Trade

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet No Clear Bottom, Yet No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response Chart 7 In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Too Early To Bottom Fish Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue RMB Depreciation Long Overdue RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, but a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. Ultimately, a growth rebound will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the timing is difficult and investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. High-Yield: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. 10-Year Treasury Yield: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor. Feature Regular readers will be aware of our Fed Policy Loop framework for analyzing the wiggles in financial markets. The Loop works as follows: Step 1: A dovish shift in Fed policy leads to a favorable market reaction, easing financial conditions. Step 2: Easier financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will strengthen in the future. The Fed can therefore respond by adopting a more hawkish policy stance. Step 3: The Fed’s hawkish policy shift leads to a negative market reaction, tightening financial conditions. Step 4: Tighter financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will weaken in the future. The Fed is forced to ease monetary policy at the margin. Return to Step 1 But it appears that BCA readers aren’t the only ones aware of the Fed Policy Loop. President Trump has also been exploiting the two-way relationship between Fed policy and financial conditions as he escalates his trade war with China. Chart 1 illustrates how this has been working. Step 1 of the Fed policy loop continues to function exactly as described above. However, the last few times that financial conditions have eased, the President has seized the opportunity to ratchet up trade tensions. Much like the Fed, the President reasons that periods of easier financial conditions are when the economy and financial markets can best handle a negative shock. The fall-out is that financial conditions tighten in response to the hawkish trade announcement, and the Fed is forced to respond to tighter financial conditions by turning even more dovish. Chart 1 The end result is that the part of the Fed Policy Loop labeled “Hawkish Fed” is by-passed. Without that step it is impossible for bond yields to rise (Chart 2). Chart 2The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop Our Geopolitical Strategy service provided a comprehensive breakdown of U.S./China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 The overall message is that the 2020 election is the President’s main constraint. He views hawkish trade policy as a winning issue, but only insofar as it can be accomplished without a significant decline in the stock market or economic activity. Faced with that constraint, the President will continue to interrupt the Fed Policy Loop, and the Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Against the back-drop of the “interrupted” Fed Policy Loop, Treasury yields can only move higher if global economic growth strengthens. In that case, the policy loop will remain operative, but at an overall higher level of yields. With that in mind, while hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. This will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Still Tracking The 2015/16 Roadmap In our research, we have repeatedly pointed out the similarities between the 2015/16 episode of flagging global growth and the current period. Specifically, we continue to witness weak manufacturing data – both in the U.S. and abroad – but a resilient service sector and strong labor market. Much like in 2015/16, we expect that the shifts toward easier monetary policy in the U.S. and more accommodative credit conditions in China will eventually put a floor under the global manufacturing cycle. The Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Case in point, even as President Trump has tightened global financial conditions at the margin through his hawkish trade policy, overall global financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year (Chart 3). In 2016, easier financial conditions eventually led to upturns in crucial measures of global growth such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (Chart 3, top panel), the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 3, panel 2), and the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 3, bottom panel). The same dynamic should play out this time around. It’s likely that the main reason why global growth has not responded as quickly as it did in 2016 is that Chinese policy easing has not been as rapid (Chart 4). Our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite measure of money and credit indicators designed to lead Chinese economic activity – has clearly bottomed, but has not yet surged as it did in 2015/16. However, Chinese policy easing continues to ramp up, a process that will continue in the months ahead. The most recent indication of this trend was China’s decision to de-value its currency versus the U.S. dollar, causing the exchange rate to jump above the important psychological threshold of 7 yuan per dollar (Chart 4, bottom panel). China took similar measures to de-value its currency in August 2015, a move that initially roiled markets but eventually helped usher in a rebound in global growth. Chart 3The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... Chart 4...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More ...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More ...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More When it comes to strategy, we remain confident that global growth is close to a trough, but admit that timing the rebound is difficult. One indicator that should help with timing is the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold (Chart 5). This ratio is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield, and will only rise when the perceived improvement in global growth – proxied by the CRB index – starts to outpace the perceived dovish tilt to Fed policy – proxied by the rising gold price. Chart 5Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio In light of these difficulties with timing, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but position for a rebound in global growth by maintaining an overweight allocation to credit risk and by running a heavily barbelled Treasury portfolio, overweighting the long and short ends of the curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. The barbell strategy increases average portfolio yield, and also avoids the part of the yield curve that will suffer the most when yields rise. Take Credit Risk In Junk As mentioned above, we recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate credit versus Treasuries, despite our recent shift to benchmark duration.2 This is particularly true for high-yield bonds, where spreads are very attractive. Charts 6A and 6B show one of our favorite ways of looking at corporate bond spreads. The charts show the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 We show each credit tier individually to control for the time-varying average credit rating of the overall indexes. Similarly, we show breakeven spreads instead of the average option-adjusted spreads to control for the time-varying average duration of the bond indexes. Chart 6A shows the following valuation for investment grade credit tiers: Throughout history, Aaa credits have been more expensive than they are today only 13% of the time. Aa credits have been more expensive than they are today 19% of the time. A-rated credits have been more expensive 20% of the time. Baa credits have been more expensive 33% of the time. Chart 6B shows that the corresponding valuation for high-yield is much more compelling: Ba credits have been more expensive than today 55% of the time. B credits have been more expensive 81% of the time. Caa credits have been more expensive 84% of the time. Chart 6AInvestment Grade Breakeven Spreads Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 6BHigh-Yield Breakeven Spreads High-Yield Breakeven Spreads High-Yield Breakeven Spreads In general, this way of looking at spreads shows that investment grade credits are quite expensive, while high-yield credits are either fairly valued or cheap. However, there is one more adjustment we can make to get an even better picture of corporate bond value. Adjusting For The Phase Of The Cycle A useful tool for cyclical portfolio allocation is to split the cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). We define the three phases as: Chart 7The Three Phases Of The Cycle The Three Phases Of The Cycle The Three Phases Of The Cycle Phase 1: From the end of the last recession until the 3/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps. Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession. We have previously discussed the implications of the different phases for bond portfolio allocation in more depth.4 This week, we simply want to point out that credit spreads tend to be tighter during Phase 2 of the cycle, when monetary policy has tightened, but not by enough to cause a surge in corporate defaults. The recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. With this cyclical decomposition in mind, we can calculate the median breakeven spread for each credit tier in past Phase 2 periods and use that as a spread target for this cycle. We then convert our breakeven spread targets into average option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration. Charts 8A and 8B show how far each credit tier’s spreads are from target. The message is quite clear. Outside of Aaa, investment grade credits are more or less fairly valued, while high-yield credits appear very cheap. Chart 8AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Chart 8BHigh-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets One might reasonably challenge this approach to corporate bond valuation by noting that, outside of looking at credit tiers individually, we have not taken fundamental credit quality trends into account. That is, we have made no adjustment for the fact that the credit quality of a Ba-rated issuer might be worse today than in prior cycles. We are skeptical that fundamental credit metrics matter more than the phase of the monetary policy cycle when it comes to corporate bond spread forecasting.5 However, this point of view is still worth exploring, especially considering that net debt-to-EBITDA for the median corporate bond issuer is quite elevated compared to history (Chart 9). Note that we have not attempted to maintain consistent weightings between the different credit tiers in the bottom-up samples shown in Chart 9. This means that the recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. Nonetheless, the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio of the median junk issuer is clearly worse than during the past two recoveries. But even if we take this into account by looking at the ratio between the junk index 12-month breakeven spread and the median net debt-to-EBITDA, we see that the ratio is still close to its historical median (Chart 10). In other words, at current spread levels junk investors appear reasonably compensated for the elevated median net debt-to-EBITDA ratio Chart 9Elevated Corporate Leverage Elevated Corporate Leverage Elevated Corporate Leverage Chart 10Favor Junk Bonds Favor Junk Bonds Favor Junk Bonds Bottom Line: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. Close To The Floor Chart 11Now Vs. Mid-2016 Now Vs. Mid-2016 Now Vs. Mid-2016 In a prior report we walked through the process of creating a macroeconomic fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield, with a focus on describing the different independent variables that might be included in such a model, and the rationale for each one.6 This week, we focus on two vital macroeconomic variables and use them to demonstrate why the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to re-visit its mid-2016 trough of 1.37%. The two main variables we focus on are (i) the pace of economic growth, and (ii) the size of the output gap. All else equal, a stronger pace of economic growth leads to expectations for a higher policy rate in the future and a higher 10-year Treasury yield today. However, it is not just the pace of growth that matters. The same rate of economic growth generates more inflationary pressure when the output gap is small than when it is large. This means that bond yields should be higher when the output gap is smaller (or more specifically, less negative). We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is probably the indicator of economic growth that correlates best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, measures of wage growth – and to a lesser extent core inflation – tend to give the best read on the output gap. With that in mind, we can see how these factors look today relative to when the 10-year yield troughed at 1.37% in mid-2016 (Chart 11). Global economic growth looks slightly worse, but not dramatically so. The Global Manufacturing PMI is at 49.3 today. It troughed at 49.9 in 2016. If this were the only variable that mattered, we might reason that the 10-year yield should be below 1.37% already. But we also need to consider that wage growth and inflation are both much higher than in 2016. Average hourly earnings are growing at a year-over-year rate of 3.2%, compared to a rate of 2.8% when the 10-year troughed in 2016. Similarly, the Atlanta Fed’s measure of median wage growth is up to 3.7% for the un-weighted sample and 3.9% for the sample that is weighted to more closely match the demographic characteristics of the overall population (Chart 11, panel 3). It’s true that core PCE inflation is running below where it was in mid-2016, but the trimmed mean measure is much higher (Chart 11, bottom panel). The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. Bottom Line: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Underinsured”, dated August 6, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required on a 12-month horizon for each credit tier to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report, this week we are sending you a Special Report penned by Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist of our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, titled “The Polybius Solution.” In this report Matt argues that a full-fledged cold war with China would put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall.  Feature The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1 This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. If the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2). Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. China Is Gaining On The U.S. China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order. Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4). China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated China's Domestic Risks Underrated China's Domestic Risks Underrated Concerted external pressure would make it harder for China to manage its internal imbalances. How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 1. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 1Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. Chart 5 A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers. Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Iran Is The Wild Card If the U.S. gets bogged down in the Middle East yet again, the “Pivot To Asia” will go into reverse and the “Thucydides Trap” with China will be delayed. A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Chart 11 Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While the media and market focus on China and Iran risks can alternate in the short run, the Trump administration is likely to continue downgrading the conflict with Iran and upgrading the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. Chart 12 China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. China also lacks the “Polybius solution” of balanced government – and it even lacks a robust constitutional system. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 3). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 3Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget An Iran War Will Bust The Budget An Iran War Will Bust The Budget Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant marketmover. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Our highest conviction call on this matter is that any trade deal before the U.S. 2020 election will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on July 26, can be found in Diagram 4. The combined risk of further escalation is 60% -- meaning that the U.S. will either implement the final batch of tariffs or refuse to renew Huawei’s trade license, or both. We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY. Diagram 4U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).

Highlights A unified push among central banks to drop their currencies inevitably leads to lower interest rates, which eventually sows the seeds of a recovery. However, with prospects of a full-blown trade war in front view, fundamentals could be put to the wayside for longer, as markets keep the switch on risk aversion. The new round of tariffs could pin USD/CNY at about 7.3-7.4, given the impact from negative feedback loops. The breakdown in the AUD/JPY cross is precarious. Stay short USD/JPY, but focus on the crosses rather than on outright bets versus the dollar. The RBNZ’s dovish surprise was a positive catalyst for our AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD positions. Remain long. Feature Chart I-1Summer Blues Summer Blues Summer Blues Just as summer trading volumes are falling close to new lows, central banks appear to be weaponizing their exchange rates in a renewed currency war salvo. Both the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) surprised market participants this week by slashing rates by more than expected. In retrospect, the European Central Bank probably fired the first shot at its forum in Sintra, Portugal this June. ECB President Mario Draghi highlighted back then that if the inflation outlook failed to improve, the central bank had considerable headroom to launch a fresh expansion of its balance sheet. What has followed is a renewed wave of dovishness by global central banks, which should intensify, given the latest flare-up in the trade war. For currency strategy, this means fundamentals could be temporarily put to the wayside, as markets keep the switch on risk aversion (Chart I-1). This is because there is little visibility on either the political or the economic front. Our strategy remains three-fold: First, maintain tight stops on tactical positions. Second, we prefer trades at the crosses rather than versus the dollar, for now. Finally, maintain portfolio insurance by being short the USD/JPY. USD/CNY And The Economics Of Tariffs Chart I-2Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Standard theory suggests that exchange rates should move to equalize prices across any two countries. The question that naturally follows is by how much? The answer is that the exchange rate should move by exactly the same percentage point as the price change, everything else equal. If both countries produce homogeneous goods, then it is easy to see why, since there is perfect substitution. All demand will flow to one country, until its currency rises by enough to equalize prices across borders again. However, assume countries ‘A’ and ‘B’ produce heterogeneous goods (‘A’ being the U.S. in this case, and ‘B’ China). Then the loss of purchasing power in Country ‘A’ will lead to less demand for Country ‘B’’s goods. The former loses purchasing power because prices of imports have increased by the amount of the tariff. This means the latter’s currency will have to adjust downwards for the markets to clear. The decrease has to match the magnitude of the price increase, if there are no other outlets to liquidate Country ‘B’’s goods. This is obviously a very simplified version of the real world economy, but it highlights an important point that is central to the discussion: The currency move necessary to realign competitiveness will always be equal to, or less than, in percentage point terms, to the price increase. In the case where the entire production base is tradeable, it will be the former. But with a rise in the number of trading partners, a more complex export basket, import substitution, shipping costs, and many other factors that influence tradeable prices, the currency adjustment needed should be smaller. Since the onset of 2018, the U.S. has slapped various tariffs on China, the latest of which is 10% on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. The U.S. currently imports $509 billion worth of goods from China, about 16% of its total imports. However, as a percentage of overall U.S. demand, this only represents 2.4% (Chart I-2). This suggests that at best, a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports will only lift import prices by 4% and consumer prices by much less. On the Chinese side of the equation, exports to the U.S. account for 18.4% of total exports, a ratio that has been falling since 2018. Therefore, a tariff of 25% should only lift export prices by 4.5%. The conclusion is that the yuan and the dollar only need to adjust by 4-5% to negate the impact of a 25% tariff. Part of the rise in the dollar and fall in the RMB has been due to tariffs, but it has mostly been due to the fact that global trade has been slowing. This brings us to an important point: Part of the rise in the dollar and fall in the RMB has been due to tariffs, but it has mostly been due to the fact that global trade has been slowing (Table I-1). The DXY index is up 10% since its 2018 trough, while the USD/CNY has risen by 12%. This is much more than economic theory would suggest. In quantity terms, the IMF estimated that a 20% import tariff from East Asia would lift the U.S. dollar’s REER by 5% over five years, while dropping output by 0.6% over the same timeframe.1 But if past is prologue, the new round of tariffs will pin USD/CNY at about 7.3-7.4, given the impact from negative feedback loops – mainly a slowing global economy and a slowing Chinese economy. Chart I- With no corresponding export subsidy for U.S. goods, however, the rise in the dollar makes exporters worse off. And with over 40% of S&P 500 sales coming from outside the U.S., this will make a meaningful dent in corporate profits. This is an important political impediment. Historically, trade wars are usually synonymous with recessions. As such, there are acute political constraints inching both sides towards an agreement. A Disorderly Breakdown Or Steady Depreciation? The RMB has been trading like a pro-cyclical currency, meaning it is becoming an important signaling mechanism for the evolution of the cycle. The USD/CNY has been moving tick-for-tick with emerging market equities, Asian currencies, and even some commodity prices (Chart I-3). It has also closely mirrored the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-4). This has implications for developed market currencies, especially those tied to Chinese demand. Therefore, it will be important to see if the RMB has a disorderly breakdown towards 7.4 or if it stabilizes at higher levels. A few barometers will be key to watch: Chart I-3The Yuan Is Pro-cyclical The Yuan Is Pro-cyclical The Yuan Is Pro-cyclical Chart I-4Is The Dollar Headed Higher? Is The Dollar Headed Higher? Is The Dollar Headed Higher? In a world of rapidly falling yields, Chinese rates remain attractive. Historically, USD/CNY has moved in line with interest rate differentials between the U.S. and China. The current divergence is unsustainable (Chart I-5). Typically, offshore markets have had a good track record of anticipating depreciation in the yuan. Back in 2014, offshore markets started pricing in a rising USD/CNY rate, and maintained that view all the way through to 2018, when the yuan eventually bottomed. Right now, not much depreciation is being priced in (Chart I-6). The reason offshore markets in Hong Kong and elsewhere can be prescient is because more often than not, they are the destination for illicit flows out of China. Chart I-5The Chinese Bond Market Is Attractive The Chinese Bond Market Is Attractive The Chinese Bond Market Is Attractive Chart I-6Forward Markets Not Concerned As In 2015 Forward Markets Not Concerned As In 2015 Forward Markets Not Concerned As In 2015 Chinese money and credit growth, especially forward-looking liquidity indicators such as M2 relative to GDP, have bottomed. Historically, this led the cycle by a few months. The drop in Chinese bond yields is also reflationary, and should soon stimulate imports, especially if the improvement in exports continues (Chart I-7). Chinese government expenditures are likely to inflect higher, especially given acute weakness in the July manufacturing data. Again, this suggests stimulus this time around may be more fiscal than monetary (Chart I-8). In addition, the recent VAT cuts for manufacturing firms, a cut to social security contributions, and a pickup in infrastructure spending are all net positives. Chart I-7Trade War Extends Traditional Lags Trade War Extends Traditional Lags Trade War Extends Traditional Lags Chart I-8Government Spending Set To Increase Government Spending Set To Increase Government Spending Set To Increase The housing market remains healthy. A revival in the property market will support construction activity and investment. House prices have been rising to the tune of 10% year-on-year, and real estate stocks in China remain firm relative to the overall index. If house prices roll over, this will be a negative development (Chart I-9). The housing market remains healthy. A revival in the property market will support construction activity and investment. If house prices roll over, this will be a negative development. In terms of market dynamics, the AUD/JPY cross breached the important technical level of 72 cents, but has since recovered. This is important, since the cross failed to break below this level both during the euro area debt crisis in 2011-2012 and the China slowdown of 2015-2016. It will be especially important to see a clear breach to signal we are entering a deflationary bust (Chart I-10). Chart I-9China Housing Is Fine China Housing Is Fine China Housing Is Fine Chart I-10AUD/JPY Breakdown Is Precarious AUD/JPY Breakdown Is Precarious AUD/JPY Breakdown Is Precarious Bottom Line: We are watching a few key reflationary indicators to gauge whether it pays to be contrarian. The message is that it is not time yet, given the ramp-up in the trade war rhetoric.  Notes On The RBNZ Chart I-11AUD/NZD Is Cheap AUD/NZD Is Cheap AUD/NZD Is Cheap This week, the RBNZ surprised markets by cutting interest rates by 50 basis points to parity (expectations were for a 25-basis-point cut). From an external standpoint, this makes sense. Australia and China are New Zealand’s biggest trading partners, and have been easing policy much earlier. The RBNZ’s bet was that demand was probably going to recover by now. The latest salvo in the trade war probably dashed those hopes. Meanwhile, over the last 35 years, the AUD/NZD cross has spent more than 95% of the time over 1.06. With the AUD/NZD near record lows, the cross is cheap on a real effective exchange rate basis (meaning NZD is expensive) (Chart I-11).  This suggests that even though interest rates are aligning in both Australia and New Zealand, the Aussie should be 11% higher relative to the Kiwi because of the valuation starting point (Chart I-12). The market remains more dovish on Australia relative to New Zealand, in part due to a more accelerated downturn in house prices and a significant slowdown in China. The reality is that the downturn in Australia has allowed some cleansing of sorts, and brought it far along the adjustment path relative to New Zealand. Economic data in New Zealand are now converging to the downside relative to Australia (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rates Could Move In Favor Of AUD Interest Rates Could Move In Favor Of AUD Interest Rates Could Move In Favor Of AUD Chart I-13New Zealand Has More Economic Downside New Zealand Has More Economic Downside New Zealand Has More Economic Downside The RBNZ began a new mandate on April 1st to include full employment in addition to inflation targeting. But given that the RBNZ has been unable to fulfill its price stability mandate over the last several years, it is hard to argue it will find a dual mandate any easier. Business confidence is rapidly falling, and employment will soon follow suit (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, for an economy driven by agricultural exports, productivity gains will be hard to come by. Economic data in New Zealand are now converging to the downside relative to Australia. The final catalyst for the AUD/NZD cross will be a terms-of-trade shock which, at the moment, is turning in favor of the Aussie (Chart I-15). Iron ore prices may face further downside, given that supply from Brazil is back online, but China’s clear environmental push has lifted the share of liquefied natural gas in Australia’s export mix. Since eliminating pollution is a strategic goal in China, this will be a multi-year tailwind. As the market becomes more liberalized and long-term contracts are revised to reflect higher spot prices, the Aussie will get a boost. Chart I-14Employment Growth Could Collapse In New Zealand Employment Growth Could Collapse In New Zealand Employment Growth Could Collapse In New Zealand Chart I-15Terms Of Trade Favors##br## Aussie Terms Of Trade Favors Aussie Terms Of Trade Favors Aussie Bottom Line: Remain long AUD/NZD as a strategic position and SEK/NZD as a tactical position. Housekeeping The stop on our short XAU/JPY position was triggered at 158,000 with a loss of -3.27%. This was a mean-reversion trade between two safe-havens, likely to work even if volatility remains elevated. Put it back on. Finally, lift the limit sell on EUR/GBP to 0.95.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Maurice Obstfeld, “Tariffs Do More Harm Than Good At Home,” IMFBlog, September 8, 2016. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mostly positive: Labor market remains tight: Unemployment rate was steady at 3.7%; Participation rate increased to 63%; Average hourly earnings increased by 3.2% year-on-year; Nonfarm payrolls increased by 164 thousand. Initial jobless claims fell to 209 thousand last week. Trade balance narrowed slightly to $55.2 billion in June. Michigan sentiment index was unchanged at 98.4 in July. Markit composite and services PMI both increased to 52.6 and 53 respectively in July, while ISM non-manufacturing PMI fell to 53.7 in July. DXY index fell by 1% this week, erasing the gains following the Fed’s hawkish surprise last week. Weakness in the dollar given a ramp-up in trade war rhetoric suggest that dollar tailwinds are facing diminishing marginal returns. A few of our favorite dollar indicators, including the bond-to-gold ratio, are sending a warning signal. Report Links: Focusing On the Trees But Missing The Forest - August 2, 2019 Global Growth And The Dollar - July 19, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have continued to deteriorate: Producer price inflation fell to 0.7% year-on-year in June. Retail sales increased by 2.6% year-on-year in June, surprising to the upside. Markit composite PMI was unchanged at 51.5 in July, while services PMI fell slightly to 53.2. Sentix investor confidence fell further to -13.7 in August, the lowest since 2014. EUR/USD increased by 1% this week. In the most recent Economic Bulletin, the ECB highlighted the risk of a weaker Q2 global services PMI which might lead to a more broad-based deterioration in global growth. With negative interest rates and diminishing marginal returns to monetary policy, the euro area will be ever dependent on fiscal stimulus. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: Composite PMI was unchanged at 51.2 in July, while services PMI fell to 51.8. Household spending yearly growth fell to 2.7% in June. That said, previous growth of 4% was too high relative to Japan’s potential. Wages increased by 0.4% year-on-year in June. Leading economic index and coincident index both fell to 93.3 and 100.4 respectively in June. The trade balance increased to ¥759.3 billion in June. Current account balance narrowed to ¥1,211 billion in June. USD/JPY fell by 0.9% this week. In the Summary of Opinions released this week, the BoJ concluded that the Japanese economy has been moderately expanding, a trend that is likely to continue in the second half. However, this may be too ambitious. As we go to press, Q2 GDP growth is still pending, and a marked slowdown could be a harbinger for a much softer second half, especially given renewed trade tensions. That said, the path to easier monetary policy will be lined by a stronger yen. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much - May 31, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mostly positive: Markit composite PMI increased to 50.7 in July. Services and construction components also increased to 51.4 and 45.3 respectively. Retail sales increased by 0.1% year-on-year in July. Halifax house prices contracted by 0.2% month-on-month in July. GBP/USD has been very volatile but returned flat this week. All eyes are on the new PM Boris Johnson and new Brexit developments. Our Geopolitical strategist is assigning 21% risk of a no-deal Brexit, and the probability would rise to 30% if negotiations with the EU fail. We believe that the pound could easily drop to 1.10-1.15 if there is no deal. That being said, we are looking to sell EUR/GBP at 0.94, given Europe will also absorb some collateral damage from a hard Brexit. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly positive: Producer price inflation increased to 2% year-on-year in Q2. Retail sales grew by 0.4% month-on-month in June. Both composite and services PMI increased to 52.1 and 52.3 respectively in July. Australian Industry Group (AiG) construction index fell to 39.1 in July. Exports grew by 1% month-on-month in June, while imports contracted by 4% month-on-month. This nudged the trade surplus to A$8 billion in June, a record. AUD/USD fell by 1.8% initially, then rebounded, returning flat this week. The RBA held interest rates unchanged at 1% on Tuesday, after cutting by 25 bps both in June and July. Long-term government bond yields declined to record-lows. Currency markets are currently focused on interest rate differentials. Once the focus shifts to other fundamentals as global interest rates converge, the Aussie dollar will get a boost. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns- April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Consumer confidence decreased by 5.1% month-on-month in July. On the labor market front, the participation rate was steady at 70.4% in Q2; Unemployment rate fell to 3.9%; Wages increased by 2.2% year-on-year in Q2. NZD/USD fell by 0.8% this week. RBNZ shocked the market with the half-percentage point rate cut this Wednesday, stating that a larger initial move would be best to meet the inflation and employment objectives in New Zealand. The RBNZ also lowered 2-year inflation expectations from 2.01% to 1.86% in Q3. Relative terms-of-trade favors our long AUD/NZD position. Stay with it. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: Imports and exports both fell to C$50.2 billion and C$50.3 billion in June. The trade balance thus narrowed to C$0.14 billion. Bloomberg Nanos confidence index increased to 58.6 last week. Ivey PMI increased to 54.2 in July. New housing price index contracted by 0.2% year-on-year in June. USD/CAD increased by 0.2% this week. The sudden oil prices drop has dragged down the Canadian dollar. WTI crude oil prices plunged by more than 10% during the past week, and Western Canadian Select crude oil spot prices fell by 14.5%. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mostly negative: Headline and core consumer price inflation dropped to 0.3% and 0.4% year-on-year respectively in July. Manufacturing PMI fell to 44.7 in July. Consumer confidence fell to -8 in July. Real retail sales increased by 0.7% year-on-year in June. USD/CHF fell by 1.2% this week. The concerns over the global growth, an escalating trade war, a potential hard-Brexit, political tensions in the Middle East and East Asia continue to weigh on investors’ sentiment. VIX once again touched 24 following Trump’s tweet to threaten to impose 10% tariffs over $300 billion Chinese goods last Thursday. We continue to favor the safe-haven Swiss franc as a tactical portfolio hedge. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 There is little data from Norway this week: Manufacturing production yearly growth fell from 5% in May to 3% in June. USD/NOK has been flat this week.  Next week, the Norges Bank is likely to reverse its well-telegraphed forward guidance of rate hikes, following global developments. With oil prices down, and a new trade war, they will stand pat in line with market expectations, but an interest rate cut cannot be ruled out. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Industrial production contracted by 0.7% year-on-year in June. Services production yearly growth also fell to 1.3% in June. However, industrial orders increased by 7.5% year-on-year in June, the strongest since July 2018.  Budget balance widened to SEK 28.2 billion in July. USD/SEK fell by 0.9% this week. The upside surprise in industrial orders is mainly led by transport equipment. Mining and quarrying also rebounded to 9.3% compared with -7.8% in May. Our SEK/NZD position is now 0.4% in the money. The negative carry has been narrowed following RBNZ’s 50 bps rate cut. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Tariffs and currency depreciation will likely lead to military saber-rattling in Asia Pacific. Why? President Trump is not immune to the market’s reaction to his trade war escalation. Yet China’s currency depreciation is a major escalation and the near-term remains fraught with danger for investors. Military shows of force and provocations could crop up across Asia Pacific, further battering sentiment or delaying trade talks. Remain short CNY-USD, short the Hang Seng index, long JPY-USD, and long gold. Overweight the U.S. defense sector relative to global stocks. Feature The Osaka G20 tariff ceasefire has collapsed; U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening tariffs on all Chinese imports; the People’s Bank of China has allowed the renminbi to depreciate beneath the important 7.0 exchange rate to the dollar; and the United States has formally labeled China a “currency manipulator.” What a week! The spike in volatility is likely to be accompanied by a rise in credit risk, as measured by the TED spread (Chart 1). Safe havens like gold, treasuries, and the Japanese yen are rallying in a classic risk-off episode, while messengers of global growth like copper, the Australian dollar, and the CRB raw industrials index are stumbling (Chart 2). Only green shoots in Chinese trade and German manufacturing have kept the selloff in check this week by improving the cyclical outlook despite elevated near-term risks. Chart 1So Much For The Osaka G20 Tariff Ceasefire! So Much For The Osaka G20 Tariff Ceasefire! So Much For The Osaka G20 Tariff Ceasefire! Chart 2Key Risk-On/Risk-Off Indicators Breaking Down Key Risk-On/Risk-Off Indicators Breaking Down Key Risk-On/Risk-Off Indicators Breaking Down While we anticipated the re-escalation of U.S.-China tensions, now is the time to take stock and reassess. President Trump is a political animal. While he has demonstrated a voracious risk appetite throughout the year, he is ultimately focused on reelection in November 2020. The United States will survive without a trade deal by then, but Trump may not. Presumably, Trump’s reason for increasing pressure on China throughout 2019 is to secure a deal by the end of the year. This would be to see China’s concessions translate into trade perks for the U.S. markets and economy in 2020 by the time he hits the campaign trail. The experience of Q4 2018 suggests that Trump changed his negotiating tack after U.S. equities fell by only 4% from their peak – but we consider an equity correction a clear pain threshold (Chart 3). Trump is closely associated with the economic fortunes of the country, even more so than the average president. Bear markets tend to coincide with recessions. Trump – beset by controversy and scandal at home – must assume that a recession will be the coup de grâce. Chart 3Where Is President Trump's Pain Threshold? Where Is President Trump's Pain Threshold? Where Is President Trump's Pain Threshold? Chart 4Will Huawei Ban Hit The Tech Sectors? Will Huawei Ban Hit The Tech Sectors? Will Huawei Ban Hit The Tech Sectors? Investors will get some clarity next week when the Commerce Department decides whether to renew the general temporary license for American companies to trade with Chinese telecoms giant Huawei. A full denial of the license would signal that Trump is unconcerned with recession and reelection probabilities and focusing exclusively on the national security threat from China. It would send technology sectors and the broader equity market into a plunge on both sides of the Pacific (Chart 4) and could significantly increase the risk that the global economy begins a downturn. Positive signals are scarce as we go to press: New tariff is on track: The U.S. Trade Representative is preparing a final list of $300 billion in goods to fall under a new 10% tariff, despite reports that Trump overrode USTR Robert Lighthizer in announcing the new tariff. This does not guarantee that the tariff will go into effect on September 1 but it does make it more likely than not. Huawei is under pressure: Office of Management and Budget has disqualified Huawei from any U.S. government contracts as of August 13 – a ban to be extended to any third parties contracting Huawei as of the same date next year. This is not encouraging for Huawei but it is a separate and more limited determination from that of the Commerce Department. Still, we expect the Trump administration to take some moves to offset the ongoing trade escalation. While we are inclined to think the new tariff will take effect, Huawei will likely get a reprieve in the meantime. This will help to ensure that the September trade talks in Washington, DC go forward. The administration has an interest in keeping the trade negotiations alive. Furthermore, there is some evidence that President Trump is recognizing the need to calm other “trade wars” to mitigate the impact of the central China trade war. In September the administration will attempt ratification of the USMCA in Congress – we still think this is slightly favored to go through. We also expect a U.S.-Japan trade agreement to materialize rapidly – likely at the UN General Assembly from September 17-30. Another positive sign is that the European Union has agreed to expand beef imports from the United States. Real movement on agriculture, while China cancels U.S. ag imports, implies that President Trump is less likely to impose car tariffs on Europe for national security reasons on November 13-14.1 The problem is that the fallout from China’s currency depreciation and the new tariffs will hit the market before anything else, which means we remain tactically bearish. Heightened trade tensions are also likely to spill into the strategic sphere in the near term. Saber-rattling – military shows of force and provocations – will increase the geopolitical risk premium across the globe, especially in East Asia. A frightening U.S.-China clash may ultimately encourage real compromises in the trade negotiations, but the market would get the negative news first. If Washington does not make any reassuring moves but expands the current policy assault on China – including through a Huawei ban – then we will consider shifting to a defensive posture cyclically as well as tactically. Bottom Line: We recognize that President Trump may be forced by the risk of a recession to relax the trade pressure and accept some kind of China deal – we may upgrade this 40% chance if and when the U.S. veers toward an equity bear market. In the meantime we expect further negative fallout from the past week’s aggressive maneuvers by both sides. Currency War Assuming that an equity correction is inevitable at some point and that Trump goes crawling back to the Chinese for trade talks: How will they respond? Will Xi Jinping, the strongman general secretary of a resurgent Communist Party, return to talks and reassure global markets at Trump’s beck and call? Or will he refuse, let the market do what it will, and let Trump hang? By letting the currency drop … Beijing is expressing open defiance. The renminbi’s depreciation – through PBoC inaction on August 5, then through action on August 8 – is a warning that Trump is approaching the point of no return. His initial grievance has always been Chinese “currency manipulation” but until now he has refrained from formally leveling this accusation (only using it on Twitter). By letting the currency drop well beneath the level at which Trump was inaugurated (6.8 CNY-USD), and beyond the global psychological threshold, Beijing is expressing open defiance and threatening essentially to break off negotiations. Chart 5China Sends Warning Via Currency Depreciation China Sends Warning Via Currency Depreciation China Sends Warning Via Currency Depreciation The effect of continued depreciation would be to offset the effect of tariffs and ease financial conditions in China. This is fully in keeping with our view that China has opted for stimulus over reform this year. China is likely to follow up with further cuts to banks’ reserve requirement ratios and a cut to the benchmark policy interest rate (Chart 5). The July Politburo statement showed a greater willingness to stimulate the economy and it occurred prior to Trump’s new volley of tariffs. Currency appreciation is the surest way to rebalance China’s economy toward household consumption and obviate a strategic conflict with the United States. By contrast, yuan depreciation will exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit and give Trump’s Democratic rivals convenient evidence that the “Art of the Deal” is counterfeit. How far will the renminbi fall? Chart 6 updates our back-of-the-envelope calculation of the implication from different tariff scenarios assuming that the equilibrium bilateral exchange rate depreciation will equal the tariffs collected as a share of total exports to the United States. (10% tariff on $259 billion = $25.9 billion, which is 5% of $509 billion total.) The yuan is now approaching Scenario D, 25% tariffs on the first half of imports and 10% on the second half, which points toward 7.6 CNY-USD. There are reasons to believe that this simple framework won’t apply, at least in terms of the magnitude of the impact, but it gives an indication of considerable downward pressure. Chart 6The Yuan Will Fall, But Not Freely The Yuan Will Fall, But Not Freely The Yuan Will Fall, But Not Freely Chester Ntonifor of our Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the yuan falling to around 7.3-7.4 if the new tariffs are applied based on the fact that the 25% tariff on $250 billion worth of goods produced a roughly 10% decline in the bilateral exchange rate. Our Emerging Markets Strategy also expects about a 5% drop in the CNY-USD. Having tightened capital controls during the last bout of depreciation in 2015-16, China is probably capable of controlling the pace of depreciation, preventing capital outflows from becoming a torrent, by selling foreign exchange reserves, further tightening capital controls, or utilizing foreign currency forward swaps. But Asian currencies, global trade revenues in dollars, and EM currencies and risk assets will suffer – and they have more room to break down from current levels.2 Meanwhile even a modest drop in the renminbi – amid a return to dovish monetary policy in global central banks – has revived concerns about a global currency war. A rising dollar is anathema to President Trump, who aims to reduce the trade deficit, encourage the on-shoring of manufacturing, and maintain easy financial conditions for the U.S. economy. Table 1U.S. Demands On China In Trade Talks The Rattling Of Sabers The Rattling Of Sabers Chart 7U.S. Allies' Share Of Treasuries Rises U.S. Allies' Share Of Treasuries Rises U.S. Allies' Share Of Treasuries Rises Trump’s decision to slap a sweeping new tariff on China – reportedly at the objection of all of his trade advisers except the ultra-hawkish Peter Navarro (Table 1) – was at least partly driven by his desire to see the Fed cut rates beyond the 25 basis point cut on July 31 and weaken the dollar. Yet the escalation of the trade war weighs on global trade and growth, which will push the dollar up. This reinforces the above argument that Trump will probably seek to offset the recent trade war escalation with some mitigating moves. Beyond inducing the Fed to cut further, it is difficult for President Trump to drive the dollar down. The Treasury Department can intervene in foreign exchange markets, but direct intervention does not have a successful track record. Interventions usually have to be sterilized (expansion of the money supply externally must be addressed at home by mopping up the new liquidity), which in the context of free-moving global capital means that any depreciation will be short-lived. An unsterilized intervention would be extremely unorthodox and is unlikely short of a major crisis and breakdown in institutional independence. The U.S. could attempt to engineer an internationally coordinated currency intervention, as we have highlighted in the past. But it is highly unlikely to succeed this time around. The U.S. is less dominant of a military and economic power than it was when it orchestrated the Smithsonian Agreement of 1971 and the Plaza Accord of 1985. Neither the European nor the Japanese economies are in a position to tighten monetary policy or financial conditions through currency appreciation. While China weans itself off treasuries, U.S. allies and others fill the void. Indeed, after a long period in which American allies declined as a share total holders of treasuries – as China and emerging markets increased their forex reserves and treasury holdings momentously – allies are now taking a greater share (Chart 7). Chart 8China Diversifies While It Depreciates China Diversifies While It Depreciates China Diversifies While It Depreciates China is driving down the yuan not by buying more treasuries but by buying other things – diversifying away from the USD into alternative reserve currencies and hard assets, such as gold and resources tied to the Belt and Road Initiative (Chart 8). As trade, globalization, and global growth have slowed down, and as China’s growth model and the U.S.-China special relationship expire, global dollar liquidity is shrinking. Dollar liquidity is the lifeblood of the global financial system and the consequence is to tighten financial conditions, including via equity markets (Chart 9). The solution would be a trade deal in which China agrees to reforms to pacify the U.S., including an appreciation renminbi, while the U.S. abandons tariffs, enabling global trade, growth, commodity prices, and dollar liquidity to recover. Yet China was never likely to agree to a new Plaza Accord because it is delaying reform to its economy in order to maintain overall political stability – and the financial turmoil of 2015-16 only hardened this position. Chart 9Dollar Liquidity A Risk To Global Equities Dollar Liquidity A Risk To Global Equities Dollar Liquidity A Risk To Global Equities Moreover Japan in 1985 was already a subordinate ally and had a security guarantee from the United States that was not in question. By contrast, China today is asserting its “equality” as a nation with the U.S., and has no guarantee that Americans are not demanding economic reforms so as to debilitate China’s political stability and strategic capability. After tariffs and currency war comes saber-rattling. Comparing China to Japan in the decades leading up to the Plaza Accord shows how remote of a possibility this solution is: China’s currency has been moving in precisely the opposite direction (Chart 10). Chart 10So Much For Plaza Accord 2.0 So Much For Plaza Accord 2.0 So Much For Plaza Accord 2.0 The Plaza Accord is a useful analogy for another reason: it marked the peak in Japanese market share in the U.S. economy. In Japan’s case, currency appreciation was the primary mover, while Japan also relocated production to the United States. Chart 11The Real Analogy With The Plaza Accord The Real Analogy With The Plaza Accord The Real Analogy With The Plaza Accord In China’s case, if currency appreciation is ruled out and production is not relocated due to a failure to secure a trade agreement, then U.S. protectionism will remain the primary means of capping China’s share of the market (Chart 11). The dollar will remain strong and this will continue to weigh on global markets. Bottom Line: China’s recent currency depreciation is a warning signal to the U.S. that the trade negotiations could be broken off. There is further downside if the U.S. implements the new tariffs or hikes tariff rates further. The renminbi is unlikely to enter a freefall, however, because China maintains tight capital controls and is stimulating its economy. It is doubtful that the Trump administration can engineer a depreciation of the dollar through a multilateral agreement. It lacks the geopolitical heft of the 1970s-80s, and it does not have a strategic understanding with China that would enable Beijing to make the same degree of concessions that Tokyo made in 1985. Saber-Rattling After tariffs and currency depreciation, the next likeliest manifestation of strategic tensions lies in the military sphere. Chart 12 While the U.S. threatens to cut off Chinese tech companies like Huawei, Beijing has signaled that countermeasures would include an embargo on U.S. imports of rare earth elements and products.3 When China implemented a partial rare earth export ban on Japan (Chart 12), the context was a maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea in which military and strategic tensions were also escalating. The threat to industry only amplified these tensions. There are several locations in East Asia where conditions are ripe for clashes and incidents that could add to negative global sentiment. Indeed, saber-rattling has already begun in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Koreas, and the East and South China Seas. The following areas are the most likely to darken the outlook for U.S.-China negotiations: Direct U.S.-China tensions: The U.S. and China have experienced several minor clashes since the beginning of the Trump administration. The near-collision of a Chinese warship with the USS Decatur occurred in October 2018, after the implementation of the first sweeping tariff on $200 billion worth of goods – a period of tensions very similar to that of today.4 October 1 marks the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, an event that will be marked by outpourings of nationalism and a flamboyant military parade displaying advanced new weapons. The government in Beijing will be extremely sensitive in the lead-up to this anniversary, leading to tight domestic controls of news and media, hawkish rhetoric, and the potential for provocations on the high seas. Hong Kong and Taiwan: Chinese officials, including the People’s Liberation Army garrison commander in Hong Kong, the director of the Office of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs, and the city’s embattled Chief Executive Carrie Lam have warned in various ways that if unrest spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China’s intervention. A large-scale police exercise in Shenzhen, Guangdong, just across the water, has highlighted Beijing’s willingness to take forceful action. The deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries that would have common cause on this issue. The Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions (Chart 13). Hong Kong is obviously a much smaller share of total exports to China these days, but when combined with Taiwan – where there could also be a hit to sentiment from Hong Kong unrest and possibly separate economic sanctions – the impact could be substantial (Chart 14). Chart 13Mainland Intervention In Hong Kong Could Prompt Sanctions Mainland Intervention In Hong Kong Could Prompt Sanctions Mainland Intervention In Hong Kong Could Prompt Sanctions Chart 14HK/Taiwan A Significant Share Of Greater China Trade HK/Taiwan A Significant Share Of Greater China Trade HK/Taiwan A Significant Share Of Greater China Trade Why would Taiwan get worse as a result of Hong Kong? Unrest in Hong Kong has already galvanized opposition to the mainland’s policies in Taiwan, where the presidential election polling has shifted in incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen’s favor (Chart 15). Beijing has imposed new travel restrictions and held a number of intimidating military exercises, while the U.S. has increased freedom of navigation operations in the Taiwan Strait. These trends could worsen over the next year. Japan and the East China Sea: Japan’s top military official – General Koji Yamazaki – recently warned that Chinese military intrusions are increasing around the disputed Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands in the East China Sea. He called particular attention to China’s change of the Coast Guard from civilian to military control, which he said posed new risks of escalation in disputed waters. Japan itself may have an interest in a more confrontational stance over the coming year. The Japanese government has seen a rise in public opposition to its plan to revise the constitution to enshrine the Self-Defense Forces and thus move toward a more “normal” Japanese military and security posture (Chart 16). Chart 15 Chart 16 A revival of trouble in the South China Sea: China has not reduced its assertive foreign policy in order to win regional allies amid its conflict with the United States. On the contrary, it has continued asserting itself to the point of alienating governments that have largely sought to warm up to the Xi administration, including both Vietnam and the Philippines. The Vietnamese have engaged in a month-long standoff over alleged Chinese encroachments in its Exclusive Economic Zone. And a clash near Sandy Cay in the Spratly Islands is forcing Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has otherwise avoided confrontation with China, to address President Xi over the international court decision in 2016 that ruled out China’s claims of sovereignty over the disputed islands. The South China Sea is important because it is a vital supply line for all of the countries in the region. Even if the United States washed its hands of Beijing’s efforts to control the sea lanes, U.S. allies would still face a security threat that would drive tensions in these waters. This is a formidable group of Asian nations that China fears will seek to undermine it (Chart 17). And of course the Americans are not washing their hands of the region but actually reasserting their interest in maintaining a western Pacific defense perimeter. The Korean peninsula: North Korea has resumed testing short-range missiles, causing another hiccup in U.S. attempts at diplomacy (Chart 18). These tensions have the potential to flare as the U.S.-China trade talks deteriorate, since Beijing has offered cooperation on North Korea’s missile and nuclear program as a concession. Chart 17U.S. Asian Allies Formidable U.S. Asian Allies Formidable U.S. Asian Allies Formidable Chart 18North Korean Provocations Still Low-Level North Korean Provocations Still Low-Level North Korean Provocations Still Low-Level Ultimately North Korea needs to be part of the U.S.-China solution, so as long as tensions rise it sends a negative signal regarding the status of talks. And vice versa. South Korea is another case in which China is not reducing its foreign policy aggressiveness in order to win friends. On July 23, a combined Russo-Chinese bomber exercise over the disputed Dokdo (Takeshima) islands in the Sea of Japan led to interception by both Korean and Japanese fighter jets and the firing of hundreds of warning shots. The incident reveals that South Korean President Moon Jae-in is not seeing an improvement in relations with these countries despite his more pro-China orientation and his attempt to engage with North Korea. It also shows that while South Korea’s trade spat with Japan can persist for some time, it may take a back seat to these rising security challenges. As long as North Korean tensions rise it sends a negative signal regarding U.S.-China talks. Chart 19Russia May Need To Distract From Domestic Unrest Russia May Need To Distract From Domestic Unrest Russia May Need To Distract From Domestic Unrest Russia, like China, is feeling immense domestic political pressure, including large protests, that may result in greater foreign policy aggression (Chart 19). And as China and Russia tighten their informal alliance in the face of a more aggressive U.S., American allies face new operational pressures and the potential for geopolitical crises will rise. Bottom Line: The whole panoply of East Asian geopolitical risks is heating up as U.S.-China tensions escalate. While the U.S. and China may engage in direct provocations or miscalculations, their East Asian neighbors are implicated in the breakdown of the regional strategic order. A crisis in any of these hotspots could jeopardize the already unfavorable context for any U.S.-China trade deal over the next year, especially during rough patches like the very near term. Investment Implications Chart 20A Strategic Investment A Strategic Investment A Strategic Investment The potential for saber-rattling in the near term – on top of a series of critical U.S. decisions that could mitigate or exacerbate the increase in tensions surrounding the new tariff hike – argues strongly against altering our tactically defensive positioning at the moment. In this environment we advise clients to stick with our two strategic defense plays – long the BCA global defense basket in absolute terms, and long S&P500 Aerospace and Defense equities relative to global equities. The U.S. Congress’s newly agreed bipartisan budget deal provides a substantially improved fiscal backdrop for American defense stocks, which are already breaking out amid positive fundamentals. A host of non-negligible geopolitical risks speaks to the long-term nature of this trade (Chart 20). Our U.S. Equity Strategy recently reaffirmed its bullish position on this sector. We maintain that the U.S. and China have a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020. Note, however, that even a “no deal” scenario does not entail endless escalation. Presidents Trump and Xi could agree to another tariff ceasefire; negotiations could even lead to some tariff rollback in 2020. That would be, after all, Trump’s easiest way to “ease” trade policy amid recession risks. Nevertheless, our highest conviction call is not about whether there will be a deal, but that any trade truce that is reached will be shallow – an attempt to mitigate the trade war’s damage, save face, and bide time for the next round in U.S.-China conflict. We give only a 5% chance of a “Grand Compromise” by November 2020 that greatly expands the U.S.-China economic and corporate earnings outlook over the long haul. In this sense the ultimate trade deal will be a disappointment for markets.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 At the signing ceremony President Trump reminded his European interlocutors that the risk of car tariffs is not yet off the table. He concluded the celebration saying, “Congratulations. And we’re working on deal where the European Union will agree to pay a 25 percent tariff on all Mercedes-Benz’s, BMWs, coming into our nation. So, we appreciate that. I’m only kidding. (Laughter.) They started to get a little bit worried. They started — thank you. Congratulations. Best beef in the world. Thank you very much.” 2 See Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: Into A Liquidation Phase?” August 8, 2019, ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 The national rare earth association holding a special working meeting and pledging to support any countermeasures China should take against U.S. tariffs. See Tom Daly, “China Rare Earths Group Supports Counter-Measures Against U.S. ‘Bullying,’” Reuters, August 7, 2019. 4 Military tensions are already heating up as Beijing criticizes the U.S. over the new Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s claim during his Senate confirmation hearings that new missile defense may be installed in the region in the coming years. This comes in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, partly due to China’s not being a signatory of the agreement. Missile defense is a long-term issue but these developments feed into the current negative atmosphere.

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s Global Investment Strategy report, I am sending you a Special Report on Japan written by Amr Hanafy, Research Associate of BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The trade war is likely to get worse before it gets better, implying some near-term downside risks to global equities and corporate credit. Nevertheless, both sides have a strong incentive to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control.  Unlike in the earlier rounds, consumer goods represent the bulk of the imports subject to tariffs in the latest round. Many of these Chinese imports also do not have readily-available foreign or domestic alternatives. If U.S. retail prices start rising, voter attitudes – which are not that supportive of the trade war to begin with – will sour further, hurting President Trump’s re-election prospects. Investors should overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks. However, we are waiting for the trade war to simmer down and global growth to revive before we do so. Feature Tariffied Last week, we wrote that “Risk assets are likely to struggle over the next few weeks as investors grapple with both renewed trade war anxiety and the realization that the Fed’s “insurance cuts” may not be as generous as they had anticipated.”1 Stocks have been on a rollercoaster ride since then. S&P 500 futures were down almost 8% on Monday evening compared to last Thursday’s intraday highs before recovering much of their losses over the subsequent days (Chart 1). Chart 1 Needless to say, the brewing trade war between China and the U.S. remains foremost in investors’ minds. In what has become a familiar pattern of events, China moved quickly to retaliate against President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports. The Chinese government announced that state-owned enterprises would suspend purchases of U.S. agricultural goods. The People’s Bank of China also allowed the USD/CNY exchange rate to move above 7, long regarded as a key psychological level. This prompted the U.S. Treasury to officially label China a “currency manipulator.” In and of itself, the decision to label China a currency manipulator means little. The designation was applied to China based on the loose criteria for manipulation used in the 1988 Omnibus Trade And Competitiveness Act, rather than under the more stringent criteria that the U.S. Treasury has employed since 2015 (the latest Treasury report issued in May, using this more stringent criteria, did not find China guilty of currency manipulation). The Treasury statement self-servingly said that Secretary Mnuchin “will engage with the International Monetary Fund to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage created by China’s latest actions.” Given that the IMF indicated as late as three weeks ago that China’s “current account is broadly in line with fundamentals,” we doubt that much will come of this.2 Nevertheless, the designation further sours the atmosphere surrounding the trade talks, suggesting that the conflict will probably get worse before it gets better. Tough Luck, I Am Hitting Send The Chinese were apparently blindsided by President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs. According to media reports, Trump brushed off suggestions from his advisors during a tense Oval Office meeting last Thursday to notify the Chinese, as a courtesy, of the pending tariff announcement, choosing instead to send his tweet while everyone was still present in the room. (With Trump’s permission, Robert Lighthizer did try to place a phone call to Liu He, China’s Vice Premier and lead trade negotiator. The call went unanswered).3  Trump has reportedly become incensed that the Chinese, in his view, are stalling, secretly hoping that they will have a more conciliatory counterparty to deal with following next year’s presidential elections. From Trump’s perspective, a key goal of the tariffs is to make a strategy of running out the clock less appealing. Having successfully used the threat of tariffs to prompt Mexico to take stronger steps to curtail the flow of migrants to the U.S., Trump now feels emboldened to use strong-arm tactics to extract concessions from China. It’s a risky gambit. The Chinese will resist locking in any structural reforms that could weaken Beijing’s authority. The protests in Hong Kong have only added urgency for China’s leaders to look and act tough in the presence of what they describe as “foreign meddling.” All this means that a deal to prevent the latest tranche of tariffs from taking effect on September 1st is unlikely to be hatched. Mutually Assured Destruction? How bad could things get? The good news is that both sides have a strong incentive to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control. For the Chinese, it is not just a matter of losing access to the vast U.S. market. It’s also about losing access to vital technologies that China needs to further its ambitions in everything from robotics, to AI, to genomics. Chart 2Voters Are Not That Supportive Of Protectionism Voters Are Not That Supportive Of Protectionism Voters Are Not That Supportive Of Protectionism From Trump’s perspective, a severe trade war could hurt his re-election chances. Unlike late last year, the stock market’s recent plunge can be squarely attributed to the intensification of the trade war. If stocks keep falling, many voters with sagging 401(k) accounts will blame Trump. The initial rounds of U.S. tariffs focused on capital goods. In contrast, consumer goods represent the bulk of the imports subject to the latest tranche of duties. If retail prices start rising, voter attitudes – which are not that supportive of the trade war to begin with (Chart 2) – may sour further. It is also worth noting that Chinese goods account for a large fraction of overall imports in many of the categories subject to the latest round of tariffs. This will limit the ability of U.S. companies to source imports from other countries, thus putting further upward pressure on U.S. consumer prices. A Headwind, Not A Game Changer Neither the U.S. nor China would gain from a prolonged trade war. This does not mean that a “World War I” scenario, where all parties end up severely worse off from their actions, can be completely excluded. However, it does mean that powerful forces will probably kick in before the trade war gets out of hand. While global equities may struggle over the coming weeks as investors try to navigate every twist and turn in the trade war saga, they will be higher 12 months from now. In such a “moderate” trade war scenario, where tariffs rise but the global supply chain continues to function, the asset market consequences are likely to be smaller than many observers believe. There are two reasons for this: First, there is the issue of magnitude. In value-added terms, U.S. exports of goods to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. represent 2.7% of Chinese GDP. These are not infinitesimal numbers, but even in the latter case, they are not particularly large either. Second, both the U.S. and China have some ability to offset the impact of a moderate trade war with stimulus. In the case of the U.S., the stimulus would come mainly in the form of more accommodative monetary policy. Indeed, since Jay Powell’s “hawkish” press conference last week, the 2-year yield has fallen by 24 basis points, while the 10-year yield has dipped by 29 basis points, largely because the market has priced in more rate cuts (Chart 3). In China’s case, the stimulus will continue to consist of credit-driven investment spending, with some tax cuts for consumers thrown in for good measure. Yes, China can stimulate its economy by further weakening its currency. However, such a strategy risks backfiring. As we saw in 2015-16, when China lost almost $1 trillion in reserves, even a small devaluation can foster expectations of a bigger one, leading to large-scale capital outflows (Chart 4). The fact that dollar-denominated debt has risen among China corporates further reduces the incentive to allow the yuan to weaken significantly. As such, we do not expect the Chinese to weaponize the yuan as a tool in the trade war. Chart 3U.S. Yields Are Lower As Markets Are Pricing In More Rate Cuts U.S. Yields Are Lower As Markets Are Pricing In More Rate Cuts U.S. Yields Are Lower As Markets Are Pricing In More Rate Cuts Chart 4China: A Devaluation Could Exacerbate Capital Outflows China: A Devaluation Could Exacerbate Capital Outflows China: A Devaluation Could Exacerbate Capital Outflows   Investment Conclusions As we discussed last week, the global manufacturing cycle tends to follow regular three-year periods – 18 months up, 18 months down (Chart 5). Given that the last downleg began in early 2018, we are due for another upturn in growth. The recent trade turbulence could delay the recovery for a bit, but ultimately, the manufacturing cycle will turn for the better. Central banks tend to be backward-looking. The weakness in both economic growth and inflation has prompted them to ease monetary policy. Just this week, central banks in Thailand, India, and New Zealand cut rates. The RBNZ shaved rates by 50 basis points, double what analysts were expecting. This brings to 16 the number of central banks which have lowered interest rates so far this year. Monetary policy affects the economy with a lag. Global growth is likely to start picking up just as the monetary stimulus is making its way through the system. Stocks will thrive in this environment. Thus, while global equities may struggle over the coming weeks as investors try to navigate every twist and turn in the trade war saga, they will be higher 12 months from now. As global growth recovers, bond yields will rise. Investors should favor stocks over bonds. We do not have a strong view on regional equity allocation for now, but intend to upgrade EM and European stocks once the trade war simmers down and leading indicators for global growth start to march higher. Chart 5The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A One-Two Punch,” dated August 2, 2019. 2      Please see Gita Gopinath, “Rebalancing the Global Economy: Some Progress but Challenges Ahead,” IMF Blogs, July 17, 2019; and “2019 External Sector Report: The Dynamics of External Adjustment,” IMF External Sector Reports, July 2019. 3      Vivian Salama and Josh Zumbrun, “Trump Ordered New Chinese Tariffs Over Objections of Advisers,” The Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2019.  Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 6   Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Analysis on India is available below. Highlights Moderate RMB depreciation is consistent with the economic as well as political objectives of Chinese authorities. Yet, this is bad news for EM currencies and risk assets. As EM currencies depreciate, driven by a weaker RMB and lower commodities prices, foreign investors will head for the exit and EM risk assets will plummet. Meanwhile, there are tell-tale signs of an incipient EM breakdown. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. We also remain structurally short the RMB. Feature In our May 23 report titled The RMB: Depreciation Time? , we argued that the odds of an RMB depreciation were rising and that the currency would likely depreciate by some 6-8% versus the dollar. We contended that this would be bad news not only for EM currencies but also for all EM risk assets. EM fundamentals have been poor – both exports and cyclical domestic sectors have been contracting for some time. We illustrated the weak domestic demand conditions experienced by the majority of developing economies in our recent report, Domestic Demand In Individual EM Countries. Nevertheless, many investors have been ignoring the growing evidence of deteriorating growth conditions. The recent breakdown in the CNY/USD cross has reminded investors of the 2015 episode, when global risk assets – particularly in EM – tumbled following the yuan’s depreciation. We expect the RMB to depreciate by another 5-6% or so. We expect the RMB to depreciate by another 5-6% or so (Chart I-1). This will likely trigger a full-scale breakdown in EM risk assets. With respect to investor positioning, sentiment on EM was buoyant up until last week. Chart I-2 shows that asset managers’ and leveraged funds’ net long positions in EM equity index futures and high-beta liquid currencies futures was elevated as of Friday August 2. Chart I-1More Downside In RMB More Downside In RMB More Downside In RMB Chart I-2Investor Sentiment On EM Was Positive As Of Last Week Investors Are Very Bullish On EM Investor Sentiment On EM Was Positive As Of Last Week Investors Are Very Bullish On EM Investor Sentiment On EM Was Positive As Of Last Week With negative news proliferating on many fronts – the U.S.-China confrontation, slumping global trade, shrinking EM profits, tumbling commodities prices and RMB depreciation – the risk of a portfolio capital exodus from EM is rising, and a liquidation phase is highly probable. Implications Of RMB Depreciation It is impossible to know whether the recent RMB depreciation was market-driven or engineered by the PBoC. Our best guess is that the latest RMB depreciation was driven by both market pressures as well as the authorities’ increased tolerance of a weaker RMB.  The mainland economy requires a weaker currency to counteract accumulating deflationary pressures from deteriorating domestic and foreign demand, as well as to offset rising U.S. import tariffs. The Chinese leadership likely regards RMB depreciation as an economic and political response to U.S. import tariffs. That said, the Chinese authorities have significant latitude to control the exchange rate, not only via selling the central bank’s foreign currency reserves and tightening capital controls but also by utilizing foreign currency forward swaps. Therefore, the RMB depreciation will run further but will unlikely spiral out of control. Regardless of the cause of the depreciation, a weaker RMB will affect the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. Regardless of the cause of the depreciation, a weaker RMB will affect the rest of the world in general and EM in particular via the following two channels: Escalating competitive devaluation: The RMB is causing a breakdown in other Asian currencies, especially those exposed to manufacturing exports (Chart I-3). Critically, falling export prices herald currency depreciation not only in China but also in other Asian economies such as Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies Chart I-4Lower Export Prices Warrant Currency Depreciation bca.ems_wr_2019_08_08_s1_c4 bca.ems_wr_2019_08_08_s1_c4 Less Chinese imports = a drag on global trade: An RMB devaluation reduces Chinese importers’ purchasing power in U.S. dollar terms. The same amount of credit and fiscal stimulus in yuan when converted into U.S. dollars can be used to procure less goods and commodities. In brief, the gap between mainland imports in yuan and in dollars will widen (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Chinese Imports In Dollars Will Continue Shrinking Chinese Imports In Dollars Will Continue Shrinking Chinese Imports In Dollars Will Continue Shrinking Chinese imports in dollar terms will continue contracting. Many EM and some DM currencies will be negatively affected, since China is a major source of demand for these economies. Bottom Line: Moderate RMB depreciation is consistent with the economic as well as political objectives of Chinese authorities. Yet, this is bad news for EM currencies and risk assets. An EM Breakdown Is In The Making There are a number of financial markets and individual share prices that have been forewarning of potential breakdowns in EM/China plays and global pro-cyclical assets. In particular: Having failed to break above its 200-day moving average, the Risk-On vs. Safe-Haven currency ratio1 has dropped below its three-year moving average (Chart I-6, top panel). This indicator has had a very high correlation with EM stocks and global materials equities. Hence, its breakdown heralds a gap down in EM share prices as well as global materials stocks (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-6Beware Of Breakdowns bca.ems_wr_2019_08_08_s1_c6 bca.ems_wr_2019_08_08_s1_c6 The rationale for using the 400-day (18-month), 800-day (three-year) and other long-term moving averages is similar to why investors utilize the 200-day (nine-month) moving average. When a market fails to punch below or above any of its long-term moving averages, odds are that it will make a new high or low, respectively. We discussed these technical indicators and have offered empirical examples of how these signals have historically worked in principal markets such as the S&P 500 and U.S. bond yields in our past reports.   Base metals (including copper) and oil prices as well as global steel stocks have broken below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-7). Commodities prices have been exhibiting a very bearish chart formation, and will likely plunge further. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team remains bearish on commodities prices, even though BCA’s house view is bullish. The primary basis for this divergence in view has been and remains the Chinese growth outlook. Chart I-7Commodities Are In A Trouble Spot Commodities Are In A Trouble Spot Commodities Are In A Trouble Spot Chart I-8Canary In A Coal Mine For Commodities Canary In A Coal Mine For Commodities Complex Canary In A Coal Mine For Commodities Complex Share price of Glencore – a major player in the commodities space – has plunged below its three-year moving average, which has served as a support a couple of times in recent years2 (Chart I-8). Crucially, this stock has exhibited a head-and-shoulders formation, and has nose-dived below its neckline. Kennametal (KMT) – a high-beta U.S. industrial stock – leads the U.S. manufacturing cycles and has formed a similar configuration as Glencore’s (Chart I-9). This raises the odds that the U.S. manufacturing PMI will drop below the 50 line. Finally, the relative performance of S&P 500 global cyclical stocks versus global defensives3 has resumed its downtrend after failing to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-10). This foreshadows a poor global growth outlook and serves as a downbeat signal for global cyclical plays. Chart I-9Canary In A Coal Mine For U.S. Industrials Canary In A Coal Mine For U.S. Industrials Canary In A Coal Mine For U.S. Industrials Chart I-10A Message From S&P 500 Industry Groups A Message From S&P 500 Industry Groups A Message From S&P 500 Industry Groups Does all of the above imply that the global growth slowdown is already priced into global financial markets? Not necessarily. These breakdowns have occurred on the fringes of markets. As the average investor heeds to these signals and as these breakdowns move from the periphery to the center, there will be more damage to global risk assets in general and EM in particular. Importantly, there are cyclical segments of global and EM financial markets that have not adjusted and remain vulnerable. For example, global semiconductor stocks and global industrial share prices remain elevated despite the enduring global manufacturing recession (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Mind The Gaps Mind The Gaps Mind The Gaps The wide gap between share prices and revenues of these cyclical sectors implies that investors have been pricing an imminent business cycle recovery. Odds are that the current global manufacturing downturn will last longer or that a bottoming-out phase will be more extended than in 2012 and 2015. We have elaborated on the rationale for a more extended downturn in our past reports, and our conclusions still stand: A lack of aggressive stimulus in China, a lower propensity to spend among Chinese households and companies, as well as the ongoing trade war will continue to dampen business sentiment worldwide. Consequently, the current gap between share prices of these cyclical sectors and their underlying revenues will likely be closed via lower stock prices. As to non-cyclical equity sectors, they are less vulnerable to a profit downturn but their valuations are very expensive, and investor positioning is heavy. Further, EM local currency bonds as well as EM sovereign and corporate credit markets have been buoyant because of falling U.S. interest rates. Yet EM currencies are at risk from both RMB devaluation and falling commodities prices. EM currency depreciation will in turn undermine returns on EM local currency bonds and spur an investor exodus from high-yielding domestic bonds. Chart I-12Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate credit have historically correlated with EM currencies and commodities prices as well as with equity returns (Chart I-12). Commodities prices, EM currencies and share prices are all poised to weaken further. It will be very surprising if sovereign and corporate spreads do not widen from their current tight levels. Bottom Line: There are a number of tell-tale signs of an incipient EM breakdown. As EM currencies depreciate driven by a weaker RMB and lower commodities prices, foreign investors will head for the exit and all EM risk assets will plummet. Investment Recommendations We are reiterating our negative stance on EM currencies and risk assets both in absolute terms and relative to their DM counterparts. Our recommended country overweights and underweights for EM equity, sovereign credit and local currency bond portfolios are always available at the end of our reports (please refer to pages 18 and 19 ). As to exchange rates, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. We also remain structurally short the RMB. In a nutshell, EM currency depreciation will -- for now -- overwhelm the positive impact of lower domestic interest rates on EM equities and in some cases will prevent developing nations’ central banks from reducing rates further. Finally, we recommended a long gold / short oil and copper trade on July 11 and this has panned out nicely (Chart I-13). Gold has made a structural breakout versus the rest of commodities complex and investors should hold into this position. We recommended a long gold / short oil and copper trade on July 11 and this has panned out nicely. Chart I-13A Structural Breakout In Gold Versus Oil And Copper A Structural Break In Gold Versus Oil And Copper A Structural Break In Gold Versus Oil And Copper Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indian Stocks: Poor Profit Outlook Amid Rich Valuation Indian stocks have failed to break out above their highs, in both local currency and U.S. dollar terms, and have rolled over decisively (Chart 1, top panel). Chart II-1Indian Stocks Failed To Break Major Resistance Levels Indian Stocks Failed To Break Major Resistance Levels Indian Stocks Failed To Break Major Resistance Levels Relative to the EM equity benchmark, Indian share prices have recently been underperforming despite collapsing oil prices and plunging U.S. interest rates. Furthermore, this bourse’s relative performance against the global equity index in common currency terms has bounced lower from a major structural technical resistance (Chart II-1, bottom panel). India’s recent underwhelming equity dynamics have transpired despite ongoing monetary policy easing by the country's central bank. In a nutshell, the roots of this poor equity performance trace back to lackluster profitability, rich equity valuations and overcrowded positioning. We recommend investors continue avoiding Indian equities for now as more downside is likely. Domestic Growth/Corporate Earnings Slump Indian domestic demand growth has been nosediving with no clear end in sight: Sales of passenger cars, two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors as well as medium & heavy commercial trucks are all contracting at double-digit rates (Chart II-2). Similarly, real gross fixed capital formation growth has decelerated, the number of capex projects underway are falling, capital goods imports and production are contracting and cement production growth has plummeted (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Chart II-3Capex And Infrastructure Are Heading South Capex And Infrastructure Are Heading South Capex And Infrastructure Are Heading South Some cracks are also appearing in India’s real estate sector. Chart II-4 shows nationwide housing price growth is decelerating in nominal terms and deflating in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Chart II-4House Prices Are Contracting In Real Terms House Prices Are Contracting In Real Terms House Prices Are Contracting In Real Terms Typically, share prices become extremely sensitive to business cycles slowdowns when valuations are elevated. This is currently the case for the Indian bourse. In fact, India’s latest corporate earnings season was lackluster and many companies across various sectors have warned about slowing growth. More visibility on an ameliorating profit outlook as well as lower valuation multiples are needed for share prices to reach a sustainable bottom. India Is Joining The “Kick The Can Down Road” Club Banks have been the star performers within the Indian bourse with non-financials generating underwhelming returns. This warrants particular attention to bank stocks’ fundamentals and valuations. Recent media reports have been highlighting that India’s NPL cycle has finally turned for the better – marking an end to the country’s bad asset cycle that started in 2013. Chart II-5Poor Debt Servicing Ability Among Indian Corporate Borrowers Poor Debt Servicing Ability Among Indian Corporate Borrowers Poor Debt Servicing Ability Among Indian Corporate Borrowers However, scratching below the surface, the recent reduction in India’s NPLs ratio has not occurred due to organic improvement in India’s corporate borrowers’ ability to service debt. For instance, the EBITDA-to-interest expense ratio for the country’s non-financial publically-listed companies has not improved at all (Chart II-5). Rather, what seems to be driving the NPLs ratio lower is a regulatory forbearance: The new Governor of the RBI – Shaktikanta Das – issued a new circular on NPL recognition in June. It essentially provides commercial banks with much more flexibility in the way they can deal with their bad assets and permits them to delay their NPL recognition. The central bank also allowed India’s manufacturing and infrastructure corporates in default to borrow via the External Commercial Borrowing route in order to pay down their domestic loans under a one-off settlement. Furthermore, the RBI permitted commercial banks to restructure loans of micro-, small-, and medium-sized businesses before they turn bad - allowing banks to delay the proper recognition of such types of loans as well. Finally, the RBI reduced the risk weight of consumer credit from 125% to 100% in its monetary policy meeting yesterday. The objective of this measure is to accelerate consumer credit growth even though the latter has been booming in the past ten years. All in all, these regulatory measures reverse banks and corporate sector restructuring efforts and thereby are negative from a structural perspective. In the past, we were positive on the Indian banking system structurally because the central bank was promoting critical reforms.   Under the new leadership of the RBI, India is now joining the “kick the can down the road” club. This warrants somewhat lower equity multiples for banks than before. Financials Stocks Are Still Expensive Despite the selloff, Indian bank stocks are not yet cheap. For Indian public banks we focused our analysis on the State Bank of India (SBI) as it is the largest and only public bank that has performed reasonably well. This bank presently trades at a price-to-book value (PBV) ratio of 1.15.  Our analysis shows that at a more realistic 12% NPL ratio4 and assuming a 30% recovery ratio, 25% of its equity would be impaired. This would move its adjusted PBV ratio to 1.5. Assuming a fair-value PBV ratio of 1.3, the SBI appears to be overvalued by 15-17%. As to private banks,5 they are also expensive. For instance, if their NPLs rise to 6% from around 3% currently, they would seem overvalued by at least 12% (Table II-1). The analysis assumes a generous recovery ratio of 50% and a very high fair-value PBV ratio of 3.3.  Chart II- Finally, a comment on non-bank financial companies (NBFCs) is warranted. Their liquidity situation is extremely grim. Chart II-6 shows that our proxy for liquidity, measured as short-term investments (including cash) minus short-term borrowing for the 11 large NBFCs we assessed,6 is in a deep negative territory. In other words, these companies have a substantial maturity mismatch. Chart II-6Major Asset-Liability Mismatches In Non-Bank Finance Sector Major Asset-Liability Mismatches In Non-Bank Finance Sector Major Asset-Liability Mismatches In Non-Bank Finance Sector Remarkably, these non-bank organizations grew their assets at a 20% annual compounded growth rate since 2009. Odds are they have misallocated capital to a large extent and their NPL ratio is probably in the double-digits. According to the RBI, non-bank financials’ gross NPLs ratio stood at 6.6% as of March 2019. By comparison the NPLs ratio of Indian banks peaked at 11.2%. Meanwhile, their valuations are not cheap at all. For instance, the NBFCs included in the MSCI India equity index carry a PBV ratio of 3.5 for consumer finance focused companies and a PBV ratio of 3 for thrift & mortgage finance focused companies. Bottom Line: Share prices of banks and non-bank financials are far from being cheap and remain at risk of further decline. Investment Recommendations In absolute U.S. dollar terms, Indian stocks have meaningful downside. This is confirmed by some precarious technical signals: the equal-weighted stocks index has dropped by 28% from its top in January 2018 and small-cap stocks are breaking down (Chart II-7). Finally, while the RBI cut rates yesterday, share prices still closed lower. Chart II-7Ominous Signals From The Indian Broader Equity Market Ominous Signals From The Indian Broader Equity Market Ominous Signals From The Indian Broader Equity Market In terms of our relative strategy, we continue to recommend that dedicated EM equity investors keep underweighting Indian stocks for now, but our conviction level is lower than it was in May. The basis is that ongoing fiscal and monetary easing, coupled with very low U.S. bonds yields and oil prices, might help Indian equities to outpace their EM peers at some point. For now, we will wait for a better entry point to upgrade. Our strongest conviction is that Indian stocks will underperform the global equity index in common currency terms (please see Chart II-1 on page 11). As for the currency, lingering problems in the NBFC sector will force the RBI to keep liquidity in the banking system abundant. Excessive liquidity expansion amid the ongoing selloff in EM currencies will hurt the rupee. Fixed-income investors should play a yield curve steepening trade as lower short rates and rupee deprecation could generate a yield curve steepening. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns. 2      The drop occurred well before the latest negative profit report. 3      These indexes are based on U.S. S&P 500 industry groups and published by Goldman Sachs. The Bloomberg tickers for S&P 500's global cyclicals and global defensives indexes are GSSBGCYC and GSSBGDEF, respectively. 4      Instead of the 7.5% ratio it reported last week. 5      We analyzed the six largest private banks: HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, IDFC First Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank 6      Six of which are listed in the MSCI India equity index and account for 12% of MSCI total market cap. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations  

Highlights U.S.-China: The escalation of the trade war has renewed investor fears that uncertainty could create an even deeper drag on global growth, requiring a more aggressive easing of global monetary policy. Fed: The Fed had an opportunity last week to regain control of monetary policy from the markets, but opted for only a cautious rate cut that came off as too hawkish. The FOMC will be forced to play defense in the next 3-6 months, likely by cutting rates more than originally envisioned given the market turbulence stemming from the trade war escalation. Fixed Income Asset Allocation: Raise overall global portfolio duration to neutral on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, at least until equity markets stabilize. Maintain strategic (6-12 months) overweights to global corporate bonds, however, as global leading economic indicators are bottoming. Feature A Painful Repricing Chart of the WeekNot A Pretty Picture Not A Pretty Picture Not A Pretty Picture A long-overdue correction in risk assets, or the start of something more sinister? That is the question investors must now consider. Another Twitter blast from @realDonaldTrump has triggered chaos in global financial markets, with the imposition of fresh U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. This shattered the market calm since the June G20 meeting, when an announced truce on the U.S.-China trade dispute led to optimism that a real deal could be reached. China retaliated to the new tariffs by allowing the USD/CNY exchange rate to depreciate beyond the perceived line in the sand at 7.0. The trade news came at a bad time for financial markets, a few days after the release of soft global manufacturing PMI data for July that highlighted how global growth remains highly vulnerable to trade war developments (Chart of the Week). The Fed did not help matters by delivering an interest rate cut last week but somehow coming across as hawkish (or, at least, not dovish enough). The market response to the renewed trade tensions and yuan weakness has been classic “macro risk-off” – sharply lower government bond yields, alongside big declines in global equity markets and commodity prices (Chart 2) and increases in the value of typical safe-havens like gold and the Japanese yen (Chart 3). Chart 2Growth-Sensitive Assets Not Doing Well Growth-Sensitive Assets Not Doing Well Growth-Sensitive Assets Not Doing Well Chart 3Safe Havens In Demand Safe Havens In Demand Safe Havens In Demand The nature of the fall in global bond yields has been consistent with what has been seen so far in 2019 – fairly coordinated moves in terms of size, with much smaller changes seen in cross-country yield spreads. This suggests that the unobservable “global” bond yield is falling in response to deteriorating global growth expectations, rather than country-specific factors driving local bond yields. Global trade uncertainty – and what that implies for future weakness in corporate profits, investment and employment – is indeed an “external shock” for every nation. We admit that our current duration recommendations have not been aligned to benefit from these moves. Our forecasting philosophy for government bond yields is based on what our colleagues at our sister service, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, have dubbed “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”.1 In that framework, the primary driver of government bond market returns (excess returns over cash, to be precise) is the outcome of central bank policy moves versus what is discounted in interest rate markets. In the U.S., we have been steadfast in our expectation that the Fed would disappoint market pricing that was calling for as much as 90bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months. Global trade uncertainty – and what that implies for future weakness in corporate profits, investment and employment – is indeed an “external shock” for every nation. Chart 4Rate Cuts Required - And Discounted - Everywhere Rate Cuts Required - And Discounted - Everywhere Rate Cuts Required - And Discounted - Everywhere Now, with the President giving markets the unpleasant news that a trade deal with China is not imminent, and new tariffs about to be imposed, the pressure is on the Fed to provide an offset through easier monetary policy. Some are even interpreting the timing of Trump’s latest Tariff Tweet in a Machiavellian fashion, as if he wanted to create more uncertainty to get to Fed to cut rates (and, by association, help deliver Trump’s goal of weakening the U.S. dollar). On the surface, Trump ratcheting up the trade tensions sounds like a risky economic game to play leading up to the 2020 Presidential election. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, however, note that many of the leading Democratic presidential nominee contenders have themselves been pushing for a more hawkish stance on China. Trump may now feel politically emboldened to become even harder on China himself, to avoid being outflanked by the Democrats – even if it means the U.S. stock market suffers a nasty selloff as a result. Although, again, if the Fed cuts rates as a result, Trump will likely view that as a victory given his constant haranguing of Fed Chair Jay Powell over the past year. With Powell tipping his hand last week that trade uncertainty was something that could trigger additional Fed interest rate cuts, and with Trump now highly incentivized to create that uncertainty, the case for betting against the rate cuts discounted in U.S. interest rate markets has weakened – even though it is still debatable whether the U.S. economy has softened enough to justify a full-blown easing cycle. With Powell tipping his hand last week that trade uncertainty was something that could trigger additional Fed interest rate cuts, and with Trump now highly incentivized to create that uncertainty, the case for betting against the rate cuts discounted in U.S. interest rate markets has weakened Our Central Bank Monitors are now signaling a need for some easing of monetary policy in all the major developed economies, including the U.S. (Chart 4). Even though our 12-month Discounters also show that a lot of easing is already priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves in those same countries, the amount of cuts discounted is consistent with the dovish message from our Central Bank Monitors. Given the renewed trade tensions, alongside no signs of much improvement in overall global growth momentum, we are less certain at the moment that the amount of cuts discounted by markets will not be delivered. Thus, under our Golden Rule framework, a below-benchmark overall global duration stance is not warranted at this time. Therefore, this week, we are increasing our overall duration stance to neutral from below-benchmark, on a tactical basis. In our model bond portfolio on Page 10, we are implementing this view by “neutralizing” the duration exposures within each country. This is done by keeping the same total country weightings versus the benchmark index, but allocating across all maturities in line with the index weightings within each country. This adds about one-half of year of duration to the model portfolio to bring it up the same level as the benchmark index, but without altering the overall allocations to countries or spread product sectors. What To Do Beyond The Short-Term? Chart 5A Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Bond Yields A Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Bond Yields A Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Bond Yields Despite the near-term concerns and volatility stemming from the increased trade tensions, we do not advocate moving to a more defensive portfolio allocation (above-benchmark duration, underweight corporate bonds) to position for a deeper global growth slowdown, for the following reasons: A lot of bad news is already discounted in global bond yields. The rally in government bond markets this year has pushed bond yields down to stretched levels using typical valuation metrics (Chart 5) like the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward; the term premium on 10-year yields, and market-implied inflation expectations from CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds. Additional sustainable declines will be harder to achieve from current levels. The U.S. economy is still holding up relatively well, especially compared to other major economies. Although the U.S. manufacturing sector data has slowed, U.S. Treasury yields already are in line with the diminished readings of the ISM Manufacturing index, which is still above the 50 level signifying expanding activity (Chart 6). The non-manufacturing (services) side of the economy has not seen the same degree of slowing, while consumer confidence and retail sales have both picked up of late. Also, the mean-reverting U.S. data surprise index – which is correlated to the momentum of bond yields – is very stretched to the downside, suggesting less downside potential for Treasury yields from weak U.S. data (Chart 7). Chart 6UST Yields Consistent With Slower Manufacturing UST Yields Consistent With Slower Manufacturing UST Yields Consistent With Slower Manufacturing In addition, the easing of U.S. financial conditions from the 2019 rally in U.S. equity and credit markets before the past few days does suggest a rebound in U.S. growth is likely beyond the next few months. It will take much bigger market declines than seen so far, something beyond a mere “garden-variety” correction in U.S. equities, to tighten financial conditions enough to offset the prior loosening. Chart 7Treasuries Are Vulnerable To Better Data Treasuries Are Vulnerable To Better Data Treasuries Are Vulnerable To Better Data Early leading indicators are flashing a future bottoming of global growth. Several of the more reliable leading economic signals, like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse, are both flashing the potential for a rebound in global growth to begin around the end of the year (Chart 8). If Chinese policymakers choose to offset the negative domestic economic impact of the new Trump tariffs with even more stimulus measures, as seems likely, then the odds of an eventual growth rebound would improve – especially if there is also a healthy dose of monetary easing from the Fed, ECB (both rate cuts and renewed asset purchases) and other major central banks. Early leading indicators are flashing a future bottoming of global growth. Summing it all up, we see the best way to protect against the risks of an even deeper near-term selloff in risk assets is to increase duration by buying liquid government bonds, rather than reduce credit exposure by selling less liquid corporate bonds. It would take signs that the improvement in leading economic indicators is reversing to justify downgrading global corporate bond exposure. We think it more likely that we’ll be reducing our recommended duration exposure back to below-benchmark sometime in the next few months. We will be watching news on global trade, China stimulus and U.S. non-manufacturing growth before making the next change to our duration call. We see the best way to protect against the risks of an even deeper near-term selloff in risk assets is to increase duration by buying liquid government bonds, rather than reduce credit exposure by selling less liquid corporate bonds. With regards to country allocation within developed market government bonds, we are choosing to stick with our current recommendations: overweight core Europe, the U.K., Japan, Australia and Spain; underweight the U.S. and Italy; and neutral Canada (Chart 9). Those allocations have served us reasonably throughout 2019, with the bulk of the overweights outperforming the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index in hedged USD terms, and the U.S. actually only just matching the global hedged benchmark (thanks to the yield pickup for non-U.S. debt from hedging currency exposure back to higher-yielding U.S. dollars). Chart 8A Light At The End Of The Tunnel? A Light At The End Of The Tunnel? A Light At The End Of The Tunnel? Chart 9We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations Only in the case of Italy, were we have maintained an underweight stance given our concerns about weak Italian growth and the implications for debt sustainability, have we seen a significant underperformance of our recommendation. At current yield/spread levels, however, we remain reluctant to simply chase higher-yielding Italian bond yields in the absence of any sign of improving Italian growth that would justify lower Italian risk premia. Bottom Line: The escalation of the trade war has renewed investor fears that trade could create an even deeper drag on global growth, requiring a more aggressive easing of global monetary policy. Raise overall global portfolio duration to neutral on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, at least until equity markets stabilize. Maintain strategic (6-12 months) overweights to global corporate bonds, however, as global leading economic indicators are bottoming.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights So What? Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat to take the U.K. out of the EU without a withdrawal deal in place is a substantial 21% risk. Why? The odds of a no-deal exit could range from today’s 21% to around 30%, depending on whether Johnson manages to obtain some concessions from the EU in forthcoming negotiations. It is far too early to go bottom-feeding for the pound sterling, as Brexit risks are asymmetrical. We maintain our tactically cautious positioning, despite some cyclical improvements, due to elevated geopolitical risks in the United States, East Asia, and the Middle East. Feature Thank you Mr. Speaker, and of course I should welcome the prime minister to his place … the last prime minister of the United Kingdom. – Ian Blackford, head of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, July 25, 2019 Chart 1No-Deal Brexit Would Come At A Very Bad Time No-Deal Brexit Would Come At A Very Bad Time No-Deal Brexit Would Come At A Very Bad Time The Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the first time since the global financial crisis in 2008 on July 31. The Fed suggested that the door is open for future cuts, though Chairman Jerome Powell signaled that the cut should not be seen as the launch of a “lengthy rate cutting cycle” but rather as a “mid-cycle adjustment” comparable to cuts in 1995 and 1998. President Donald Trump responded by declaring a new 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of imports from China! He resumed criticizing Powell for insufficient dovishness – and Trump could in fact fire Powell, though the decision would be contested at the Supreme Court. The Fed’s move shows that Trump’s direct handle on interest rates comes from his ability to control trade policy and hence affect the “the external sector.” The trade war with China has exacerbated a global manufacturing slowdown that is keeping global growth and U.S. inflation weak enough to justify additional rate cuts with each future deterioration (Chart 1). Improvements in global monetary and fiscal policy suggest that the U.S. and global economic expansion will be extended to 2021 or beyond, which is positive for equities relative to government bonds or cash, but we remain defensively positioned in the near-term due to a range of geopolitical risks, highlighted by the new tariffs. The unconvincing U.S.-China tariff ceasefire agreed at the Osaka G20 has fallen apart as we expected; the period of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran continues; and the U.S. is entering what we expect to be a period of socio-political instability in the lead up to the momentous 2020 presidential election. Moreover the risk of a “no deal” Brexit, in which the U.K. exits the European Union and reverts to basic World Trade Organization tariff levels, is rising and will create acute uncertainty over the next three months despite the world’s easy monetary policy settings (Charts 2A & 2B). In June we upgraded our odds of a no-deal Brexit to 21%, up from 7% this spring. While not our base case, the probability is too high for comfort and the critical timing for the rest of Europe warns against taking on additional risk. The risk of a “no deal” Brexit ... is rising and will create acute uncertainty. Chart 2AUncertainty And Sentiment Getting Worse ... Uncertainty And Sentiment Getting Worse ... Uncertainty And Sentiment Getting Worse ... Chart 2B... Despite Easy Monetary Policy ... Despite Easy Monetary Policy ... Despite Easy Monetary Policy BoJo’s Gambit Boris Johnson – aka “BoJo” – former mayor of London and foreign secretary, cemented his position as the U.K.’s 77th prime minister on July 24. He immediately launched a gambit to renegotiate the U.K.’s withdrawal. He is threatening not to pay the “divorce bill” (the U.K.’s outstanding budget contributions for the 2014-20 budget period and other liabilities in subsequent decades) of 39 billion pounds. He insists that the Irish backstop (which would keep Northern Ireland or the U.K. in the EU customs union to prevent a hard border between the two Irelands) must be abandoned. He has stacked his cabinet with pro-Brexit hardliners who share his “do or die” stance that Brexit must occur on October 31 regardless of whether an agreement for an orderly exit is in place. These developments were anticipated – hence the decline in our GeoRisk indicator – but the pound sterling is falling now that the confrontation is truly getting under way (Chart 3). Parliament is adjourned in August, so Johnson’s hardline negotiating tactics will get full play in the media cycle until early September, when the real showdown begins. Crunch time will likely run up to the eleventh hour, with Halloween marking an ominous deadline. There is plenty of room for the pound to fall further throughout this period, according to our European Investment Strategy’s handy measure (Chart 4), because the success of Boris’s gambit depends entirely upon creating a credible threat of crashing out of the EU in order to wring concessions that could conceivably pass through the British parliament. Chart 3Our Market-Based Indicator Suggests Still Some Complacency On Brexit Risks Our Market-Based Indicator Suggests Still Some Complacency On Brexit Risks Our Market-Based Indicator Suggests Still Some Complacency On Brexit Risks Chart 4GBP-EUR Still Has Room To Fall Under BoJo's Gambit GBP-EUR Still Has Room To Fall Under BoJo's Gambit GBP-EUR Still Has Room To Fall Under BoJo's Gambit Geopolitically, the United Kingdom is not prohibited from exiting the EU without a deal. Though the empire is a thing of the past, the U.K. remains a major world power. It has Europe’s second-largest economy, nuclear weapons, a blue-water navy, a leading voice in global political institutions, and is a close ally of the United States. It mints its own coin. It is a sovereign entity that can survive on its own just as Japan can survive on its own. This geopolitical foundation always supported our view that there was a 50% chance of the referendum passing in 2016, and today it supports the view that fears over a no-deal Brexit are not misplaced. Investors should therefore not confuse Johnson’s bluster with that of Alexis Tsipras in 2015. A British government dead-set on delivering this outcome – given the popular mandate from the 2016 referendum and the government’s constitutional handling of foreign affairs as opposed to parliament – can probably achieve it. However, the probability of a no-deal Brexit may become overstated in the next two-to-three months. Economically and politically, a no-deal exit is extremely difficult to follow through on – hence our 21% probability. Estimates of the negative economic impact range from a 2% reduction in GDP growth to an 11% reduction (Table 1). The 8% drop cited by Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford in his denunciation of Prime Minister Johnson’s strategy is probably exaggerated. The U.K.’s recorded twentieth-century recessions range from 2%-7% (Chart 5). These offer as good of a benchmark as any. While a no-deal exit is probably not going to create a shock the same size as the Great Depression or the Great Recession, the recessions of 1979 and 1990 would be bad enough for any prime minister or ruling party. Table 1Wide Range Of Estimates For Impact Of No-Deal Brexit Tariffs ... And The Last Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom? Tariffs ... And The Last Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom? Chart 5 A small recession could also spiral out of control – it could create a vicious spiral with the European continent, which is already on the verge of recession. And it could damage consumer confidence more than anticipated – as it would be accompanied by immediate social and political unrest due to the half of the population that opposes Brexit in all forms. Politicians have to pay attention to the opinion polls as well as the referendum result, since opinion polls impact the next election. These show a plurality in favor of remaining in the EU and a strong trend against Brexit since 2017 – a factor that the currency markets are ignoring at the moment (Chart 6). While the evidence does not prove that a second referendum would result in Bremain, it is highly likely that a majority opposes a no-deal exit, given that at least a handful of pro-Brexit voters do not want to leave without a deal. The results of the European parliamentary elections in May (Chart 7) and the public’s preferences for different political parties (Chart 8) both support this conclusion. Chart 6Plurality Of Voters Still Favors Bremain Over Brexit Plurality Of Voters Still Favors Bremain Over Brexit Plurality Of Voters Still Favors Bremain Over Brexit Chart 7 Chart 8Voters Favor Bremain-Leaning Political Parties Voters Favor Bremain-Leaning Political Parties Voters Favor Bremain-Leaning Political Parties Parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Though the Cooper-Letwin bill that forbad a no-deal exit initially passed by one vote in April (Chart 9A), the final amended version passed with a majority of 309 votes. Further, in July, with the rise of Boris Johnson, parliament passed a measure by 41 votes that requires parliament to sit this fall (Chart 9B), thus attempting to prevent Boris from proroguing parliament and forcing a no-deal Brexit that way. Technically Queen Elizabeth II could still prorogue parliament, but we highly doubt she would intervene in a way that would divide the nation. Johnson himself will have to face the reality of parliament and public opinion. Chart 9 Chart 9 Parliament has one crystal clear means of halting a no-deal exit: a vote of no confidence in Johnson’s government.1 Theresa May only survived her vote of no confidence by 19 seats. Yet Johnson is entering 10 Downing Street at a time when parliament is essentially hung. The Conservative Party’s coalition with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Union Party has been reduced to a majority of two, which is likely to fall to a single solitary seat after the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, which is taking place as we go to press. Johnson has purged several Tories from his cabinet, and there are a handful of Conservatives who are firmly opposed to a no-deal Brexit. It would be an extremely tight vote as to whether these Tory rebels would be willing and able to bring down one of their own governments – a careful assessment suggests that there are about half a dozen swing voters on each side of the House of Commons.2 But 47 Conservatives contrived to block prorogation (see Chart 9B). The magnitude of the crisis members of parliament would face – an unpopular, self-inflicted no-deal exit and recession – is essential context that would motivate rebellious voting behavior. Parliament’s actions so far, the reality of the economic impact, and the popular polling suggest that MPs are likely to halt the Johnson government from forcing a no-deal exit if he makes a mad dash for it. More likely is that Johnson himself pushes to hold an election after securing some technical concessions from Brussels. He is galvanizing the Conservative vote and swallowing up the single-issue Brexit vote (UKIP and the Brexit Party), while the opposition remains divided between the Labour Party under the vacillating Jeremy Corbyn and the resurgent Liberal Democrats (Chart 10). In a first-past-the-post electoral system, this provides a window of opportunity for the Conservatives to improve their parliamentary majority – assuming that Johnson has renegotiated a deal with the EU and has something to show for it. Chart 10BoJo Could Call Election With Deal In Hand BoJo Could Call Election With Deal In Hand BoJo Could Call Election With Deal In Hand Chart 11Ireland Can Compromise For Stability's Sake Ireland Can Compromise For Stability's Sake Ireland Can Compromise For Stability's Sake This would require the EU to delay the deadline yet again (September 3 is the last date for a non-confidence vote to force a pre-Brexit October 24 election). The European Union has a self-interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit, as it needs to maintain economic stability. It ultimately would prefer to keep the U.K. in the bloc, which means that delays can ultimately be granted, especially to accommodate a new election. As to what kind of compromises are available, the Irish backstop can suffer technical changes to its provisions, time frames, or application. In the end, the Irish Sea is already a different kind of border than the other borders in the U.K. and therefore it is possible to enact additional checks that nevertheless have a claim to retaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Democratic Unionists could find themselves outnumbered on this issue. Certainly the Republic of Ireland has an interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit as long as a hard border with Northern Ireland is avoided, and Boris Johnson maintains that it will be (Chart 11). The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21% Our updated Brexit Decision Tree in Diagram 1 provides the outcomes. Former Prime Minister Theresa May failed three times to pass her Brexit deal. We allot a 30% chance, higher than consensus, that Boris Johnson can do it through galvanizing the Conservative vote – given that he is operating with a hung parliament and is at odds with the median voter on Brexit. We give 21% odds to a no-deal Brexit based on the difficulty of parliament outright halting Johnson if his government is absolutely determined to follow through with it. This is clearly a large risk but not our base case. We would upgrade these odds to around 30% in the event that negotiations with the EU completely fail to produce tangible outcomes. It is far more likely that a delay occurs and leads to new elections (49%) – and these odds rise to 70% if Johnson fails to extract concessions from the EU that enable him to pass a deal through parliament. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Updated As Of June 21 For Boris Johnson) Tariffs ... And The Last Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom? Tariffs ... And The Last Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom? A final constraint on Johnson comes from Scotland, as highlighted in the epigraph at the top of the report: the demand for a new Scottish independence referendum is reviving as a result of opposition to Brexit in general and specifically to Prime Minister Johnson’s hardline approach (Charts 12A & 12B). The SNP is also improving its favorability among Scottish voters relative to other parties (Chart 13). We have highlighted this risk in the past: support for Scottish independence does not have a clear ceiling amid the antagonism over Brexit, especially if an economic and political shock hits the union as a result of a forced no-deal exit. Chart 12 Chart 12 Chart 13Scottish Nationals Resurgent Scottish Nationals Resurgent Scottish Nationals Resurgent Bottom Line: The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21%, though a complete failure of negotiations with the EU could push it up to 30%. If it occurs it will induce a recession and eventually could result in the breakup of the union with Scotland. China And Investment Recommendations What can investors be certain of regardless of the different Brexit outcomes? The United Kingdom will reverse the fiscal austerity of recent years (Chart 14). Fiscal stimulus will be necessary either to offset the shock of a no-deal exit in the worst-case scenario, or to address the ongoing economic challenges and public grievances in a soft Brexit or no Brexit scenario. These grievances stem from the negative impact on the middle class of globalization, post-financial crisis deleveraging, low real wage growth, and the decline in productivity. Potential GDP growth is set to fall if immigration is curtailed and restrictions on trade with the EU go up. The government will have to offset this trend with spending to boost the social safety net and encourage investment. Chart 14Fiscal Austerity To Go Into Reverse Fiscal Austerity To Go Into Reverse Fiscal Austerity To Go Into Reverse The pound is clearly weak on a long-term and structural basis (Chart 15). Based on our assessment of the British median voter – opposed to a no-deal Brexit – and the fact that parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit Chart 15Deep Value In Sterling Deep Value In Sterling Deep Value In Sterling and is the supreme lawgiving body in the British constitution, we expect that an enormous buying opportunity will emerge when Prime Minister Johnson’s gambit has reached its apex and he is either forced to accept what concessions the EU will give. But if forced out of office, election uncertainty due to a potential Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn will prolong the pound’s weakness. Brexit is not the only risk affecting Europe this summer – a critical factor is Europe’s own economic status, which in great part hinges on our China view (Chart 16). The Chinese Communist Party’s mid-year Politburo meeting struck a more accommodative tone relative to the April meeting that sounded less dovish in the aftermath of the Q1 credit splurge. The emphasis of the remarks shifted back to the need to take additional measures to stabilize the economy, as in the October 2018 statement. This fits with our view since February that Chinese stimulus will surprise to the upside this year. Chart 16Chinese Reflation Positive For Europe Chinese Reflation Positive For Europe Chinese Reflation Positive For Europe Policymakers’ efforts are working thus far, with signs of stabilization occurring in the all-important labor market (Chart 17). There is some evidence that Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign is moderating, which also supports the view that policy settings in the broadest sense are becoming more supportive of growth (Chart 18). Chart 17China Will Reflate More China Will Reflate More China Will Reflate More Chart 18Relaxing Anti-Corruption Campaign Another Form Of Easing Relaxing Anti-Corruption Campaign Another Form Of Easing Relaxing Anti-Corruption Campaign Another Form Of Easing Chart 19Hong Kong Equities Have Farther To Fall Hong Kong Equities Have Farther To Fall Hong Kong Equities Have Farther To Fall We still are long European equities versus Chinese equities and are short the CNY-USD. From a geopolitical point of view, the U.S.-China conflict is intensifying with President Trump’s threat to raise an additional 10% tariff on $300 billion of Chinese imports despite the resumption of talks. In addition, the Hong Kong protests are intensifying, with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) warning that it may have to intervene. There is high potential for violence to erupt, leading to a more heavy-handed approach by Hong Kong security forces and even eventual PLA deployment. This suggests there is downside in the Hang Seng index (Chart 19) – and PLA intervention could lead to broader investor concerns about China’s internal stability and another reason for tensions with the United States and its allies. The U.S.-China conflict is intensifying. Our alarmist view on Taiwan in advance of the January 2020 election is finally taking shape. Not only has the Hong Kong unrest prompted a notable uptick in Taiwanese people’s view of themselves as exclusively Taiwanese (Chart 20), but Beijing has also announced additional restrictions on travel and tourism to Taiwan – an economic sanction that will harm the economy (Chart 21). These actions and escalation in Hong Kong raise the odds that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party will remain in power in Taiwan after January and hence that cross-strait relations (and by extension Sino-American relations) will remain strained and will require a higher risk premium to be built in. The latest trade war escalation could easily spill into strategic saber-rattling, as the U.S. blames China for North Korea’s return to bad behavior and China blames the U.S. for dissent in Hong Kong and likely Taiwan. Chart 20 Chart 21Beijing To Sanction Taiwan Tourism Again Beijing To Sanction Taiwan Tourism Again Beijing To Sanction Taiwan Tourism Again The U.S.-China trade negotiations are falling apart at the moment. We had argued that China’s stimulus and stabilization would create a negative reaction from President Trump, who would regret the Osaka ceasefire when he saw that China’s bargaining leverage had improved. This has come to pass, vindicating our 60% odds of an escalation post-G20. The U.S. Commerce Department could still conceivably renew the Temporary General License for U.S. companies to deal with Chinese tech firm Huawei on August 19, in order to create an environment conducive to progress for the next round of trade talks in September, but with the latest round of tariffs we think it is more likely that we will get a major escalation of strategic tensions and even saber-rattling. China’s new announcements regarding reforms to make local officials more accountable and to make it easier for companies to go bankrupt, including unprofitable “zombie” state-owned enterprises, could be a thinly veiled structural concession to the United States, but it remains to be seen whether these will be implemented and reinforced. Beijing rebooted structural reforms at the nineteenth national party congress but we expect stimulus to overwhelm reform amid trade war. We are converting our long non-Chinese rare earth producers recommendation to a strategic trade, after it hit our 5% stop-loss, as it is supported by our major theme of Sino-American strategic rivalry. The secular nature of this rivalry has been greatly confirmed by the fact that President Trump is now responding to American election dynamics. The U.S. Democratic Party’s primary debates have revealed that the candidates most likely to take on President Trump (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) are adopting his hawkish foreign policy and trade policy stance toward China. The frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden is the exception, as he is maintaining President Obama’s more dovish and multilateral approach. Trump’s clear response is to ensure that he still owns the trade and manufacturing narrative, to call Biden weak on trade, and to prevent the left-wing populists from outflanking him. Short the Hang Seng index as a tactical trade and close long Q1 2020 Brent futures versus Q1 2021 at the market bell tonight.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Maddy Thimont Jack, “A New Prime Minister Intent On No Deal Brexit Can’t Be Stopped By MPs,” May 22, 2019, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 2 See Dominic Walsh, “Would MPs really back a no confidence motion to stop no-deal?” The New Statesman, July 15, 2019, www.newstatesman.com.

Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan Chart 2 August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. Chart 3 A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Chart 6 Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Chart 7 Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. Chart 8 The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Chart 10 Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall.  Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. Chart 12 Chart 13 What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 14 Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk ...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk ...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable ...But Were Ultimately Favorable ...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Chart 18 Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. Chart 19 Chart 20 The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Geopolitical Calendar