Money/Credit/Debt

Special Report

Dear Client, I am travelling in Asia talking to investors and doing some field research. As such, there will be no CIS report next week. The next report will be sent to you on May 5th. Best regards, Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy Feature A special report I co-authored with my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan and Peter Berezin, and the webcast we all participated in with Caroline Miller late last month, focused on China's debt situation - a critical global macro issue that has been heatedly debated around the globe as well as within BCA.1 Economists rarely agree with one another, and financial markets are constant battles between buyers and sellers with diametrically opposed views. Similarly, it is not possible for senior research staff within BCA to always have uniform opinions. Our intention was to bring an internal debate on a critical global macro issue in front of clients in a straightforward and comprehensive way, which hopefully can enhance clients' own understanding of the topic. Our report and webcast received higher-than-normal questions and feedback. This week's report serves as a follow-up to clarify some of the more common questions we received. But It Is The Rapid Pace Of Increase In China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio That Is Alarming!! Even for clients that agree with Peter and myself and view Chinese debt from the savings investment identity perspective, a common pushback is that the pace of increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio is alarmingly rapid, which is bound to create misallocations and financial risks (Chart 1). My arguments emphasizing the micro debt situation within the corporate sector and cross-country comparisons of efficiency ratios were reassuring, but not enough to alleviate all the concerns on the apparently rapid increase in debt relative to economic output in recent years. A few further points are in order: Chart 1The GDP Factor In China's Rising ##br##Debt-To-GDP Ratio First, the rapid increase in debt reflects the rapid increase in capital spending, which means the economy has become more capital intensive compared with before - i.e. it takes more capital to produce one unit of GDP. This could indicate declining efficiency in capital spending in terms of generating "growth." It could also mean the Chinese economy may have arrived at a much more capital intensive phase in its economic development curve. Dramatic improvement in the country's transportation infrastructure and urban development in recent years are tell-tale signs. Accumulating capital stock is the ultimate way for a developing country to improve productivity and lift living standards. China's growth path should be viewed as a norm rather than an anomaly. Second, the Chinese economy has directed massive financial resources toward infrastructure investment post the global financial crisis, largely undertaken by state-owned corporate entities such as state-owned enterprises and local government financing vehicles. These investments are not much different from the massive increase in fiscal deficits in other countries to finance social spending programs and welfare expenditures, as both were designed to support domestic demand during an economic downturn. The difference is that China's social welfare system is poorly developed and not large enough to make a meaningful contribution in supporting aggregate demand- and therefore the state sector must explicitly ramp up capex. Another important difference is that government expenditures on social benefit programs distributed to households in most other countries are ultimately consumed, whereas in China, state investment in infrastructure occurs on an accumulated physical asset. This is a key reason why I believe focusing only on the liabilities side of the balance sheet misses an important big-picture point. Finally, the apparently alarming increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio is also partially attributable to how this ratio itself is calculated, in which the slowdown of China's nominal GDP growth rather than its increase in debt has played a much bigger role. Chinese nominal GDP growth dropped from almost 20% in 2010-'11 to close to 6% in 2015-early 2016. In a division calculation in mathematics, a falling denominator (nominal GDP) increases the result exponentially, while a rising numerator (debt) increases the result linearly. If nominal GDP growth had stayed stable, the pace would have been a lot less alarming. This also suggests that the best way to bring down the "debt-to-GDP" ratio is to increase the denominator - i.e. boosting growth either in real or nominal terms. In fact, Chinese nominal GDP expanded by 11.8% in the first quarter from a year ago, as reported early this week - the gap between credit growth and nominal GDP growth has already narrowed significantly. Has China Ever Delevered, And How To Delever Going Forward? In our joint report, Arthur cautioned that China in the past has had periods of deleveraging, and warned that a similar episode would be inevitable going forward, in which the Chinese authorities would have to rein in credit growth below nominal GDP growth, leading to a lower credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart 2). In my view, this diagnosis is misguided, and the policy prescription is dangerous. Chart 2Deleveraging Versus Inflation First, it is worth noting that China's credit-to-GDP ratio has been on an ever-rising trend ever since the data became available, which in my view reflects the accumulation of capital stock through savings and investments. There have indeed been a few short-lived periods when the ratio has declined, as Arthur pointed out, or the economy appeared to "delever," such as in the late 1980, early 1990s, early 2000s and prior to the global financial crisis. However, it is immediately clear that the periods of "deleveraging" in the 1980s and 1990s were both mainly due to massive increases in inflation, which artificially boosted nominal GDP growth. An inflation outbreak is hardly an ideal way to delever that policymakers should aim for. Inflation also picked up between 2003 and 2008, but not nearly as much as the previous two episodes, and the Chinese economy was characterized as experiencing "low inflation boom". However, it is important to note that the country's current account surplus jumped from 2% in 2003 to as high as 10% in 2007. This means Chinese savers collectively did not lend to domestic companies, and therefore debt was not accumulated within the country and shown in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Rather, they lent to foreign entities, such as the U.S. government, in the form of increased holdings of U.S. Treasurys. By the same token, after the global financial crisis, China's current account surplus tumbled back to 2% of GDP, which indicated a significant reduction in the pace of increase in foreign lending but simultaneously a sharp increase in domestic investment and credit. This is precisely what one would expect from the savings-investment identity in conceptualizing China's debt dynamics. In fact, the only period in which China's corporate sector indeed "delevered" in the "classic" textbook sense was the early 2000s, amid aggressive reforms of state-owned enterprises and the banking system. Mass bankruptcies of state-owned firms unleashed by the SOE reform efforts led to mounting losses in the banking sector. The government set up state-owned asset management companies as "bad banks" to take over the non-performing loans of commercial banks - financed by the issuance of special-purpose government bonds. Therefore, the government essentially engineered a "debt swap" in which corporate sector debt was exchanged for government debt - but the country's overall total outstanding debt hardly dropped. It is also noteworthy that the overall economy remained reasonably resilient throughout the "deleveraging" process, even though it was also hit by multiple severe external shocks such as the tech-bubble bust, terrorist attacks in New York City and the SARS crisis. In other words, the playbook of the early 2000s suggests that "deleveraging" will not necessarily hurt growth. In my view, "deleveraging" solely for the purpose of it is not only ineffective, but also counterproductive. Aggressive credit constraint intensifies deflationary pressures, creating a double-whammy on nominal GDP growth through both lower real growth and a falling GDP deflator - which makes it a lot harder to achieve a lower credit-to-GDP ratio. It goes without saying that irresponsible lending and investment behavior should be punished by market forces. However, as shown by "too big to fail" dilemma policymakers in the west had to deal with at the height of the global financial crisis, it is always a delicate balancing act, and it is overly dogmatic to suggest or expect Chinese policymakers to do otherwise. In fact, I have repeatedly argued that the much-touted "Likonomics"2 efforts named after the incumbent Chinese premier a few years ago that appeared to favor harsh "deleveraging" was one of the key reasons behind China's sharp growth slowdown in previous years. Chinese policymakers have since taken a more realistic approach in dealing with the corporate sector debt issue. The government embarked on a new debt-swap program in 2015 to deal with the existing debt load of local government financing vehicles.3 Some provincial "bad bank" asset management companies have been established to absorb regional banks' loan losses - both of which were taken from the early 2000s playbook. Furthermore, policy reflation has significantly eased deflationary pressures and lifted nominal GDP growth, which has narrowed the gap with the pace of credit expansion. In addition, the pace of IPOs in the domestic equity market has quickened notably - i.e. more domestic savings are being channeled into the economy via equity financing as opposed to bank loans. All of these measures in my view are the correct steps to lower the corporate debt-to-GDP ratio, rather than some "short term gain, long term pain" myopic fixes. China's Interbank Rate And The PBoC Liquidity Management Arthur argued in our report that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) in recent years has moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money), which effectively accommodates commercial banks' credit creation binge by injecting massive amounts of liquidity, as evidenced by the much-lowered volatility in China's interbank market since 2016 - with an explosion of PBoC direct lending to financial institutions (Chart 3). I doubt there is a connection between this point and China's loan growth. The PBoC's direct lending to commercial banks only began to increase in earnest starting in early 2016, while bank loan growth peaked six years before that. If anything, the recent change reflects the PBoC's more flexible and sophisticated management of the country's interbank liquidity compared with previously primitive and blunt measures. It is easy to spot the dramatic volatility in China's interbank rates before 2016 compared with other major economies. Chinese interbank rates routinely had sharp spikes, underscoring dramatic changes in interbank liquidity, which were both extremely rare and potentially damaging in other countries. Hong Kong's interbank rates showed similar spikes during the Asian Crisis in the late 1990s, when its currency peg was under furious speculative attack (Chart 4). U.S. interbank rates spiked amid the "Lehman shock" that marked a dramatic escalation of the global financial crisis. In "normal times" interbank rates closely track the policy interest rates of respective monetary authorities in major economies. Sharp spikes in interbank rates could easily tilt a country's financial institutions into a liquidity crisis, even without any solvency issues, and a central bank should seek all means to avoid such an event as the lender of last resort. Chart 3No Connection Between The PBoC Lending ##br##And Commercial Bank Loan Growth Chart 4Interbank Rates: Experiences In Other Countries In other words, the PBoC was effectively playing with fire in the past by allowing extreme swings in interbank liquidity. The impact on the country's banking system was not as dramatic as one would have expected, mainly because Chinese banks are heavily reliant on retail deposits for their loanable funds rather than on wholesale funding through the interbank market, as in other countries. Meanwhile, most Chinese banks are state-owned, which also reduces "perceived" counterparty risks. There were episodes in which some banks failed to honor their liquidity obligations during periods of extreme liquidity crunch, or technically defaulted, which in the west could well have triggered bankruptcies and a massive chain reaction. In China, these features, ironically, have made its banking sector more "resilient" to what effectively are central bank failures. Chart 5RRR Is Still Elevated The key reason was that the PBoC mainly relied on reserve requirement ratio (RRR) adjustments to manage interbank liquidity, which are by definition blunt and hard to adjust in a timely manner - the very reasons why other central banks have mostly abandoned it. More recently, the PBoC has been utilizing new liquidity tools, such as various lending facilities and open market operations. This is the sole reason behind the apparently steep increase in the PBoC's claims on commercial banks, shown in Chart 3. In fact, rather than providing massive liquidity relief, the PBoC still keeps the RRR at near historically high levels (Chart 5). Therefore, all the items on the PBoC's balance sheet should be cross-checked to assess its liquidity operations, rather than focusing on one item. In my view, what's happening is that PBoC has more recently been learning and experimenting with modern central banking, rather than accommodating/encouraging commercial banks' lending behavior. All in all, the debate on China's debt situation will likely stay, and its evolvement over time will be closely studied by policymakers and academia, which is probably irrelevant to most investors. From investors' point of view, the important point is that the market has been focusing on China's debt and leverage for many years, which means it is likely already priced in. Moreover, from a macro point of view, it is highly unlikely that such a well-known issue will cause a major risk event - black swans, by definition, are unheard of and unpredictable. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings?" dated March 23, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, ""Likonomics": Off To A Rocky Start," dated July 10, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Game Changer?" dated March 11, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chinese capex and EM domestic demand will falter again in the second half of this year. This is not contingent on a growth slowdown in the advanced economies, but due to a further slowdown in bank lending in EM and lower commodities prices. The direction of EM share prices in absolute terms and relative to the S&P 500 is determined by EPS trajectory, not equity valuations. We expect EM EPS to drop in absolute terms and to underperform U.S. EPS. India's deleveraging cycle is well advanced, especially when compared with other EM economies. Maintain an overweight position in Indian equities within the EM universe. Continue betting on yield curve steepening. Stay long the Czech koruna versus the euro. Feature EM/China growth will relapse in the second half of this year. Share prices, presuming they are forward-looking, will roll over beforehand. Chinese interest rates have risen, which typically heralds a downtrend in the mainland's credit impulse and business cycle (Chart I-1). Chinese interest rates are shown as an annual percentage change, inverted and advanced. This is a typical relationship between interest rates and credit cycles, and there is currently no reason why it will play out any differently in China. Given the mainland has a lingering credit bubble, rising borrowing costs and regulatory tightening of banks and the shadow banking system are guaranteed to lead to a relapse in credit origination, and in turn economic growth. China's yield curve has been flattening in recent months. This often precedes a selloff in both EM share prices and industrial metals (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Interest Rates ##br##And Credit/Business Cycles Chart I-2A Flattening Yield Curve In China Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM And Commodities The Chinese yield curve has been experiencing bear flattening - front-end rates have risen more than long-term rates. Bear flattening in yield curves typically occurs before a major top in growth, when current conditions are still robust but the fixed-income market begins to question growth sustainability going forward. A flattening yield curve is consistent with our assessment: a lack of follow-through from last year's stimulus combined with the recent policy tightening will cause growth to downshift materially very soon. EM narrow (M1) money growth has rolled over decisively, and historically it has been a good leading indicator for EM earnings per share (EPS) (Chart I-3). The former has historically led the latter by about nine months. Chart I-3EM EPS To Roll Over In the Second Half 2017 The same is true in the case of China - the M1 impulse (the second derivative of M1) leads industrial profits by about six months and heralds an imminent reversal (Chart I-4). Chart I-4China's Industrial Profit Growth Recovery Is At A Risk The commodities currency index (an equally weighted average of AUD, NZD and CAD) has relapsed against the greenback. This index points to global growth deceleration in the second half of this year (Chart I-5). Similarly, these commodities currencies also lead commodities prices, and presently signal a top in the commodities complex (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Commodities Currencies Signify Weakness In Global Trade Chart I-6Commodities Currencies Point To Relapse In Commodities Prices In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, bank loan growth has still been decelerating despite the global growth recovery of the past 12 months (Chart I-7, top panel). Besides, retail sales volume growth in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has not ameliorated yet (Chart I-7, bottom panel). All of these economic aggregates are equity market cap-weighted. Similarly, auto sales in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan have been stabilizing at very low levels but have not recovered at all (Chart I-8). Hence, we infer that domestic demand in EM ex-China has stabilized, but it has not recovered. For example, manufacturing production in Brazil, Russia, South Africa and Indonesia has been rather subdued (Chart I-9). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Domestic Demand Has Not Recovered Chart I-8EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Auto Sales Are Stabilizing At Low levels Chart I-9Synchronized Global Recovery? As EM ex-China credit growth decelerates further due to the lingering credit excesses and poor banking system health, their domestic demand will disappoint. This is a major risk to the EM profit outlook. Bottom Line: Chinese and EM domestic demand and by extension corporate earnings will falter again in the second half of this year. This view is not contingent on a growth slowdown in the advanced economies but will be the outcome of further slowdown in bank lending in EM and lower commodities prices. A reversal in Chinese imports from other EM is the link that explains how a relapse in the mainland's growth in the second half this year will hurt the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. Profits Hold The Key Chart I-10Profits, Not Valuations, Hold The Key Emerging markets' relative performance versus the S&P 500 has historically been driven by EPS (Chart I-10). In the past 12 months, EM EPS has improved modestly but has not outperformed U.S. EPS in U.S. dollar terms. Consistently, EM stocks have failed to outperform the S&P 500 in common currency terms; they have been flat at low levels in the past 12 months. An important message from this chart is that equity valuations are not critical to EM versus U.S. relative equity performance. It is all about corporate profit cycles. The widely held view within the investment community is that EM stocks are cheaper than those in the U.S., and therefore will outperform based on more attractive valuations. The fact that EM stocks are indeed cheaper versus the S&P 500 only reflects the fact that U.S. equity valuations are expensive and EM equity valuations are neutral in absolute terms. Equity valuations may affect the degree of out- and underperformance, but they do not determine the direction of relative performance as vividly illustrated by Chart I-10. The same can be said about EM stocks' absolute performance. Equity valuations do not determine the direction of share prices; the latter rise when profits expand, and fall when EPS contracts. However, valuations affect the magnitude of the move in equity prices: cheap valuations and growing EPS will produce a larger rally compared to neutral equity valuations and identical growth in EPS. We discussed EM equity valuations at great length in our Weekly Report published two weeks ago.1 In absolute terms, EM equity valuations are presently neutral. Therefore, they have no bearing on the direction of share prices. If EM EPS expands, stocks will continue to rally. If EPS growth stalls or turns negative, EM stocks will stumble. As Charts I-3 and I-4 on page 3 illustrate, EM EPS will soon relapse. In addition, U.S. return on equity (RoE) remains well above EM's RoE (Chart I-11), reflecting better equity capital utilization in the U.S. versus the EM. Looking forward, one variable that has had a reasonably good track record in gauging relative performance of EM versus U.S. share prices is the ratio of industrial metals to U.S. lumber prices (Chart I-12). Industrial metals prices are a proxy for economic growth in China/EM, while U.S. lumber prices are indicative of America's business cycle. Industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) have lately underperformed U.S. lumber prices, pointing to renewed EM underperformance versus the S&P 500. Chart I-11EM RoE Is Below U.S. RoE Chart I-12EM Stocks To Underperform The S&P 500 Our view is that EM EPS growth will contract again within a cyclical investment horizon (over the next 12 months). While not all sectors' earnings are set to shrink, our view is that banks' profits will decline driven by credit growth deceleration and a rise in non-performing loans in a number of countries. Besides, commodities producers' EPS will drop anew if, as we expect, commodities prices head south again. Table I-1 illustrates the weights of each EM equity sector within total EM-listed companies' profits. Financials account for 24%, while energy and materials comprise 7.5% each of the aggregate EM equity market cap, respectively. In aggregate, these sectors make up 50% of EM EPS and 40% of the stock index. Table I-1EM Sectors: Equity Market Caps ##br##And EPS's Share Of Total EPS We remain positive on the technology/internet sector's growth outlook. While this sector's weight in terms of both market cap and EPS is very large, it is not yet sufficient to lift the overall EM equity index if other large sectors falter. In fact, technology/internet stocks have already rallied dramatically and are presently overbought. They will likely correct along with the rest of the universe. Nevertheless, we continue to recommend an overweight stance in technology stocks within the EM benchmark. Bottom Line: The direction of EM share prices in absolute terms and relative to the S&P 500 is determined by EPS trajectory, not equity valuations. We expect EM EPS to drop in absolute terms and to underperform U.S. EPS. Consistently, we maintain our long-standing strategy of being short EM / long the S&P 500. Taking Profits On Short Korean Auto Stocks Initiated on July 3, 2013, this recommendation has generated a 35% gain (Chart I-13, top panel). Notably, Korean auto stocks have failed to rally in the past 12 months. Furthermore, Korean auto stocks have underperformed the overall EM equity index by a whopping 22% since our recommendation (Chart I-13, bottom panel). For dedicated investors, we recommend lifting the allocation to this sector from underweight to neutral. In regard to allocation to the KOSPI overall, we maintain our overweight stance within an EM equity portfolio for now. Geopolitical volatility could create near-term disturbance but the primary trend in Korea's relative performance against the EM benchmark is up (Chart I-14). Within the KOSPI, we continue to overweight technology stocks, companies with exposure to DM growth and domestic industries. Meanwhile, companies with exposure to China's capital spending should be avoided. Chart I-13Take Profits On Short ##br##Korean Stocks Recommendation Chart I-14Korean Equities ##br##Relative To EM Overall Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM Equity Valuations Revisited", dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 21. India: Beyond De-Monetization The growth-dampening effects from India's de-monetization program are beginning to dissipate. Both services and manufacturing PMIs are recovering (Chart II-1). As more cash is injected back into the system, consumer sector growth will improve. Beyond the recovery in consumption, however, capital spending - the key driver of productivity and non-inflationary growth - is still anemic because of structural reasons that began well before de-monetization was announced (Chart II-2). Chart II-1PMIs Are Recovering Chart II-2Capital Spending Is Depressed Public Banks: Is Deleveraging Advanced? The Indian authorities appear serious about restructuring their public banks, and the banking downturn cycle is likely approaching its final stages (Chart II-3). As and when India's public banks find themselves on more solid footing, industrial credit growth will pick up meaningfully and capital expenditures will follow. The previous credit boom that occurred in the infrastructure, mining, and materials sectors left a large number of failed and stalled projects. Chart II-4 shows the number of stalled projects remains stubbornly high and is not yet declining. These mal-investments have ended up as non-performing loans primarily on public banks' balance sheets: Non-performing loans (NPLs) currently amount to 11.8% and distressed assets (DRA) stand at around 4% of total loans on Indian public banks' balance sheets. This has forced public banks to curtail credit growth to the industrial sector (Chart II-5). Chart II-3Bank Credit Growth Is At All Time Low Chart II-4Plenty Of Projects Stalled Chart II-5Bank Credit Growth To Industries Is Contracting Public banks' NPLs and DRAs have spiked because the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is forcing commercial banks to acknowledge and provision for these bad loans via the central bank's Asset Quality Review (AQR) program. This is eroding public banks' capital and constraining their ability to grow their loan book. However, the program is bullish for India's economy in the long run and stands in stark contrast to other EM countries where authorities are turning a blind eye on banks attempting to window dress their NPLs. India's government and the RBI are currently working with commercial banks and proposing measures to recover loans from defaulters. The government is also injecting capital into public banks. It has announced 100 billion INR in capital injections for this fiscal year and will inject more if needed. It is also forcing banks to raise more capital by ridding their books of non-core businesses. We have performed a scenario analysis on public banks (presented in Table II-1) to gauge their stock valuations. In all scenarios, we assume that DRAs will be constant at 5% of total loans, and also assume a 70% recovery rate on DRAs. We examine various scenarios for NPLs - the latter vary from 12-15% of total loans (the current actual NPL rate is 11.8%). Equity valuations are very sensitive to the recovery rate on NPLs. We stress test for recovery rates of 30%, 40%, 50% and 60%. If one assumes a 12% NPL ratio and a recovery rate of 60%, public bank stocks would be 30% cheap - their adjusted (post provisions, capital impairment, and recapitalization) price-to-book value (PBV) ratio will be 0.7, which is 30% less than its historical mean PBV ratio for public banks of 1.0. By contrast, assuming a 15% NPL ratio and a 30% recovery rate, banks' equity valuations would be 50% expensive - their adjusted (post provisions, capital impairment, and recapitalization) PBV ratio would be 1.5. Table II-1Under/Overvaluation (In %) Of Public Banks Stocks For A Given NPL Ratio And Recovery Ratio* Our bias is to believe that the NPL ratio is somewhere between 14-15% and the recovery rate near 40%. In such a case, public bank stocks would presently be 10-20% expensive. This does not offer a great buying opportunity at current levels, but suggests the downside is probably smaller than in other EM bank stocks. Overall, India is much more advanced in terms of recognizing and provisioning for NPLs as well as re-capitalization of its banking system than many other EM countries. Therefore, we believe India's deleveraging cycle is well advanced, especially when compared with other EM economies. Due to this and the fact that this economy is not exposed to China/commodities prices, we still recommend an overweight position in Indian equities within the EM universe. Inflation And Fixed-Income Strategy While headline inflation is easing due to temporarily lower food prices, core inflation remains sticky. The central government's overall and current expenditures - which often drive inflation - are rising rapidly (Chart II-6). Likewise, state governments' current expenditures are also booming and state development loans - borrowing by state governments - are growing at an extremely fast pace. In addition, in June 2016, the Indian central government announced it will raise salaries, allowances and pensions of government employees by 23%. The central government also raised the minimum wage for non-agriculture laborers by 42% in August 2016, and the Ministry of Labor followed by doubling the minimum wage of agricultural workers in March 2017. All of this will entail accumulating inflationary pressures, even if oil and food prices remain tame. The central bank hiked the reverse repo rate last week to absorb excess liquidity from the banking system. Even though it cited service sector inflation as a concern, we believe it will lag behind accumulating inflationary pressures. This warrants a steeper yield curve. Investors should continue to bet on yield curve steepening by paying 10-year swaps / receiving 1-year swap rates (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Government Expenditures Are Rising Chart II-7Bet On A Yield Curve Steepening Rising inflationary pressures and higher bond yields could weigh on Indian stocks in absolute terms, but will likely not preclude them outperforming the EM equity benchmark. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com Stay Long Czech Koruna Versus Euro On September 28th 2016, we recommended going long CZK / short EUR on the back of expectations that the Czech National Bank (CNB) would abandon its currency peg. Last week, the CNB has floated the koruna. We expect this currency to appreciate versus the euro further and suggest keeping this position. Inflationary pressures in the Czech economy are genuine and heightening. The 1.5% appreciation in the koruna versus the euro since last week will not tighten monetary conditions enough to cap inflation. As such, we expect the CNB to eventually start raising interest rates, leading to further koruna appreciation versus the euro (Chart III-1). The output gap is turning positive, which historically has led to a rise in core inflation (Chart III-2). Chart III-1The Czech Koruna Has More Catch-Up To Do Chart III-2Output Gap And Inflation The labor market is tight - the Czech unemployment rate is the lowest in Europe. Both wages and until labor costs growth are robust and trimmed-mean consumer price inflation is accelerating (Chart III-3). The CNB's foreign exchange reserve accumulation has generated an overflow of liquidity in the Czech financial/banking system (Chart III-4). Chart III-3Inflationary Pressures Are Broad-Based Chart III-4Money And Credit Growth Are Very Strong The rapid expansion of liquidity has led to strong credit growth (Chart III-4, bottom panel), and a rapid appreciation in real estate prices. This warrants higher interest rates to prevent the formation of a bubble. Furthermore, the Czech economy has been benefiting from the recovery in European economic growth in general and manufacturing in particular. Tourist arrivals have also been robust. Notably, the nation's current account surplus stands at 1% of GDP. Chart III-5The Koruna Is Mildly Cheap With regards to currency valuations, the koruna is silently cheap and as such has further room to appreciate (Chart III-5). Either the koruna will gradually appreciate over the next few months, tightening monetary conditions to an extent where the CNB does not need to hike interest rates, or the CNB is eventually forced to hike rates considerably. The latter will push up the value of the Czech currency. We suspect that the CNB is still intervening in the forex market in order to prevent a dramatic appreciation in the koruna. The central bank has stated in its last press conference that it stands ready to intervene to mitigate exchange rate fluctuations if needed. However, in an economy with open capital account, the central bank cannot target the exchange rate and interest rates simultaneously. If the CNB desires to cap inflation, it has to hike interest rates or allow the currency to appreciate considerably. If it chooses the former, the koruna will still rally dramatically. Bottom Line: Stay long the Czech koruna versus the euro. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Animal spirits have soared, according to soft data from surveys. But 6-month credit impulses have slumped in the euro area, U.S. and China, according to hard data from the ECB, Federal Reserve and PBOC. The negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than soaring animal spirits - is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. A growth-pause would blindside financial markets. Lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and slumping credit impulses is resolved. Feature Animal spirits have soared since the surprise election of President Trump on November 8. For many investors, the heightened animal spirits - shown in surging sentiment and survey data (Chart I-2) - are a strong signal that the global economy is about to accelerate. Unfortunately, these investors could end up very disappointed. Chart of the Week6-Month Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-2Animal Spirits Have Soared... The problem is that the hard data on bank credit are giving the exact opposite signal. Over the past few months, global credit flows have slumped (Chart of the Week, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3...But Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-4The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Turned Negative Despite Heightened Animal Spirits The ECB's latest Monetary Developments in the Euro Area shows that the euro area 6-month credit flow has shrunk by €26 billion. The most recent 6-month credit flow fell to €321 billion from €347 billion in the previous period. The U.S. Federal Reserve's latest weekly H8 release paints an even starker picture. The U.S. 6-month credit flow has shrunk by $271 billion, equivalent to 3% of U.S. GDP (at an annualised rate). The most recent 6-month credit flow plunged to just $152 billion from $423 billion in the previous period. For completeness, look at the world's other major economy, China. Given the lower credibility of official bank credit data in China we prefer to focus on the broad money supply numbers. The People's Bank of China does not seasonally adjust this data, but it is straightforward to do ourselves using standard seasonal adjustment functions. The seasonally-adjusted data shows that the most recent 6-month flow, at 8.1 trillion yuan, was slightly higher than the preceding 7.7 trillion yuan. Nevertheless, the resulting marginally positive China 6-month impulse is sharply down from previous months. Why Optimism Is Up, But Borrowing Is Down Let's explain why sentiment data and credit flows have headed in polar opposite directions since the shock electoral success of Donald Trump. Imagine that firms (or households) are willing to borrow $1 billion for investment projects at a long-term borrowing cost of 1.5%. Then, an unexpected event causes animal spirits to surge. Suddenly, firms will become more optimistic about the expected profits from the investment projects. At this higher net1 profitability, firms might be willing to borrow and invest more than $1 billion, let's say $1.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher and so will the credit flow, resulting in a credit impulse of +$0.5 billion. Chart I-5A Sharp Rise In Borrowing Costs Has##br## Countered Heightened Animal Spirits Now imagine that in response to this improved economic outlook, the financial markets expect the central bank to hike interest rates quicker and further. So the markets push up the bond yield to 2.0%. For firms, this higher cost of long-term borrowing might now exactly neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At this unchanged net profitability, firms will continue to borrow and invest $1 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will be unchanged, resulting in a credit impulse of zero. Finally imagine that in response to the improved economic outlook, the financial markets get carried away. They push up the bond yield to 2.5%. Now, the much higher cost of long-term borrowing will more than neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At a sharply lower net profitability, firms will borrow and invest less than $1 billion, let's say $0.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will fall, resulting in a credit impulse of -$0.5 billion. Note that in all three cases, animal spirits are up sharply. For credit flows, these heightened animal spirits in isolation are a tailwind. But any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing is a headwind. It follows that the net impact on credit flows depends on the relative strengths of the tailwind from heightened animal spirits and the headwind from higher long-term borrowing costs. Today, we would suggest that for global credit flows, the tailwind from heightened animal spirits is weaker than the headwind from the sharpest rise in bond yields in a decade (Chart I-5). The result is a negative 6-month global credit impulse. And it is this negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. The History Of "Animal Spirits" In the early nineteenth century, the 'British Currency School', led by David Ricardo, postulated that expansions and contractions of bank credit and the broad money supply are the main cause of the economic cycle. We are very strong advocates of Ricardo's Currency School thesis. In opposition to the Currency School, the 'British Banking School' believed that expansions and contractions of bank credit are merely the passive effects of the economic cycle. The true cause of the economic cycle is fluctuations in business speculation and expectations of profit, which ultimately come from psychological mood swings. A century later in 1936, John Maynard Keynes wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In it, Keynes reiterated the Banking School's psychological mood swing explanation of the cycle. To describe these mood swings, he came up with the now very familiar phrase "animal spirits". Keynes blamed the Great Depression on the collapse of these animal spirits, and a consequent collapse in investment and consumption. But Keynes was only partly right. Animal spirits in isolation do not cause the cycle. As discussed in the previous section, borrowing costs lean against mood swings in both directions. Optimism results in higher borrowing costs, countering the desire to borrow. Pessimism results in lower borrowing costs, countering the reluctance to borrow. And it is the net impact on credit flows that drives the cycle. The specific problem in the Depression was a slump in asset prices. This depressed the value of households' and firms' balance sheet assets to below the value of the liabilities - an extreme event which economist Richard Koo calls a 'balance sheet recession'. Crucially, in a balance sheet recession, no amount of borrowing cost reduction can counter the reluctance to borrow, because households' and firms' single-minded objective is to regain solvency. Hence for us, the Ricardian bank credit cycle - rather than Keynesian animal spirits - is the better explanation for the Great Depression, as well as for Japan's post-1990 bust and for the 2008-09 Great Recession. The Ricardian bank credit cycle also explains the more common and garden variety of economic fluctuations (Box I-1). Readers should review our February 2 report Slowdown: How And When? for the compelling theoretical and empirical evidence. Right now, the important message is that the global bank credit cycle is weakening. Box I-1The Mathematics Of Mini-Cycles Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar: What Should Investors Do? Many commentators and investors look at sentiment and survey data and note that animal spirits have soared. On this basis, they expect global growth to accelerate. But to reiterate, animal spirits in isolation do not cause the economic cycle. Heightened animal spirits do generate a tailwind for credit creation, but any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing generates a headwind (Chart I-6). And it is the net effect on the 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that determines the cyclical direction of the economy (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Weaken Credit Flows... Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Flows Slow The Economy Today, the hard data on bank credit in the euro area, the U.S. and China show that 6-month impulses have slumped. The risk is that this could generate an unwelcome surprise. Rather than accelerate in the coming months, global growth may level off or even decelerate. Even if it were a short-lived pause, major financial markets - including all of those in Europe - would be blindsided. The risk-on mode so far in 2017 would turn out to be incongruous. At the very least, until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and weakening credit impulses is resolved, we will lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Profitability net of borrowing cost. Fractal Trading Model* Excessive optimism in global equity prices reinforces our near-term caution towards stocks. We are expressing this through a short position in the AEX. 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-8 * 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 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. 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

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br## The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Dear Client, I am travelling this week so this report is a little different. It is the full transcript and slides of a client presentation I recently gave. The presentation summarises several years of in-house work on applying the Fractal Market Hypothesis to real-life investing. Dhaval Joshi The Efficient Market Hypothesis Is Wrong Good morning In the next 30 minutes or so I want to challenge the way you think about financial markets. You see, at school we are taught the mainstream models of financial markets: Modern Portfolio Theory, the Capital Asset Pricing Model and the Efficient Market Hypothesis. And we are led to believe that these models describe the real world. But I'm sad to say that these mainstream models are deeply flawed. They simply don't describe financial markets as they behave in the real world. And in your heart of hearts, you know it. Take the supposed bedrock of financial market theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and look at the assumptions it makes about markets (Slide 2). Slide 2 One. That economic and market returns follow a Normal - which is to say a standard bell-curve - distribution. Really? Everybody knows that returns exhibit 'fat-tails' in which extreme events happen much more frequently than the bell-curve would suggest. By the way, this also means that a statement such as "the financial crisis was a five standard deviation - five-sigma - event with odds of 3 million to 1" is also complete nonsense. Accounting for the true fat-tails, the likelihood of extreme events is much higher than the flawed bell-curve models would suggest, as we should all now be painfully aware! Two. That the distribution is stationary - its mean doesn't change through time. Again, wrong. We know that economies and markets can and do experience regular regime-shifts or phase-shifts. Three. That markets have no memory - they exhibit no trends. Now this is getting silly! We all know that markets exhibit very strong trends. Four. That markets do not produce repeating patterns at any scale. Untrue. And five. That markets are continuously stable at all scales. Wrong again. I'm sure you'll all agree that none of these assumptions that underlie the Efficient Market Hypothesis describe the markets that we all know and work with. The good news is that there is a model that does describe the financial markets as they behave in the real world (Slide 3). It correctly assumes the return distribution is non-Normal, the mean can change over time, markets can trend, produce repeating patterns, and can generate instabilities at any scale. Slide 3 The model is called the Fractal Market Hypothesis, first proposed by Edgar Peters in 1991. Now I can see some looks of fear at the mention of this intimidating word 'fractal'. But hang in there, there really is nothing to fear. A fractal is just a pattern that repeats over and over at different scales. You come across fractals all the time, perhaps without realizing it. A cloud is a fractal - because a small part of a cloud is just a scaled-down version of the whole cloud. And for those of you who enjoy your vegetables, you will notice that cauliflowers and broccoli are fractals because the florets are just miniature versions of the whole vegetable. But perhaps the most familiar example is a tree (Slide 4). You can clearly see that a tree is just a simple pattern repeating over and over at different scales. Indeed, on this next slide (Slide 5), you see images of the twigs, branches, and trunk structure - and you could not tell them apart. Except that the twigs are on a scale of millimeters, the branches are on a scale of centimeters, and the trunk is on a scale of meters. Slide 4 Slide 5 Let's switch back to financial markets. On this next slide (Slide 6), you see three images of ten successive points on the S&P500. Again, the three images look very similar. In fact, they're very different. The first is on a scale of weeks, the second on a scale of months, and the third on a scale of years. But just like the twigs, branches and trunk, you could not tell them apart without seeing the scale. In other words, financial markets are scale-invariant. They are fractals. Slide 6 But why? And so what? To answer these questions we must now introduce the four basic assumptions of the Fractal Market Hypothesis. One. Investors are not homogeneous. The market is composed of many participants with a large number of different time horizons (Slide 7) - ranging from the milliseconds or seconds for a high frequency trader, through the days or weeks for a hedge fund to the years or decades for a pension fund. Two. These different time horizons interpret the same fundamental information differently (Slide 8). For example, a short-term technical trader interprets a rising price as a buy signal. Whereas a long-term fundamental value investor interprets the same information as a sell signal. Slide 7 Slide 8 Three. The market price reflects the combination of the short-term technical trader's interpretation of the information and the long-term value investor's interpretation of the same information (Slide 9). Crucially, this means the market is not efficient unless all time horizons are active in setting the price. Four. The stability of the market at a given price depends on plentiful liquidity - an adequate balancing of supply and demand at that price (Slide 10). When many different time horizons are active, the market is efficient and liquidity is plentiful. This is because different investors will disagree on the interpretation of the same information, and will trade with each other in volume without moving the price. Slide 9 Slide 10 However, if one time horizon becomes dominant, the market becomes inefficient and liquidity will evaporate. As investors become a 'groupthink herd', the healthy disagreement that is needed to create liquidity disappears. And the market loses its stability. So to answer the question 'why' markets are fractals, it is clear that the short-term investors generate the short-term patterns while long-term investors generate the long-term patterns. And to answer the question 'so what', it is clear that if the fractal structure breaks down, it is a warning sign that liquidity is evaporating and the market is losing its stability. Next we must discuss how we can measure the market's fractal structure, and for this I'm going to digress a little and ask you a famous question. How long is Britain's coastline? This is the question that the grandfather of fractals, Benoit Mandelbrot, first asked in 1967. Actually, it's a trick question. The answer is that there is no answer! You see a coastline is also a fractal. And the more detail you capture and measure, the longer it becomes (Slide 11). The point is that with a fractal structure you cannot measure its length or size. But the good news is that you can measure its extent of 'fractal-ness' using something called a fractal dimension. In fact the next slide (Slide 12) shows how Mandelbrot first defined the fractal dimension of Britain's coastline. Slide 11 Slide 12 Then a couple of years ago we thought why don't we extend this concept to a financial market? After all, a price chart is similar to a coastline, except that distance is replaced with time. In fact, the maths is a little more complicated, but this is how we ended up defining the fractal dimension of a financial market (Slide 13). Bear in mind that you won't find this or any of the following analysis in any textbook because it is our own unique work. Rest assured, you don't need the maths to understand the concept intuitively. Think of it like this (Slide 14). A market that is not trending tends to sweep out 2-dimensional space. So its fractal dimension might be close to 2. But a market that is trending gets less and less fractal and closer and closer to a perfect 1-dimensional line. So its fractal dimension drops close to 1. Slide 13 Slide 14 And now we get to our findings, which are both remarkable and uplifting. When we applied our unique definition of fractal dimension to different financial markets in different historical timeframes, we discovered that the tipping point of instability turned out to be exactly the same across different historical eras, geographies and asset classes. We had come across a universal property of financial markets, irrespective of generation, culture or investment. Financial markets tended to reverse their near-term trend when the fractal structure between the 65-day investment horizon and the 1-day investment horizon disappeared. Specifically, when the 65-day fractal dimension dropped to 1.25. So we called this the "Universal Constant Of Finance". You can see that this universal constant applied to the top and initial bottom of the market during the 1929 Wall Street Crash (Slide 15), and to the top and bottom of the 1987 Crash (Slide 16). It also perfectly picked the tops and bottoms of the 1990 Nikkei Crash (Slide 17), and the 1993 Bond Market Crash (Slide 18). Slide 15 Slide 16 Slide 17 Slide 18 Some financial markets also tended to reverse long-term trends when the fractal structure between the 60-month investment horizon and the 1-month investment horizon disappeared. Specifically, when the 60-month fractal dimension dropped to 1.25. You can see here (Slide 19) how this has perfectly picked many of the structural turning points in the dollar. And when we see the rare star-alignment of a long-term signal coinciding with a near-term signal, it can predict a very strong reversal in a short space of time. This is precisely what we saw ahead of crude oil's sharp bounce in early 2016 (Slide 20 and Slide 21). So to conclude (Slide 22): Slide 19 Slide 20 Slide 21 Slide 22 Financial markets are efficient only when all investment horizons are present and active in setting the price. In other words, when the market has a rich fractal structure. When investment horizons converge to a groupthink herd, the fractal structure breaks down, and the fractal dimension nears its lower bound. This is a warning sign of an impending liquidity-triggered trend reversal, either short-term or long-term. I am now happy to take any questions. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Feature Debt and leverage sit at the core of global investors' concerns over China's macro situation. Our recent conversations with clients confirm that fears of an "imminent" Chinese crash have abated, but investors remain fundamentally uncomfortable with China's seemingly ever-rising debt levels, and are concerned that a proverbial day of reckoning will eventually come, dragging the world into severe recession. Amid these deeply rooted woes, some investors have failed to detect China's cyclical improvement since early last year, and have been caught off guard by the powerful risk-on rally in some asset classes, such as commodities and emerging markets. We have addressed China's debt issue extensively in various reports of late. This week, we add to views articulated in a report penned by my colleague Peter Berezin, chief strategist of our Global Investment Strategy team, titled, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" Taken together, we intend to shed light on this complicated issue and dispute some commonly held misperceptions. In a nutshell: China's massive buildup of debt is rooted in the country's vast domestic savings and a financial intermediation system that relies heavily on the banking sector. It is wrong to discuss the debt problem without understanding China's basic macro features. (See also China Investment Strategy special report, "Chinese Deleveraging? What Deleveraging!" dated June 15th 2016).1 Therefore, China's rising debt is the mirror image of the accumulation of savings through investment. In this vein, assessing the debt situation essentially boils down to assessing the viability of China's capital spending. In our China Investment Strategy special reports, "How Much Does China Overinvest," dated May 4th 2016, and "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity," dated October 6th 2016,2 we found no systemic evidence of massive misallocation of capital, as claimed by many. In fact, the "efficiency" of Chinese capital spending is either comparable or superior to global norms, according to our calculations. While investors and analysts fixated on China's "debt bubble" focus almost entirely on the country's rising debt-to-GDP ratio, we have looked beyond this widely scrutinized conventional indicator by checking corporate financial statements for the true leverage situation at the micro level. In China Investment Strategy special reports, "Rethinking Chinese Leverage," dated October 27th, 2016, and "Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II,"3 dated January 5th 2017, we concluded that China's corporate debt situation in terms of both leverage ratios and debt sustainability is far from as precarious as widely perceived. It goes without saying that we are not completely sanguine about the increase in Chinese corporate debt, and we fully appreciate the risk that banks' asset quality would inevitably suffer in an economic downturn. We differ, however, on whether the expected increase in non-performing assets held by banks would degenerate into a financial crisis with chaotic consequences. In our China Investment Strategy special report, "Stress-Testing Chinese Banks," dated July 27th 2016,4 we made the case that Chinese banks would be able to withstand a dramatic increase in non-performing loans without suffering systemic stress, and that the market had priced in a rather extreme situation that in our view was unjustified. Finally, mounting concerns on China's macro debt situation among investors have broad-brushed virtually all Chinese stocks. Almost all Chinese sectors have been trading at steep discounts to their global counterparts, despite comparable leverage and profitability conditions at the micro level. This, in our view, represents market mispricing, and the large valuation gap will eventually be arbitraged away. This is the fundamental reason for our strategically positive assessment on Chinese stocks, especially H shares. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Chinese Deleveraging? What Deleveraging!,” dated June 15, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity,” dated October 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II,” dated January 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Stress-Testing Chinese Banks,” dated July 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem? There is little evidence of a major "credit bubble" in China. Rising debt is largely the consequence of the country's high saving rate. This has mixed implications for global bonds: On the one hand, an exaggerated fear of a hard landing in China has kept global bond yields below where they would otherwise be; on the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to weigh on real long-term yields. The real trade-weighted RMB will depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. Chinese shares are still attractive at current valuation levels. Go long the H-share market versus the MSCI EM index. The China Question Recent Chinese economic data have been fairly solid and our China analysts expect that growth momentum will be sustained over the coming months.5 Nevertheless, there are plenty of clouds on the horizon. Direct fiscal spending has slowed sharply over the past 12 months. In addition, a crackdown on property speculation last year has led to a deceleration in home price inflation, which could adversely affect household spending and construction later this year. Then, of course, there is all that debt. There is no shortage of commentators who argue that China is experiencing a full-blown credit bubble. Others contend that rising debt in China is largely a manifestation of a chronic excess of domestic savings. Knowing which side is correct is critical for investors. If China is in the midst of a massive credit bubble, then it is natural to fear that this bubble will burst fairly soon. This could prove to be devastating to global financial markets. In contrast, if rising debt in China mainly reflects an overabundance of savings, then it is possible that debt will continue rising until those savings dissipate - something that may not happen for many years. We won't beat around the bush. Our view is that rising debt in China has largely been the result of excess savings. This implies that a financial crisis in China is unlikely anytime soon. That does not mean that China will cease being a source of occasional investor angst. But if another major global recession is coming, it will not be because of China. The Debt-Savings Tango Endless ink has been spilled on the question of whether savings create bank credit or bank credit creates savings. In reality, the answer is "both": Just like income can create spending and spending can create income, savings can create debt and vice versa. If an economy is operating at less than full employment, the decision by banks to extend new credit is likely to boost aggregate demand, leading to more hiring. This will raise household disposable income and potentially lift aggregate savings.6 On the flipside, if households decide to save a bit more, this will push down real interest rates. That, in turn, could entice firms to increase how much they borrow and invest. Debt creates savings, and savings create debt; it's a two-way street. Admittedly, thinking through the specific forces underlying the relationship between debt and savings is one of those things that can make your head spin. Thus, it is worthwhile to go through a few simple examples in order to elucidate the principles at work. With this knowledge in hand, we will be able to debunk many of the fallacies that investors routinely succumb to. Cuckoo For Coconuts: How To Think About Debt And Savings Imagine a small island economy consisting of 100 people, each of whom toils away producing 100 coconuts every year, resulting in annual GDP of 10,000 coconuts. Consider the following five examples, summarized in Table 1: Table 1Cuckoo For Coconuts:##br## Debt Creates Savings, Savings Create Debt Example #1: Each person consumes 100 coconuts. As a result, a total of 10,000 coconuts are consumed. Total savings is zero, as is total investment. No debt is created. Example #2: Each person consumes only 75 coconuts, selling the other 25 coconuts to a nearby plantation. The plantation buys these coconuts with the help of a bank loan and plants them, resulting in 2,500 new coconut trees. Total consumption falls to 7,500. Savings and investment equals 2,500 coconuts. 2,500 coconuts worth of bank loans are created. Notice that higher savings have led to more debt. Example #3: Same as Example 2, but now instead of selling the excess coconuts to a nearby plantation, they are exported abroad. Savings equal 2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account surplus is 2,500. The island accumulates 2,500 coconuts worth of foreign assets. The lesson here is that if a country can export some of its excess savings abroad, debt may not need to rise by as much as if the savings had to be intermediated by the domestic financial system. Note also that this example reveals the famous economic identity: S-I=CA. Example #4: Each person consumes 125 coconuts, made possible by importing 25 coconuts per person. Consumption now equals 12,500 coconuts. Savings equal -2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account deficit is 2,500. The island takes on 2,500 coconuts worth of external debt. Example #5: Half the island's residents consume 75 coconuts each, while the other half consumes 125 coconuts each. Those who consume 75 coconuts sell their surplus nuts on the open market, placing the proceeds in a bank. The bank lends out these savings to the other half of the population. Net savings and investment is zero. However, 1,250 coconuts worth of new bank loans are created. Debt Puzzles The key idea stemming from these examples is that debt is often formed when there is a persistent divergence between spending and income.7 This is true for the economy as a whole, as well as for its individual constituents (households, firms, and the government). Understanding this point helps resolve a number of seeming puzzles. For instance, it is sometimes alleged that China's debt buildup cannot be the result of the country's high saving rate because U.S. debt also rose rapidly in the years leading up to the financial crisis, an era during which the U.S. national saving rate was very low. Our simple examples demonstrate why this is a misleading argument. Examples 2, 4, and 5 show that debt levels will rise regardless of whether income exceeds spending or spending exceeds income. It is the absolute difference between the two that matters, not whether the residual is positive or negative. In Example 2, which is applicable to China today, households spend less than they earn. The resulting savings are intermediated by the financial system and transformed into investment, creating new debt along the way. In Example 4, which is applicable to the U.S. before the financial crisis, households spend more than they earn, leading them to take on new debt in order to finance imports. The increase in debt may get amplified, as in Example 5, if some households save while others dissave. As discussed in Box 1, Example 5 also helps explain why inequality and debt levels tend to rise and fall together over time. The Future Of Chinese Household Savings Chinese household savings now stand at nearly 40% of disposable income, notably higher than in other major developed and emerging economies. The increase in China's household savings, along with a widening gap between rich and poor, have been important drivers of faster debt growth (Chart 1). As time goes by, China's household saving rate will begin to decline due to the aging of its population, the expansion of household credit, and the emergence of a stronger "consumer culture." Yet, that shift is likely to be a gradual one. Progress in building out a social safety net has been painfully slow. This has forced households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. The share of China's population in its 'prime savings years' (between the ages of 30-and-59) will also continue to increase over the next 15 years, which should support an elevated saving rate (Chart 2). Chart 1China: Higher Saving Rate And ##br##Inequality Went Hand In Hand With Debt Growth Chart 2China: Share Of Population In Its High Saving Years ##br##Has Not Yet Peaked In addition, sky-high property prices have forced young people to save a large fraction of their incomes in order to have any hope of owning a home. This is particularly true for men. Brides are in short supply in China. The saving rate among single-child households with one son is about four percentage points higher in rural areas and two percentage points higher in urban areas, compared to single-child households with one daughter. One academic study concluded that about half of the increase in China's household saving rate since the late-1970s could be attributed to this factor.8 Unfortunately, this problem is not going to go away anytime soon. The ratio of men between the ages of 25-and-39 and women between the ages of 20-and-34 - a proxy for gender imbalances in the marriage market - will surge from 1.06 at present to 1.35 by the middle of the next decade (Chart 3). What do countries with surplus savings and surplus men tend to do? Historically, the answer is that they have sent them off to fight. China's military spending has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade (Chart 4). This trend is bound to continue, making East Asia an increasingly likely setting for future military conflicts.9 Chart 3A Shortage Of Chinese Brides Chart 4China: A Lot Of Dry Powder Understanding Chinese Corporate Debt Dynamics Many companies around the world rely heavily on retained earnings and equity sales to finance new investment projects. When this happens, investment can take place without the need for the creation of new debt. China has its fair share of consistently profitable companies that fund capital expenditures using internally generated funds, while tapping the equity markets as necessary to finance larger projects. However, the country is also awash with companies that are in constant need of debt financing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the former tend to be private firms while the latter are often state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Chart 5China: State-Owned Companies Are Not The Only Ones ##br##With Access To Cheap Financing Pundits like to assert that the secret to boosting growth in China is to wean these money-losing public companies off cheap credit, forcing them to cut back on production and capital spending. This will allow scarce economic resources to migrate to better-managed firms that will use them more wisely. But is this really a sensible assumption? What exactly is the evidence that China's well-run private companies have been starved of credit because most of it is flowing to money-losing companies? The data does not fit this "crowding out" story at all (Chart 5). The Japan Analogy A more sensible narrative is that the Chinese government has been prodding state-owned banks into lending money to state-owned companies and local governments in order to support aggregate demand and keep unemployment from rising. The experience of Japan is instructive here. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 6). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to try to export these excess savings abroad via a current account surplus or, failing that, absorb them with dissavings from the public sector. While Japan was able to lift its current account surplus from 1.4% of GDP in 1990 to 3% of GDP in 1998, this was not enough to fully offset the surge in desired private-sector savings. This necessitated the government to run large budget deficits. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. In effect, China was doing what the islanders in Example 3 were able to do. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 7). Chart 6Japan Relied On Fiscal Largess And ##br##Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In ##br##Private-Sector Savings Chart 7China: Debt Increased##br## When Current Account Surplus ##br##Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt in China is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (Chart 8). Yes, many of the investment projects undertaken by SOEs and local governments are of questionable economic merit. But that's beside the point. China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere." From the Chinese government's point of view, an SOE that is producing something is still preferable to one that is producing nothing. The ever-rising debt burden that these state-owned firms must carry to cover operating losses and finance new investment is just the price the government must pay to keep the economy afloat. Little Evidence Of A Genuine Credit Bubble Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors of the global equity market (Chart 9). Chart 8Chinese Private Firms: Liabilities-To-Assets##br## Trending Lower For A Decade Chart 9Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 10). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 11). Chart 10Recent Credit Bubbles##br## Developed Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 11Hong Kong##br## Is The Correct Analogy Chart 12Chinese Debt: Not Predominately Tied ##br##To The Property Market There is a lot of debt in China. However, most of it has not been centered on the property market (Chart 12). Rather, just as in Japan, debt has served a fiscal purpose - it has been used to absorb the excess savings of the private sector, so as to keep unemployment from rising. Chart 13 shows that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies. China sits close to the trend line, suggesting that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 13Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Investment Conclusions Where does this leave investors? For global bonds, the implications of our analysis are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Our analysis does not warrant either a very bearish or very bullish stance towards the RMB. Granted, a banking crisis could prompt Chinese savers to look for ways to move more of their money overseas, leading to further capital flight and a tumbling currency. As noted, however, such an outcome is not in the cards. On the flipside, a chronic shortfall of domestic demand will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. As we foretold in our March 2015 report "A Weaker RMB Ahead," this will push the authorities to weaken the currency.10 We expect the real trade-weighted RMB to depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. If China averts a debt crisis, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions (currency hedged). Despite a weak start to the year, both markets have outperformed the U.S. in local-currency terms since bottoming last summer, a trend we expect will resume over the coming months (Chart 14). What about Chinese shares specifically? Clearly, there are many risks facing the Chinese economy that transcend debt worries, a possible trade war with the U.S. being the prominent example. Yet, considering that Chinese stocks trade at fairly cheap valuation levels, our sense is that these risks have been more than fully priced in by investors. With this in mind, we are going long Chinese H-shares relative to the overall EM basket.11 Chart 15 shows that H-shares now trade at a substantial discount to the EM index. Chart 14Euro Area And Japan: Rebound Will Continue Chart 15Chinese Investable Stocks Are Cheap Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1 Debt And Inequality Chart 16U.S.: Positive Correlation Between ##br##Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Income inequality and the ratio of private debt-to-GDP have been positively correlated in the U.S. over the past century (Chart 16). The existence of this relationship is not merely due to a third factor: economic growth. Growth was strong in the 1920 and 1980s/90s - two periods of rapidly increasingly inequality - but it was also strong during the 1960s, a decade when inequality was falling. Our analysis helps shed light on this relationship. Return to Example 5, but this time assume that each resident consumes 100 coconuts, with half the population producing 75 coconuts and the other half producing 125 coconuts. 10,000 coconuts are still produced and consumed in aggregate, resulting in no net savings. But because half the population is borrowing money to acquire coconuts from the other half, debt levels still rise. Higher inequality leads to more debt. To be sure, the correlation between inequality and debt runs in both directions. Rising debt has historically led to an expansion of the financial sector. This has helped enrich Wall Street elites. In this way, rising debt can exacerbate inequality. On the flipside, rising income inequality entails a shift of income from poorer households - with high marginal propensities to consume - to richer ones - who generally save a large fraction of their income. This tends to reduce aggregate demand. Lower aggregate demand, in turn, leads to lower real rates, making it easier for poorer households to load up on debt and live beyond their means. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening," dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 A few technical caveats are in order. Think of a simple closed-economy "Keynesian" model where aggregate demand determines income and where savings (S), by definition, are equal to investment (I). In this model, investment is usually treated as exogenous. Thus, if increased bank credit is used to finance new investment projects, this will also translate into higher savings (i.e., if "I" goes up, "S" must also rise). In contrast, if the credit ends up flowing into consumption, savings will remain unchanged. More plausibly, one can imagine that investment is subject to an "accelerator effect," so that increased aggregate demand prompts firms to increase capital spending. In that case, even if the credit flows into consumption, investment will still rise - and since savings is equal to investment, this means that savings will also go up. Intuitively, this happens because the increase in income derived from higher employment more than offsets the increase in consumption. This leads to higher aggregate savings. 7 The word "persistent" is important here. To see why, suppose that in Example 5, the people who consumed 125 coconuts each had previously been thrifty, which had allowed them to build up large bank deposits. Then they could finance their additional spending by running down their accumulated savings, rather than taking on new debt. Likewise, if those who consumed 75 coconuts had previously lived beyond their means, then instead of adding to their deposits, they would be paying back existing debt. The net result would be less debt, not more. 8 Shang-Jin Wei and Xiao Zhang, "The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence From Rising Sex Ratios And Savings Rates In China," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, No. 3, 2011. 9 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Weaker RMB Ahead," dated March 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 The exact trade is to be long China H-Shares versus the MSCI Emerging Market index, currency unhedged. The corresponding ETFs for this trade are the Hang Seng Investment Index Funds Series: H-Share Index ETF (2828 HK), and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM US). The Hang Seng China Enterprise index comprises of China H-Shares (Chinese stocks available to international investors) currently trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Feature Recently we have received a number of client questions about the Fed's balance sheet. When will the Fed start to shrink its balance sheet (if at all)? If the Fed does decide to shrink its balance sheet, how long will that process take? How will the Fed control interest rates in the years ahead? And most importantly, how will these decisions impact financial markets? To answer these questions, this week we are sending you a Special Report titled "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood" that was first published on June 10, 2014. This report explains how monetary policy is conducted at an operational level, and also how the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet forced the Fed to modify its approach. But first, we have some additional thoughts on how the Fed's balance sheet is likely to evolve during the next few years. The Fed's Stated Plan The most up-to-date guidance we have received about the Fed's balance sheet plans comes from Janet Yellen's recent Congressional testimony: The FOMC has annunciated that its longer run goal is to shrink our balance sheet to levels consistent with the efficient and effective implementation of monetary policy. And while our system evolves and I can't put a number on that, I would anticipate a balance sheet that's substantially smaller than at the current time. In addition, we would like our balance sheet to again be primarily Treasury securities, whereas as you pointed out, we have substantial holdings of mortgage-backed securities. From this, and similar statements from other Fed officials, we conclude that the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink once the fed funds rate is somewhere in the range of 1% to 1.5%.1 Surveys also show that the median primary dealer expects the Fed will change its balance sheet policy when the target fed funds rate is 1.38%. As such, and under reasonable assumptions for the pace of rate hikes, we think it is very likely that the Fed will start to let its balance sheet shrink sometime in 2018. MBS First, Treasuries Maybe Later Yellen's statement to Congress also makes clear that the Fed would be more comfortable with a balance sheet that consists entirely of Treasury securities. For this reason, the central bank will start by simply ceasing the reinvestment of its Agency bond and MBS portfolios. At least initially, the Fed will continue to reinvest the proceeds from its maturing Treasury portfolio. Yellen also left open the possibility that reinvestment could be "tapered" rather than just halted altogether. While this is possible, and in fact 70% of primary dealers think that reinvestments will be phased out over time while only 14% think they will be ceased all at once, it seems to us like a needless complication. We expect that reinvestments of Agency bonds and MBS will end all at once sometime in 2018. As for the Fed's holdings of Treasury securities, it is much less clear whether the Fed will allow these balances to run down. The accompanying Special Report describes in detail the differences between the Fed's pre-crisis mode of operation, when bank reserves were scarce, and the Fed's current mode of operation with large bank reserve balances. As of now, the Fed has stated that it intends to eventually drain bank reserves from the system and return to its pre-crisis mode of operation, but there are several possible advantages to running a system with an outsized Fed balance sheet and large bank reserve balances. Chart 1Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly None other than Ben Bernanke pointed out a few of those reasons in a blog post last fall.2 In our view, the most compelling is that regulatory changes have increased private sector demand for safe, short-maturity, liquid assets in recent years. If the Treasury department is unwilling to supply T-bills in sufficient numbers, then the Fed can supply safe, short-maturity, liquid assets to the market by purchasing long-maturity Treasury securities and replacing them with bank reserves. Of course, we take the Fed at its word when it says that it would like to eventually drain excess bank reserves from the system. But even in that case, the steady growth of currency in circulation means that bank reserves will decline over time even if the Fed keeps the asset side of its balance sheet flat. For example, Chart 1 shows what would happen to bank reserves if the amount of currency in circulation grows at a conservative 5% per year pace, and if the Fed decides to allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off at the beginning of next year while keeping its Treasury portfolio flat. We assume that MBS runs off the Fed's balance sheet at a pace of $15 billion per month, slightly below the recent pace of MBS reinvestment. During the past three years, the Fed has reinvested between $20bn and $40bn MBS each month with an average monthly reinvestment of $32bn. In this scenario, outstanding bank reserves would decline to zero by the end of 2025. At that point the Fed would have to start adding to its Treasury holdings just to keep pace with the amount of currency in circulation. Bottom Line: While it is very likely that the Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. If the Fed does allow its Treasury holdings to run down as well, it will have to start buying Treasuries again before 2025. Investment Implications Treasuries As our U.S. Bond Strategy service has written several times,3 considered in isolation it is unlikely that any decision by the Fed to allow its Treasury holdings to run off will have much of on an impact on the Treasury curve. To see why, we need to consider the process by which the Fed currently rolls over maturing Treasury securities at auction. At the moment, balances of matured Treasury securities are added to upcoming note/bond auctions as non-competitive bids. In other words, as Treasury securities mature the Fed buys an equal amount at upcoming Treasury auctions. If the Fed were to cease this reinvestment, that amount would need to be added to the competitive portion of the auctions and would greatly increase the gross issuance of Treasury debt to the public. For a sense of scale, we calculate that Treasury issuance to the public would need to increase by $426bn in 2018 and $378bn in 2019 if the Fed were to cease the reinvestment of its portfolio at the end of this year (Chart 2). However, the fact that this process is intermediated by the Treasury department means we also have to consider potential changes to fiscal policy and the U.S. government's financing mix. For instance, since running down the Fed's Treasury portfolio would also reduce the amount of bank reserves in the system, it is very likely that the Treasury department would seek to increase issuance of T-bills to compensate for the banking sector's loss of safe, short-maturity liquid assets. At present, bill supply as a percent of total Treasury debt is near a multi-decade low (Chart 3) and any increase in T-bill issuance would limit the impact of Fed balance sheet run-off on long-dated Treasury yields. Chart 2Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public... Chart 3... But Mostly Through T-Bills Bottom Line: When forecasting Treasury issuance and any potential impact on yields we must consider both the Fed's balance sheet and fiscal policy together. In our view, whatever the government's financing requirement in the years ahead, a considerable portion will be met through increased T-bill issuance, limiting the impact on long-dated Treasury yields. Mortgage-Backed Securities As our U.S. Bond Strategy service has recently written,4 the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio poses a considerable threat to MBS spreads for two reasons. First, the transfer of MBS from the Fed to the private sector will put upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility will increase pressuring MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 5). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 6), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 4MBS Spreads Are##br## Linked To Vol Chart 5Annual MBS Excess Returns##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 Chart 6Adjusted Net Issuance Will ##br##Turn Positive In 2018 Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio will pressure MBS spreads wider through increased supply and increased demand for volatility. Note: Please see the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, titled "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 In a Q&A from June 2015 New York Fed President William Dudley floated 1% to 1.5% as a potentially reasonable range for the fed funds rate before the Fed considers changing its balance sheet policy. https://mninews.marketnews.com/content/feds-dudley-qa-markets-should-not-be-surprised-liftoff 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/09/02/should-the-fed-keep-its-balance-sheet-large/ 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017. And also U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Currencies: The Tail Wagging The Dog", dated August 18, 2015. Both available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood In this Special Report we consider how the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet has influenced the conduct of monetary policy from an operational perspective. Massive reserve balances have made the federal funds market largely irrelevant, but the Fed's new overnight reverse repo facility will allow it to tighten policy when the time comes. The Fed will likely provide new guidelines for its exit strategy before the end of 2014. We anticipate how these guidelines will be modified to reflect the challenges of implementing monetary policy with a large balance sheet. Large reserve balances do not pose an inflation threat, but they do have implications for the state of banking sector regulation and the policy tools at the Fed's disposal. Chart 1What Are Implications Of Fed's Epic Intervention? Feature The Federal Reserve resorted to a number of very aggressive and extraordinary monetary policy measures to deal with the failure of Lehman Brothers, the subsequent financial crisis and Great Recession. The result has been a flood of liquidity that has supported asset prices and spurred the recovery, yet has left the central bank balance sheet exponentially larger than at any time in its 100-year history (Chart 1). In formulating its exit strategy the Fed will finally be forced to grapple publicly with the aftereffects of its dramatic intervention in financial markets, which has complicated how monetary policy is implemented at an operational level. This Special Report is divided into three sections. In the first section, Before The Storm, we provide some background on the process of money creation and explain how the Fed implemented monetary policy prior to the Great Recession. In the second section, The Flood Waters Rise, we consider how monetary policy is implemented today in light of the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet. In the third section, Building On Higher Ground, we examine the way forward for the Fed, describe how the exit is likely to be managed and discuss the potential problems with this approach. 1. Before The Storm Prior to the financial crisis, the Fed expressed the stance of monetary policy via a target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the rate at which banks borrow and lend reserves to each other in the overnight market. The Fed conducted its day-to-day operations with the goal of supplying all the reserves demanded by the banking sector, while steering the fed funds rate toward its target. To understand how this was accomplished, we first require some background on the money creation process. Money Creation: More Than Just A Printing Press Contrary to what many believe, the process of money creation does not begin at the Federal Reserve. Rather, it begins in the banking system at the point of loan origination and ends at the Fed (Figure 1). The process is set in motion when a bank makes a new loan. This loan creates a new asset on the aggregate balance sheet for the banking system. The newly created money typically ends up as a deposit, either at the same bank or elsewhere in the banking system.1 The increase to the asset side of the banking sector's balance sheet is offset by an equal increase on the liability side. Only then does the Fed enter the picture. In a fractional reserve system, banks must hold reserves equal to a proportion of their deposits. Therefore, in the pre-QE world illustrated in Figure 1, any increase in deposits also creates demand for more reserves. Crucially, only the Fed is able to supply the banking sector with the needed reserves. The Fed will increase the supply of reserves either by purchasing Treasury securities or lending money in the repo market. This increase on the asset side of the Fed's balance sheet is balanced by an increase in reserves on the liability side. The creation of new bank reserves is the final step in the money creation process. Figure 1The Money Creation Process Chart 2QE Has Not Encouraged Lending This is not to suggest the Fed is powerless to control the rate of money creation. On the contrary, Fed policy is the most influential determinant of the rate of money growth. One important distinction, however, is that the Fed exerts control over the pace of money creation because it controls the overnight interest rate. The interest rate, in turn, is the most important driver of bank lending. Changes in the level of bank reserves not associated with changes in interest rates, QE for example, have no effect on credit growth (Chart 2). The Pre-Crisis Fed Funds Market How then, prior to the Great Recession, was the Fed able to maintain the fed funds rate at its target, while still satisfying the banking system's demand for reserves? It accomplished this task by maintaining what it calls a "structural deficiency" in the supply of bank reserves. In practice this means the Fed was careful to supply no more than the quantity of reserves demanded, so that each day it would typically add to the reserve supply to accommodate the newly created demand. As a practical matter, the Fed increases the supply of reserves by either buying securities or lending money in the repo market. Both of these transactions enter the Fed's balance sheet as an asset, which must be offset by a liability, in this case an increase in bank reserves. The Fed can also reduce the supply of reserves by either selling securities or borrowing in the repo market (using the securities it owns as collateral, deemed a reverse repo from the point of view of the borrower). Although due to the "structural deficiency" in the reserve market, the Fed would typically transact to increase reserve balances. Chart 3The Pre-Crisis 'Channel System' If, for example, the Fed wanted to increase the fed funds rate. It would be slow to accommodate the increase in demanded reserves throughout the day. Banks in need of reserves to meet intra-day payment processing needs would bid up the fed funds rate towards the new target. Effective communication of the target fed funds rate also aided this process. Since the target for the fed funds rate was known in advance, and the banking sector believed the Fed would supply all necessary reserves at that target rate, most federal funds transactions tended to occur at rates very close to the target. By the end of the day, however, the Fed must always supply the exact amount of reserves demanded by the banking sector if it wants to maintain control of the fed funds rate. If the Fed were to supply more reserves than the banking system required, banks would try to lend the unwanted excess reserves in the fed funds market, driving the federal funds rate lower to the interest rate paid on excess reserves (IOER), which was zero prior to 2008. Or, consider the opposite case where the Fed supplies too few reserves. In this instance banks would clamor to borrow reserves to meet their regulatory requirement. This incremental demand would drive the federal funds rate higher to the Fed's discount window lending rate, which is always available for banks to access in times of severe stress. The IOER and discount window rate thus created a channel for the fed funds rate (Chart 3), within which the Fed could nudge the rate toward target by being either too quick, or too slow to accommodate increases in demanded reserves throughout the day. Bottom Line: A "structural deficiency" in reserve balances prior to 2008 allowed the Fed to conduct monetary policy by setting a target for the fed funds rate. Also, it is the level of interest rates, and not the level of reserves, that determines the rate of money creation in the economy. 2. The Flood Waters Rise The Federal Reserve began large scale asset purchases (quantitative easing) in late 2008, dramatically increasing the asset side of its balance sheet and consequently the supply of bank reserves (Figure 2). Suddenly, the banking system found itself with far more reserves than it demanded. Predictably, trading in the fed funds market dried up and the fed funds rate was driven toward its lower bound, the IOER.2 The Fed's target for the federal funds rate quickly became irrelevant. Figure 2Illustrative Post-Crisis Balance Sheets For The Fed And The Aggregatve Banking System*: ##br##An Explosion In Excess Reserves In the presence of excess bank reserves, the Fed needs a mechanism to control the lower bound of overnight lending rates. In theory, the IOER could serve as a floor beneath the fed funds rate because banks should not be willing to lend reserves at a rate lower than what can be earned at the Fed. Yet the fed funds rate has consistently traded below the IOER since 2008 (Chart 4). The reason for this violation is that the IOER is only available to depository institutions with reserve accounts at the Fed. Other suppliers of short maturity funds, mostly the GSEs, are still willing to transact at lower rates (Chart 5). Chart 4In Need ##br##Of A Floor Chart 5Fed Funds Market Smaller, ##br## And Dominated By GSEs Chart 6Reverse Repo Facility Is New Floor On ##br##Rates Money Markets Under The Microscope A new facility is required, that is capable of absorbing all of the supply of overnight funds including that emanating from outside the traditional banking system. The Fed answered this requirement by creating a fixed rate overnight reverse repo (RRP) facility. Once fully implemented, the Fed will stand ready to borrow overnight in unlimited amounts, at a rate that it chooses (i.e. is set independently of market forces). By making this facility available to a larger set of counterparties than the IOER, including money market funds and the GSEs, the Fed now has a "hard floor" on rates that it will be able to use to raise interest rates when the time comes. Even though it is still in a testing phase, the RRP already appears to be acting as a floor for overnight rates (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The stockpile of excess reserves created by the Fed's large scale asset purchase program has made the federal funds market largely irrelevant. The Fed is now only able to implement monetary policy by placing a floor under short-term interest rates, the RRP. 3. Building On Higher Ground From an operational perspective, there are two possible ways forward for the Fed as it prepares to lift rates. One option would be to return to the pre-crisis method of operation described in the first section. To do this, the Fed would first have to drain all excess reserves from the banking system by either selling securities, or deploying some of the tools on the liability side of its balance sheet, such as term deposits.3 This would re-launch the federal funds market and the Fed could return to setting policy in its traditional manner, by targeting the fed funds rate. Unfortunately, there are simply too many excess reserves in the system to make this a viable strategy, at least for the next several years. Moreover, the pace of asset sales required to drain excess reserves in a timely manner would lead to large spikes in the Treasury term premium. Instead, the Fed will almost certainly choose to maintain large reserve balances and operate monetary policy by lifting the floor RRP rate. Specifically, the Fed will set the RRP rate equal to (or slightly below) the IOER. It will then hike rates by increasing both in tandem. The Fed may still choose to set a target for the fed funds rate at a level somewhat above the RRP to maintain consistency in its communications, but this rate will be meaningless. We outline the likely sequence of the Fed's exit strategy in the following Box. Box The Exit Strategy Revisited The Fed first articulated the likely sequence of the exit strategy in the minutes to the June 2011 FOMC meeting.4 That sequence was as follows: Cease reinvestment of principal on securities holdings. Modify forward guidance on the path of the federal funds rate, and initiate reserve draining operations (e.g. term deposits). Begin raising the target federal funds rate. Begin sales of securities holdings, with a goal of returning the balance sheet to a more traditional size within two to three years. The above sequence suggests the Fed was planning to first drain excess reserves and then conduct monetary policy operations in the fed funds market, as it did prior to QE. This strategy has now been abandoned, and we expect to receive a modified exit sequence before the end of the year. The revised sequence will be consistent with the implementation of policy using a floor system, with large excess reserves, and could look something like: Modify forward guidance on the path of interest rates (including IOER, RRP and fed funds). Begin raising interest rates. First by raising the RRP rate to slightly below the IOER, and then by raising both rates in tandem. A few months after rate hikes begin; cease reinvestment of principal on Agency and Agency MBS holdings. Much later; cease reinvestment of principal on Treasury securities. The Fed will probably cease reinvestment of its MBS holdings prior to its Treasury holdings, and will then let its MBS holdings run-off passively to zero. The Fed will also probably let some of its Treasury holdings run-off passively, but could decide to maintain a permanently larger balance sheet, depending on the success of the RRP and floor system. In the next few years, as its balance sheet begins to shrink through passive run-off, the Fed may decide to drain the remaining excess reserves and return to its traditional operating method as outlined in Section1 above. Either way, U.S. monetary policy will operate under a "floor system", using the RRP rate, for at least the next few years. This new method of operation comes with several potential drawbacks, which we address below. Excess Reserves Are "Dry Powder" For The Banking System Chart 7Drivers Of Bank Lending Many have speculated that banks have been choosing to sit on large excess reserve balances. The thinking is that eventually the economy will reach a turning point and banks will decide to convert their excess reserves to loans en masse, leading to a surge in bank lending, and eventually, inflation. This implies that the presence of large excess reserve balances would force the Fed to hike rates more quickly than in their absence. This concern stems from a misunderstanding of the money creation process described above. The Fed could fall "behind the curve" and normalize policy too slowly, which could ultimately lead to higher inflation. However, this would simply be a consequence of keeping interest rates too low for too long. The presence of excess reserves does not in itself create a desire to lend and thus poses no additional inflation risk. For one thing, the banking system in aggregate is powerless to reduce the amount of excess reserves without the Fed also taking action to reduce the supply. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the supply of excess reserves is determined solely on the Fed's balance sheet. There is no danger of excess reserves "leaking out" into the economy. More importantly, however, is that the process of money creation begins with the origination of a loan and ends when the Fed increases the supply of reserves. The catalyst for the process, the amount of bank lending, is determined by (Chart 7): loan demand banks' perceived profitability from additional lending banks' concerns about taking too much risk on the balance sheet, putting their viability at risk regulatory requirements concerning capital and liquidity The Fed exerts control over these four factors through its interest rate policy, but not through changes in the balance of excess reserves. Prior to 2008, the lack of excess reserves did not act to constrain bank lending, rather the Fed chose to encourage or discourage lending by decreasing or increasing the interest rate. Similarly, the large excess reserve balances since 2008 have not provided an incentive to lend. Excess Reserves and Bank Regulation One implication of the Fed having sole control over the supply of bank reserves is that, through QE, it has effectively forced reserves onto bank balance sheets. These reserves obviously factor into banks' calculations concerning required regulatory ratios for liquidity and capital. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Chart 8Fed Purchases Pushed ##br##Term Premium Lower Under the proposed liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), banks must maintain a balance of high-quality liquid assets (such as bank reserves and Treasury securities) equal to their expected net cash requirement during a 30-day period. In theory, should the Fed ever decide to reduce the supply of excess reserves, banks could have trouble meeting the LCR requirement. In removing reserves, however, the Fed would also be selling securities. Banks falling short of their LCR requirement would be natural buyers for the securities offloaded by the Fed. Thus, the Fed's operating decisions will probably not exert any influence over banks' ability to meet their liquidity requirements. The LCR, however, does have implications for the equilibrium level of the Treasury term premium. Much as the Fed's Treasury purchases pressured the term premium lower (Chart 8), any future Treasury sales could be expected to unwind this effect. Even so, bank demand for those same Treasury securities would mitigate some of the upside for the term premium. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Large U.S. banks face a supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) which requires them to hold capital equal to at least 5% of total assets, not risk-weighted. In other words, large excess reserves force banks to hold more capital, which could have an adverse economic impact. Banks falling short of the SLR can either raise capital, or reduce assets. If they are either unable or unwilling to raise capital, then the large balance of excess reserves thrust upon them by the Fed could in theory crowd out bank lending. In other words, if the banking sector refuses to increase capital, then the onus falls on the asset side of the balance sheet to adjust to SLR standards. Since the banking sector in aggregate is unable to reduce reserve balances, any desired contraction in total assets could conceivably translate into an incentive to reduce the pace of bank lending. As currently proposed the SLR does not appear to be too big a hurdle for the largest U.S. banks. It is very likely they will be able to meet the requirement through retained earnings and new equity issuance. Nevertheless, it still provides a potential drag on bank lending that would not exist under the traditional model of monetary policy operations. Collateral Shortage Chart 9RRP Alleviates Collateral Shortage One side effect of the Fed's large scale asset purchases is that they have removed a lot of high-quality collateral from the financial system. Chart 9 shows that during periods when the Fed is adding to its balance sheet, the amount of collateral in the tri-party repo market declines. As the supply of collateral dwindles, repo rates are also pressured lower. The problem is that once repo rates approach the zero lower bound, counterparties have an increasing incentive to fail on delivery of repo contracts. Given the widespread use of repo financing, persistent repo fails have the potential to undermine liquidity in financial markets. Thankfully, the Fed's new tool for controlling the overnight interest rate, the RRP facility, solves this problem. In a reverse repo transaction, a counterparty purchases securities from the Fed with the understanding that it will sell them back the next day, earning the RRP rate in the process. This means the private sector once again gains access to collateral that had been cordoned off on the Fed's balance sheet. This should have the effect of keeping the repo rate above the floor set by the RRP, and well above zero. Repo fails have already levelled off and should begin to decline once the RRP facility is fully implemented. Financial Stability Concerns We have seen that monetary policy operates under a floor system when there are large reserve balances. One complication is that the U.S. is operating with two different floors, the IOER and the RRP. Due to its availability to a wider selection of counterparties, the RRP is the true floor on rates. From a monetary policy perspective, the easiest way forward is to set both rates at the same level and hike them in tandem. However, in a recent speech5 New York Fed President Dudley pointed out that from a financial stability perspective an RRP rate equal to the IOER could result in money flowing out of institutions eligible to receive IOER and into the less regulated shadow banking sector. It is therefore probable the Fed will choose to maintain the RRP at a level slightly below the IOER as rate hikes commence. We maintain focus on the RRP as the true floor on rates. President Dudley also made the case that the Fed's RRP facility could have positive implications for financial stability. He observed that with a Fed-backed short-term safe asset now more widely available, it could crowd out the creation of money-like liquid assets by the private sector. Those privately created liquid assets, such as commercial paper, are more prone to fire sales during times of stress. In a recent paper,6 John Cochrane agreed forcefully with this sentiment. Due to its potential for eliminating privately created money-like liquid assets, Cochrane referred to a monetary policy regime operating with large reserve balances as "a very desirable configuration of monetary affairs." The downside of the Fed providing a short-term safe asset is that it could encourage runs into the RRP during times of crisis. President Dudley rightly concludes that this is more of a technical hurdle that could be managed using caps on usage of the RRP facility. Bottom Line: The Fed will be able to operate monetary policy with large reserve balances, using the RRP as a floor on interest rates for several years while it decides by how much to run down its balance sheet and whether it should revert to its traditional fed funds rate target. Investors should remember that large reserve balances, by themselves, do not pose an inflation risk. Whether or not inflation becomes a problem will depend on the Fed's foresight to raise interest rates in a timely manner. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Alternatively it could be held in cash. This would be reflected on the banking sector's balance sheet as an increase in loans and a decrease in reserves, and on the Fed's balance sheet as an increase in currency in circulation and a decrease in reserves. 2 The Fed began paying interest on excess reserve balances on October 6, 2008. 3 The Fed's current Term Deposit Facility (TDF) temporarily drains reserves from the banking system by receiving funds from the banking sector for a period of 7 days, paying 26 basis points of interest. The early stages of the Fed exit strategy will rely more heavily on the overnight RRP facility rather than the TDF. But term deposits could be deployed once the Fed's balance sheet has returned closer to its traditional size, and the Fed decides it wants to drain the remaining excess reserves and return to its pre-crisis method of operation. 4 http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20110622… 5 "The Economic Outlook and Implications for Monetary Policy" available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2014/dud140520.html 6 Cochrane, John H. Monetary Policy with Interest on Reserves. Available at http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/2014CochraneMonet…

Highlights There is little evidence of a major "credit bubble" in China. Rising debt is largely the consequence of the country's high saving rate. This has mixed implications for global bonds: On the one hand, an exaggerated fear of a hard landing in China has kept global bond yields below where they would otherwise be; on the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to weigh on real long-term yields. The real trade-weighted RMB will depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. Chinese shares are still attractive at current valuation levels. Go long the H-share market versus the MSCI EM index. We are booking a loss of 10% on our NASDAQ hedge. Feature Indefatigable The global economy remains in recovery mode. As we discussed last week, leading indicators point to strong global growth and accelerating earnings over the next six months.1 This justifies a cyclically overweight tilt towards global equities. Still, we worry that equity markets have gotten ahead of themselves. We thought that the backup in yields late last year, along with Trump's protectionist rhetoric, would cause stocks to correct to the downside, at least temporarily. Instead, they ripped higher, causing our short NASDAQ hedge trade to briefly go through its 10% stop loss on Wednesday. Our technical indicators continue to point to heightened risks of a correction. Whether such a correction proves to be the proverbial "buying opportunity" - our baseline view - or morphs into something more ominous will depend on the durability of the economic backdrop. We discussed some of the risks around Europe and the U.S. last week. This week we turn to China. The China Question Recent Chinese economic data have been fairly solid and our China analysts expect that growth momentum will be sustained over the coming months.2 Nevertheless, there are plenty of clouds on the horizon. Direct fiscal spending has slowed sharply over the past 12 months. In addition, a crackdown on property speculation last year has led to a deceleration in home price inflation, which could adversely affect household spending and construction later this year. Then, of course, there is all that debt. There is no shortage of commentators who argue that China is experiencing a full-blown credit bubble. Others contend that rising debt in China is largely a manifestation of a chronic excess of domestic savings. Knowing which side is correct is critical for investors. If China is in the midst of a massive credit bubble, then it is natural to fear that this bubble will burst fairly soon. This could prove to be devastating to global financial markets. In contrast, if rising debt in China mainly reflects an overabundance of savings, then it is possible that debt will continue rising until those savings dissipate - something that may not happen for many years. We won't beat around the bush. Our view is that rising debt in China has largely been the result of excess savings. This implies that a financial crisis in China is unlikely anytime soon. That does not mean that China will cease being a source of occasional investor angst. But if another major global recession is coming, it will not be because of China. The Debt-Savings Tango Endless ink has been spilled on the question of whether savings create bank credit or bank credit creates savings. In reality, the answer is "both": Just like income can create spending and spending can create income, savings can create debt and vice versa. If an economy is operating at less than full employment, the decision by banks to extend new credit is likely to boost aggregate demand, leading to more hiring. This will raise household disposable income and potentially lift aggregate savings.3 On the flipside, if households decide to save a bit more, this will push down real interest rates. That, in turn, could entice firms to increase how much they borrow and invest. Debt creates savings, and savings create debt; it's a two-way street. Admittedly, thinking through the specific forces underlying the relationship between debt and savings is one of those things that can make your head spin. Thus, it is worthwhile to go through a few simple examples in order to elucidate the principles at work. With this knowledge in hand, we will be able to debunk many of the fallacies that investors routinely succumb to. Cuckoo For Coconuts: How To Think About Debt And Savings Imagine a small island economy consisting of 100 people, each of whom toils away producing 100 coconuts every year, resulting in annual GDP of 10,000 coconuts. Consider the following five examples, summarized in Table 1: Table 1Cuckoo For Coconuts: Debt Creates Savings, Savings Create Debt Example #1: Each person consumes 100 coconuts. As a result, a total of 10,000 coconuts are consumed. Total savings is zero, as is total investment. No debt is created. Example #2: Each person consumes only 75 coconuts, selling the other 25 coconuts to a nearby plantation. The plantation buys these coconuts with the help of a bank loan and plants them, resulting in 2,500 new coconut trees. Total consumption falls to 7,500. Savings and investment equals 2,500 coconuts. 2,500 coconuts worth of bank loans are created. Notice that higher savings have led to more debt. Example #3: Same as Example 2, but now instead of selling the excess coconuts to a nearby plantation, they are exported abroad. Savings equal 2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account surplus is 2,500. The island accumulates 2,500 coconuts worth of foreign assets. The lesson here is that if a country can export some of its excess savings abroad, debt may not need to rise by as much as if the savings had to be intermediated by the domestic financial system. Note also that this example reveals the famous economic identity: S-I=CA. Example #4: Each person consumes 125 coconuts, made possible by importing 25 coconuts per person. Consumption now equals 12,500 coconuts. Savings equal -2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account deficit is 2,500. The island takes on 2,500 coconuts worth of external debt. Example #5: Half the island's residents consume 75 coconuts each, while the other half consumes 125 coconuts each. Those who consume 75 coconuts sell their surplus nuts on the open market, placing the proceeds in a bank. The bank lends out these savings to the other half of the population. Net savings and investment is zero. However, 1,250 coconuts worth of new bank loans are created. Debt Puzzles The key idea stemming from these examples is that debt is often formed when there is a persistent divergence between spending and income.4 This is true for the economy as a whole, as well as for its individual constituents (households, firms, and the government). Understanding this point helps resolve a number of seeming puzzles. For instance, it is sometimes alleged that China's debt buildup cannot be the result of the country's high saving rate because U.S. debt also rose rapidly in the years leading up to the financial crisis, an era during which the U.S. national saving rate was very low. Our simple examples demonstrate why this is a misleading argument. Examples 2, 4, and 5 show that debt levels will rise regardless of whether income exceeds spending or spending exceeds income. It is the absolute difference between the two that matters, not whether the residual is positive or negative. In Example 2, which is applicable to China today, households spend less than they earn. The resulting savings are intermediated by the financial system and transformed into investment, creating new debt along the way. In Example 4, which is applicable to the U.S. before the financial crisis, households spend more than they earn, leading them to take on new debt in order to finance imports. The increase in debt may get amplified, as in Example 5, if some households save while others dissave. As discussed in Box 1, Example 5 also helps explain why inequality and debt levels tend to rise and fall together over time. The Future Of Chinese Household Savings Chinese household savings now stand at nearly 40% of disposable income, notably higher than in other major developed and emerging economies. The increase in China's household savings, along with a widening gap between rich and poor, have been important drivers of faster debt growth (Chart 1). As time goes by, China's household saving rate will begin to decline due to the aging of its population, the expansion of household credit, and the emergence of a stronger "consumer culture." Yet, that shift is likely to be a gradual one. Progress in building out a social safety net has been painfully slow. This has forced households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. The share of China's population in its 'prime savings years' (between the ages of 30-and-59) will also continue to increase over the next 15 years, which should support an elevated saving rate (Chart 2). Chart 1China: Higher Saving Rate And ##br##Inequality Went Hand In Hand With Debt Growth Chart 2China: Share Of Population In Its High ##br##Saving Years Has Not Yet Peaked In addition, sky-high property prices have forced young people to save a large fraction of their incomes in order to have any hope of owning a home. This is particularly true for men. Brides are in short supply in China. The saving rate among single-child households with one son is about four percentage points higher in rural areas and two percentage points higher in urban areas, compared to single-child households with one daughter. One academic study concluded that about half of the increase in China's household saving rate since the late-1970s could be attributed to this factor.5 Unfortunately, this problem is not going to go away anytime soon. The ratio of men between the ages of 25-and-39 and women between the ages of 20-and-34 - a proxy for gender imbalances in the marriage market - will surge from 1.06 at present to 1.35 by the middle of the next decade (Chart 3). What do countries with surplus savings and surplus men tend to do? Historically, the answer is that they have sent them off to fight. China's military spending has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade (Chart 4). This trend is bound to continue, making East Asia an increasingly likely setting for future military conflicts.6 Chart 3A Shortage Of Chinese Brides Chart 4China: A Lot Of Dry Powder Understanding Chinese Corporate Debt Dynamics Chart 5China: State-Owned Companies Are ##br##Not The Only Ones With Access To Cheap Financing Many companies around the world rely heavily on retained earnings and equity sales to finance new investment projects. When this happens, investment can take place without the need for the creation of new debt. China has its fair share of consistently profitable companies that fund capital expenditures using internally generated funds, while tapping the equity markets as necessary to finance larger projects. However, the country is also awash with companies that are in constant need of debt financing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the former tend to be private firms while the latter are often state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Pundits like to assert that the secret to boosting growth in China is to wean these money-losing public companies off cheap credit, forcing them to cut back on production and capital spending. This will allow scarce economic resources to migrate to better-managed firms that will use them more wisely. But is this really a sensible assumption? What exactly is the evidence that China's well-run private companies have been starved of credit because most of it is flowing to money-losing companies? The data does not fit this "crowding out" story at all (Chart 5). The Japan Analogy A more sensible narrative is that the Chinese government has been prodding state-owned banks into lending money to state-owned companies and local governments in order to support aggregate demand and keep unemployment from rising. The experience of Japan is instructive here. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 6). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to try to export these excess savings abroad via a current account surplus or, failing that, absorb them with dissavings from the public sector. While Japan was able to lift its current account surplus from 1.4% of GDP in 1990 to 3% of GDP in 1998, this was not enough to fully offset the surge in desired private-sector savings. This necessitated the government to run large budget deficits. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. In effect, China was doing what the islanders in Example 3 were able to do. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 7). Chart 6Japan Relied On Fiscal Largess And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 7China: Debt Increased When Current ##br##Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. Chart 8Chinese Private Firms: Liabilities-To-Assets Trending##br## Lower For A Decade From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt in China is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (Chart 8). Yes, many of the investment projects undertaken by SOEs and local governments are of questionable economic merit. But that's beside the point. China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere." From the Chinese government's point of view, an SOE that is producing something is still preferable to one that is producing nothing. The ever-rising debt burden that these state-owned firms must carry to cover operating losses and finance new investment is just the price the government must pay to keep the economy afloat. Little Evidence Of A Genuine Credit Bubble Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors of the global equity market (Chart 9). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 10). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 11). Chart 9Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 10Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 11Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy There is a lot of debt in China. However, most of it has not been centered on the property market (Chart 12). Rather, just as in Japan, debt has served a fiscal purpose - it has been used to absorb the excess savings of the private sector, so as to keep unemployment from rising. Chart 13 shows that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies. China sits close to the trend line, suggesting that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 12Chinese Debt: Not Predominately ##br##Tied To The Property Market Chart 13Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Investment Conclusions Where does this leave investors? For global bonds, the implications of our analysis are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Our analysis does not warrant either a very bearish or very bullish stance towards the RMB. Granted, a banking crisis could prompt Chinese savers to look for ways to move more of their money overseas, leading to further capital flight and a tumbling currency. As noted, however, such an outcome is not in the cards. On the flipside, a chronic shortfall of domestic demand will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. As we foretold in our March 2015 report "A Weaker RMB Ahead," this will push the authorities to weaken the currency.7 We expect the real trade-weighted RMB to depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. If China averts a debt crisis, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions (currency hedged). Despite a weak start to the year, both markets have outperformed the U.S. in local-currency terms since bottoming last summer, a trend we expect will resume over the coming months (Chart 14). What about Chinese shares specifically? Clearly, there are many risks facing the Chinese economy that transcend debt worries, a possible trade war with the U.S. being the prominent example. Yet, considering that Chinese stocks trade at fairly cheap valuation levels, our sense is that these risks have been more than fully priced in by investors. With this in mind, we are going long Chinese H-shares relative to the overall EM basket.8 Chart 15 shows that H-shares now trade at a substantial discount to the EM index. Chart 14Euro Area And Japan: Rebound Will Continue Chart 15Chinese Investable Stocks Are Cheap Finally, one housekeeping note: Since we already have exposure to the H-share market via our strategic recommendation to be long China/Europe/Japan versus the U.S., we are closing that trade and opening a new one that is simply long Europe and Japan versus the U.S. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1: Debt And Inequality Chart 16U.S.: Positive Correlation Between ##br##Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Income inequality and the ratio of private debt-to-GDP have been positively correlated in the U.S. over the past century (Chart 16). The existence of this relationship is not merely due to a third factor: economic growth. Growth was strong in the 1920 and 1980s/90s - two periods of rapidly increasingly inequality - but it was also strong during the 1960s, a decade when inequality was falling. Our analysis helps shed light on this relationship. Return to Example 5, but this time assume that each resident consumes 100 coconuts, with half the population producing 75 coconuts and the other half producing 125 coconuts. 10,000 coconuts are still produced and consumed in aggregate, resulting in no net savings. But because half the population is borrowing money to acquire coconuts from the other half, debt levels still rise. Higher inequality leads to more debt. To be sure, the correlation between inequality and debt runs in both directions. Rising debt has historically led to an expansion of the financial sector. This has helped enrich Wall Street elites. In this way, rising debt can exacerbate inequality. On the flipside, rising income inequality entails a shift of income from poorer households - with high marginal propensities to consume - to richer ones - who generally save a large fraction of their income. This tends to reduce aggregate demand. Lower aggregate demand, in turn, leads to lower real rates, making it easier for poorer households to load up on debt and live beyond their means. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Reflation Trade Rumbles On," dated February 17, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening," dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 A few technical caveats are in order. Think of a simple closed-economy "Keynesian" model where aggregate demand determines income and where savings (S), by definition, are equal to investment (I). In this model, investment is usually treated as exogenous. Thus, if increased bank credit is used to finance new investment projects, this will also translate into higher savings (i.e., if "I" goes up, "S" must also rise). In contrast, if the credit ends up flowing into consumption, savings will remain unchanged. More plausibly, one can imagine that investment is subject to an "accelerator effect," so that increased aggregate demand prompts firms to increase capital spending. In that case, even if the credit flows into consumption, investment will still rise - and since savings is equal to investment, this means that savings will also go up. Intuitively, this happens because the increase in income derived from higher employment more than offsets the increase in consumption. This leads to higher aggregate savings. 4 The word "persistent" is important here. To see why, suppose that in Example 5, the people who consumed 125 coconuts each had previously been thrifty, which had allowed them to build up large bank deposits. Then they could finance their additional spending by running down their accumulated savings, rather than taking on new debt. Likewise, if those who consumed 75 coconuts had previously lived beyond their means, then instead of adding to their deposits, they would be paying back existing debt. The net result would be less debt, not more. 5 Shang-Jin Wei and Xiao Zhang, "The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence From Rising Sex Ratios And Savings Rates In China," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, No. 3, 2011. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Weaker RMB Ahead," dated March 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 The exact trade is to be long China H-Shares versus the MSCI Emerging Market index, currency unhedged. The corresponding ETFs for this trade are the Hang Seng Investment Index Funds Series: H-Share Index ETF (2828 HK), and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM US). The Hang Seng China Enterprise index comprises of China H-Shares (Chinese stocks available to international investors) currently trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades