Currencies
NOTE: There will be a few minor scheduling changes to BCA's China Investment Strategy service in July. We will publishing next week's report and the report scheduled on July 25 one day late, on Thursday, July 5 and 26, respectively. There will also be no report on Wednesday, July 18 due to our regular summer break. Highlights In response to the sharp spike in the risk of a full-blown U.S./China trade war, many market participants have concluded that significant fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. But for now, a depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it also increases the risk that the U.S. will follow through with the worst of their threats. Despite two conceivable upside scenarios for the equity market, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan trade for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Feature Chart 1A Decisive Technical Breakdown In ##br##Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global In a Special Alert last week, we recommended that investors downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers to neutral from overweight,1 after having placed them on downgrade watch at the end of March.2 Our recommendation was made in response to the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector, a significant escalation in the imposition of import tariffs between the U.S. and China, and an unfavorable shift in the risk/reward balance of global risky asset prices.3 It was also timely, as Chinese ex-tech stock prices have now decisively broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart 1). Following our shift in stance, the question facing BCA's China team, as well as global investors, is straightforward: Now what? Stimulus Watch The answer to this question among many market participants is that fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. We have no doubt that China will announce some remedial or compensatory measures in response to protectionist action from the U.S. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. However, we have argued that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past, and we continue to hold this view. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy likely needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid with enough magnitude to potentially spark another upswing in economic activity. Below we outline a few perspectives on the potential for stimulus, and how investors can gauge whether policymakers are deploying enough stimulus to materially impact China's economic outlook: Fiscal Stimulus The MOF's statement reflects the first fiscal policy action that China would likely take to combat any economic weakness, which is to speed up spending that has already been approved but was planned to occur later in the year. But from the perspective of whether a policy action is likely to materially boost economic activity, frontloading pre-approved spending would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure. In our view, tracking China's budgetary government finance data represents the best method for investors to determine whether policymakers are truly stimulating via the fiscal channel. While it is true that China's shadow budget deficit is much larger than the official data show (Chart 2), there is a crucial aspect of China's recent mini-cycle that is not well understood by many investors: almost all of the expansion of China's fiscal stance from 2014-16 was from on-budget rather than off-budget spending. Given that China has been trying to limit off-budget spending as part of its structural reform program, our sense is that this time won't be different if China decides that significant fiscal stimulus is required. This is good news for investors, given that on-budget spending is easier to observe in real-time, and Chart 3 presents two simple measures that we are using to monitor China's fiscal stance, alongside their year-over-year changes: on-budget expenditure and the on-budget balance, both as a % of GDP. Based on these measures there are no signs yet that the fiscal stance is easing (in fact, the opposite has occurred over the past year), but we will watching Chart 3 closely over the coming months for any indication of a change. Chart 2China's Shadow Budget Deficit Is Large... Chart 3...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget Monetary Stimulus In our judgement, the recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio is not likely to be effective at stimulating the domestic economy. Investors should note that the initial reaction of many market participants to the April 17 reserve requirement ratio cut of 1% was that it represented a shift in the PBOC's policy stance towards easing, which ultimately proved to be a false narrative. Chart 4 shows China's 3-month interbank repo rate (China's de-facto policy rate which leads average lending rates), and highlights the timing of two specific events: March 28, when news broke that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, and April 17, when the PBOC announced its targeted reserve requirement ratio cut. The chart makes it clear that the decline in the repo rate was in response to the deadline extension rather than the repo rate cut. This is entirely consistent with the findings of our February 22 Special Report,4 particularly the fact that 75% of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016 has been regulatory in nature. We have previously argued that the dip in the repo rate in response to the deadline extension would probably be temporary,5 and Chart 4 shows that the rate has indeed increased over that past two months. In short, there is no evidence that the April 17 reserve ratio cut had any measurable effect on the stance of monetary policy in China. Given this, there are two key points for investors. The first is that small cuts to the reserve requirement ratio should be viewed, at best, as remedial measures that may help blunt the impact of shock to the export sector, but they are unlikely to alter the downward trajectory of the "old economy" (the portion of China's economy that is most relevant to global investors). The second is that if cuts to the reserve requirement ratio or any other monetary policy action stimulates the provision of credit via easier lending standards (rather than by reducing the cost of borrowing), their effect should result in a pickup in broad measures of credit growth rather than a reduction in interest rates. Chart 5 highlights that, for now, no such pickup has occurred; adjusted total social financing, which excludes equity issuance but includes municipal bonds, remains in a downtrend. This series, along with its impulse equivalent, are both included in the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator which is at the core of our efforts to monitor the cyclical condition of China's business cycle. Chart 4No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates Chart 5No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards The Exchange Rate BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has recently argued that China is likely to retaliate to a potential tariff imposition by weakening CNY/USD. This would have the effect of improving the competitiveness of exports priced in RMB, or would bolster the revenue of exporters selling goods priced in U.S. dollars (by way of receiving more RMB after converting the dollars received). Evidence has emerged over the past week to suggest that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar. Chart 6 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have, until very recently, reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar. However, the chart shows that CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the U.S. dollar, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 6The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate We agree that depreciating the currency versus the U.S. dollar will improve the financial condition of domestic exporters, but we would also caution investors against looking at a deep depreciation in CNY/USD in an encouraging light. We have noted in previous reports that such a development would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China, and in this context currency deprecation should still be classified as just a remedial measure (i.e. it is unlikely to lead to a renewed upswing in Chinese economic activity). Bottom Line: A depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it may also invite even further protectionist action from the U.S. Investment Recommendations Our recommendation to cut Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral means that investors should be looking both for upside and downside risks when judging when to make their next allocation shift. For now, our discussion above underscores that we view the risks largely to the downside. The scenario that would cause us to further downgrade Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio is not difficult to imagine: the worst outcome in the U.S. / China trade dispute materializes, the global economy slows meaningfully, and the inertia from the ongoing structural reform program causes Chinese policymakers to limit their stimulus to compensatory, remedial measures until a painful slowdown emerges in the domestic economy. We are not yet past the "point of no return" on the way to this outcome, but the events of the past two weeks have clearly moved us further along the path. Conversely, there are two scenarios that we can envision that could cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks back to overweight: Chart 7Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold A protectionist exchange occurs between China and the U.S. but fails to devolve to the most damaging outcome. China's remedial measures are successful at easing the pain from tariffs on domestic producers, and the economic outlook stabilizes. In this scenario the most acute risk would be removed, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's "old economy" would be intact. In this case we would be more comfortable upgrading Chinese stocks if there was an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or some reversal of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016. But a significant, exogenous acceleration in economic activity from some other sector of China's economy would also fit the bill, and we have argued in past reports that housing appears to be the best candidate. Chart 7 highlights that residential sales volume may now be in a gradual uptrend, which could translate into stronger construction in the months ahead. The second scenario that would cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks is straightforward: Chinese policymakers determine that the risks to growth from an export shock are unacceptably large given the existing slowdown in the industrial sector, and decide to temporarily reverse course on the structural reform path by opting for "big bang" fiscal and/or monetary stimulus. A significant and highly investment-relevant mini-cycle upswing occurred in China the last time that the authorities strongly prioritized growth, and we will watching closely for real indications of a shift in attitude in this direction. For now our judgement is that policymakers have a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this is outcome is not yet probable. Related to our decision to downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral within a global equity portfolio, we have three updates to our trade book: We are closing our long MSCI China / short MSCI Taiwan position and upgrading our Taiwanese cyclical stance to neutral: Despite being massively overweight technology stocks, Chart 8 highlights that Taiwan is a comparatively low-beta equity market versus China. Our trade has generated a 21% return since we initiated it in February 2017, and we believe it is time to book profits. Given Taiwan's small size it is actually possible that its economy and/or equity market will suffer disproportionately if the worst U.S. / China trade outcome materializes, which could cause us to revisit the trade. But for now our judgement is that a neutral position is warranted. We are sticking with our long China onshore corporate bond trade: We would certainly expect credit spreads on Chinese corporate bonds to flare in response to a deteriorating economic outlook, but we highlighted in our June 13 Weekly Report how high the bar is for investors to lose money on these bonds.6 In short, China's corporate bond market already offers a margin of safety given its high yield and a comparatively short duration, and we do not see recent developments on the trade front as a sufficiently compelling reason to exit the trade. We are initiating a new trade - within the MSCI China index, long low-beta sectors / short benchmark: Chart 9 presents the relative US$ stock price return of a portfolio of low-beta level 1 GICS sectors within the MSCI China index, relative to the index itself. Our methodology in calculating the portfolio is the same as that employed in the A-share factor analysis that we presented in our June 13 report; namely it is a value-weighted portfolio of sectors with below-median rolling 1-year market beta.7 The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed over time, but sold off quite substantially last year as the high-flying tech sector boosted the performance of the overall index. The relative performance trend for low-beta has recently strengthened and crossed above its 200-day moving average, which we regard as a supportive technical signal to initiate the trade. Chart 8Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Chart 9Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Bottom Line: Despite two potential upside scenarios, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Alert "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The current sector weights of the portfolio are: 26% telecom services, 24% industrials, 19% health care, 16% utilities, and 14% consumer staples. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights BCA's Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) confirms that we live in a multipolar world; Most of President Trump's policies are designed to strike out against this structural reality; Trade war with China is real and presents the premier geopolitical risk in 2018; President Trump's aggression towards G7 allies boils down to greater NAFTA risk; We remain bullish USD, bearish EM, maintain our short U.S. China-exposed equities and closing all our "bullish" NAFTA trades; Remain short GBP/USD, Theresa May's days appear numbered. Feature "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning." Candidate Donald Trump, May 26, 2016 In 2013, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy introduced the concept of multipolarity into our financial lexicon.1 Multipolarity is a term in political science that denotes when the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). At the time, the evidence that U.S. global hegemony was in retreat was plentiful, but the idea of a U.S. decline was still far from consensus. By late 2016, however, President Donald Trump was overtly campaigning on it. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised to reverse the process by striking out at the perceived causes of the decline: globalization, unchecked illegal immigration, and the ineffective foreign policy of the D.C. establishment. How can we quantitatively prove that the world is multipolar? We recently enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI) with our own measure, the Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). The original index, created for the Correlates of War project in 1963, had grown outdated. Its reliance on "military personnel" and "iron and steel production" harkened back to the late nineteenth century and overstated the power of China (Chart 1). Chart 1The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power Our own index avoids these pitfalls, while retaining the parsimony of the NCI, by focusing on six key factors: Population: We adapted the original population measure by penalizing countries with large dependency ratios. Yes, having a vast population matters, but having too many dependents (the elderly and youth) can strain resources otherwise available for global power projection. Global Economic Relevance: The original index failed to capture a country's relevance for the global economy. Designed at the height of the Cold War, the NCI did not foresee today's globalized future. As such, we modified the original index by introducing a measure that captures a country's contribution to global final demand. The more an economy imports, the greater its bargaining power in terms of trade and vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. Arms Exports: Having a large army is no longer as relevant now that wars have become a high-tech affair. To capture that reality, we replaced the NCI's focus on the number of soldiers with arms exports as a share of the global defense industry. We retained the original three variables that measure primary energy consumption, GDP, and overall military expenditure. Chart 2 shows the updated data. As expected, the U.S. is in decline, having lost nearly a third of its quantitatively measured geopolitical power since 1998. Over the same period, China has gone from having just 30% of U.S. geopolitical power to over 80%. Other countries, like Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, have also seen an increase in geopolitical power over the same period, confirming their roles as regional powers (Chart 3). Chart 2BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Chart 3China Was Not The Only EM To Rise President Trump was elected with the mandate of changing the trajectory of American power and getting the country back on a "winning" path. Investors can perceive nearly all the moves by the administration - from protectionist actions against China and traditional allies, to applying a "Maximum Pressure" doctrine against North Korea and Iran - as a fight against the structural decline of U.S. power. Isn't President Trump "tilting at windmills"? Fighting a vain battle against imaginary adversaries? Yes. The decline of the U.S. is a product of classic imperial overstretch combined with the natural lifecycle of any global hegemon. U.S. policymakers have made decisions that have hastened the decline, but the overarching American geopolitical trajectory would have been negative regardless: Global peace brought prosperity which strengthened Emerging Markets (EM), particularly China, relative to the U.S. That said, Trump is not as crazy as the media often imply. Chaos is not necessarily bad for a domestically driven economy secured by two oceans. The U.S. tends to outperform the rest of the world - economically, financially, and geopolitically - amid turbulence. Our own updated GPI shows that both World Wars were massively favorable for U.S. hegemony (Chart 4), although this time around the chaos is mostly self-inflicted. Chart 4America Profits From Chaos Similarly, Trump's economic populism at home is buoying sentiment and assuaging the negative consequences - real or imagined - of his protectionism. Meanwhile, the threat of tariffs is souring the mood abroad. This policy mix is causing U.S. assets to outperform (Chart 5). Most importantly, the U.S. dollar is now up 2.7% since the beginning of the year, putting pressure on EM assets. When combined with continued counter-cyclical structural reforms in China, we maintain that the overall macro and geopolitical context remains bearish for global risk assets. This is not the first time that an American president has deployed both an aggressive trade policy and an aggressive foreign policy. The difference, this time around, is that the world is multipolar. A defining feature of multipolarity is that it is less predictable and more likely to produce inter-state conflict (Chart 6). As more countries matter - geopolitically, economically, financially - the number of "veto players" rises, making stable equilibria more difficult to produce. As such, bullying as a negotiating tactic worked when used by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton, but may not work today. Investors should therefore prepare for a long period of uncertainty this summer as the world responds to a U.S. administration focused on "winning." Chart 5U.S. Assets Outperform Chart 6Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Bottom Line: There is a clear logic behind President Trump's foreign and trade policy. He is trying to reverse a decline in U.S. hegemony. The problem is that his policy decisions are unlikely to address the structural causes of America's decline. What is much more likely is that his policy will cause the rest of the world to react in unpredictable ways. The U.S. may benefit, but that is not a forgone conclusion. Investors should position themselves for a volatile summer. Below we review three key issues, two negative and one positive. The U.S. Vs. China: The Trade War Is Real The Trump administration has announced that it will go ahead with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in retaliation for forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The tariffs will come in two tranches beginning on July 6. China will respond proportionately, based on both its statements and its response to the steel and aluminum tariffs (Chart 7). If the two sides stop here, then perhaps the trade war can be delayed. But Trump is already saying he will impose tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. At that point, if Beijing re-retaliates, China's proportionate response will cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports (Chart 8). Retaliation will have to occur elsewhere. Chart 7Trump's Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Chart 8Trump's Tariffs On China We would expect the CNY/USD to weaken as negotiations fail. We would also expect tensions to continue spilling over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement.2 The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.3 Chart 9Downside Risks Continue It is critical to distinguish between the U.S. trade conflict with China and the one with the G7. In the latter case, the U.S. political establishment will push against the Trump administration, encouraging him to compromise. With China, however, Congress is becoming the aggressor and we certainly do not expect the Defense Department or the intelligence community to play the peacemaker with Beijing. In particular, members of Congress are trying to cancel Trump's ZTE deal while expanding the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restrict Chinese investments.4 These congressional factors underscore our theme that U.S.-China tensions are structural and secular.5 Would China stimulate its economy to negate the effects of tariffs? We see nothing yet on the policy side to warrant a change in our fundamental view, which holds that any stimulus will be limited due to the agenda of containing systemic financial risk. Credit growth remains weak and fiscal spending has not yet perked up (Chart 9), portending weak Chinese imports and negative outcomes for EM. The risk to Chinese growth remains to the downside this year (and likely next year) as the government continues with the reforms. Critically, stimulus is not the only possible Chinese response to trade war. A trade war with the United States will provide Xi with a "foreign devil" on whom he can blame the pain of structural reforms. As such, it is entirely possible that Beijing doubles-down on reforms in light of an aggressive U.S. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war is beginning and will cause additional market volatility and, potentially, a "black swan" event, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. We do not expect 2015-style economic stimulus from Beijing. Stay long U.S. small caps relative to large caps; short U.S. China-exposed equities; and remain short EM equities relative to DM. The U.S. Vs. The G6: This Is About NAFTA There was little rhyme or reason to President Trump's smackdown of traditional U.S. allies at the G7 summit in Quebec. As our colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, the U.S. is throwing stones while living in a glass house.6 While the overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is low, the U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum (Chart 10). The decision to launch an investigation into whether automobile imports "threaten to impair the national security" of the U.S. - under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - falls into the same rubric of empty threats. The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on imported light trucks since 1964, a decision that likely caused its car companies to become addicted to domestic pickup truck demand to the detriment of global competitiveness. Meanwhile, only 15% of U.S. autos shipped to the EU were subject to the infamous European 10% surcharge on auto imports. This is because U.S. autos containing European parts are exempt from the tariff. Many foreign auto manufacturers have already adjusted to the U.S. market, setting up manufacturing inside the country (Chart 11). Tariffs would hurt luxury brands like BMW, Daimler, Volvo, and Jaguar.7 As such, we doubt the investment-relevance of Trump's threat against autos. Either way, the investigation is unlikely to be completed until the tail-end of Q1 2019. Chart 10Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 11Car Imports? What Imports? Instead, investors should take Trump's aggressive comments from the G7 in the context of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the closing window for a deal. President Trump wants to get a NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November and prior to the new Mexican Congress being inaugurated on September 1.8 This means that a deal has to be concluded by late July, or early August, giving the "old" Mexican Congress enough time to ratify it before the new president - likely Andrés Manuel López Obrador - comes to power on December 1. This would conceivably give the U.S. Congress enough time to ratify a deal by December, assuming Republicans can remove some procedural hurdles before then. The rising probability of no resolution before the U.S. midterm election will increase the risk that Trump will trigger Article 2205 and announce the U.S.'s withdrawal. Trump has always had the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on Canada and Mexico. Withdrawing might fire up the base, while major concessions from Canada or Mexico might be presented as "victories" to voters. Anything short of these binary outcomes is useless to Trump on November 6. Therefore, if Canada and Mexico do not relent in the next month or two, the odds of Trump triggering Article 2205 will shoot up. The key is that Trump faces limited legal or economic constraints in withdrawing: Legal Constraints: Not only can Trump unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, triggering the six-month exit period, but Congress is unlikely to stop him. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act.9 Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue to be implemented, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. Economic Constraints: The U.S. economy has far less exposure to Canada and Mexico than vice- versa (Chart 12). Certain states and industries would be heavily affected - ironically, the U.S. auto industry would be most severely impacted (Chart 13) - and they would lobby aggressively to save the agreement. But with the American economy hyper-charged with stimulus, the drag from leaving NAFTA is not prohibitive to Trump. Voters will feel any pocketbook consequences about three months late i.e., after the election. Chart 12U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 13NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto ##br##Manufacturing More Competitive The potential saving grace for Canada is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989 and was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed through an exchange of letters to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA took effect, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, reinstating CUSFTA is not straightforward. The NAFTA Implementation Act suspends some aspects of the CUSFTA and amends others (for instance, on customs fees), so there will not be an easy transition from NAFTA to a fully operational CUSFTA.10 Trump may well walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation, or he could walk away from NAFTA while leaving CUSFTA in limbo. The latter would mitigate the negative impact on Canada, but it would still see rising tariffs, customs fees, and rising policy uncertainty. Bottom Line: We originally assigned a high probability to the abrogation of NAFTA.11 Subsequently, we lowered the probability due to positive comments from the White House and Trump's negotiating team. This was a mistake. As we initially posited, there are few constraints to abrogating NAFTA, particularly if President Trump intends to renegotiate the deal later, or conclude two separate bilateral deals that effectively maintain the same trade relationship. We are closing our trade favoring an equally-weighted basket of CAD/EUR and MXN/EUR. We are also closing our trade favoring Mexican local government bonds relative to EM. North Korea: A Geopolitical Opportunity, Not A Risk Not every move by the Trump administration is increasing geopolitical volatility. Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine may have elevated risks on the Korean Peninsula in 2017, but it ultimately worked. The media is missing the big picture on the Singapore Summit. Diplomacy is on track and geopolitical risk - namely the risk of war on the peninsula - is fading. It is false to claim that President Trump got nothing in return for the summit. Since November 28, North Korea has moderated its belligerent threats, ceased conducting missile tests, released three U.S. political prisoners, and largely blocked off access to the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. Now, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has held the summit with Trump, reaffirmed his longstanding promise of "complete denuclearization," reaffirmed the peace-seeking April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration with South Korea, and pledged to dismantle a ballistic missile testing site and continue negotiations. In response, President Trump has given security guarantees to the North Korean regime and has pledged to discontinue U.S.-South Korea military drills for the duration of the negotiations. Trump has not yet eased economic sanctions and his administration has ruled out troop withdrawals from South Korea for now. There is much diplomatic work to be done. But the summit was undoubtedly a positive sign, dialogue is continuing at lower levels, and Kim is expected to visit the White House in the near future. Table 1 shows that the Singapore Summit is substantial when compared with major U.S.-North Korea agreements and inter-Korean summits - and it is unprecedented in that it was agreed between American and North Korean leaders. Table 1How The Singapore Summit Stacks Up To Previous Pacts With North Korea Because Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, and China enforced sanctions, the foundation is firmer than that of President Barack Obama's April 2012 agreement to provide food aid in payment for a cessation of nuclear and missile activity. It is much more similar to that of President Clinton and the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, which lasted until 2002, despite many serious failures on both the U.S. and North Korean sides. We should also bear in mind that it was originally U.S. Congress, not North Korea, which undermined the 1994 agreement. Aside from removing war risk, Korean diplomacy is of limited global significance. It marginally improves the outlook for South Korean industrials, energy, telecoms, and consumer staples relative to their EM peers (Chart 14). In the long run it should also be positive for the KRW. Chart 14Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement We maintain that a U.S.-China trade war will not be prevented because of a Korean deal. But we do not expect China to spoil the negotiations. Geopolitically, China benefits from reducing the basis for U.S. forces to be stationed in South Korea. Bottom Line: Go long a "peace dividend" basket of South Korean equity sectors (industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms) and short South Korean "loser" sectors (financials, IT, consumer discretionary, and health care), both relative to their EM peers. Stick to our Korean 2-year/10-year sovereign bond curve steepener trade. Brexit Update: A New Election Is Now In Play Prime Minister Theresa May is fending off a revolt within her Conservative Party this week that could set the course for a new election this year. May reneged on a "compromise" with soft-Brexit/Bremain Tory backbenchers on an amendment that would have given the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the final U.K.-EU Brexit deal. According to the press, the compromise was killed by her own Brexit Secretary, David Davis. There is a fundamental problem with Brexit. The current path towards a hard Brexit, pushed on May by hard-Brexit members of her cabinet and articulated in her January 2017 speech, is incompatible with her party's preferences. According to their pre-referendum preferences, a majority of Tory MPs identified with the Bremain campaign ahead of the referendum (Chart 15). That would suggest that a vast majority prefer a soft Brexit today, if not staying in the EU. We would go further. The current trajectory is incompatible with the democratic preferences of the U.K. public. First, polls are showing rising opposition to Brexit (Chart 16). Second, most voters who chose to vote for Brexit in 2016 did so under the assumption that the Conservative Party would pursue a soft Brexit, including continued membership in the Common Market. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister, famously stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 Chart 15Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Chart 16Bremain On The Rise So what happens now? We expect the government to be defeated on the crucial amendment giving Westminster the right to vote on the final EU-U.K. deal. If that happens, PM May could be replaced by a hard-Brexit prime minister, most likely Davis. Given the lack of support for an actual hard-Brexit outcome - both in Westminster and among the public - we believe that a new election remains likely by March 2019. Bottom Line: Political risk remains elevated in the U.K. A new election could resolve this risk, but the potential for a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party to win the election could add additional political risk to U.K. assets. We remain short GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Senate has passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act with a rider that would boost CFIUS and maintain stringent restrictions on ZTE's business with the U.S. These restrictions have crippled the company but would have been removed under the Trump administration's snap deal in June. The White House claims it will remove the rider when the House and Senate hold a conference to resolve differences between their versions of the defense bill, but it is not clear that the White House will succeed. Congress could test Trump's veto. If Trump does not veto he will break a personal promise to Xi Jinping and escalate the trade war further than perhaps even he intended. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status," dated June 15, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 We do not include Porsche in this list as we would gladly pay the 25% tariff on top of its current price. 8 Mexican elections for both president and Congress will take place on July 1, but the new Congress will sit on September 1 while the new president will take office on December 1. 9 Please see Lori Wallach, "Presidential Authority to Terminate NAFTA Without Congressional Approval," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, November 13, 2017, available at www.citizen.org. 10 The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, "Issues Surrounding US Withdrawal From NAFTA," available from GHY International at www.ghy.com. See also Dan Ciuriak, "What if the United States Walks Away From NAFTA?" C. D. Howe Institute Intelligence Memos, dated November 27, 2017, available at www.cdhowe.org. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Global Inflation has upside on a cyclical basis, but this narrative is well known and investors have already placed their bets accordingly, buying inflation protection in a wide swath of markets. However, global growth has not yet found its footing, suggesting a mini-deflation scare, at least relative to expectations, is likely this summer. The U.S. dollar will benefit in such a scenario, and NOK/SEK will depreciate. While GBP/USD has downside, the pound should rally versus the euro. Weakness in EUR/CAD has not yet fully played out; the recent bout of strength was only a countertrend move. Feature Inflation is coming back, and this will obviously have major consequences for both asset and currency markets. However, macro investing is not just about forecasting fundamentals correctly; often, just as importantly, it is about understanding how other investors have priced in these expected economic developments. Therein lies the problem. While we understand why inflation could pick up, so too have most investors, and they have positioned themselves accordingly. With global growth currently looking shaky, we believe a better entry point for long-inflation plays will emerge in the coming months. In the meanwhile, a defensive, pro-U.S. dollar posture still makes sense. Investors Are Long Inflation Bets We have long argued that inflation was likely to make a cyclical comeback, a return that would begin in the U.S. before spreading to the rest of the globe. This story is currently playing out. However, in response these developments, investors have placed their bets accordingly, and the story currently seems well baked in. Prices of assets traditionally levered to inflation have already moved to discount a significant pick-up in inflation. The most evident dynamics can be observed in the U.S. inflation breakevens. Both the 10-year breakevens as well as the 5-year/5-year forward breakevens just experienced some of their sharpest two-year changes of the past 20 years, notwithstanding the pricing out of a post-Lehman, depression-like outcome (Chart I-1). Breakevens are not alone. Other assets have displayed similar behavior. In the U.S., investors have aggressively sold their holdings of utilities stocks, which have been greatly outperformed by industrial stocks. Traditionally, investors lift the price of XLI relative to that of XLU when they anticipate global inflation to pick up (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Markets Are Positioning Themselves##br## For Higher Inflation Chart I-2U.S. Sectoral Performance Suggests Investors ##br##Have Already Bet On Higher Inflation... It is not just intra-equity market dynamics that support this assertion. The behavior of the U.S. stock market relative to Treasurys further buttresses the idea that investors have already aggressively discounted an upturn in global consumer prices (Chart I-3). Potentially, the best illustration of investors' preference for inflation protection is currently visible in EM assets. A seemingly paradoxical phenomenon has been puzzling us: How have EM equities managed to avoid the gravitational pull that has caused EM bonds to nearly flirt with the nadir of early 2016? After all, EM equities, EM currencies and EM bonds are normally closely correlated, driven by investors' wagers on the direction of global growth. A simple variable can explain this strange dichotomy: anticipated inflation. As Chart I-4 illustrates, the performance of a volatility adjusted long EM stocks / short EM bonds portfolio tends to anticipate fluctuations in global inflation. The current price action in this basket indicates that investors have made their bets, and they think inflation is going up. Chart I-3...So Does The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Chart I-4Inflation Bets Explain Why EM Stocks And EM Bond Prices Have Diverged Anecdotal evidence suggests that in recent quarters, pension plans have been aggressive buyers of commodities - a move that normally coincides with these long-term investors putting in place some inflation hedges. Moreover, positioning in the futures markets corroborates these stories: speculators are still very long commodities like copper and oil - commodities traditionally perceived as efficient protectors against inflation spikes (Chart I-5). Finally, despite the potentially deflationary risks created by Italy three weeks ago, speculators remain short U.S. Treasury futures, bond investors are underweight duration, and sentiment toward the bond market remains near its lowest levels of the past eight years (Chart I-6). Again, this behavior is consistent with investors being positioned for an inflationary environment. Chart I-5Money Has Flown Into Resources Chart I-6Bond Market Positioning Is Still Very Short Bottom Line: There is a well-defined case to be made that a global economy that was not so long ago defined by the presence of deflationary risks is now morphing into a world where inflation is on the upswing. However, based on inflation breakevens, sectoral relative performance, equities relative to bonds in both DM and EM as well as on the positioning of investors in commodity and bond markets, this changing state has been quickly discounted by investors. The Decks Are Stacked, But Where Does The Economic Risk Lie? The problem facing investors already long inflation protection every which way they can be is that the global economy is slowing, which normally elicits deflationary fears, not inflationary ones. This seems a recipe for disappointment, albeit one that is likely to help the dollar. Our global economic and financial A/D line, which tallies the proportion of key variables around the world moving in a growth-friendly fashion, has fallen precipitously. This normally heralds a slowdown in global economic activity (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Losing Traction In similar vein, global leading economic indicators have also begun to roll over - a trend that could gain further vigor if the diffusion index of OECD economies experiencing rising versus contracting LEIs is to be believed (Chart I-8). The global liquidity picture has also deteriorated enough to warrant caution. Currency carry strategies - as approximated by the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen - have sagged violently. This tells us that funds are flowing out of EM economies and moving back to countries already replete with excess savings like Japan or Switzerland (Chart I-9). Historically, these kinds of negative developments for global liquidity have preceded industrial slowdowns, as EM now accounts for the lion's share of global IP growth. Finally, China doesn't yet look set to bail out the world's industrial sector. This month's money and credit numbers were weaker than anticipated, and our leading indicator for the Li-Keqiang index - our preferred gauge of industrial activity in the Middle Kingdom - points to further weakness (Chart I-10). This makes it unlikely that China's imports will rise, lifting global growth. Additionally, China has re-stocked in various commodities, suggesting it is front-running its own domestic demand, highlighting the risk that its commodities intake could become even weaker than what domestic growth implies. Chart I-8More Weakness In LEIs Chart I-9Global Liquidity Tightening Chart I-10China Not Yet Set To Bail Out The World With this kind of backdrop, we expect the current slowdown in global growth to run further before ebbing, probably in response to what will be a policy move out some kind from China to put a floor under growth. As a result, the current infatuation with inflation hedges among investors may wane for a bit as slower growth could shock inflation expectations downward, especially in a global context that has been defined by excess capacity since the late 1990s. An environment where global inflation expectations could be downgraded in response to slower growth is likely to be an environment where the dollar performs well, particularly as U.S. growth continues to outperform global growth (Chart I-11). This also confirms our analysis from two weeks ago that showed that when bonds rally the dollar tends to outperform most currencies, with the exception of the yen.1 Moreover, with the Federal Open Market Committee upgrading its path for interest rates by one additional hike in 2018, this reinforces the message from our previous work noting that once the fed funds rate moves in the vicinity of r-star, the dollar performs well, nearly eradicating the losses it incurred when the fed funds rate rises but is well below the neutral rate (Table I-1). This is especially true if vulnerability to higher rates rests outside - not inside - the U.S., as is currently the case.2 Chart I-11The Dollar Likes Lower Global Inflation Table I-1Fed And The Dollar: Where We Stand Matters As Much As The Direction Beyond the dollar, one particular currency cross has historically been a good correlate to investors betting on higher inflation: NOK/SEK. As Chart I-12 illustrates, when investors buy inflation hedges such as going long EM equities relative to EM bonds, this generates a rally in NOK/SEK. These dynamics played in our favor when we were long this cross earlier this year. However, not only are EM equities extended relative to EM bonds, the current economic environment portends a growing risk of investors curtailing these kinds of bets. The implication is bearish for NOK/SEK, and we recommend investors sell this cross at current levels. Chart I-12NOK/SEK Suffers If Inflation Bets Are Unwound Bottom Line: Investors have quickly and aggressively positioned themselves to protect their portfolios against upside inflation risks. However, the global economy is still slowing - a development that has further to run. As a result, this current anticipation of inflation could easily morph into a temporary fear of deflation, at least relative to lofty expectations. This would undo the dynamics previously seen in the market. This is historically an environment in which the dollar performs well, suggesting the greenback rally is not over. Moreover, NOK/SEK could suffer in this environment. The Bad News Is Baked Into The Pound There is no denying that the data flow out of the U.K. has been poor of late. In fact, despite what was already a low bar for expectations, the U.K. economy has managed to generate large negative surprises (Chart I-13). One of the direct drivers of this poor performance has been the complete meltdown in the British credit impulse (Chart I-14). Additionally, the slowdown in British manufacturing can be easily understood in the context of slowing global growth (Chart I-15). Chart I-13Anarchy In The U.K. Chart I-14The Credit Impulse Has Bitten Chart I-15U.K. Exports Are Slowing Because Of Global Growth But, the bad new seems well priced into the pound, especially when compared to the euro. Not only is the GBP trading at a discount to the EUR on our fundamental and Intermediate-term timing models, speculators have accumulated near-record short bets on the pound versus the euro (Chart I-16). This begs the question: Could any positive factor come in and surprise investors, resulting in a fall in EUR/GBP? We think the answer to this question is yes. First, despite the negatives already priced in, incremental bad news have had little traction in dragging the pound lower versus the euro in recent weeks, suggesting that EUR/GBP buying has become exhausted. Second, a falling EUR/USD tends to weigh on EUR/GBP, as the pound tends to act as a low-beta version of the euro (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Investors Are Well Aware Of Britain's Problems Chart I-17EUR/GBP Sags When EUR/USD Weakens Third, the economic outlook for the U.K. is improving. It is true that in the context of slowing global growth, the manufacturing and export sectors are unlikely to be a source of positive surprises for Great Britain. However, the domestic economy could well be. As Chart I-14 highlights, the credit impulse has collapsed, but the good news is that outside of the Great Financial Crisis it has never fallen much below current levels, suggesting that a reversion to the mean may be in offing. Additionally, U.K. inflation is peaking, which is lifting British real wages (Chart I-18). In response, depressed consumer confidence is picking up. This is crucial as consumer spending, which represents roughly 70% of the U.K.'s GDP, has been the key drag on growth since 2016. Any improvement on this front will lift the whole British economy, even if the manufacturing sector remains soft. Fourth, Brexit is progressing. This week's vote in the House of Commons was confusing, but it is important to note than an amendment that gives Westminster the right to force a renegotiation between the U.K. and the EU if no deal is reached in 2019 has been passed. This also decreases the risk of a completely economically catastrophic Brexit down the road, but increases the risk that PM Theresa May could be ousted over the next 12 months. Our positive view on the pound versus the euro (or negative EUR/GBP bias) is not mimicked in cable itself. Ultimately, despite the GBP/USD's beta to EUR/GBP being below one, it is nonetheless greater than zero. As such, it is unlikely that GBP/USD will be able to rally if the DXY rallies and the EUR/USD weakens (Chart I-19). Therefore, while we recommend selling EUR/GBP, we are not willing buyers of GBP/USD. Chart I-18A Crucial Support To Growth Chart I-19Cable Will Not Avoid The Downward Pull Of A Strong Dollar Bottom Line: The British economy has undergone a period of weakness, which is already reflected in the very negative positioning of investors in the GBP versus the EUR. However, the bad data points are losing their capacity to push EUR/GBP higher, and the British economy may begin to heal as consumer confidence is rebounding thanks to improving real wages. The low beta of GBP/USD to the euro also implies that a falling EUR/USD will weigh on EUR/GBP. However, while the pound has upside against the euro, it will continue to suffer against the dollar if EUR/USD experiences further downside. What To Do With EUR/CAD? One weeks ago, we were stopped out of our short EUR/CAD trade. Has EUR/CAD finished its fall, or was the recent rally a pause within a downward channel? We are inclined to think the latter. Heated rhetoric on trade has hit the CAD harder than the EUR, as exports to the U.S. represent a much larger share of Canada's GDP than of the euro area, forcing the pricing of a risk premium in the loonie. However, even after a rather explosive G7 meeting, we do believe that a compromise is still feasible and that NAFTA is not dead on arrival. A deal is still likely because, as Chart I-20 demonstrates, Canadian tariffs on U.S. imports are not only marginally in excess of U.S. tariffs on Canadian imports, they are also in line with international comparisons. This suggests only a small push is needed to arrive to a deal that salvages NAFTA, which ultimately is much more important to Canada than the dairy industry. Chart I-20Canada And The U.S. Can Find A Compromise Despite this reality, we cannot be too complacent, U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to be playing internal politics ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. U.S. citizens are distrustful of free trade (Chart I-21), a trend especially pronounced among his base. However, a good result for the GOP in November is contingent on the Republican base showing up at the polls. Firing this base up with inflammatory trade rhetoric is a sure way to do so. This means that risks around NAFTA are still not nil. Chart I-21America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc However, EUR/CAD continues to trade at a substantial premium to fair-value on an intermediate-term horizon (Chart I-22). Moreover, as the last panel of the chart illustrates, speculators remain massively short the CAD against the EUR. This creates a cushion for the CAD versus the EUR if global growth slows. Moreover, technicals are still favorable of shorting EUR/CAD. Not only is EUR/CAD still overbought on a 52-week rate-of-change basis, it seems to be in the process of forming a five-wave downward pattern, with the fourth one - a countertrend wave - potentially ending (Chart I-23). Chart I-22EUR/CAD Is Still Vulnerable Chart I-23Wave Pattern Not Completed Finally, EUR/CAD tends to perform poorly when the USD strengthens, which fits with our current thematic for the remainder of 2018. Bottom Line: The headline risk surrounding NAFTA has weighed on the loonie against the euro, stopping us out of our short EUR/CAD trade with a small profit. However, the valuation, positioning and technical dynamics suggest the timing is ripe to short this cross once again. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Rome Is Burning: Is It The End?", dated June 1, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "This Time Is NOT Different", dated May 25, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was stellar: NFIB Business Optimism Index climbed to 107.8, outperforming expectations; the price changes and good times to expand components are also very strong; Headline and core PPI both outperformed expectations, auguring well for future consumer inflation; Headline and core retail sales grew by 0.8% and 0.9% in monthly terms, beating expectations; Both initial and continuing jobless claims also came out below expectations, highlighting that the labor market is still tightening, and wage growth could pick up further. The Fed raised interest rates this week to 2%, and added one additional rate hike to its guidance for 2018. FOMC members once again highlighted the "symmetric" target, suggesting that the Fed expects the economy to overheat slightly. An outperforming U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world is likely to propel the greenback this year. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Economic data was largely disappointing: Italian industrial output contracted by 1.2% on a monthly basis, and grew only by 1.9% on a yearly basis; The German ZEW Survey declined substantially across all metrics; European industrial production increased by 1.7% annually, less than the expected 2.8% increase; However, Spanish headline inflation spiked up from 1.1% to 2.1%. Yesterday, ECB President Mario Draghi announced the ECB's plan to taper asset purchases to EUR 15 bn a month in September, and phase them out completely by year-end. Moreover, Draghi highlighted that the ECB was not anticipating to implement its first hike until after the summer of 2019. Furthermore, the ECB President highlighted the current slowdown in global growth, as well as the rising protectionist risk from the U.S. potentially negatively impacting the European economy and the ECB's decisions going forward, suggesting that the plans are not set in stone. 2018 is likely to remain a volatile year for the euro. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese data has been strong this week: Machine orders increased on a 9.6% annual basis, and a 10.1% monthly basis, in April, outperforming expectations by a large margin; The Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index also increased by 2.7% annually, higher than the expected 2.2% increase. As political and economic risks in Europe and South America having subsided for now, the yen has lost some of its glitter. However, with ongoing uncertainty on trade and populism across the globe, we maintain our tactically bullish stance on the yen, especially against commodity currencies and the euro. However, beyond the short-term horizon, the BoJ will remain determined to cap any excess appreciation in the yen, as a strong JPY tightens Japanese financial conditions, weighing on the BoJ's ability to hit its inflation target. This will ultimately limit the yen's upside on a cyclical basis. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data from the U.K. was somewhat disappointing: Manufacturing and industrial production both increased less than expected, at 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively; The goods trade deficit widened to GBP 14.03bn from GBP 12bn, and the overall trade deficit widened to GBP 5.28bn from GBP 3.22bn; Average earnings grew by 2.8%, less than the expected 2.9%; However, headline inflation came in at 2.4%, less than the expected 2.5%, while retail price inflation also underperformed expectations. This means that the uptrend in real wages continues. Given the limited movement in the pound, it seems that a lot of the bad news was already priced in by last month's depreciation. However, Theresa May's ongoing blunders in parliament represent a continued source of risk for the pound. While the GBP has downside against the EUR, it is unlikely to see much upside against the greenback. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was weak: NAB Business Confidence and Conditions surveys both declined, also underperforming expectations; Australian employment grew by 12,000, less than expected. Moreover, full-time employment contracted. While the unemployment rate dropped as a result, this was largely due to a fall in the participation rate. RBA's Governor Lowe, in a speech on Wednesday, announced that any increase in interest rates "still looks some time away" as the slack in the labor market does not seem to be diminishing. Annual wage growth has been constant at 2.1% for the past three quarters, and did not pick up despite an improvement in full-time employment earlier this year. We remain bearish on the AUD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The NZD is likely to face significant downside against the greenback along with the other commodity currencies as global growth slows down. However, due to its weaker linkages to Chinese industrial demand, the kiwi is likely to see less downside than the AUD. Nevertheless, it is likely to weaken against the CAD and the NOK as the NZD is expensive against these oil currencies, and oil's is likely to continue to outperform other commodities will support this view. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 USD/CAD has been on an uptrend given the greenback generally strong performance since February year, a force magnified by the volatile rhetoric surrounding NAFTA negotiations. However, the Canadian economy has been accelerating this year, thanks to robust growth in the U.S., to a strong Quebecer economy, and to a pickup in Alberta. In addition, the Canadian labor market is tightening further and wage growth is above 3%. Furthermore, risks surrounding NAFTA seem already reflected in the CAD's behavior and valuation. There is more clarity on the CAD versus its crosses than on the CAD versus the USD. Outperforming U.S. and Canadian growth relative to the rest of the world mean that the CAD should outperform most other G10 currencies. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data out of Switzerland was decent: Industrial production increased by 9% in annual terms, albeit less than the previous 19.6% growth; Producer and import prices increased by 3.2% year on year, in line with expectations, however the monthly increase underperformed markets anticipations. With global trade tensions rising, and Germany having entered President Trump's line of sight, the CHF could experience additional upside against the euro in the coming months. However, the SNB is unlikely to deviate from its ultra-accommodative stance, which means that any downside in EUR/CHF will proved to be short lived. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Both headline and core inflation underperformed, coming in at 2.3% and 1.2%, respectively. However, the Regional Network Survey hinted at a pickup in capacity utilization as expectations for industrial output remained robust, as well as at an additional strength in employment. This led to a forecast of a resurgence in inflationary pressures. We expect the NOK to outperform the EUR. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish inflation rose from 1.7% to 1.9%, coming in line with expectations. Additionally, Prospera 1-year inflation expectations survey rose to 1.9% from 1.8% in the March survey. This is likely to provide the Riksbank with reasons to turn gradually more hawkish, which should support the very cheap krona. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades
Highlights The chaotic conclusion to last weekend's G7 summit in Charlevoix is a reminder that the specter of trade wars will not fade quietly into the night. A trade war would hurt the U.S., but would punish the rest of the world even more. The U.S. dollar typically strengthens when global trade slows. Despite President Trump's antics, the dollar is at little risk of losing its status as the world's premier reserve currency. Fiscal stimulus should keep U.S. growth above trend well into next year, allowing the Fed to maintain its once-per-quarter pace of rate hikes. We are currently overweight global equities, but we expect to shift to neutral before the end of the year. Feature Hit First, Ask Questions Later Donald's Trump's negotiating style - hit as hard as you can and then compromise - has worked well in dealing with tin-pot dictators, at least judging by the apparent outcome of this week's Singapore summit with Kim Jong-Un. It has also worked well throughout Trump's career as a real estate developer. However, as the breakdown of last weekend's G7 summit demonstrates, it is not clear if it is a winning strategy in the realm of international trade. Down-on-their-luck creditors may be willing to settle for twenty cents on the dollar when they had been promised one hundred, but governments have their citizens to answer to, and national pride often trumps (ahem) narrow financial interests in such matters. How Not To Fight A Trade War The U.S. is a fairly closed economy and hence a trade war probably would not have severe effects on growth. However, the way Trump is waging his war ensures that whatever impact it has on the domestic economy will be negative. This is not only because Trump's tariffs are certain to invite retaliation; it is also because Trump is targeting intermediate goods - goods that are used as inputs into production of final goods - for tariffs. Chart 1Rising Productivity In The Steel Sector ##br##Caused Employment To Decline Consider the case of steel. Today, the U.S. steel industry employs just 145,000 workers, down from 203,000 workers in 2000. In contrast, there are about two million workers employed in steel-consuming sectors of the economy.1 A reasonable rule-of-thumb from the international trade literature is that a one-percent increase in foreign prices causes domestic prices to rise by about half a percent. This is mainly because domestic producers end up capturing some of the gains from tariffs through higher profit margins. A 25% increase in steel tariffs would thus raise steel prices by around 12.5%. Higher steel prices will lead to higher prices for many American goods such as automobiles, some of which are exported abroad. It is actually quite conceivable that steel tariffs would reduce exports more than they would depress imports, leading to a wider trade deficit. Ironically, foreign competition probably explains only a small fraction of the decline in U.S. steel employment. The U.S. produces roughly as much steel now as it did in 2000 (Chart 1). What has changed is that output-per-worker in the steel industry has increased by a total of 43% since then. Blame technological progress, not trade. Trade Wars, The Fed, And The Dollar Chart 2The Dollar Tends To Strengthen ##br##When Global Trade Deteriorates Even if higher tariffs did produce a one-off increase in consumer and producer prices, slower GDP growth would likely prompt the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes. If the stock market declined in sympathy with slower growth and rising protectionist sentiment, the resulting tightening in financial conditions would further justify a go-slow approach to monetary normalization. All things equal, a more dovish-than-expected Fed would likely translate into a weaker dollar. All things are not equal, however. A trade war would probably hurt the rest of the world more than the U.S. This is partly because the rest of the world is more open to trade, but it is also because the rest of the world runs a trade surplus with the U.S., which makes it more vulnerable to a broad-based decline in trade volumes. Chart 2 shows that the dollar tends to strengthen when global trade is weakening. Reserve Currency Status In Jeopardy? An often-heard counterargument to the "protectionism is good for the dollar" view is that at some point, rising trade tensions could undermine the dollar's standing as the world's premier reserve currency. The U.S. has run a trade deficit almost continuously for 40 years, accumulating 40% of GDP in net liabilities to the rest of the world in the process (Chart 3). If foreign buyers decide to scale back their purchases of U.S. assets, the dollar could swoon. Chart 3U.S. External Deficit: 40 Years And Counting Trump's statement at the conclusion of the G7 summit that "We're like a piggy bank that everybody's robbing" seems to imply that he thinks that foreigners are living beyond their means by draining the U.S. of its wealth. The opposite is actually the case: The U.S. has been able to spend more than it earns for decades precisely because foreigners have been willing to deposit ever more money into the U.S. piggy bank. Fortunately for the greenback, America's status as the world's piggy bank of choice is unlikely to change any time soon. The euro area remains hopelessly divided. The Italian bond market - the biggest in Europe - has once again become the object of investor angst. Japan is drowning in a sea of government debt, with debt monetization probably the only viable solution. China would like to transform the renminbi into a global reserve currency, but opacity in government decision-making, and a still largely closed capital account, will limit any progress towards that goal for some time to come. China and other countries could try to "punish" the U.S. government by buying fewer Treasury bonds, but where would that get them? The average maturity of U.S. government debt is less than six years. The Fed, not China, largely sets rates at that portion of the yield curve. Granted, a decline in Treasury purchases would reduce the demand for dollars. However, that would just put upward pressure on the value of the renminbi. China does not want a stronger currency. For all the talk about how America's rivals are keen to reduce their dollar holdings, their share of global central bank reserves has actually climbed over the past two decades, largely because they have been gobbling up dollars to keep their own currencies from appreciating (Chart 4). Today, nearly two-thirds of global currency reserves are denominated in dollars, a higher proportion than when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (Chart 5). Chart 4Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasurys Chart 5The Dollar Remains The Preferred Reserve Currency A Not So Exorbitant Privilege Chart 6The U.S. Term Premium Is ##br##Higher Than Elsewhere In any case, it's not clear how much the U.S. benefits from having a reserve currency. There is little evidence that U.S. long-term bond yields are lower than they would otherwise be because of foreign reserve accumulation. Chart 6 shows that the term premium - the difference between the yield on a long-term bond and the market's expectation of the average level of short-term rates over the life of the bond - is higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. If foreign central bank purchases were pushing down U.S. bond yields, one would expect to see the reverse pattern. The only tangible benefit the United States gets from having a reserve currency is that the U.S. Treasury can issue currency to foreigners who hold it as a store of value rather than spending it. This amounts to an interest-free loan to the U.S. government. This so-called "seigniorage revenue" is not trivial: Last year, foreigners increased their holdings of U.S. currency by $60 billion.2 However, this is still less than one-third of one percent of U.S. GDP. What Really Explains Why The U.S. Has A Current Account Deficit? It is often argued that the dollar's reserve currency status has allowed the U.S. to run large current account deficits. However, Australia has run even bigger current account deficits than the U.S., and it does not have a reserve currency. What matters in the end is whether people trust you to pay back your debts, not whether you have a reserve currency. The rate of return that a country offers investors is also important. As we explained in our weekly report on April 6th, an often-overlooked reason for why the U.S. and Australia run current account deficits is that both countries enjoy faster trend growth than most of their peers.3 Faster growth tends to push up the neutral real rate of interest, otherwise known as r-star. A country with a relatively low neutral rate needs to have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to appreciate over time in order to compensate investors for the subpar yield that its bonds provide. As sketched out in Chart 7, this results in current account surpluses for countries with low neutral rates, and current account deficits for countries with high neutral rates. Chart 7Interest Rates And Current Account Balances Commentators who claim that the euro is cheap are barking up the wrong tree. The euro needs to be cheap to entice investors into holding low-yielding German bunds and other safe-haven euro area bond markets. Indeed, one could argue that the euro is not cheap enough. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.07% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.16%, a difference of 191 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 84 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 The euro got a good clobbering yesterday following the release of the ECB's post-meeting statement, which established a timeline for ending asset purchases by the end of this year but promised no rate hikes for at least another 12 months. We continue to expect EUR/USD to hit 1.15, with a high likelihood that it goes even lower. Lessons From The Nixon Shock We are skeptical of the argument that threatening to raise tariffs is an effective tool for talking down one's currency. It is true that the Nixon Administration imposed an across-the-board 10% tariff in August 1971, which succeeded in forcing America's trading partners to revalue their currencies within the quasi-fixed exchange-rate Bretton Woods system that prevailed at that time. Such an arrangement would be difficult to orchestrate today. For one thing, the U.S. does not have the geopolitical sway that it once did. Moreover, when exchange rates are pegged, one can often revalue a currency to the upside while cutting interest rates (if investors expect a series of revaluations, they would be willing to hold government bonds even if they yielded less than those abroad). In today's world of flexible exchange rates, a country would need to be willing to tighten monetary policy to drive up its currency. Thus, it would get hit on two fronts: From a stronger currency and from higher interest rates. This additional cost to the economy lowers the odds that any country would voluntarily undertake such measures in the hope (probably futile anyway) of placating Trump. In any case, most of the dollar's weakness in the 1970s occurred after the December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement reversed Nixon's tariff hike. What followed was a period of trade liberalization on the back of successive GATT negotiation rounds. U.S. tariffs actually fell more in the 1970s than in the prior two decades (Chart 8). The fact that the dollar weakened during that period had more to do with the Fed, which permitted inflation to get out of hand by allowing real rates to remain in chronically negative territory. The dollar also suffered from the surge in oil prices, which produced a 35% deterioration in the U.S. terms of trade over the course of the decade (Chart 9). Chart 8Two Centuries Of U.S. Tarriffs Chart 9Dollar Weakness In the 1970s: Blame Deteriorating Terms Of Trade And A Dovish Fed It is possible that the Fed will repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, but this is more of a risk for the 2020s than a near-term concern. U.S. real yields have actually risen substantially relative to those abroad since last September (Chart 10). Chart 10The Dollar Is Once Again Responding ##br##To Real Rate Differentials The outcome of this week's FOMC meeting was on the hawkish side. The median number of dots in the newly released Summary of Economic Projections now point to four rate hikes this year, up from three hikes in the March projections. In addition, the Fed increased estimates for both growth and core inflation for this year. The decision to hold press conferences following every FOMC meeting will also give the Fed greater scope to expedite the pace of rate hikes. Investment Conclusions After panicking over every Trump tweet promising more protectionism earlier this year, markets have taken the recent news of escalating trade tensions in stride. Investors presumably think that Trump will water down his rhetoric, as he has periodically done over the past few months. Such a benign outcome is entirely possible. Trump left a fig leaf at the G7 summit in the form of a challenge to other members to eliminate their tariffs in exchange for the U.S. doing the same. Reaching such a deal would not be easy, but incremental progress towards this goal could be achieved. The overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is already quite low. The U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum -- average U.S. tariffs of 1.6% are double that of Canada, for example -- so the rest of the G7 would be wise to call Trump's bluff and agree to talks to further scale back trade barriers (Chart 11). This could give risk assets some breathing space for the next year or so. Yet, such a rosy outcome is far from guaranteed. Protectionism is popular among American voters, especially among Trump's base (Chart 12). Trump's obsession with the level of the stock market was a constraint on his protectionist rhetoric, but now that investors are content to look the other way, that constraint has loosened. Chart 11Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 12Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S., And Is ##br##Especially Disliked Among Trump Supporters The fact that Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda does not help matters. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or America's trading partners? No trophy for getting that answer right. The effect of a trade war on the stock market would be grave. Multinational firms have large footprints abroad, the result of decades of investment in global supply chains. Equities represent a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that might emerge after a trade war has been fought. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. In light of these risks, we expect to downgrade our recommendation on global equities from overweight to neutral before the end of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Lydia Cox and Kadee Russ, "Will Steel Tariffs put U.S. Jobs at Risk?," EconoFact, February 26, 2018. Steel-consuming industries are defined as those that devote more than 5% of their total costs to steel. 2 Considering that 80% of U.S. currency in circulation consists of $100 bills, it is safe to say that much of this overseas stash of cash belongs to those who acquired it through ill-gotten means. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.4% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.49 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.49/(1.0191)^30=0.84 today. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. There have been a number of noteworthy divergences in the EM space of late. They are probably part of a domino effect - some tiles have begun to drop, but other tiles down the chain still remain standing. The selloff in EM risk assets will broaden and intensify. A defensive positioning is warranted. India's relative equity performance has by and large been undermined by rising oil prices. A potential roll-over in crude prices will aid the Indian bourse's relative performance versus its EM peers. The South African rand remains on shaky foundation; stay short. Feature There have been a number of noteworthy divergences in financial markets of late, in particular between emerging markets (EM) and commodities, as well as between Chinese investable stocks trading outside the mainland and equity prices listed domestically. In our view, these divergences are part of a domino effect - some tiles have begun to drop, but other tiles down the chain still remain standing. In dominos, tiles do not all fall simultaneously. They fall one by one, and there is a time lag between the first domino and the last-standing domino to drop. Also, unlike in natural sciences, time lags and speed in economics and finance vary with each experiment - because they are contingent on complex human psychology and behavior, not on well defined natural phenomena such as gravity or motions of objects. Hence, they are impossible to forecast with much precision. A Message From Our Risky Versus Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Although U.S. share prices have lately been firm, EM stocks have broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart I-1, top panel). So has our risky versus safe-haven currencies ratio 1 (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Indeed, while having held up at its 200-day moving average several times in the past two years, the ratio has recently decisively broken below this technical support line. This indicator correlates extremely well with EM share prices, and its message is presently unambiguous: The rally in EM is over, and a bear market has likely commenced. Crucially, this ratio measures commodities currencies versus the average of the Japanese yen and Swiss franc - two defensive currencies - not against the U.S. dollar. Hence, it is not impacted by the greenback's trend. Given that all six risky currencies used in the numerator of this ratio - AUD, CAD, NZD, BRL, ZAR and CLP - are commodity currencies, it is not surprising that the ratio also correlates with commodities prices. In this context, it currently suggests the outlook for both industrial metals and oil is troublesome (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Beware Of These Breakdowns Chart I-2A Red Flag For Commodities Prices The common denominator that links all these financial variables is global growth. The risky versus safe-haven currencies ratio typically leads world trade cycles by several months, and it currently points to a notable slowdown in global export volumes (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Export Growth Is Set To Slow Further, commodities prices have exhibited a rare decoupling from the U.S. dollar. It is very unlikely that this divergence can be sustained for much longer. Our bias is that global trade will slow as China/EM demand weakens despite robust U.S. growth. Growth dynamics shifting in favor of the U.S. entails that the greenback will continue to appreciate. Consistently, EM/China growth disappointments and U.S. dollar's persisting strength suggest that commodities will reverse their current trend sooner rather than later. A relapse in commodities prices will reinforce EM currency depreciation, triggering more outflows from EM equities and fixed-income markets. Decoupling Or A Time Lag? Chart I-4Domino Effect In 2007-08 Major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. The EM crises in 1997-98 did not occur simultaneously across all EM countries. It began in July 1997 with Thailand, then it spread to Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia and finally, to the rest of Asia. In August 1998, Russian financial markets collapsed triggering the LTCM debacle. The last leg of this crisis appeared in Brazil and culminated in the real's devaluation in January 1999. Similarly, the U.S. financial/credit crisis commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Following that, corporate spreads began widening and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. In the meantime, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked on October 9 and 29, 2007, respectively. Despite all of these developments, commodities prices and EM currencies continued rallying until summer of 2008 and then quickly collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart I-4). Finally the Lehman crash took place on September 29 of 2008. That marked the apogee of the crisis, causing a complete unravelling of financial markets and the global economy, and lasting until March of 2009. It seems some sort of domino effect is now taking hold of the EM universe. Initially, it started with Turkey and Argentina. Then, it spread to Indonesia, India and Brazil. The currency weakness across the wider EM universe has already led to EM credit spread widening. Yet, there are a few EM financial markets, particularly Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese, that are still holding up relatively well. Moreover, U.S. share prices and high-yield credit spreads have done quite well too. How should investors interpret these divergences? Our view has been, and remains, that EM risk assets will do poorly regardless of the direction of the S&P 500. In fact, an escalation in EM turmoil and a slowdown in developing economies are among the main risks to American share prices themselves. The primary link from EM financial markets to the S&P 500 is via the exchange rate - a strong dollar along with an EM/China growth slump will weigh on American multinationals' profits. The following three questions are presently vital for investors: 1. Can EM and U.S. risk assets de-couple from each other, and has a sustainable divergence happened in the past? Although short-term moves in U.S. and EM equity indexes often appear correlated, from a big-picture perspective there have been considerable divergences. The overall EM stock index is now at the same level it was in 2007 (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the S&P 500 index is a hair below its all-time high. Chart I-5EM Share Prices And The S&P 500: A Long-Term Perspective The same is true for many EM currencies and the S&P 500. A substantial decoupling did occur in the not-so-distant past: EM currencies depreciated from 2011 to early 2016, while U.S. share prices rallied strongly from late 2011 until 2015 (Chart I-6). With respect to U.S. credit spreads, Chart I-7 illustrates that EM and U.S. credit spreads have had a much higher correlation than their respective equity indexes. During the 1997-'98 EM crises and the 2014 -'15 EM turmoil, U.S. high-yield corporate spreads widened. In brief, there has historically been little decoupling between U.S. and EM credit markets. Hence, the U.S. high-yield credit market's latest resilience in the face of widening in EM credit spreads is historically exceptional. Chart I-6EM Currencies And The S&P 500 Chart I-7EM Sovereign And U.S. Corporate Credit Spreads: A Long-Term Perspective As EM currencies continue to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen. Given their past high correlation with U.S. credit markets, odds point to widening corporate credit spreads in the U.S. On the whole, if EM risk assets continue to sell off, which is our baseline scenario, the S&P 500 and U.S. credit markets could defy gravity for a while, but not forever. At some point, risks stemming from EM turbulence will cause a selloff in American stocks and corporate bonds. It is impossible to know when and by how much U.S. stocks will suffer. Our bias is that a U.S. equity selloff will likely be on par with the 2015-'16 episode. 2. Can North Asian equity markets such as China, Korea and Taiwan remain relatively resilient if the turbulence in other EM countries continues? Based on history, they can, but only for a short period of time. There have been a few episodes when emerging Asian and Latin American stocks de-coupled: In 1997-'98, the home-grown Asian crisis devastated regional markets, but Latin American stocks continued to rally until mid-1998 - at which point they began plummeting (Chart I-8, top panel). In 2007-'08, emerging Asian equities started tumbling along with the S&P 500 in late 2007, but Latin American bourses fared well until the middle of 2008 due to surging commodities prices (Chart I-8, middle panel). Finally, the bottom panel of Chart I-8 illustrates that in early 2015, Asian stocks performed well, supported by the inflating Chinese equity bubble. Meanwhile, Latin American stocks plunged. In all of these episodes, the de-coupling between Asia and Latin America proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside. Regarding Asia's business cycle conditions, the slowdown is already taking place and will likely intensify. Leading indicators of exports and manufacturing such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Asian And Latin American Equities: ##br##Unsustainable Divergences Chart I-9Asia's Export Slowdown Is In Making 3. Is there any other notable financial market decoupling that investors should be aware of? Chart I-10China: A Decoupling In Various Equity Segments Since early this year, there has been substantial decoupling between Chinese investable stocks and the onshore A-share market. First, the overall A-share index has dropped since early this year, but the MSCI Investable Chinese stock index has so far been resilient (Chart I-10). Second, while it might be tempting to explain this decoupling by discrepancies in the sectors' weights in these indexes, this has not been the case this time around. The fact remains that there has been considerable divergence between share prices of the same sectors. For example, onshore and offshore equity prices have diverged for the following sectors: real estate stocks, materials, industrials, technology, utilities and consumer discretionary (Chart I-11A and Chart I-11B). Only defensive sectors such as consumer staples and health care have done well in both universes. Share prices of financials and telecoms have dropped in both the onshore and offshore markets. Chart I-11AChinese Equity Sectors: Puzzling Decoupling Chart I-11BChinese Equity Sectors: Puzzling Decoupling Finally, a similar performance gap has appeared between Chinese small cap stocks trading onshore and in Hong Kong (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China's Small-Cap Stocks: A Perplexing Gap How do we explain these divergences? Our bias is that local investors in China are much more concerned about the mainland growth outlook than foreign investors. This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015. Back then, international investors were somewhat cautious on China - commodities prices and other China-related global financial market plays were in a bear market. Meanwhile, local investors were caught up in a full-fledged equity mania that ended with a crash. Given our downbeat outlook on China's capital spending and related plays in financial markets, we reckon that domestic investors in China will be proven right in the months ahead, while the international investment community will be left flat-footed. Importantly, there has been an unexplainable mismatch between monetary/credit tightening in China and complacency among international investors about the outlook for the mainland economy. Specifically, the cost of borrowing has gone up, and credit standards have tightened. Chart I-13 illustrates that both onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have risen to new cycle highs, Chinese banks' lending rates are rising, while banks' loan approvals are dropping. Consistently, money and credit growth have plunged. Importantly, this is occurring in an economy with immense credit excesses. Nevertheless, commodities prices have so far defied such a pronounced deceleration in money and credit aggregates in China (Chart I-14). Chart I-13China: Ongoing Credit Tightening Chart I-14China's Money/Credit And Commodities Prices All in all, we interpret these divergences by varying lead and lags rather than as a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between money/credit and the real economy. We continue to expect tightening liquidity and credit to escalate the growth slowdown in China. As a result, there continues to be considerable downside risks for Chinese investable stocks and commodities prices. Bottom Line: The dominos have begun to fall. We continue to recommend a defensive strategy and an underweight position in EM equities, credit and currencies versus their U.S./DM peers. High-yield local currency bonds that are a de-facto bet on the underlying currencies are vulnerable too. For investors willing to go short, it is not too late to short EM stocks and currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total return (including carry) indices relative to average of jpy & chf total returns. India's Equity Underperformance: Blame It On Oil Indian stocks have been underperforming their EM counterparts. Rising oil prices have created a toxic macro mix for India, triggering the equity underperformance (Chart II-1): Rising crude prices have led to widening current account and trade deficits. Oil price swings are often instrumental to trends in India's current account balance (Chart II-2). The deterioration in the nation's external accounts has been behind the rupee's poor performance. Chart II-1Higher Crude Oil Prices Hurt Indian Stocks Chart II-2Crude Oil And Current Account Deficit Given that India is a major oil importer, falling commodities prices - especially crude oil - will benefit India's stock market. The recent surge in oil prices has also reinforced inflation dynamics in India (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Higher Crude Oil Boosts Inflation The basis for the high correlation between core consumer price inflation (excluding energy and food) and oil prices is due to the fact that core inflation includes components that are heavily influenced by fluctuations in oil prices. For instance, the transportation and communication component of inflation is very sensitive to changes in oil prices. This component accounts for 18% of core consumer price index. Further, the personal care and effects component also correlates with crude oil. Personal care goods use petroleum products as an important input in their production process. This component accounts for 8% of core consumer price index. Together these components account for a non-trivial 26% of core consumer price index, and will likely subside as oil prices fall. On the inflation front, we highlighted in our April 19 Weekly Report that risks to inflation are tilted to the upside due to strong consumer and government spending in an otherwise under-invested economy.1 Domestic demand has been accelerating, providing tailwinds for higher inflation (Chart II-4). Higher inflation and currency weakness has led to a considerable rise in both government and corporates local currency bond yields (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Domestic Economy Is Strong Chart II-5Rising Borrowing Rates Given the very high equity valuations, share prices in India are especially sensitive to rising local borrowing costs. All in all, India's relative equity performance has by and large been undermined by rising oil prices. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team believes the risk-reward for oil prices is skewed to the downside due to the expected deterioration in EM/China oil demand, investors' extremely high net long positions in crude and appreciating dollar.2 That is why we are still reluctant to downgrade Indian stocks within the EM equity universe. It is vital to emphasize, however, that our overweight call is relevant to dedicated EM equity portfolios. We have been, and remain, negative on Indian share prices in absolute U.S. dollar terms. Bottom Line: Odds are that commodities prices will drop meaningfully in the months ahead and that will support India's relative equity performance versus the EM benchmark. EM dedicated investors should keep an overweight stance on Indian equities for now. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Country Perspectives: India And Turkey," dated April 19, 2018, link available on page 21. 2 The Emerging Markets Strategy team's view on oil differs from BCA's house view which remains bullish. The South African Rand Remains On Shaky Foundations Although the rand has not been among the worse hit EM currencies, investors should remain cautious on it. The currency presently finds itself resting on very shaky foundations, raising odds of substantial depreciation for the remainder of the year: First, South Africa's external funding has solely been driven by portfolio inflows, leaving the exchange rate highly exposed to potential portfolio outflows. As illustrated in Chart III-1, net portfolio inflows reached all-time highs while net FDIs reached all-time lows at the end of 2017 (the latest available statistics). Meanwhile, foreign ownership of domestic bonds has reached new highs (Chart III-2). The total return in dollar terms on South Africa's local currency bond index1 has failed to break above its previous highs and has relapsed (Chart III-3). It seems this asset class has entered a new bear market. Further decline in the total return of bonds will spur more selling or hedging of currency risks by international bond investors. Chart III-1South Africa: Highly Exposed To Portfolio Flows Chart III-2Foreign Holdings Of South African Local Bonds Is Elevated Chart III-3South African Bonds Were Unable To Break Out Second, the country's trade balance is set to deteriorate. Despite continued episodes of currency weakness throughout last decade, there has been little to no import substitution in South Africa. Consequently, a reviving domestic demand will prompt higher imports. That, and a potential relapse in export (raw materials) prices, will lead to a widening trade balance. Chart III-4The Rand Is Not Cheap Finally, the rand is not cheap; its valuation is neutral (Chart III-4). When an exchange rate is close to its fair value, it can either appreciate or depreciate. In short, the rand's valuation is not extreme enough to be a major factor in driving the market right now. Bottom Line: Currency traders should stay short the ZAR versus both the USD and the MXN. Relative trade balance dynamics and valuations continue to play in favor of the Mexican peso relative to the South African rand. Predicated by our negative view on the rand, we recommend EM dedicated equity and fixed-income investors to maintain an underweight allocation to South Africa. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 JP Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified Emerging Markets Government Bond Index for South Africa. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights In line with our House view, we expect the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) to continue to appreciate over the next six to 12 months, as U.S. growth outpaces that of other DMs, and the Fed's pace of rate hikes outpaces that of other systemically important central banks. Ordinarily, this would be bad news for the overall commodities complex. However, most commodity prices disconnected from the U.S. dollar in 2015 - 16. This disconnect produced a not-often-seen positive correlation between commodities and the USD, which remained in place into 2017. Fundamentals are keeping oil and base metals correlations weaker vs. the USD. Precious metals and ags are most vulnerable to a stronger USD. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Cracks in Nigeria's Bonny pipeline system will further delay loadings already curtailed by a force majeure declaration, according to local sources. Elsewhere, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) apparently boosted production ahead of the regularly scheduled OPEC meeting in Vienna on June 22, as mounting losses in Venezuela and U.S. sanctions against Iran loom.1 KSA and Russia are pushing for higher production from OPEC 2.0 ahead of the Vienna meeting. Base Metals: Neutral. Although union negotiators took a conciliatory tone in discussions, contract terms between it and BHP Billiton in Chile's Escondida mine still have not been resolved. Among other things, the union proposed a salary increase of 5% and a $34,000 one-off bonus for workers.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices held close to $1,300/oz going into this week FOMC meeting. Ags/Softs: Underweight: The USDA revised down its ending-stocks estimates for corn and soybeans for the 2017/18 and the 2018/19 crop years in its latest WASDE, which was released earlier this week. Feature Chart of the WeekUSD TWIB Vs. Chief Commodity Indices Broadly speaking, commodity prices are negatively correlated with the USD TWIB. The principal indices we follow - the CRB, Bloomberg and S&P GSCI index - all are cointegrated with the USD, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein commodity prices rise as the USD falls, and vice versa (Chart of the Week). Ordinarily, we would expect the near-term appreciation of the U.S. dollar to weigh on broad commodity indices' performance. These are not ordinary times. Surprisingly, what holds for these aggregate indices does not hold for individual commodity groups within the indices. We've ranked each commodity by industry group, and found that over the long term - and this is critical - oil and base metals are most sensitive to changes in the USD TWIB, while precious metals and ags are less sensitive. A 1% change in the U.S. dollar index leads to a change in the energy sub-index of the CRB of almost 5%, while a 1% change in the TWIB leads to a change of just under 4% for the base metals sub-index of the CRB. For the precious metals sub-index of the CRB, we would expect to see prices change by just under 3% for every 1% change in the dollar index, while for the ags sub-index of the CRB, broadly speaking, we could expect a change of just under 2.5%.3 USD's Complicated Relationship With Commodities To understand what's driving the broad indices and their component sub-indexes, we ran Granger-causality tests to get a better picture of what's driving what.4 On average, the U.S. dollar drives the broad indices, from a Granger-causality perspective. However, it does not drive the individual commodity sub-indexes in the same manner (Table 1). Table 1USD Vs. Commodities: What's Driving What? We found an interesting relationship between copper and oil: Copper's relationship with oil is stronger than its relationship with the USD - likely because both commodities respond to the same demand factors (e.g., global industrial growth), and that mining and refining copper are energy-intensive processes. We still see a long-term underlying common relationship with the U.S. dollar, but copper is more strongly tied to oil. Bottom Line: We ranked the four main commodity groups with respect to their historical sensitivity to the USD using two distinct metrics. Over the long haul, we found the order from most to least sensitive is (1) Energy, (2) Base Metals, (3) Precious Metals, (4) Ags. USD And Commodities Out Of Whack While most commodity indices exhibit strong and stable negative correlations with the U.S. dollar, many of these relationships were pushed out of their long-term equilibria in 2016, and, importantly, have remained out of whack for an unusually long period (Chart 2).5 In fact, we found most individual commodities and commodity groups haven't converged back to their long-term equilibrium correlation levels with the USD TWIB, and their respective divergences are once again moving higher (Chart 3). Chart 2CRB Sub-Indices Out Of Whack With USD Chart 3Short-Term Correlations Remain In Disequilibrium As we've shown in previous research, commodity prices can remain in disequilibrium with the dollar when important fundamental (supply - demand) shocks dominate price formation.6 Table 2 shows which commodity groups are most out-of-equilibrium since 2016 relative to their long-term historical correlation. Energy, especially oil, and base metals groups are at the top of this list. Despite the fact that both of these groups are the most sensitive to the USD, based on our long-term analysis discussed above, the fact that they remain in disequilibria with the USD suggests the increase in the U.S. dollar we expect over the next 6 months will have a limited impact on these commodities. This leaves ags and, notably, precious metals, most vulnerable to the USD appreciation foreseen in our House view. Table 3 shows how the sensitivities of the different commodity groups vs. the USD TWIB have changed from 2015 to now versus the 2000 to 2015 period preceding it.7 Moreover, we see that in the shorter period between 2015 and now, the base metals and oil sensitivities (in red) are not significant. Economically, this means prices have disconnected from the USD during this period, owing to the overwhelming influence of supply-demand fundamentals on the price-formation process. Table 2Rank Of Rolling Correlation Divergences##BR##In 6-Month Vs. 5-Year Rolling Correlations Table 3Fundamentals Overwhelm##BR##USD's Influence Since 2015 The most plausible explanation for this is base metals and oil markets experienced fundamental shocks over the period - especially since 2016, e.g. OPEC launching a market-share war in 2014 and surging production, followed by the OPEC 2.0 production cuts still in force in the market. In theory, and absent important fundamental (supply-demand) shocks in base metals and energy markets (e.g., a strike at major copper mines or an unexpected outcome at the OPEC 2.0 meeting next week), these correlations should converge back to the long-term equilibrium. However, the speed of convergence is unknown. As long as we observe a disequilibrium in the short-term correlations, we can assume that the disequilibrium will be maintained over the short term. The short-term correlation movements show most of the commodity groups were converging toward equilibrium in recent months, but have since reversed course, particularly oil (Chart 4 and Table 2). Chart 4Short- Vs. Long-Term Correlations Divergence We believe the historic correlation levels between base metals and oil prices and the USD TWIB gradually will be restored. However, a number of factors will have to be monitored in order to determine the timing and the level around which the correlations will stabilize - i.e., close to the 2008 - 2013 levels or to those of the 2000 - 2007 period (Chart 5). We found that the EM/DM business cycle - i.e., the relative performance of EM to DM economies - as well as the shape of the oil forward curve generally can act as mediating factors in restoring the correlations of the USD TWIB and commodity prices.8 The stronger EM economies are relative to DM economies, or the more in contango the oil forward curve is, the more negative the correlations between commodities, especially oil and base metals, and the USD TWIB. Obviously, should the opposite occur, we would expect the weaker correlations to persist, although this might not constitute a complete disequilibrium. The mediating factors we mentioned can diminish or enhance the USD - Commodity correlations, but that does not mean they completely break them down. Chart 5Oil Vs. USD TWIB Correlation Remains Out Of Whack Bottom Line: Commodity prices disconnected from the U.S. dollar in 2015 - 16, which led to a rare environment in which the correlations between the USD TWIB and commodities became positive. Surprisingly, this disconnect remained in place for an extended period, which led us to revise our USD-elasticity ranking of commodity groups. As long as the fundamental shocks in the energy and base metals groups continue to dominate price formation in these markets, precious metals and ags will remain the most vulnerable groups to U.S. dollar appreciation. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "More delays to Nigerian Bonny Light as crude pipeline closes," published by Naija247 in Nigeria on June 11, 2018, and "Saudis Start to Ramp Up Oil Output, Ahead of OPEC Meeting," published by The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2018. See also BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding to Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published on March 31, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the oil-producer coalition led by The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 Please see "Escondida Union to Copper Investors: Bet on Quick Wage Deal," published by bloomberg.com, June 7, 2018, and "BHP responds to contract proposal from union at Chile's Escondida mine," published by uk.reuters.com on 11 June 2018. 3 These elasticities are the average coefficients for each commodity group we calculated using two different cointegrating regressions - Dynamic Ordinary Least Square and Panel - covering Jan 2000 to now. 4 Granger-causality measures the extent to which changes in one variable cause (or allow one to predict) changes in another variable. This is based on the work of the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger, who began publishing on this in 1969. Please see "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods," Econometrica, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1969), pp. 424-438. 5 We make sure the correlations we estimate use cointegrated random variables, which means the empirical results we get provide consistent estimates of actual population correlations. Please see Johansen, Soren (2007), "Correlation, regression, and cointegration of nonstationary economic time series," published by the Center for Research in Econometric Analysis of Time Series at the Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "OPEC 2.0 Vs. The Fed," dated February 08, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 These sensitivities are coefficients in cointegrating regressions, which, given the construction of the regressions, are elasticities. 8 Using threshold regressions, we found the USD impact on BM and energy prices is, on average, weaker when DM stock prices outperform that of EM and when the oil forward curve is backwardated. These two variables act as mediators to the USD-Commodity relationship, and can be used to project the strength of the relationship. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights The following four investment themes are likely to play out over the next couple of years: The yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts will narrow, one way or the other. The 10% undervaluation of the trade-weighted euro - as assessed by the ECB itself - will eventually correct. As the euro area's structural over-competitiveness gradually adjusts, euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos. Swedish real estate and Swedish real estate equities, which are both very richly valued, will underperform. Feature What connects last Sunday's dysfunctional G7 Summit with this week's ECB policy meeting? The answer is the euro area's €450 billion export surplus. Specifically, the €300 billion export surplus in Germany which equals 8% of its GDP - an export surplus that is squarely in President Trump's cross-hairs (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus The interesting thing is that the euro area hasn't always run an export surplus. Before 2012, the euro area's trade with the rest of the world was more or less in balance. Even Germany's export surplus was half of its current size. To put it in Trumpian terms, fewer Mercedes were "rolling down New York's Fifth Avenue." What caused the imbalance to surge in recent years? Was it punitive tariffs or restrictive trade practices in Germany? No, the answer is much simpler than that. ECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus The export surplus in the euro area and in Germany is just a mirror-image of the euro exchange rate (Chart I-2). As the euro became undervalued, it made euro area exports more competitive and foreign imports into the euro area less competitive. This assessment of euro area over-competitiveness comes straight from the horse's mouth. The ECB's own indicators show that the euro area remains over-competitive by around 10%, meaning the euro is still undervalued by about 10%.1 In turn, the euro's substantial undervaluation is a near perfect function of the yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts (Chart I-3). It follows that the ultimate cause of the euro area's glaring imbalance is ECB policy itself - specifically, the extreme experiment with bond buying and negative interest rates. Chart I-2ECB Policy Has Driven Up The ##br##Euro Area's Export Surplus Chart I-3The ECB's Expansive Monetary Policy Is ##br##Responsible For The Euro's Undervaluation As Germany's former Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, explained: "When ECB chief Mario Draghi embarked on the expansive monetary policy, I told him he would drive up Germany's export surplus... I promised then not to publicly criticise this policy. But then I don't want to be criticised for the consequences of this policy." The ECB counters that it targets neither the euro exchange rate nor the trade balance; it sets policy to achieve its mandate for price stability. It argues that it is further from its mandate for price stability compared with the Federal Reserve because, ostensibly, the euro area is at a different point in the economic cycle compared with the U.S. This requires the ECB to set an ultra-accommodative policy compared with other central banks. The undervalued euro and trade surplus are the unavoidable spill-overs of this relative monetary policy. ECB Spill-Overs Felt Far And Wide However, one important reason that euro area inflation is underperforming U.S. inflation has nothing to do with the economic cycle. Rather, it is because the official measures of inflation in the euro area and the U.S. are defined differently (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). The euro area's Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) omits the consumption costs of owner-occupied housing, whereas the U.S. consumer price basket includes them at a very substantial 25% weight. Homeowners will testify that the cost of maintaining their homes constitutes one of their largest expenses, and that these costs tend to rise faster than other prices. Using the U.S. as a guide, we estimate that a euro area inflation measure that correctly included home maintenance costs would be running higher than HICP inflation by an average of 0.5 percentage points a year (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Euro Area Inflation##br## Is Underperforming... Chart I-5...Because Euro Area Inflation Omits ##br##Owner-Occupied Housing Costs Chart I-6Including Owner-Occupied Housing ##br##Costs Adds 0.5% To Inflation Just because the statisticians do not measure owner-occupied housing costs in the euro area HICP, it doesn't mean that homeowners do not feel these costs. In Germany, measured inflation is now running at 2.3%, so the true inflation that households feel is running closer to 3%. Meanwhile, interest rates on savings accounts are stuck near zero, which means that German savers are seeing the real value of their savings erode by 3% every year. As Der Spiegel magazine put it to ECB Chief Economist, Peter Praet: "Can you understand why so many Germans regard the ECB as the greatest threat to their personal wealth?" Spill-overs from the ECB's ultra-accommodative policy have also been felt across the Baltic Sea. The Riksbank and the Norges Bank have had to shadow the ECB to prevent a sharp appreciation of their currencies versus the euro. The trouble is that ultra-low and negative interest rates have been absurdly inappropriate for the booming Scandinavian economies. So ECB policy may have generated spill-over housing bubbles in Sweden and Norway (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7ECB Spill-Overs Felt In Scandinavia Chart I-8Scandinavian Real Estate Appears Richly Valued Hence, a seemingly innocuous 'definitional' difference between the consumer price baskets in the euro area vis-à-vis the U.S. explains: the bulk of the shortfall in euro area inflation; the ECB's justification for ultra-accommodation; the undervalued euro; the euro area's €450 billion trade surplus; deeply negative real interest rates in Germany; and putative housing bubbles in Sweden and Norway. The main argument we hear in the ECB's defence is that the central bank is at the mercy of its treaty. If the treaty demands ultra-accommodation then the ECB must deliver it. But this argument is wrong. The ECB treaty only asks that the central bank delivers "price stability", leaving the ECB with substantial flexibility in how it precisely defines price stability. With this in mind, the ECB - and other central banks - should use this definitional flexibility to minimize differences with other central banks. Because in a world of integrated capital markets, the spill-overs from seemingly innocuous definitional differences are felt far and wide, resulting in political backlashes and economic imbalances. Imbalances Must Correct In The Long Run Ultimately though, economic imbalances must correct, and the corrective mechanism is economic, financial, or political feedback loops, or some combination of these. On this basis, we reiterate four investment themes that are likely to play out over the next couple of years: The yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts will narrow, one way or the other. The 10% undervaluation of the trade-weighted euro - as assessed by the ECB itself - will eventually correct. As the euro area's structural over-competitiveness gradually adjusts, euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Euro's Undervaluation Corrects, It Will Help Euro Area Domestics And Hurt Exporters Swedish real estate and Swedish real estate equities, which are both very richly valued, will underperform. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/balance_of_payments_and_external/hci/html/index.en.html The ECB uses three metrics to assess the euro area's competitiveness versus its major trading partners: GDP deflators, CPIs, and unit labour costs. The average of the three metrics suggests that the euro is undervalued by around 10%.The assessment of euro undervaluation assumes that the major euro area economies entered the monetary union at a broadly correct level of competitiveness against each other and against their other major trading partners. This assumption seems valid, given that the net external position of these economies were all in equilibrium at the onset of monetary union. Fractal Trading Model We are pleased to report that our long SEK/GBP currency position hit its profit target of 3% and is now closed. This week we note that the relative performance of two classically cyclical sectors, oil and gas versus financials, is technically stretched and at a 65-day fractal dimension which has accurately predicted the last two major reversals. Hence, our recommended trade is short euro area oil and gas versus euro area financials. Set a profit target of 6% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations