart III-3, top panel). Fiscal policy has been tight, with government expenditures subdued and the primary deficit narrowing (Chart III-3, bottom panel). This is unlikely to change for now if conservative candidate, Ivan Duque, wins the election. Consumer and business demand has failed to pick up, and shows little sign of recovery (Chart III-4). Non-performing loans (NPL) continue to rise, forcing banks to raise their NPL provisioning (Chart III-5). Weak nominal GDP growth suggests provisions may rise further. Chart III-3Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Chart III-4Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Chart III-5Colombian Banks: NPL And NPL Provision Continue Rising bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s3_c5 bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s3_c5 Overall, banks' balance sheets remain impaired, hampering their ability to extend loans. Investment Recommendations Despite a favorable structural outlook, Colombia's cyclical growth and financial market outlooks remain poor. Chances are that the peso will come under selling pressure as the external environment deteriorates - i.e., the currency will act as a release valve. We recommend staying neutral on Colombian stocks and local bonds relative to their EM peers, and to overweight Colombian sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio. The basis is that sound and tight fiscal policies and a continuation of supply side reforms will benefit this credit market. To capitalize on potential currency depreciation while hedging for the uncertainty of oil price decline, we recommend shorting the peso against the Russian ruble. Although Colombia's structural outlook is more promising than Russia's, the latter's BoP dynamics is healthier and its cyclical growth outlook is better than Colombia's. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we review all of the individual trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. These are positions that are intended to complement our strategic Model Bond Portfolio, typically with shorter holding periods, and sometimes in smaller or less liquid markets that are outside our usual core bond coverage (like Swedish government bonds or euro area CPI swaps). This report includes a summary of the rationale for each position, as well as a decision on whether to retain the position, close it or switch it into a new trade that has more profit potential for the same theme underlying the original trade (Table 1). Table 1Global Fixed Income Strategy Tactical Overlay Trades Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades Feature U.S. Long 5-year U.S. Treasury bullet vs. 2-year/10-year duration-matched barbell (CLOSE AND SWITCH TO NEW TRADE) Long U.S. TIPS vs. nominal U.S. Treasuries (HOLD) Short 10-year U.S. Treasuries vs. 10-year German Bunds (HOLD) Chart 1UST Curve Trading More Off The Funds##BR##Rate Than Inflation Expectations UST Curve Trading More Off The Funds Rate Than Inflation Expectations UST Curve Trading More Off The Funds Rate Than Inflation Expectations We have three U.S.-focused tactical trades that are all expressions of our core views on U.S. inflation expectations and future Fed monetary policy moves. We first recommended a U.S. butterfly trade, going long the 5-year U.S. Treasury bullet and short a duration-matched 2-year/10-year Treasury barbell (Chart 1), back on December 20th, 2016. We have kept the recommendation during periodic reviews of our tactical trades since then. This is a position that was expected to benefit from a bearish steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve as the market priced in higher longer-term inflation expectations. The trade has not performed according to our expectations, however, generating a loss of -0.40% since inception.1 There was a positive correlation between the slope of the Treasury curve, the butterfly spread and TIPS breakevens shortly after trade inception. However, the Treasury curve flattened through 2017 as the Fed continued to hike rates, even as realized inflation fell (2nd panel), pushing the real fed funds towards neutral levels as measured by estimates like r* (3rd panel). This has left the 2/5/10 Treasury butterfly cheap on our valuation model (bottom panel), Looking ahead, the case for a renewed bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve, and widening of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, rests on the Fed accommodating the current rise in U.S. inflation by being cautious with future rate hikes. Recent comments from Fed officials suggest that policymakers are in no hurry to rapidly raise rates in order to cool off an "overheating" U.S. economy. Yet at the same time, U.S. inflation continues to rise and the economy is in good shape, so the Fed can't take a pause on rate hikes. This will likely leave the Treasury curve range bound, with the potential for some periods of bear-steepening as inflation expectations rise. Our conviction on this Treasury butterfly spread trade has fallen of late. Yet with our model suggesting that the belly of the curve is somewhat cheap to the wings, and given our view that U.S. inflation expectations have not reached a cyclical peak, we are reluctant to completely exit this position. Instead, we are opting to switch out of the 2/5/10 U.S. Treasury butterfly into another butterfly that our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy have identified as cheap within their newly-expanded curve modeling framework - the 1/7/20 butterfly (long the 7-year bullet vs. short a duration-matched 1/20 barbell).2 That butterfly offers better carry than the 2/5/10 butterfly (Chart 2), and is nearly one standard deviation cheap to estimated fair value. Another of our U.S.-focused tactical trades has been to directly play for rising U.S. inflation expectations by going long TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries. This is a long-held trade (initiated on August 23rd, 2016) which has performed very well, delivering a return of 4.13%.3 We continue to see the potential for TIPS breakevens to widen back to levels consistent with the market believing that inflation can sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target on the PCE deflator, which is equivalent to 2.4-2.5% on CPI-based 10-year TIPS inflation expectations. Given the persistent strong correlation between oil prices and breakevens, and with the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy team continuing to forecast Brent oil prices jumping above $80/bbl over the next year (Chart 3), there is still solid underlying support for wider breakevens. This is especially true given the uptrend in overall global inflation (middle panel), and the likelihood that core U.S. inflation can also continue to rise alongside an expanding U.S. economy (bottom panel). We are sticking with our long TIPS position vs. nominal Treasuries. Chart 2Switch The UST Butterfly##BR##Trade From 2/5/10 to 1/7/20 Switch The UST Butterfly Trade From 2/5/10 to 1/7/20 Switch The UST Butterfly Trade From 2/5/10 to 1/7/20 Chart 3Stay Long U.S. TIPS##BR##Vs. Nominal Treasuries Stay Long U.S. TIPS vs. Nominal Treasuries Stay Long U.S. TIPS vs. Nominal Treasuries Our final U.S.-focused tactical trade is actually a cross-market trade where we are short 10-year U.S. Treasuries versus 10-year German Bunds. We initiated that trade on August 8th, 2017 when the Treasury-Bund spread was at 179bps. With the spread now at 252bps, the trade has delivered a solid total return of 4.23%. This was driven primarily by the rapid move higher in Treasury yields in response to faster U.S. growth (Chart 4), more rapid U.S. inflation and Fed rate hikes versus a stand-pat European Central Bank (ECB).4 From a medium-term perspective, those three fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread continue to point to U.S. bond underperformance (Chart 5). From this perspective, the peak in the spread will not be reached until U.S. economic growth and inflation peak and the Fed signals an end to its current tightening cycle. None of those outcomes is on the horizon, and we continue to target an eventual cyclical top in the 10-year Treasury yield in the 3.25-3.5% range as inflation expectations move higher. Yet the Treasury-Bund spread has reached an overvalued extreme according to our "fair value" model (Chart 6). In other words, the markets have moved to more than fully discount the cyclical differences between the U.S. and euro area - a trend that surely reflects the huge short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. Yet it is also important to note that the fair value spread continues to steadily climb higher. In our model, the spread is primarily a function of differences in central bank policy rates between the Fed and ECB, relative unemployment rates and relative headline inflation rates. All three of those factors continue to move in a direction favorable to a wider Treasury-Bund spread, and the gap is only growing wider with both growth and inflation in the euro zone losing momentum. Chart 4Stay Long 10yr UST##BR##Vs. 10yr German Bund Stay Long 10yr UST vs 10yr German Bund Stay Long 10yr UST vs 10yr German Bund Chart 5UST-Bund Spread Widening##BR##Due To Relative Fundamentals... UST-Bund Spread Widening Due To Relative Fundamentals... UST-Bund Spread Widening Due To Relative Fundamentals... Chart 6...But The Spread##BR##Has Overshot A Bit ...But The Spread Has Overshot A Bit ...But The Spread Has Overshot A Bit The spread is currently being pushed to even wider extremes by the current turmoil in Italy, which is pushing money out of Italian BTPs into safer assets like Bunds. The situation remains fluid and new elections are likely in Italy later this year, thus it is unlikely that any more to restore investor confidence in Italy is on the immediate horizon. This will keep Bund yields depressed versus Treasuries, even as the ECB continues to signal that it will fully taper its asset purchases by year-end (rate hikes remain a long way off in Europe, however). We continue to recommend staying short Treasuries versus Bunds, and would view any tightening of the spread back towards our model estimate of fair value as an opportunity to enter the position or add to an existing position. Euro Area Long 10-year euro area CPI swaps (HOLD, BUT ADD A STOP AT 1.5%) Short 5-year Italy government bonds vs. 5-year Spain government bonds (HOLD) Chart 7Stay Long 10-Year Euro Area CPI Swaps Stay Long 10-Year Euro Area CPI Swaps Stay Long 10-Year Euro Area CPI Swaps We have two tactical trades that are purely within the euro area: positioning for higher inflation expectations through a long position in 10-year euro CPI swaps, and playing relative credit quality within the Peripheral countries by shorting 5-year Italian bonds versus a long position in 5-year Spanish debt. The long 10-year CPI swaps trade, which was initiated on December 20th, 2016, has generated a total return of +0.45% over the life of the trade so far (Chart 7).5 The rationale for the recommendation, and our conviction behind it, has evolved over that time. We first recommended the trade when the ECB was aggressively easing monetary policy and there was clear positive momentum in euro area economic growth that was driving down unemployment. At a time when oil prices were steadily climbing and the euro was very weak, the case for seeing some improvement in inflation expectations in the euro area was a strong one. Inflation expectations stayed resilient in 2017, however, despite the unexpected strength of the euro. Continued gains in oil prices and above-trend economic growth that rapidly absorbed spare capacity in the euro area more than offset any downward pressure on inflation from a stronger currency. Looking ahead, the combination of renewed weakness in the euro and firm oil prices should allow headline inflation in the euro area to drift higher from current levels in the next 3-6 months (2nd panel). However, the euro area economy has lost the positive momentum seen last year with steady declines in cyclical data like manufacturing PMIs, industrial production and exports (3rd panel). Admittedly, that deceleration has come from a high level and leading indicators are not yet pointing to a prolonged period of below-potential growth that could raise unemployment and reduce domestic inflation pressures. Yet with core inflation still struggling to climb beyond the 1% level (bottom panel), any worsening of euro area economic momentum could lead to inflation expectations stalling out well before getting close to the ECB's 2% target level. Thus, we continue to recommend this long 10-year CPI swaps position, but we are adding a new stop-out level at 1.5% to protect against downside risks if the euro area growth outlook darkens. On our other euro area tactical trade, we have been recommending shorting Italian government bonds versus Spanish equivalents. We initiated that trade on December 16th, 2016 and it has produced a total return of +0.57% over the life of the trade. The original logic for the trade was based on an assessment that Italy's medium-term growth potential, sovereign debt fundamentals and political stability were all much worse than that of Spain (Chart 8), yet Italian bond yields were still trading at too low a spread to Spanish debt. The cyclical improvement in the Italian economy in 2017 helped pushed Italian yields even closer to Spanish yields, yet we stuck with the trade given the looming political risk from the Italian parliamentary elections. The recent political turmoil in Italy has justified our persistence with this trade, with the 5-year Italy-Spain spread widening out by 46 bps over just the past two weeks. With the situation remaining highly fluid as the Italian coalition partners (the 5-Star Movement and the League) struggle to form a new government, Italian assets will continue to trade with a substantial risk premium to Spain and other European bond markets. Yet with the Italian economy now also showing signs of losing cyclical momentum, the case for continued Italian bond underperformance is a strong one, and we moved to a strategic underweight stance on Italian debt last week.6 Looking ahead, we see the potential for additional spread widening between Italy and Spain in the coming months. Spain is enjoying better economic growth, the deficit outlook is worsening for Italy with the new coalition government proposing a stimulus that could widen the budget deficit by as much as 6% of GDP, and Spanish support for the euro currency is far higher than it is in Italy. All those factors justify a wider risk premium for Italian debt over Spanish bonds (Chart 9). Chart 8Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Chart 9Stay Short 5-Year Italy Versus 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Versus 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Versus 5-Year Spain Our view on Italian debt, both from a tactical and strategic viewpoint, is bearish. We are maintaining our tactical trade, and we also advise selling into any rallies in Italy rather than buying the dips. U.K. Long 5-year Gilt bullet vs. duration-matched 2-year/10-year Gilt barbell (HOLD) We entered into a U.K. Gilt butterfly trade, long the 5-year bullet versus the duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell, back on March 27th, 2018.7 The logic of the trade was a simple one. We simply did not believe that the Bank of England (BoE) would follow through on its hawkish commentary by hiking rates as much as was discounted in the Gilt curve. Our view came to fruition as the BoE held rates steady at the May monetary policy meeting, which resulted in a bullish steepening at the front end of the Gilt curve. Our butterfly trade has returned +0.25% since inception, and we see more to come in the coming months.8 The U.K. economy has lost considerable momentum, with no growth shown in Q1 (real GDP only expanded +0.1%). The OECD leading economic indicator for the U.K. is at the weakest level in five years, and now consumer confidence is rolling over as rising oil costs are offsetting the pickup in wages (Chart 10). Overall headline inflation has peaked, however, after the big currency-fueled surge in 2016 and 2017 (bottom panel). With both growth and inflation slowing, and with the lingering uncertainty of the Brexit negotiations weighing on business confidence and investment, the BoE will have a tough time hiking rates even one more time this year. There are still 34bps of rate hikes priced into the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, which leaves room for 2-year Gilts to decline as the BoE stays on hold for longer (Chart 11). This will cause the front-end of the Gilt curve to steepen. Meanwhile, longer-term Gilt yields will have a difficult time falling given the deceleration of global central bank asset purchase programs that is slowly raising depressed term premia on government bonds (3rd panel). Another factor that will help keep the Gilt curve steeper, all else equal, is the path of the inflation expectations curve. Shorter-dated expectations are likely to fall faster as growth slows and headline inflation continues to drift lower (bottom panel). Chart 10Fading Momentum For##BR##U.K. Growth & Inflation Fading Momentum For U.K. Growth & Inflation Fading Momentum For U.K. Growth & Inflation Chart 11Stay Long The 5yr U.K. Gilt Bullet##BR##Vs. The 2/10 Gilt Barbell Stay Long The 5yr U.K. Gilt Bullet vs The 2/10 Gilt Barbell Stay Long The 5yr U.K. Gilt Bullet vs The 2/10 Gilt Barbell Although some narrowing of the butterfly spread is already priced in the forwards (top panel), we see that outperformance of the 5-year happening faster, and by a greater amount, than the forwards. Stay long the belly of the Gilt curve versus the wings. Canada Long 10-year Canada inflation-linked government bonds vs. nominal Canada government bonds (HOLD) We recommended entering a long Canada 10-year breakeven inflation trade on January 9th, 2018.9 Since then, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate rose by 6bps along with the rise in oil prices denominated in Canadian dollars (Chart 12). This has helped our tactical trade deliver a return of +0.64% since inception.10 More fundamentally, the breakeven has risen as strong Canadian growth has helped close the output gap and push realized Canadian inflation back to the middle of the Bank of Canada (BoC)'s 1-3% target band. The rapid rate of real GDP growth has decelerated a bit after approaching 4% last year, and the OECD leading economic indicator for Canada may be peaking at a high level (Chart 13). Growth in consumer spending is also look a bit toppy, with bigger downside risks evident in the sharp declines in the growth of retail sales and house prices (3rd panel). Both were affected by a harsher-than-usual Canadian winter, but the cooling of the overheated Canadian housing market (especially in Toronto) is a welcome development for financial stability. Chart 12Stay Long Canadian##BR##Inflation Breakevens Stay Long Canadian Inflation Breakevens Stay Long Canadian Inflation Breakevens Chart 13Canadian Inflation At BoC Target,##BR##But Has Growth Peaked? Canadian Inflation At BoC Target, But Has Growth Peaked? Canadian Inflation At BoC Target, But Has Growth Peaked? On balance, however, the current state of Canadian economic data shows an economy that is slowing a bit from a very overheated pace, but is still likely to grow above potential with no spare capacity available. Both headline and core inflation will remain under upward pressure against this backdrop, at a time when the BoC's policy rate is still well below neutral. We continue to recommend staying long Canadian inflation-linked government bonds over nominal equivalents with a near-term target of 2% on the 10-year breakeven inflation rate. We will re-evaluate the position with regards to Canadian growth and inflation trends once that target is reached. Australia Long December 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures (SELL AND SWITCH TO NEW TRADE). We entered into a long December 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures trade on October 17, 2017 as a focused way to express the view that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would stay on hold for longer than markets expect. The trade has worked out nicely, generating a profit of +0.25%. The potential for further upside is fairly low at these levels so we are now closing the trade. However, our view remains that the RBA will not be able to hike as early as markets are pricing. As such, we are opening a new position - long October 2019 Australia Bank Bill futures. Markets expect the first rate hike will occur in nine months' time. The October 2019 Australia Bank Bill futures are currently pricing in a massive 180bps of rate hikes over the next sixteen months. That will not happen. The RBA will not be able to hike this much given the lack of inflation pressures and a wide output gap. Our Australia Central Bank Monitor, which measures cyclical growth and inflation pressures, has pulled back to the zero line, confirming that there is no current need to tighten policy (Chart 14). Real GDP growth slowed to 2.4% in Q4 2017, from 2.9% the previous quarter. Weakness in the OECD leading economic indicator and Citigroup economic surprise index for Australia suggest that the Q1 reading will also disappoint. Consumer spending will be dampened by weak wage growth, softening consumer sentiment and the recent decline in house prices in multiple major cities. As a result of easing house prices, the growth rate of household net wealth was considerably lower in 2017 relative to the previous four years. Additionally, credit growth has been slowing, even before the recent news of the bank scandals that will force banks to be more stringent with lending practices. Most importantly, however, inflation remains below the RBA's target and there is a lack of inflationary pressures. The inflation component of our Central Bank Monitor has collapsed and is now well below the zero line. Both headline and core inflation readings are stable but remain persistently below 2%. Tradeable goods prices have declined for nine consecutive months despite the currency weakness seen in the Australian dollar over the past twelve months. The IMF is not projecting Australia to have a closed output gap until 2020, and that is with the optimistic expectation that Australia achieves 3% growth. Labor markets have plenty of slack as evidenced by rising unemployment rate, nonexistent wage growth and elevated level of underemployment. The RBA estimates that the current unemployment rate is still approximately 0.5% above full employment. Against this backdrop, it is unlikely that inflation will sustainably rise enough to force the RBA's hand, leaving scope for interest rate expectations to decline (Chart 15). Chart 14The RBA Will##BR##Stay Dovish The RBA Will Stay Dovish The RBA Will Stay Dovish Chart 15Switch Long Australia Bank Bill Futures##BR##Trade From Dec/18 Contract To Oct/19 Contract Switch Long Australia Bank Bill Futures Trade From Dec/18 Contract To Oct/19 Contract Switch Long Australia Bank Bill Futures Trade From Dec/18 Contract To Oct/19 Contract New Zealand Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds vs. 5-year U.S. Treasuries, currency-hedged into U.S. dollars (HOLD) Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds vs. 5-year German government bonds, with no currency hedge (HOLD) One of our more successful tactical trades has been in New Zealand (NZ) government bonds. We entered long positions in 5-year NZ debt versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries and 5-year German Bunds on May 30th, 2017, but we reviewed, and decided to maintain, those positions in a recent Weekly Report.11 The NZ-US spread trade has returned 4.67% since inception, hedged into U.S. dollars (Chart 16).12 The NZ-Germany trade, however, was a very rare instance where we recommended a cross-country spread trade on a currency UN-hedged basis, based on the negative view on the euro that we had last year. With the euro rising sharply against the New Zealand dollar, the unhedged return on that trade has been -2.87% (a return that, if hedged back into the euro denomination of the German bonds, would have generated a return of +3.56%). Looking ahead, we see continued scope for NZ bond outperformance, although the return potential is far less than it was when we first put on the trade. NZ economic growth is in the process of peaking, with export growth already rolling over (Chart 17, top panel). Net immigration inflows, which have been a major support for the NZ housing market and overall consumer spending over the past five years, have already begun to slow with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) projecting bigger declines in the next couple of years (2nd panel). Both headline and core CPI inflation took a surprising downward turn in Q1 of this year, and both are well below the midpoint of the RBNZ target band (3rd panel). Chart 16Stay Long NZ 5yr Bonds##BR##Vs. The U.S. & Germany... Stay Long NZ 5yr Bonds Vs The U.S. & Germany... Stay Long NZ 5yr Bonds Vs The U.S. & Germany... Chart 17...With NZ Growth &##BR##Inflation Losing Momentum ...With NZ Growth & Inflation Losing Momentum ...With NZ Growth & Inflation Losing Momentum With both growth and inflation slowing, the RBNZ can remain dovish on monetary policy. An additional factor is the NZ government has recently changed the mandate of the RBNZ to include both inflation targeting and "maximizing employment" in a similar fashion to the Federal Reserve. With inflation posing no threat, the RBNZ can focus on its employment mandate by maintaining highly accommodative policy settings. With the NZ OIS curve still discounting one full 25bp RBNZ hike over the next year (bottom panel), there is scope for NZ bonds to outperform as that hike will not happen. This will allow NZ bond spreads to tighten, or at least outperform versus the forwards where some modest widening is currently priced. We are sticking with both spread trades, but we are choosing to leave the NZ-Germany trade currency unhedged given the renewed weakness in the euro (the unhedged return has already improved by over two full percentage points since the euro peaked earlier this year). We will monitor levels of the NZD/EUR currency cross rate to determine when to potentially hedge the currency exposure of our trade back into euros. Sweden Long Sweden 10-year government bond vs. 2-year government bond Short 2-year Sweden government bond vs. 2-year German government bond We recently entered two Sweden tactical bond trades on May 8, 2018, going long the Swedish 10-year vs. the 2-year and shorting the Swedish 2-year vs. the German 2-year (Chart 18).13 We expect that strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force the Riksbank to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Since inception for these "young" trades, each has returned -1bp.14 Sweden's economy made a solid recovery in 2017, with year-over-year real GDP growth reaching 3.3% in Q4. Going forward, export growth will remain supported by strong global activity, low unit labor costs, and a weak krona. Our own Swedish export growth model is already signaling a pickup over the rest of 2018. Consumption has been resilient and should continue to be supported by steadily recovering wages. Capital spending has been robust and industrial confidence remains in an uptrend. Additionally, leading indicators are still signaling positive growth momentum. The Riksbank's preferred measure of inflation, CPIF, slowed to 1.9% in April after briefly touching the central bank's target last month (Chart 19). In our view, this is a minor pullback rather than the start of a sustained reversal. Our core inflation model projects a gradual increase in the coming months, driven by above-trend growth that has soaked up all spare capacity. Labor markets have tightened considerably, and the unemployment rate is now more than one percentage point below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU. During the last period when unemployment was this far below NAIRU, wage growth surged to over 4%. Chart 18Stay In A Sweden 2/10 Curve Flattener##BR##& Short 2yr Swedish Bonds Vs Germany Stay In A Sweden 2/10 Curve Flattener & Short 2yr Swedish Bonds Vs Germany Stay In A Sweden 2/10 Curve Flattener & Short 2yr Swedish Bonds Vs Germany Chart 19The Riksbank Will Not Ignore##BR##The Coming Inflation Overshoot The Riksbank Will Not Ignore The Coming Inflation Overshoot The Riksbank Will Not Ignore The Coming Inflation Overshoot For the curve flattener trade, our expectation is that the Riksbank will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, leading markets to reprice the shape of the Swedish yield curve, as too few rate hikes are discounted in the short-end. With their mandates met, the Riksbank will be forced to act more aggressively. Importantly, there is no flattening currently priced into the Swedish bond forward curve, thus there is no negative carry associated with putting on a flattener now. In the relative value trade, we shorted the Swedish 2-year relative to the German 2-year. Growth in Sweden is likely to outpace that of the euro area once again in 2018. Swedish inflation is almost at the Riksbank target while euro area inflation continues to undershoot the ECB benchmark. The ECB is signaling that it is in no hurry to begin raising interest rates, therefore policy rate differentials will drive the 2-year Sweden-Germany spread wider over the next 12-18 months, with no spread move currently priced into the forwards. South Korea Short Korea 10-Year Government Bonds Vs. Long 2-Year Korea Government Bonds (CLOSE) We first introduced this trade on May 30th, 2017, after the election of Moon Jae-In as the South Korean president.15 The new government made major campaign promises to greatly expand fiscal spending on social welfare, public sector job creation, and increased aid to North Korea. With the central government's budget balance set to worsen significantly, we expected longer-term Korean bond yields to begin to price in faster growth and rising future debt levels, resulting in a bearish steepening of the yield curve (Chart 20). Since the new president was elected, however, the Korean economy worsened - even as much of the global economy was enjoying a cyclical upturn - with the trend likely to continue (Chart 21). The OECD leading economic indicator for Korea is weakening, while the annual growth in industrial production now sits at -4.2% - the worst level since the 2009 recession. Capital spending and exports are also slowing rapidly. Chart 20Close The 2yr/10y Korean##BR##Government Bond Curve Steepener Close The 2yr/10y Korean Government Bond Curve Steepener Close The 2yr/10y Korean Government Bond Curve Steepener Chart 21Korean Curve Stable,##BR##Despite Slower Growth & Fiscal Stimulus Korean Curve Stable, Despite Slower Growth & Fiscal Stimulus Korean Curve Stable, Despite Slower Growth & Fiscal Stimulus Due to the slowdown in the economy, Korean firms' capacity utilization is now at the worst level since the middle of 2009. Although businesses were already suffering from downward pressure on revenues, the Moon administration dramatically increased the minimum wage last year, directly leading to a rise in bankruptcies for small and medium size firms (the bankruptcy rate rose from 1.9% in the first half of 2017 to 2.5% in the latter half). Looking ahead, the Moon government will continue to increase spending on welfare and financial aid for North Korea, especially if the domestic economy continues to struggle. We still believe that the rise in deficits and debt will eventually lead the market to price in some increase in the fiscal risk premium and a steeper Korean yield curve. Yet with the Bank of Korea (BoK) having already surprised the markets last November with a rate hike, and with Korean inflation now ticking higher alongside a stable won, we fear that any renewed steepening of the Korean curve awaits a shift to a more dovish BoK that is not yet on the horizon. For now, given the competing forces on the Korean yield curve, we are choosing to close our 2/10 Korea curve steepener at a loss of -0.63%.16 We will continue to monitor the Korean situation to look for opportunities to re-enter the trade at a later date. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg pricing of the total return of a 2/5/10 butterfly. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15th 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Return is taken directly from Bloomberg Barclays index data on the duration-adjusted excess return of the entire TIPS index versus the entire Treasury index. 4 This return is calculated using Bloomberg data on actual U.S. and German bonds, and is shown on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars - the currency denomination of the bond we are short in this spread trade. 5 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg Barclays inflation swap index data for a euro area CPI swap with a rolling 10-year maturity. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Nervous Complacency", dated March 27th, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data on actual Gilts, rather than bond index data. 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Let The Good Times Roll", dated January 9th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 10 This return is measured as the total return of the Canadian inflation-linked bond index less that of the nominal Canadian government bond index from the Bloomberg Barclays family of bond indices. 11 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Serenity Now", dated May 15th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data on actual New Zealand government bonds, with our own adjustments for the impact on returns from currency hedging. 13 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Sweden: The Riksbank Cannot Kick The Can Down The Road Anymore", dated May 8th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data for actual individual Swedish government bonds, rather than bond index data. Both legs of the trade are duration-matched. 15 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data for actual individual Korean government bonds, rather than bond index data. Both legs of the trade are duration-matched and funding costs are included. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The global economy is slowing. However, growth should stabilize at an above-trend pace over the next few months, as fiscal policy turns more stimulative and interest rates remain in accommodative territory. President Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fortunately, Trump appears willing to cut a deal on trade, even if it is on terms that are not nearly as favorable to the U.S. as he might have touted. The recently renegotiated South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is a case in point. We remain cyclically overweight global equities, but acknowledge that valuations are stretched and the near-term market environment could remain challenging until leading economic indicators improve. Feature Global Equities: Near-Term Outlook Is Still Hazy We published a note on February 2nd entitled "Take Out Some Insurance" warning investors that the stock market had become highly vulnerable to a correction.1 The VIX spike began the next day. Although volatility has fallen and equities have rebounded so far in April, we are reluctant to sound the all-clear. The near-term signal from the beta version of our MacroQuant model has improved a bit but remains in bearish territory, as it has for over two months now (Chart 1). Chart 1MacroQuant Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump The model is highly sensitive to changes in growth. Starting early this year, it began to detect a weakening in a variety of leading economic indicators in the U.S. and, to an even greater degree, abroad. Most notably, global PMIs and the German IFO have dipped, Korean and Taiwanese exports have decelerated, Japanese machinery orders have fallen, and the Baltic Dry Index has swooned by 36% from its December high (Chart 2). The model also noted an increase in inflationary pressures, suggesting that monetary policy would likely end up moving in a less accommodative direction. The emergence of stagflationary concerns came at a time when bullish stock market sentiment stood at very elevated levels (Chart 3). Our empirical work has shown that equities perform worst when sentiment is deteriorating from bullish levels and perform best when sentiment is improving from bearish levels (Chart 4). Chart 2Growth Has Peaked Growth Has Peaked Growth Has Peaked Chart 3Stock Market Sentiment Was Very ##br##Bullish Earlier This Year Stock Market Sentiment Was Very Bullish Earlier This Year Stock Market Sentiment Was Very Bullish Earlier This Year Chart 4Swings In Sentiment And ##br##Stock Market Returns Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump Waiting For The Economic Data To Stabilize The good news is that the drop in equity prices has caused sentiment to return to more normal levels. The bad news is that the activity data has continued to disappoint at the margin, as evidenced by the weakness in economic surprise indices and various "nowcasts" of real-time growth (Chart 5). Ultimately, we expect global growth to stabilize at an above-trend pace over the coming months, which should allow equities to grind higher. Monetary policy is still quite accommodative. The yield on the JP Morgan Global Bond Index has averaged 1.88% since the end of the Great Recession (Chart 6). We do not know where the "neutral" level of bond yields has been over this period. However, we do know that unemployment in the major economies has been falling, which suggests that monetary policy has been in expansionary territory. Despite the move away from quantitative easing by many central banks, the yield on the JP Morgan Global Bond Index is only 1.53% today. This implies a fortiori that bond yields today are well below restrictive levels. The conclusion is further strengthened if one assumes, as seems highly plausible, that the neutral bond yield has risen over the past few years, as deleveraging headwinds have abated and fiscal policy has turned more stimulative (Chart 7). Chart 5Unexpected Slowdown In Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Growth Chart 6Interest Rates Are Off Their Bottom, ##br##But Are Not Restrictive Interest Rates Are Off Their Bottom, But Are Not Restrictive Interest Rates Are Off Their Bottom, But Are Not Restrictive Chart 7Fiscal Policy Will Be Stimulative ##br##This Year And Next Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump The Protectionism Bugbear Global growth has not been the only thing on investors' minds. The specter of a trade war has also loomed large. It is true that the standard early-19th century Ricardian model that first-year economics students learn predicts very small welfare losses from increased protectionism.2 The model, however, makes highly antiquated assumptions about how trade works. Trade today bears little resemblance to the world in which David Ricardo lived - the one where England exchanged cloth for Portuguese wine (the example Ricardo used to illustrate his famous principle of comparative advantage). Chart 8Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump To an increasingly large extent, countries do not really trade with one another anymore. One can even go as far as to say that different companies do not really trade with each other in the way they once did. A growing share of international trade is between affiliates of the same companies. Trade these days is dominated by intermediate goods (Chart 8). The exchange of goods and services takes place within the context of a massive global supply chain, where such phrases as "outsourcing," "vertical integration" and "just-in-time inventory management" have entered the popular vernacular. This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry.3 The global supply chain is highly vulnerable to even small shocks. Now imagine an across-the-board trade war. Equities represent a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that might emerge after a trade war has been fought. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital. It is not surprising that investors are worried. Trump's Dubious Trade Doctrine The psychology of a trade war today is not that dissimilar to that of an actual war among the great powers. It would be immensely damaging if it were to happen, but because everyone knows it would be so damaging, it is less likely to occur. How then should one interpret President Trump's tweet that "Trade wars are good, and easy to win?" One possibility is that he is bluffing. The U.S. exported only $131 billion in goods to China last year, which is less than the $150 billion in Chinese imports that Trump has already targeted for tariffs. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. Unfortunately, there is also a less charitable interpretation, as revealed by the second part of Trump's tweet, where he said, "When we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore - we win big. It's easy!" Trump seems to equate countries with companies: Exports are revenues and imports are costs. If a country is exporting less than it is importing, it must be losing money. This is deeply flawed reasoning. I run a trade deficit with the place where I eat lunch, but I don't go around complaining that they are ripping me off. One would think that Trump - whose businesses routinely spent more than they earned, accumulating debt in the process - would understand this. But apparently not. As we discussed two weeks ago, the U.S. runs a trade deficit mainly because its deep and open financial markets, along with a relatively high neutral rate of interest, make it an attractive destination for foreign capital.4 If a country runs a capital account surplus with the rest of the world - meaning that it sells more assets to foreigners than it buys from foreigners - it will necessarily run a current account deficit. Trump's Macro Policy Colliding With His Trade Policy In this respect, President Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. By definition, the current account balance is the difference between what a country saves and what it invests. The U.S. fiscal position is set to deteriorate over the coming years, even if the unemployment rate continues to fall - an unprecedented occurrence (Chart 9). A bigger budget deficit will drain national savings. Chart 9The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Meanwhile, an overheated economy will cause capital spending to rise as firms run out of low-cost workers. If Trump succeeds in boosting infrastructure spending, aggregate U.S. investment will rise even more. The current account deficit is highly likely to widen in this environment. A Temporary Reprieve? Chart 10Trump's Protectionist Agenda Is A ##br##Popular One Among Republican Voters Trump's Protectionist Agenda Is A Popular One Among Republican Voters Trump's Protectionist Agenda Is A Popular One Among Republican Voters The prospect of a wider trade deficit means that Trump's protectionist wrath will not go quietly into the night. It may, however, go into remission for a little while. Trump's approval rating has managed to rise over the past few months because his protectionist agenda is popular with a large segment of the population (Chart 10). However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks resume their decline - Trump will change his tune. This is especially true if a trade war threatens to hurt U.S. agricultural interests. Rural areas have been a key source of support for Trump's populist rhetoric. Trump has shown a willingness to cut a deal on trade even if the negotiated outcome falls well short of his bluster. Consider the agreement between the U.S. and Korea in late March to amend their existing trade pact. Trump had called the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement an "unacceptable, horrible deal" and a "job killer." After the agreement was renegotiated, the President described it as a "wonderful deal with a wonderful ally." What did Trump get that was so wonderful? The Koreans agreed to double the ceiling on the number of U.S. automobiles that can be exported to Korea without having to meet the country's tough environmental standards to 50,000. The problem is that the U.S. only shipped 11,000 autos to Korea last year, so the original quota was nowhere close to binding. The Koreans also agreed to reduce steel exports to the U.S. to about 70% of the average level of the past three years in exchange for a permanent exemption from Trump's 25% steel tariff. That may sound like a major concession, but keep in mind that only 12% of Korea's steel exports go to the United States. Korea also re-exports steel from other countries. These re-exports can be curtailed without causing major damage to Korea's steel industry. The shares of Korea's largest publicly-listed steel companies jumped by 1.7% on the first trading day after news of the deal broke, eclipsing the 0.8% rise in the KOSPI index. Investment Conclusions The global economy is going through a soft patch and this could weigh on stocks in the near term. However, if trade frictions fade into the background and global growth stabilizes over the coming months, as we expect will be the case, global equities should rally to fresh cycle highs. Granted, we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. U.S. interest rates are likely to move into restrictive territory in the second half of 2019. Given the usual lags between changes in monetary policy and the real economy, this would place the next recession in 2020. By then, barring any fresh stimulus, the U.S. fiscal impulse will have dropped below zero. It is the change in the fiscal impulse that matters for growth. If growth has already slowed to a trend-like pace by late 2019 due to a shortage of workers, the economy could easily stall out in 2020. Given the still-dominant role played by U.S. financial markets, a recession in the U.S. would quickly be transmitted to the rest of the world. Stocks will peak before the next recession starts, but if history is any guide, this will only happen six months or so before the economic downturn begins (Table 1). This suggests that the equity bull market still has another 12-to-18 months of life left. The extent to which investors may wish to participate in any blow-off rally this year is a matter of personal preference. As was the case in the late 1990s, long-term expected returns have fallen to fairly low levels. A comparison between the Shiller P/E ratio and subsequent 10-year returns over the past century suggests that the S&P 500 will deliver a total nominal annualized return of only 4% during the next decade (Chart 11). A composite valuation measure incorporating both the trailing and forward P/E ratio, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, market cap-to-GDP, dividend yield, and Tobin's Q shows only modestly higher expected returns for stock markets outside the U.S. (Appendix A). Table 1Cyclically, It Is Too Soon To Get Out... Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump Chart 11...But Long-Term Investors, Take Note ...But Long-Term Investors, Take Note ...But Long-Term Investors, Take Note As such, while we recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon, we would not fault long-term investors for taking some money off the table now. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. 2 Roughly speaking, the Ricardian model predicts that the welfare loss from protectionism will be one-half times the average percentage-point increase in tariffs times the change in the import-to-GDP ratio. Imports are about 15% of U.S. GDP. Consider a 10 percent across-the-board increase in tariffs. Assuming a price elasticity of import demand of 4, this would reduce trade by 1-0.96^10=0.33 (i.e., 33%), which would take the import-to-GDP ratio down from 15% to 10%. As such, the welfare loss would be 0.5*0.1*(15%-10%)=0.25%, or just one quarter of one percent of GDP. 3 James Coates, "Real Chip Shortage Or Just A Panic, Crunch Is Likely To Boost Pc Prices," Chicago Tribune, dated August 6, 1993. "Thailand Floods Disrupt Production And Supply Chains," BBC.com, dated October 13, 2011; Ploy Ten Kate, and Chang-Ran Kim, "Thai Floods batter Global Electronics, Auto Supply Chains," Reuters.com, dated October 28, 2011. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. APPENDIX A Chart 1Long-Term Real Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Growth, Trade, And Trump Growth, Trade, And Trump Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Why Trump Likes Tariffs Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Employment Is A Constraint On China Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar