Trade

Highlights Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to a litany of worries regarding the outlook. The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. There are some tentative signs that the two U.S. weak spots, housing and capital spending, are bottoming out. However, our global leading economic indicators continue to herald a soft first half of 2019 outside of the U.S. The dollar thus has more upside in the near term. The political risks facing investors have not diminished either. In particular, we expect turbulence related to the U.S./China trade war to extend well beyond the 3-month “truce” period. The returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities historically have not been particularly attractive on average when the U.S. yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies back to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The upgrade to stocks in the developed markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now, but be prepared to upgrade sometime in 2019. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil prices have overshot to the downside. Supply is adjusting and, given robust energy demand in 2019, we still expect prices to rise to $82. Feature Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to concerns regarding the U.S./China trade war, corporate leverage, global growth, rising U.S. interest rates and the shift toward quantitative tightening. Some equity indexes, such as the Russell 2000, reached bear market territory, having lost more than 20%. Losses have been even worse outside the U.S. Earnings revisions have plunged into the “net downgrade” zone. Implied volatility has spiked and corporate bond spreads are surging (Chart I-1). The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Chart I-1A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality We laid out our economic view in detail in the BCA Outlook 2019 report, published in late November. Not enough has changed on the global economic front in the three weeks since then that would justify such a violent shift in investor sentiment. That said, our favorite global leading economic indicators continue to erode (Chart I-2). The only ray of hope is that the diffusion index constructed from our Global Leading Economic Indicator appears to have bottomed. Nonetheless, the actual LEI will keep falling until the diffusion index shifts into positive territory.   Chart I-2Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red For China, a key source of investor angst, the latest retail sales and industrial production reports reinforced that economic momentum continues to recede. We will not be convinced that growth is bottoming until we see an upturn in our credit impulse indicator (Chart I-3). Its continued decline in November suggests that the outlook for emerging market assets and commodity prices is poor for at least the next quarter. Global industrial output appears headed for a mild contraction. The manufacturing troubles are centered in the emerging Asian economies, but Europe and Japan are also feeling the negative effects. Chart I-3China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet In the U.S., November’s bounce in housing starts and permits is a hopeful sign that the soft patch in this sector is ending. However, it is not clear how the devastating wildfires on the west coast have affected the housing data (Chart I-4). The downdraft in capital goods orders may also be drawing to a close, based on the latest reading from the Fed’s survey of capital spending intentions. The U.S. leading economic indicator dipped slightly in November, but remains consistent with above-trend real GDP growth in the months ahead. Chart I-4U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs The bottom line is that our outlook for growth has not been significantly altered. We see little risk of a U.S. recession in 2019. The global economy continues to weaken, but we expect enough policy stimulus out of China to stabilize growth in that economy in the second half of the year. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that, while the risks appeared elevated, we would consider shifting back to overweight in stocks if they cheapened sufficiently. Valuation has indeed improved in recent weeks and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will likely continue to decelerate in the first half of 2019, but markets have largely discounted this outcome. In other words, the shift toward pessimism in financial markets appears overdone. The fact that the Fed has signaled a move away from regular quarter-point rate hikes adds to our confidence in playing what will likely be the last upleg in risk assets in this cycle. Fed: Rate Hikes No Longer On Autopilot The Fed lifted rates by a quarter point in December and signaled that any additional tightening will be data-dependent. The FOMC also trimmed the expected peak in the funds rate and its estimate of the long-run, or neutral, level. Policymakers were likely swayed by some disappointing U.S. economic data, the pullback in core PCE inflation, and the sharp tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Monetary conditions are not tight by historical yardsticks, such as the level of real interest rates. The problem is that investors fear that the neutral level of the fed funds rate, the so-called R-star, remains very depressed. If true, it could mean that the Fed is already outright restrictive, which would signal that the monetary backdrop has turned hostile for risk assets. The OIS curve signals that the consensus believes that the Fed is pretty much done the tightening cycle (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! We believe that R-star is higher than the current policy setting and is rising, as the growth headwinds related to the Great Financial Crisis fade with the passage of time. The problem is that nobody knows the level of the neutral rate. Thus, we need to watch for signs that the fed funds rate has surpassed that level, such as an inverted yield curve. The 10-year/3-month T-bill spread is still in positive territory, but barely so. Meanwhile, our R-star indicator is also flashing yellow as it sits on the zero line (Chart I-7). It is a composite of monetary indicators that in the past have been useful in signaling that monetary policy had become outright restrictive, leading to slower growth and trouble for risk assets. The lead time of this indicator relative to economic activity and risk asset prices has been quite variable historically, but a breakdown below zero would send a powerful bearish signal for risk assets if confirmed by an inverted yield curve. Chart I-7Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money The Implications Of Four Fed Scenarios It is not surprising that investors are struggling with a number of different possible scenarios on how the R-star/Fed policy nexus will play out. We can perhaps boil down discussion of the Fed and the implications for financial markets to a matrix of four main outcomes, based on combinations related to the level of R-Star (high or low) and the pace of Fed rate hikes in 2019 (pause or continue increasing rates by 25 basis points per quarter). Policy Mistake #1: R-star is still very low, but policymakers do not realize this and the FOMC continues to tighten into restrictive territory in 2019. By definition, the economy begins to suffer in this scenario, inflation and inflation expectations decline and long-bond yields are flat-to-lower. The yield curve inverts. However, current real rates are still so low that the fed funds rate cannot be very far above R-Star, which means it would represent only a small policy mistake. As long as the Fed recognizes the economic slowdown early enough and truncates the rate hike cycle, then there is a good chance that a recession would be avoided. Investors would initially fear a recession, however, which means that risk assets would be hit hard in absolute terms and relative to bonds and cash until recession fears fade. The direction of the dollar is perhaps trickiest part because there are so many potential cross currents. To keep things simple we will assume that global growth follows our base-case view and remains lackluster in the first half of 2019, followed by a modest re-acceleration. We believe the dollar would likely rally a little as the Fed continues tightening, but then would fall back as the FOMC is forced to turn dovish in the face of a U.S. growth scare. Policy Mistake #2: R-Star is high and rising but the Fed fails to hike rates fast enough to keep up. The economy accelerates in this scenario because monetary policy remains stimulative through 2019, at a time when the 2018 fiscal stimulus will still be providing a demand tailwind. Core PCE inflation moves above 2% and long-term inflation expectations shift up, signaling to investors that the Fed has fallen behind the inflation curve. Risk assets rip for a while and the yield curve bear-steepens as the 10-year Treasury yield moves gradually higher at first. Belatedly, the FOMC realizes it has underestimated the neutral rate and signals a hawkish policy shift. A 50-basis point rate hike at one FOMC meeting causes risk assets to buckle on the back of surging Treasury yields. The yield curve begins to bear-flatten. Eventually the curve inverts and the economy enters recession. The dollar weakens at first because higher inflation lowers U.S. real interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Global growth prospects would initially get a boost from the acceleration in U.S. growth, which is also dollar-bearish. However, in the end the dollar would likely rise as global financial markets turn risk-off. Fed Gets It Right (1): R-star is high and rising. The Fed continues to tighten in line with the increase in the neutral rate. Treasurys sell off hard and the yield curve shifts higher, but remains fairly flat (parallel shift). The curve could mildly invert temporarily, but market worries about a recession eventually recede as economic momentum remains robust, allowing the curve to subsequently trade in the 0-50 basis point range. As discussed below, risk assets tend to outperform Treasurys and cash when the yield curve is in this range, but not by much. The Treasury market would suffer significant losses. This is the most dollar-bullish of the four scenarios, given our global growth view (tepid) and the fact that the market is not even priced for a full quarter-point rate hike in 2019. Fed Gets It Right (2): R-Star is actually still quite low, but the Fed correctly sees recent economic data disappointments and the tightening in financial conditions as signs that policy is close to neutral. The Fed pauses the rate hike cycle, followed by a slower and more data-dependent pace of tightening. The yield curve stays fairly flat and flirts with inversion as investors try to figure out if the Fed has overdone it. Risk assets are volatile and deliver little return over cash. Treasurys rally a bit as the chance of any further rate hikes is priced out of the market, but the rally is limited unless the economy falls into recession (which is not part of this scenario because we are assuming the Fed “gets it right”). The dollar fluctuates, but delivers no real trend since U.S. yield differentials versus the rest of the world do not change much. As we go to press, financial markets are moving in a way that is consistent the Policy Mistake #1; the consensus appears to believe that the Fed has already lifted the fed funds rate too far, causing financial conditions to tighten. But if U.S. real GDP growth remains above-trend as we expect, then the market view could eventually transition to a belief in Mistake #2; the Fed falls behind the inflation curve. The curve would re-steepen and risk assets could have one last hurrah before the Fed gets hawkish again and the 2020 recession arrives. The transition from Mistake #1 to Mistake #2 is essentially our base-case outlook. Nonetheless, obviously the risks around this central scenario are high, especially given how late it is in the U.S. economic and policy cycle. Asset Returns And The Yield Curve Our 2018 late-cycle investing theme focussed on historical asset return and policy dynamics after the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the full-employment level in past cycles. We found that risk assets tend to run into trouble once the U.S. S&P 500 operating margin peaks. As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, our margin proxies are still not heralding that a peak is at hand. Given the recent investor obsession with the U.S. yield curve, this month we look at historical asset returns at different levels of the 10-year/3-month T-bill yield curve slope: Phase I, when the slope is above 50 basis points; Phase II, when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points; and Phase III, when the curve is inverted (Table I-1). The data are presented as (not annualized) monthly average returns. It may be surprising that risk asset returns are for the most part positive even in when the curve is inverted. However, keep in mind that we are focussing on the curve, not on recession periods. The curve can be inverted for a long time before the subsequent recession occurs. Risk asset returns often remain positive during this period. The broad conclusions are as follows: Unsurprisingly, risk assets perform their best, in absolute terms and relative to government bonds and cash, in Phase I when the yield curve is steep. Returns tend to deteriorate as the curve flattens. This includes equities, corporate bonds and commodities. Small caps underperform large caps when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points, but the reverse is true when the curve is flatter or steeper than that range. The ratio of cyclical stocks to defensives has not revealed a consistent pattern with respect to the yield curve, although this may reflect the short historical period available. Value stocks shine versus growth when the curve is inverted. Hedge fund and private equity returns have not varied greatly across the three yield curve environments. Structured product, such as CMBS and ABS, have enjoyed their best performance when the curve is inverted. Timberland and Farmland have also rewarded investors during Phase III. We suspected that asset returns when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range would vary importantly with the direction of the curve. In Table I-I we split Phase II into two parts: when the curve is steepening after being inverted, and when the curve is flattening after being steep. In other words, when the consensus is either transitioning from quite bullish to very bearish, or vice-versa. Chart I- Risk assets such as equities (U.S. and Global) and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds indeed perform much better in absolute terms when the curve is flat but is steepening rather than flattening. The same is true for U.S. structured product. In terms of excess returns relative to government issues, both U.S. IG and HY corporates have tended to underperform when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range. Surprisingly, the underperformance is worse when the curve is steepening than when it is flattening. This appears to reflect an anomalous period in early 2006 when the curve was flattening but corporate bonds enjoyed strong excess returns. Emerging market equities show very strong returns in all three curve phases. This reflects the inclusion of the pre-2000 period in the mean calculations, a time when EM equities were much less correlated with U.S. financial conditions. EM equity returns have been significantly lower on average since 2000 when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range (and especially when the curve is flattening) The bottom line is that risk assets can still reward investors with positive returns during periods when the yield curve is flat. However, it is a dangerous time, especially when the global economy is up to its eyeballs in debt. This month’s Special Report beginning on page 17 argues that, although regulation has made the global financial system more resilient to shocks compared to the pre-Lehman years, the number of potentially destabilizing shocks has increased. Moreover, the trade war and Brexit risks make the investment backdrop all the more precarious. No Quick End To The Trade War The honeymoon following the trade ceasefire between the U.S. and China, agreed at the G20 summit in early December, did not last long. The arrest of the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom maker Huawei and continuing hawkish tweets from the U.S. president dampened hopes that a trade agreement can be negotiated by March. Even news that China intended to cut tariffs on U.S. auto imports did not help much. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that negotiations will prove to be protracted and testy. It will take a lot more than some token market-opening action on the part of China to placate the U.S. Our geopolitical team emphasizes that “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance.1 For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart I-8). While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Chart I-8R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country U.S. demands will also be hard for China to swallow. Most importantly, the U.S. is requesting that China rein in its hacking and spying, shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors, adjust its “Made in China” targets to allow for more foreign competition, and lower foreign investment equity restrictions. These stumbling blocks will make it difficult to strike a deal on trade. We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China will not arrive in the 90-day timeframe of the ceasefire. Thus, global risk assets will be subject to swings in sentiment regarding the likelihood of a trade deal well beyond March. Meanwhile, as previously discussed, Chinese policy stimulus has not yet become aggressive enough to spark animal spirits in the private sector. The Chinese authorities are proceeding cautiously so as to avoid adding significantly to private- and public-sector’s debt mountain. This month’s Special Report also discusses the risks that the surge in debt over the past decade poses for the global financial system, including escalating risk in China’s shadow banking system. Brexit Pain Continues Politics surrounding the torturous Brexit process will also remain a source of volatility for global markets in 2019. Prime Minister May survived a leadership challenge, but this is hardly confidence-inspiring. The question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The votes appear to be in place for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to essentially pay for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election (which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power), or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the failure of the Tories to endorse May’s proposed agreement means that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear; the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart I-9). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. The bottom line is that, while a soft Brexit is the most likely outcome, the path from here to the end result will be punishing. We do not recommend Brexit-related bets on the pound, despite the fact that it is cheap. Chart I-9A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain 2019: A Tale Of Two Halves For EM, Commodities And The Dollar One of our key themes in the BCA Outlook 2019 is that the growth divergence between China and the U.S. will persist at least for the first half of 2019. The result will be weak EM asset prices and currencies, little upside for base metals and a strong U.S. dollar. We expect the Chinese authorities will do enough to stabilize growth by mid-year, providing the impetus for a playable bounce in EM and commodity prices in the second half of 2019, coinciding with a peak in the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, the dollar still has some upside potential in broad trade-weighted terms in the first half of 2019. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to show a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the major countries. The dollar has usually strengthened when this has been the case historically. In particular, the ECB’s Central Bank Monitor has slipped back into “easy money required” territory, reflecting moderating economic momentum and still-depressed consumer price inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar The ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program in December. The central bank will now focus on forward guidance as its main policy tool outside of setting short-term interest rates. Lending via targeted LTROs will also be considered under certain circumstances. Policymakers retained the latest forward guidance after the December MPC meeting, that rates are on hold “through the summer of 2019”. The latest reading from our ECB Monitor suggests that the central bank could be on hold for longer than that. We expect Eurozone growth to improve somewhat through the year, but we still believe that interest rate differentials will move further in favor of the dollar relative to the euro and the other major currencies. Periods of slow global growth also tend to favor the greenback. The bottom line is that, while a correction is possible in the very near term, investors with at least a six-month horizon should remain long the dollar. Investment Conclusions: Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. The risks facing investors have not diminished either, especially given the precarious nature of late-cycle investing and the uncertainty regarding the neutral level of the fed funds rate. Historically, the returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities have not been particularly attractive on average when the yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, we believe that the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels, but we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009. Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019.  Credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Our upgrade to stocks in the advanced markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil markets are still in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump Administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions in November, as last-minute waivers were granted to Iran’s largest oil importers. We believe that oil prices have overshot to the downside. Following OPEC 2.0’s decision to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in the first half of the year, we continue to expect prices to recover on the back of solid global energy demand. Canada also mandated energy firms to trim production. Our energy experts expect oil prices to reach $82/bbl in 2019. We also like gold as long as the fed funds rate remains below its neutral level. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 21, 2018 Next Report: January 31, 2019 II. (Part II) The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.2 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).3 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.4 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,5 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Chart II-4 Chart II-5 Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty6 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):8 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries. EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart II-14). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views9 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Chart II-18 Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical upgrade of equities to overweight this month goes against most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S., Japan and Europe are all heading lower. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors are clearly moving funds away from the equity market at the moment. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a ‘sell’ signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, supporting the view that caution is still warranted. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio has dropped into negative territory. The earnings surprises index has also declined, although it remains above 60%. Finally, our Composite Technical Equity Indicator has broken below the zero line and its 9-month exponential moving average, sending a negative technical signal. On the positive side, our Monetary Indicator has hooked up, although it is still in negative territory for equities. From a contrary perspective, the fact that equity sentiment has turned bearish is positive for stocks. In fact, this is the main reason why we upgraded stocks this month. While it is late in the U.S. economic expansion and the Fed is tightening, sentiment regarding U.S. and global growth has become overly pessimistic. Thus, we are playing a late-cycle bounce in stocks. For bonds, the term premium moved further into negative territory in December, which is unsustainable from a long-term perspective. Long-term inflation expectations are also too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% target over the medium term. These facts suggest that bond yields have not peaked for the cycle, although at the moment they have not yet worked off oversold conditions according to our technical indicator. The U.S. dollar is overbought and very expensive on a PPP basis. Nonetheless, we believe it will become more expensive in the first half of 2019, before its structural downtrend resumes in broad trade-weighted terms. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators   Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator   Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields   Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP   Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator   Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals   Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators   Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop   Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot   Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions   Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   1      For more details, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 3       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 4       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 5       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 6       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 7       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 8       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Chart 5 Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Chart 16 Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Chart 17 Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Chart 5 Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Chart 16 Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Chart 17 Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... ...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? Chart 1U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Chart 2Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Chart 3Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Chart 4Policymakers Fear The Middle Income Trap 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 5Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Chart 6Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Chart 7The Market Has Already Priced-In A Fed Pause 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Chart 8Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Chart 9Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? Chart 10A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   Chart 11Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Chart 13ADon't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Chart 13B...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Chart 14AOpening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Chart 14B...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Chart 15Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Chart 16Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Chart 17A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Chart 18Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Chart 19Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Chart 20U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Chart 21Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 22Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Chart 23Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Chart 24Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Chart 25...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Chart 26Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. Chart 27EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Chart 28Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Chart 29Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Chart 30Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. Chart 31Trump Sanctions Boosted Risk Premium 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. Chart 32Barometer Of Trump’s Survival 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Chart 33Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Chart 34Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Chart 35Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

… quick’s the word and sharp’s the action. Jack Aubrey1 Idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments – some induced by head-spinning reversals of policy (e.g., the U.S. about-face on Iran oil export sanctions) – and uncertainty regarding monetary policy and trade will keep volatility in oil, metals and grains elevated in 2019. We remain overweight energy – particularly oil – expecting OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline, and for demand to remain resilient.2 We remain neutral base metals and precious metals, seeing the former relatively balanced, and the latter somewhat buoyant, even as the Fed continues its rates-normalization policy. We remain underweight ags, although weather-induced supply stress has reduced the global inventories some. While we continue to favor being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI on a strategic basis, tactical positioning will continue to dominate commodity investing in 2019. Highlights Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts goes into effect in January vs. October levels, and should allow inventories to resume drawing. Base Metals: Neutral. Fundamentally, base metals are largely balanced, which is keeping us neutral going into 2019. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices will remain sensitive to Fed policy and policy expectations. Palladium prices have soared as a growing physical deficit noted earlier widens.3 If China cuts sales taxes on autos again, demand could soar. Ags/Softs: Underweight. A strong USD will weigh on ag markets, particularly grains, next year. An agreement on contentious Sino – U.S. trade issues could re-open Chinese markets to U.S. exports. However, the arrest of the CFO of China’s Huawei Technologies in Canada for possible extradition to the U.S. complicates negotiations.   Feature Going into 2019, commodity markets once again are sending conflicting signals. While we continue to favor exposure to commodities as an asset class by being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index, which fell 6% this year on the back of the collapse in crude oil prices and flattening of the forward curves in Brent and WTI.  Nonetheless, we believe investors will continue to be rewarded by taking tactical exposure on an opportunistic basis. Volatility remains the watchword, particularly in 1H19, for the primary industrial commodities – oil and base metals. While idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments will drive prices in each market, Fed policy also will contribute to volatility, as the U.S. central bank likely remains the only systemically important monetary authority following through on rates-normalization. In line with our House view, we expect the Fed to deliver its fourth rate hike of 2018 at its December meeting next week, and four additional hikes next year. On the back of Fed policy, we expect the broad trade-weighted USD to rise another 3-5% in 2019, following a 6% increase in 2018 (Chart of the Week). This will supress demand ex-U.S. for commodities priced in USD, by raising the USD cost of these commodities. Chart of the WeekStronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Stronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Stronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Below, we highlight the key themes we believe will dominate commodities in 2019. Oil Markets Still Re-Calibrating Fundamentals We continue to expect global oil demand to remain strong next year, despite the slight downgrading of global GDP growth earlier this year by the IMF. We expect EM import volumes – one of the key variables we track to proxy EM income levels – to hold up in 1H19, which supports our assessment commodity demand will grow, albeit at a slower rate than this year (Chart 2).4 Chart 2Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand In 2H19, we see the volume of EM imports dipping y/y from higher levels, then recovering toward year-end. This indicates the all-important level of EM income – hence commodity demand – will remain resilient, but the rate of growth in incomes will slow. This is confirmed by the behavior of the Global Leading Economic Indicators we use to cross check our EM income expectation via import volumes (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes There is a chance Sino – U.S. trade relations will thaw, which would remove a large uncertainty over the evolution of demand next year. This would be supportive for EM trade volumes generally, particularly imports. However, this is not a given, and we are not assuming any pick-up in demand in anticipation of such a development. We need to see concrete actions, followed by tangible trade improvement first. On the supply side, oil markets still are in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions last month – i.e., the last-minute granting of waivers to Iran’s largest oil importers. However, following OPEC 2.0’s decision last week to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in 1H19, we continue to expect prices to recover. Indeed, going into the OPEC 2.0 meeting last week, we had already lowered our December 2018 production estimates for OPEC 2.0, and also reduced 2019 output estimates by ~ 1mm b/d, so the producer coalition’s action did not come as a surprise (Chart 4).5 Chart 4BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts In addition to the cuts by OPEC 2.0, the Alberta, Canada, government mandated production cuts, which will become effective January 1, 2019, to clear a persistent supply overhang that was decimating producers’ revenues in the province. We estimate there is ~ 200k b/d of trapped Alberta supply – i.e., excess production over takeaway capacity (pipeline and rail) – along with ~ 35mm bbls of accumulated excess production in storage the government intends to draw over the course of 2019 at a rate of ~ 96k b/d. This will lower overall OECD inventories, even if the Canadian barrels are transferred south. Net, in addition to the 1.2mm b/d of cuts from OPEC 2.0, the ~ 300k b/d coming from Canada next year will mean close to 1.5 mm b/d of production, or ~1.4mm b/d of actual supply when accounting for the inventory release, is being cut or curtailed from these two sources. We cannot, at this point, forecast over-compliance with the OPEC 2.0 accord, which was one of the signal features of the deal in 2017 and 1H18. The Trump administration’s waivers for Iran’s eight largest oil importers expire May 2019. We view it as highly unlikely the Trump administration will re-impose export sanctions in full on Iranian exports following the expiration of waivers, and fully expect they will be extended at least for 90 days. This is because oil fundamentals will remain tight next year, despite the massive de-bottlenecking of the Permian Basin in West Texas. While an additional 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity will be added to the region, it will not be fully operational until 4Q19. We have ~ 300k b/d of additional supply coming out of the Permian after the pipeline expansions are done in 2H19. Even as pipeline capacity is filled, the U.S. still needs to significantly increase its deep-water oil-export capacity to get this crude to market.6 Bottom Line: We expect the oil market to re-balance in 1H19, as production falls by ~ 1.4mm b/d – the combination of OPEC 2.0 and Canadian production cuts – and consumption grows by a similar amount. The USD will continue to appreciate next year, which, at the margin, will temper demand growth and prices. Gold: Remaining Long Equity And Inflation Risks Trump Higher Rates in 2019 As the U.S. economic cycle matures and advances into its final innings, we continue to recommend holding gold in a diversified portfolio. U.S. inflationary pressure will surprise to the upside in 2019, per our House view, which will offset the effects of somewhat less accommodative U.S. monetary policy in the U.S. The October equity correction is a reminder that, when rising UST yields drag stocks down in late-cycle markets, gold works as an effective hedge against equity risks, and can outperform bonds. In fact, both of the corrections we saw in 2018 likely were caused by a sharp increase in bond yields. This convexity on the upside and downside is what makes gold our preferred portfolio hedge. Easy Monetary Policy + Rising Rate = Bullish Gold Prices Despite being negatively correlated with interest rates, gold tends to perform well when the fed funds rate is below r-star – known as the “natural rate of interest” – and is rising (Chart 5, panel 1).7 When this happens, policy rates are below the so-called natural interest rate consistent with a fully employed economy, which, all else equal, is inflationary. In these late-cycle environments, gold’s ability to hedge against inflation and equity risks dominate its price formation, while its correlation with U.S. real rates diminishes. Chart 5Gold Will Stay in Trading Range Gold Will Stay in Trading Range Gold Will Stay in Trading Range In our view, gold will remain in an upward trading range until rates become restrictive enough to depress the inflation outlook (Chart 5, panel 2). Our U.S. strategists estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate is at ~ 3%, and project it will rise to ~ 3⅜% by end-2019. Therefore, despite our House view of four rate hikes next year, we expect the U.S. economy to remain in a below-r-star-and-rising phase for most of the year. Consistent with our House view, we believe U.S. inflation is likely to surprise to the upside next year, which will push gold prices higher (Chart 6, panel 1). The U.S. economy remains strong, particularly on the employment front. This means wage growth will work its way through inflation rates. Chart 6U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise Admittedly, this is not the consensus view. Investors are not worried about significantly higher inflation (Chart 6, panel 2). However, our Bond strategists argue that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation is stuck below historical levels because of this abnormally low fear of elevated inflation (i.e. > 2.5%). Once inflation starts drifting higher, there will be an upward shift in investors’ inflation expectations. Any short-term dip in inflation on the back of lower oil prices will be transitory, given our view that oil prices will recover next year. If such a transitory dip, or concerns about a global growth slowdown spilling back into the U.S. causes the Fed to pause, we would add to our precious metal view position, given our assessment that this would raise the probability of an inflation overshoot. Lastly, gold prices recently have been depressed by an abnormally high correlation with the U.S. dollar (Table 1). We put this down to speculative positioning: Net speculative positions are stretched for both the U.S. dollar and gold, Table 1Gold Vs. USD Correlations Running Higher Than Normal 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets therefore, any change in expectations likely will be amplified by a reversal in positioning (Chart 7). In the medium-term, we expect the gold-dollar correlation to converge back to its average, which would mute the dollar’s impact on gold. This would, all else equal, raise inflation and equity risks factors. Chart 7Spec Positioning Stretched Spec Positioning Stretched Spec Positioning Stretched Bottom Line: We continue to recommend gold as a portfolio hedge for investors, given its convexity – it outperforms during equity downturns, and participates on the upside (albeit not as much). Given our out-of-consensus House view for inflation, we believe gold also will provide a hedge against this risk. Palladium: China Tax Policy Could Lift Price Palladium soared to dizzying heights this year, on the back of an expanding physical deficit (Chart 8). Were it not for the loss of an automobile-tax break in China, which reduced the rate of growth in sales there to unchanged y/y, this deficit likely would have been considerably wider, inventories would have drawn even harder, and palladium prices would have been higher (Chart 9). Chart 8Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Chart 9Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium’s demand is mainly driven by its use in catalytic converters for gasoline-powered cars, which dominate sales in the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest car markets (Chart 10). U.S. sales growth has leveled off this year (Chart 11), as has China’s. However, the China Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) is pressing policymakers to reduce the 10% auto sales tax by half, which could keep palladium demand elevated relative to supply, should it happen.8 Chart 10Auto Catalyst Demand Dominates Palladium 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Chart 11China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut Russian producers, led by Norilsk Nickel, supply ~ 40% of the world’s palladium. Markets have been fearful U.S. sanctions could be imposed on Norilsk and other Russian producers throughout the year by the U.S., most recently in re Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels in international waters, and over Russia’s response to the threatened withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by the U.S., which could be keeping a risk premium firmly embedded in palladium prices.9 With platinum trading below $800/oz, or ~ 65% of palladium’s value, autocatalyst makers could begin to switch out their catalysts (Chart 12). Chart 12Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Base Metals: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook Base metals remain inextricably bound up with EM income growth. When EM incomes are growing, commodity demand – particularly for base metals – is growing, and vice versa. This typically shows up in EM GDP and import volume levels, which we use as explanatory variables in our base-metals price modeling (Chart 13). Chart 13Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes There are, in our view, two significant risks to EM income growth over the short and medium terms: Sino – U.S. trade disputes, which erupted earlier this year. They carry the risk of spreading globally and unwinding supply chains that have taken decades to develop between DM and EM economies;10 Fed monetary policy, which is immediately reflected in USD levels. A strong dollar raises the local-currency costs of commodities for consumers ex-U.S., and debt-servicing costs in EM economies. In addition, it lowers the local-currency costs of producing commodities ex-U.S., which incentivizes producers to raise production to capture this arbitrage, since they are paid in USD. The trade-war risk remains, despite the agreement between presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 in Buenos Aires to work on a trade deal. Even so, the actual level of tariffs imposed by both sides is trivial relative to the level of global trade, which is in excess of $20 trillion p.a. – ~$17 trillion for goods, $5 trillion for services, according to the WTO (Chart 14). Chart 14Sino – U.S. Tariffs Remain Trivial Relative to Overall Global Trade 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Fed policy, on the other hand, is a threat of far greater moment to EM income growth, and, through this, import volumes, which we use to proxy that growth. The LMEX index, a gauge of base-metals prices traded on the LME, is extremely sensitive to changes in EM import volumes. This is not unexpected, given the income elasticity of trade for EM economies is greater than 1.0. Our modeling finds a 1% increase in EM import volumes translates to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, which is consistent with the World Bank’s estimate of EM income elasticity of trade.11 Per our House view, we believe markets are too sanguine regarding the possibility of a Sino – U.S. trade deal. Such an event, should it occur, would immediately affect base metals markets, as China accounts for roughly half of base metals demand globally(Chart 15). Market participants’ default setting appears to be the U.S. and China will resolve their trade differences in short order – i.e., by the March 1, 2019, deadline agreed at the G20 meeting – resulting in a win-win for both countries and the world. We are hopeful this view is correct, but we would not take any positions in base metals in expectation of such an outcome. Instead, we think the substantive technological and strategic differences between the two countries, and underlying distrust, will result in a renewed escalation of tensions. Chart 15China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble Bottom Line: We remain neutral base metals going into 2019. Fundamentally, most of the metals in the LME index are in balance, or can get there in short order. The Fed’s rates-normalization policy continues to represent a larger short-term risk to EM income growth than Sino – U.S. trade tensions, but, longer term, we continue to expect tension between the world’s dominant economies to escalate. Ags: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook That’s not a typo in the sub-head above; ags – particularly soybeans – are dealing with the same headwinds bedeviling base metals. The agreement to work on a trade agreement reached at the G20 summit between the U.S. and China lifted grain markets, and supported the upward trend in grain and bean prices. All the same, Sino – U.S. trade relations are prone to go off the rails at any time. The Buenos Aries understanding, after all, only holds for 90 days. In addition to the hoped-for agreement to resolve trade-war issues, grain prices received support from the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This helped align supply-demand fundamentals globally with prices. Focusing too much on China can obscure the fact that the USMCA, which replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), eliminated major uncertainties over the fate of U.S. grain exports to Mexico, the second-largest destination for U.S grains, beans and cotton. In fact, Mexico accounts for 13% of all U.S. ag exports (Chart 16).12 Chart 16Trade Negotiations Hit American Farmers Hard 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets All the same, the Sino – U.S. trade war is hitting U.S. ags hard, particularly soybeans. The 25% tariff on China’s imports of U.S. grains created two parallel agriculture markets. In one market, China is scrambling to secure supplies, creating a deficit. In the other, U.S. farmers are struggling to market their produce overseas, suffering from storage shortages and in some cases left with no option but to leave their crops to rot. Close to 60% of U.S. bean exports historically went to China. The U.S. – China trade war caused a soybean shortage in Brazil, as demand from China for its crops soared, while a record 11% of American beans are projected to be left over after accounting for exports and domestic consumption (Chart 17). Chart 17Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. A successful resolution to the U.S. – China trade tensions is unlikely to reverse the over-supply of beans globally (Chart 18). In fact, we expect beans stocks-to-use (STU) ratios to build next year, unlike global corn and wheat stocks (Chart 19). This will set a record for the soybean STU ratios, pushing them above 30%. Chart 18Expect Another Bean Surplus Expect Another Bean Surplus Expect Another Bean Surplus Chart 19Bean STU Ratios Will Grow Bean STU Ratios Will Grow Bean STU Ratios Will Grow As is the case for metals, the USD will weigh on ag markets, which will make U.S. exports more expensive than their foreign competition (Chart 20). As is the case for all of the commodities we cover, a strong dollar will weigh on prices at the margin. Chart 20A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive Bottom Line: A thaw in the Sino – U.S. trade war should realign global grain markets, but will not keep soybeans from setting new global inventory records. A strong USD will be a headwind for ag markets, as it is for other commodity markets we cover.     Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      This is a fictional character in the movie Master and Commander, based on the novels of Patrick O’Brian. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It was formed in November 2016 to manage oil production. 3      Please see “Silver, Platinum At Risk As Fed Tightens; Palladium Less So,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 15, 2018.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see “The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand,” published as a Special Focus in the IMF’s Global Economic Prospects in June 2018 for a discussion of income elasticities for oil, base metals and other commodities in large EM economies. 5      In our current forecast for 2019, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl next year, and for WTI to trade $6/bbl below that.  Please see “All Fall Down: Vertigo In the Oil Market … Lowering 2019 Brent Forecast to $82/bbl,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy November 15, 2018.  We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecast next week. 6      At 11.7mm b/d and growing, the U.S. is the largest crude oil producer in the world, having recently eclipsed Russia’s total crude and liquids production of 11.4mm b/d, and the U.S. EIA’s projected 2019 output of 11.6mm b/d.  U.S. crude oil exports hit 3.2mm b/d for the week ended November 30, 2018, an all-time high, according to EIA data.  It is worthwhile recalling crude oil exports were illegal until December 2015.  U.S. product exports totalled 5.8mm b/d for the week ended November 30, and 6.3mm b/d the week before that.  Total U.S. crude and product exports are running ~ 9mm b/d at present, which placed them just above total imports of crude and products – i.e., the U.S. became a net exporter of crude and products at the end of November. 7      The San Francisco Fed defines r-star as the inflation-adjusted “natural” rate of interest consistent with a fully employed economy, with inflation close to the Fed’s target.  r-star is used to guide interest-rate policy consistent with long-term macro goals set by the Fed.  Please see “R-star, Uncertainty, and Monetary Policy,” by Kevin J. Lansing, published in the FRBSF Economic Letter May 30, 2017. 8      Please see “Exclusive: Reverse gear - China car dealers push for tax cut as auto growth stalls,” published by reuters.com October 11, 2018. 9      Please see “Is Norilsk Nickel too big to sanction?” published by ft.com on April 19, 2018, and “U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty,” published by nytimes.com October 19, 2018. 10     We discuss this in “Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals,” published July 12, 2018, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11     For a discussion of the World Bank’s trade elasticities, please see “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12     Canada makes up a smaller share of U.S. exports, at ~ 2%. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets

Highlights So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition The U.S. Has Some Competition The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small Fry U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech... U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Highlights The dollar will continue to rally despite the trade truce agreed upon last weekend between U.S. President Donald Trump and China President Xi Jinping. Not only is this truce far from a permanent deal, but global growth continues to slow. Moreover, if the truce were to generate a genuine improvement in global growth conditions, this would likely result in a much more hawkish Federal Reserve than the market is currently pricing in. This would lead to a further deterioration in global liquidity conditions, causing additional growth problems for the world. Buy EUR/CHF, as the Swiss National Bank will soon have to intervene in the market. Sell AUD/NOK, as oil should outperform metals and the Norges Bank is better placed to tighten policy than the Reserve Bank of Australia. Feature Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have agreed to freeze additional new tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. for three months. This means that as of January 1, 2019, U.S. tariffs on US$200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S. will remain at 10%, and will not jump to 25%. Meanwhile, China has agreed to immediately resume its imports of soybeans and LNG from the U.S. Moreover, China has also agreed to begin talks to open up Chinese markets to U.S. exports as well as to address U.S. worries regarding intellectual property theft. The world has let out a collective sigh of relief. A potent narrative exists that fears of a trade war have been the root cause of the slowdown in global growth witnessed this year. Consequently, since the dollar performs well when global industrial activity slows, this also means that ending the trade war could be key to abort the dollar’s bull market. We are doubtful this narrative will pan out, and we do not think that the Buenos Aires truce will lead to the end of the dollar rally. This also means that the G-20 armistice is also unlikely to reverse the underperformance of commodity and Scandinavian currencies. First, this truce does not mark the end of the trade war. It is only an agreement to delay the implementation of U.S. tariffs. Come March, the Trump administration may well sing a very different tune. The U.S. domestic political climate has not changed one iota, and protectionism, particularly when directed at China, still wins votes (Chart I-1). Meanwhile, the concessions China is willing to give are long-term in nature; however, Trump wants visible wins well ahead of the 2020 elections. This mismatch creates a real danger that the White House imposes new tariffs again beyond the three-month armistice agreed at the G-20. The news yesterday afternoon that the CFO of Huawei was indicted in Vancouver already casts doubts on the deal. Chart I-1Americans Will Remain Tough On China Waiting For A Real Deal Waiting For A Real Deal Second, the dollar has been strong, and risk assets have been weak for more reasons than the trade war alone. As shown by the slowdown in Japanese or Taiwanese exports, as well as by the contraction in German foreign orders and in the CRB Raw Industrial Index’s inflation, global trade and global growth are slowing (Chart I-2). This development is likely to last until mid-2019, as our global leading economic indicator continues to fall. This deterioration in the global LEI does not look set to stop soon, as normally any improvement in the global LEI is first telegraphed by a stabilization in the Global LEI Diffusion Index – an indicator that is still falling (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Global Growth Continues To Slow Global Growth Continues To Slow Global Growth Continues To Slow Chart I-3No Bottom In Sight For The Global LEI No Bottom In Sight For The Global LEI No Bottom In Sight For The Global LEI China is not yet coming to the rescue either. The slowdown in Chinese economic activity continues, and in fact, the paucity of a rebound in Chinese credit growth despite injections of liquidity by Beijing suggests that a bottom is not yet in sight (Chart I-4). Hopes that were raised by increased bond issuance from local governments have also been dashed as this proved to be a very temporary phenomenon (Chart I-5). What is more worrisome is that so far Chinese exports have held their ground; however, the decline in the new export orders of the Chinese PMI suggests that this support to growth is likely to taper sharply in the coming months (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Credit Growth Decelerating Despite Stimulus Credit Growth Decelerating Despite Stimulus Credit Growth Decelerating Despite Stimulus   Chart I-5Chinese Infrastructure Push Looks Transitory Waiting For A Real Deal Waiting For A Real Deal   Chart I-6Chinese Exports: The Last Shoe To Drop Chinese Exports: The Last Shoe To Drop Chinese Exports: The Last Shoe To Drop Finally, despite the cloudy outlook for global growth that built up this year, U.S. yields had risen 80 basis points by November 8, adding stress to economies already negatively impacted by weakening manufacturing activity. This increase in global borrowing costs has worsened the already noticeable decline in U.S.-dollar based liquidity (Chart I-7). This decline in liquidity has been a great source of concern as EM economies, the source of marginal growth in the global economy, have large dollar-denominated debt loads, and thus need abundant dollar liquidity in order to support their economies (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Slowing Dollar Liquidity Explains Weak Global Growth... Slowing Dollar Liquidity Explains Weak Global Growth... Slowing Dollar Liquidity Explains Weak Global Growth... Chart I-8...Because There Is A Lot Of Dollar Debt Where Growth Is Generated ...Because There Is A Lot Of Dollar Debt Where Growth Is Generated ...Because There Is A Lot Of Dollar Debt Where Growth Is Generated This last point is especially unlikely to change in response to the Buenos Aires truce. Since November, 10-year U.S. yields have fallen around 25 basis points, and now fed funds rate futures are only pricing in 45 basis points of rate hikes over the coming two years, including the December hike. If business sentiment improves because of a trade truce, and consequently U.S. capex proves more resilient than anticipated by market participants, the Federal Reserve will increase rates by much more than what is currently priced into the futures curve (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Rates Have Plenty Of Upside, Even More So If The Trade Truce Becomes A Peace Treaty Waiting For A Real Deal Waiting For A Real Deal This will lift yields, resuscitating one of the first reasons why markets have been weak this fall. This risk is even greater than the market appreciates. After Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave what was perceived as a dovish speech last week, markets were further emboldened to bet on a Fed pause. However, Fed Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida and New York Fed President John Williams have both argued since that the U.S. economy will continue to run above trend and warrants further gradual increases in interest rates. A truce in Buenos Aires may only provide them with more ammunition to implement those hikes. Global liquidity conditions are unlikely to improve significantly anytime soon. Moreover, the truce could also change the calculus in Beijing. Much of the stimulus implemented since last summer in China has been to limit the negative impact of a trade war. However, if a trade war is not in the cards, Beijing has fewer reasons to abandon its deleveraging campaign. It thus raises the possibility that with a risk to China evaporating, the Xi Jinping administration would instead not do anything to limit the slowdown in credit. This implies that Chinese capex would stay weak and that China’s intake of raw materials and machinery would not pick up. This means that the euro area and countries like Australia will continue to lag behind the U.S.  Ultimately, the market speaks louder than anything else. The incapacity for risk assets to catch a bid in the wake of what was good news is disconcerting. It suggests that the combined assault of slowing global growth and a tightening Fed remains the main problem for global financial markets. Hence, in this kind of deflationary environment, the dollar reign supreme – even if U.S. growth were to slow (Chart I-10). Chart I-10A Strong Dollar Is Not A Function Of Strong U.S. Growth A Strong Dollar Is Not A Function Of Strong U.S. Growth A Strong Dollar Is Not A Function Of Strong U.S. Growth Bottom Line: A trade truce in Buenos Aires could have aborted the bull market in the dollar. So far, it has not, and we do not think it will be able to end the dollar’s rally. First, this truce remains flimsy, and does not guarantee an end of the trade war between China and the U.S. Second, global growth continues to exhibit downside. Finally, the Fed is unlikely to change its course and pause its hiking campaign. In fact, if a trade truce is so good for trade, it will give more reasons for the Fed to hike and may even incentivize Chinese authorities to abandon their efforts to cushion the Chinese economy against slowing global trade. Stay long the dollar and keep a defensive exposure in the FX market, one that favors the yen and the greenback at the expense of Scandinavian and commodity currencies. Buy EUR/CHF Despite our view that global growth is set to slow, we are inclined to buy EUR/CHF this week. We expect the Swiss National Bank to stop sitting on its hands as a stronger CHF is becoming too painful. First, as we highlighted last week, aggregate Swiss economic activity is slowing sharply.1 What is more concerning is that consumer spending is also suffering, as shown by the contraction in real retail sales (Chart I-11). This implies that despite record-low interest rates, Swiss households are feeling the pinch of the tightening in Swiss monetary conditions created by the stronger CHF. Chart I-11Swiss Households Are Feeling The Pinch Swiss Households Are Feeling The Pinch Swiss Households Are Feeling The Pinch Second, the franc remains a problem for Swiss competitiveness. As Chart I-12 shows, Swiss labor costs are completely out of line with its competitors. This phenomenon worsened significantly after 2008 due to the Franc’s strength vis-à-vis the euro. Despite the weakness in the franc from mid-January 2015 to April 2018, Swiss unit labor costs remain uncompetitive. This means that going forward, either the SNB will have to tolerate a further contraction in wages, something unpalatable as Swiss households have a debt load equal to 212% of disposable income, or the franc will have to fall. Chart I-12The CHF Makes Switzerland Uncompetitive The CHF Makes Switzerland Uncompetitive The CHF Makes Switzerland Uncompetitive Third, the franc’s recent strength is only accentuating the deflationary impact of softer global growth on the local economy. As Chart I-13 illustrates, the recent strengthening in the trade-weighted CHF portends to a potentially painful contraction in import prices, while core inflation is already well off the SNB’s 2% objective. Moreover, as the second panel of Chart I-13 shows, our CPI model suggests that Swiss inflation is about to fall into negative territory again. This would imply that not only will the Swiss economy suffer from the recent strengthening in the franc, but also that Swiss real interest rates are about to increase by 100 basis points, the last thing a slowing economy needs. Chart I-13Swiss Deflation Will Return Swiss Deflation Will Return Swiss Deflation Will Return This economic backdrop suggests to us that after 16 months where the SNB played nearly no active role in managing the CHF exchange rate, the Swiss central bank is about to come back to the market in order to limit the downside in EUR/CHF. This makes buying this cross attractive, as it offers a favorable asymmetric payoff. EUR/CHF generates a small positive carry, has limited downside and offers ample upside if the SNB intervenes – all while offering low volatility. Meanwhile, if global growth picks up, EUR/CHF should also rebound. In fact, the pro-cyclical behavior of EUR/CHF, as well as its asymmetric payoff, increases the attractiveness of this trade within our broadly defensive portfolio stance: It hedges us against being wrong on the global growth outlook and the importance of the trade truce. Furthermore, any resolution to Italy’s battle with Brussels will also boost this cross. Bottom Line: EUR/CHF normally depreciates when global growth slows. While this pattern materialized in 2018, we anticipate EUR/CHF to stabilize and potentially rally, even if global growth slows. The strong CHF is now causing serious pain to the Swiss economy, and the SNB will have to prevent any deepening of the malaise. The SNB is thus set to begin intervening in the market. Additionally, if we are wrong and global growth does not slow further, being long EUR/CHF provides a hedge to our defensive market stance. AUD/NOK To Be Knocked Down An attractive opportunity to sell AUD/NOK has emerged. First, on the back of the weakness in oil prices relative to metals prices, AUD/NOK has caught a furious bid in recent weeks (Chart I-14). However, we expect the underperformance of oil relative to metals to peter off. The main factor that has weighed on petroleum prices is that Saudi Arabia has kept extracting oil at full speed, expecting a shortage of oil in global markets once U.S. sanctions on Iran kicked in. Chart I-14AUD/NOK Strength: A Reflection Of Weak Crude Prices AUD/NOK Strength: A Reflection Of Weak Crude Prices AUD/NOK Strength: A Reflection Of Weak Crude Prices However, with President Trump greatly softening his stance and allowing exemptions for some countries to import Iranian oil, the crude market instead has experienced a mini unforeseen oil glut. OPEC 2.0, just agreed to essentially remedy this problem by limiting their oil output. This should boost oil prices. Meanwhile, slowing global growth centered on slowing Chinese capex will have a much deeper impact on industrial metals prices than on oil. This represents a negative terms-of-trade shock for Australia vis-à-vis Norway. Second, domestic economic conditions also favor betting on a weaker AUD/NOK. Australian nominal GDP growth often weakens when compared to Norway’s ahead of periods of depreciation in AUD/NOK. Today, Australia’s nominal GDP growth is sagging relative to Norway’s, and the contraction in Australia’s LEI relative to Norway suggests that this trend will deepen (Chart I-15). A rebound in oil prices relative to metals prices will only reinforce this process. Chart I-15Domestic Economic Conditions Point To A Lower AUD/NOK Domestic Economic Conditions Point To A Lower AUD/NOK Domestic Economic Conditions Point To A Lower AUD/NOK Third, AUD/NOK seems expensive relative to the anticipated path of policy of the Reserve Bank of Australia relative the Norges Bank (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Norwegian central bank has begun lifting rates, and since real interest rates in Norway are still negative, it will continue to tighten policy next year. Meanwhile, the RBA remains reticent to increase interest rates as Australian inflation and wage growth are still tepid. The recent deceleration in Australian GDP growth as well as budding problems in the Aussie real estate market will only further cajole the RBA in its reluctance to lift the cash rate higher. Hence, the real interest rate differentials will continue to point toward a lower AUD/NOK. Chart I-16AUD/NOK At A Premium To Expected Rates AUD/NOK At A Premium To Expected Rates AUD/NOK At A Premium To Expected Rates Fourth, AUD/NOK is once again very expensive, trading at a 12% premium to it purchasing power parity equilibrium (Chart I-17). It only traded for an extended period of time at a richer premium when Brent was free-falling to US$25/bbl. Since we anticipate oil to rebound, such a premium in AUD/NOK is unwarranted. Chart I-17AUD/NOK Is Pricey AUD/NOK Is Pricey AUD/NOK Is Pricey Finally, all our technical indicators show that AUD/NOK is massively overbought (Chart I-18). The study on momentum we conducted last year showed that out of 45 G-10 FX pairs tested, after AUD/SEK, AUD/NOK was the second worst one to implement momentum-continuation trades.2 As a result, we would anticipate that the recent period of overbought conditions will lead to a period of oversold conditions. Chart I-18The Mean-Reverting AUD/NOK Is Overbought The Mean-Reverting AUD/NOK Is Overbought The Mean-Reverting AUD/NOK Is Overbought Bottom Line: Selling AUD/NOK today makes sense. BCA anticipates oil prices to rebound relative to metals prices, the Australian economy is slowing relative to Norway’s, monetary policy is moving in a NOK-friendly fashion, AUD/NOK is expensive, and the cross is well-placed to experience a large episode of momentum reversal.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com  Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market”, dated November 30, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: The price component of the ISM manufacturing survey underperformed expectations, coming in at 60.7. This measure also declines sharply from the previous month. However, the headline ISM Manufacturing survey surprised to the upside, coming in at 59.3. Total vehicle sales also outperformed expectations, coming in at 17.50 million. The DXY U.S. dollar Index was flat for the past two weeks. We continue to be bullish on the U.S. dollar. The current environment of falling global growth and falling inflation has historically been very positive for this currency. Moreover, the fed will likely hike more than anticipated by the market, providing another tailwind for the dollar until at least the first quarter of 2019. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 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 Europe has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.7%. Moreover, core inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 1%. However, market services and composite PMI surprised positively, coming in at 53.4 and 52.7 respectively. EUR/USD has been flat for the past two weeks. We are bearish on the euro, given that we expect Chinese tightening to continue to weigh on global growth. Furthermore, recent disappointment in euro area inflation confirms our view that it will be very difficult for the ECB to tighten policy. This means that rate differentials will continue to move against EUR/USD. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Evaluating The ECB’s Options In December - November 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Nikkei manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 52.2. Moreover, housing starts yearly growth came in line with expectations, at 0.3%. However, Markit Services PMI came in at 52.3, decreasing from last month’s number. USD/JPY has decreased by -0.4% these past two weeks. We are positive on the yen for the first quarter of 2019. The current risk off environment should be positive for safe havens like the yen. We are particularly negative on EUR/JPY, as this cross is very well correlated with bond yields, which should keep decreasing as markets continue to sell off. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Nationwide housing prices yearly growth came in at 1.9%, outperforming expectations. Moreover, Markit manufacturing PMI as well as construction PMI both surprised positively, coming in at 53.1 and 53.4 respectively. However, Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 50.4. GBP/USD has decreased by 0.7% these past two weeks. The pound continues to be a complex currency to forecast. While the pound is cheap and makes for a potentially attractive long-term buy, current political risk continue to make a shorter-term position very risky. Report Links: Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.8%. Moreover, building permits month-on-month growth also surprised negatively, coming in at -1.5%. Finally, construction done also surprised to the downside, coming in at -2.8%. AUD/USD has decreased by -0.5% these past two weeks. We believe that the AUD is the currency with the most potential downside in the G10. After all, the Australian economy is the economy in the G10 most leveraged to the Chinese industrial cycle, due to Australia’s high reliance on industrial metal exports. This means that the continued tightening by Chinese authorities should be most toxic for this currency. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Building permits month on month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. However, retail sales as well as retail sales ex-autos both declines from the previous quarter, coming in at 0% and 0.4%. NZD/USD has increased by 1% these past two weeks. After being bullish in the NZD for a couple of months, we have recently turned bearish, as we believe that this currency is very likely to suffer in the current environment of declining inflation and global growth. With that said, we remain bullish on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been positive: Retail sales month on month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.2%. Moreover, headline inflation also surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.4%. Finally, the BOC core inflation measure increased from last month’s number, coming in at 1.6%. USD/CAD has risen by 1.7% these past two weeks. A lot of this weakness was caused by the dovish communication of the Bank of Canada following their announcement to keep rates on hold at 1.75%. This change in stance is likely a response to the collapse in oil prices in the past months. With that in mind, we are inclined to believe that the CAD might be reaching oversold levels, as oil is likely to stabilize and the economy continue to show signs of strength. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.4%. Moreover, the KOF leading indicator also surprised to the downside, coming in at 99.1. Finally, headline inflation also surprised negatively, coming in at 0.9%. EUR/CHF has decreased by 0.5% these past two weeks. Our bullish view on EUR/CHF is a high conviction view for the first part of 2019. This is because the recent strength in the franc is choking out any inflationary pressures in the Swiss economy. Thus, we are reaching the threshold at which the SNB is very likely to intervene in the currency market to prevent the franc’s strength from derailing the path toward the inflation target. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been negative: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2%. Moreover, registered unemployment also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.3%. Finally, the credit indicator came in line with expectations at 5.7%. USD/NOK has been flat these past two weeks. We are shorting AUD/NOK this week, as a way to take advantage of stabilizing oil prices and a continued growth slowdown in China. Moreover, AUD/NOK is expensive in PPP terms, and is technically overbought. Finally, this currency shows one the most mean reverting tendencies in the G10, which means that the recent surge in this cross is likely to reverse. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 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 has been negative: Consumer confidence underperformed expectations, coming in at 97.5. Moreover, retail sales growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.1%. Finally, gross domestic product yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 1.6%. USD/SEK has fallen by roughly 1% these past two weeks. On a short-term basis, we are negative on the krona, given that this currency is very sensitive to global growth dynamics, which means that the continued tightening by both Chinese authorities and the Fed will create a headwind for any SEK rally. That being said, on a longer-term basis we are more positive on the krona, as the Riksbank continues to be too dovish given the current inflationary backdrop. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades