Equities

In today’s Sector Insight report, we take the opportunity to summarize our views on the US equity market return expectations across different investment horizons. And by doing so help clients reconcile our views with the other BCA publications. Currently, US Equity Strategy is cyclically (6 to 12 months investment horizon) bullish on the prospects of the broad equity market. The reasons for that are numerous: Pent up demand does not show signs of waning, supply chain bottlenecks are yet to be resolved, and stimulus checks and excess savings are yet to be spend. All of the above is to contribute to robust earnings growth which we expect to surprise on the upside, just like during Q1-2021 earnings season. Looking ahead we do not anticipate a recession but only a modest slowdown in a current fast pace of economic growth. This business cycle bull market rally has not run its course. Having said that, we believe that in the near term the market is ripe for a correction. It is fully valued, if not outright expensive: nearly 50% of all industries have PEs ranking in top 10 percentile of their ten-year history. There is simply not much valuation cushion left to absorb any negative shocks. More specifically, there are two major risks that can serve as a catalyst for a selloff: 1) Fed may surprise the market with hawkish rhetoric if jobs data exceeds expectations or inflation exhibits a staying power; 2) China growth deceleration surprises further on the downside. And these are just the known risks. Further, we are mindful of the SPX risk/reward profile over the next 3-6 months. The market expects EPS NTM of $196 and if we assume an optimistic 22x forward P/E multiple, this equates to SPX target of 4,312 over the next 3-6 months. This is a 3% upside from the current level of 4200. Deploying new capital at these levels of valuations and with a limited upside is like picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.  Our recommendation is to raise dry powder by taking profits from some of the recent winners like industrials and basic materials, and redeploying capital during the next market pullback which would provide a more favorable risk/return profile. Bottom Line: We remain cyclically bullish on the prospects of the broad equity market, but are keeping our guard up in the near-term. ​​​​​​​

On Friday 4th June, I will be debating my colleague Peter Berezin on the future of cryptocurrencies. I believe that the cryptocurrency asset-class has substantial further price upside, whereas Peter thinks that it is going to zero. So please join us for what will be a lively debate on Friday 4th June at 10am EDT, (3pm BST, 4pm CEST). Dhaval Joshi Feature Chart of the WeekThe Fractal Structure Of Cryptos Had Become Very Fragile Today’s report is a brief review and update of the 22 short-term trades that we have recommended through the past three months, and it demonstrates the power of Fractals: The Competitive Advantage In Investing. At the end of the report we also introduce a new trade. Our 22 recommendations have comprised 10 structured trades – which include profit-targets, symmetrical stop-losses, and expiry dates – plus a further 12 recommendations without structured exit points. In summary, three structured recommendations have hit their profit targets: short NOK/PLN +2.6 percent, long European Personal Products versus Autos +15 percent, and long Finland versus Sweden +4.7 percent. Two open trades are in profit, and one is flat. Against this, two structured recommendations hit their stop-losses: short GBP/JPY -2.2 percent, and long New Zealand versus MSCI ACWI -4 percent. Meanwhile, long China versus Netherlands reached its expiry date at a slight loss -1.8 percent. And one open trade is in loss. This results in a ‘win ratio’ at a commendable 55 percent – counting a ‘full win’ as hitting the profit target, a ‘full loss’ as hitting the symmetrical stop-loss, and pro-rata for partial wins and losses. The win ratio at 55 percent is commendable because, in recent months, all financial assets been strongly correlated to the ebb and flow of bond yields and the ‘reflation trade’ – as we highlighted in The Pareto Principle Of Investment. This has made the current environment a difficult one to find genuinely independent investment ideas. Even more commendably, the 12 unstructured recommendations, which included Bitcoin, Ethereum, and several commodities, have all anticipated exhaustions or sharp reversals. The sections below review the structured and unstructured recommendations in chronological order. The 10 Structured Recommendations 1.            18th March: Short NOK/PLN                 Achieved its +2.6 percent profit target. 2.            25th March: Short GBP/JPY                 Hit its -2.2 percent stop-loss. 3.            1st April: Long European Personal Products vs. European Autos                 Achieved its +15 percent profit target. 4.            15th April: Long China vs. Netherlands                 Expired at -1.8 percent (versus its +5 percent profit target). 5.            15th April: Long Finland vs. Sweden                 Achieved its +4.7 percent profit target. 6.            22nd April: Long New Zealand vs. MSCI ACWI                 Hit its -4 percent stop-loss. 7.            6th May: Short Building and Construction (PKB) vs. Healthcare (XLV)                 In profit, and we expect further upside (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Short Building And Construction Versus Healthcare 8.            6th May: Short France vs. Japan                 In loss, but we expect upside. 9.            13th May: Long USD/CAD                 Flat, but we expect upside. 10.          20th May: Long 10-year T-bond vs. 10-year TIPS                 In profit, and we expect further upside (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Short Inflation Expectations The 12 Unstructured Recommendations 1.            18th March: Stocks vs. Bonds (MSCI ACWI vs. 30-year T-bond) to consolidate                 As anticipated, global stocks have consolidated versus bonds since mid-March, and we expect the consolidation to continue. 2.            18th March: Long 30-year T-bond                 Likewise, exactly as anticipated, bond prices have rebounded since mid-March, and we expect the rebound to continue (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Bond Prices To Rebound 3.            25th March: Tactically short Bitcoin                 Bitcoin subsequently corrected by almost 40 percent, but the correction is mostly done (Chart I-1).   4.            25th March: Tactically short Ethereum                 Likewise, Ethereum subsequently corrected, but the correction is mostly done. 5.            15th April: Short Taiwan vs. China                 Taiwan subsequently corrected versus   China, but the correction is mostly done. 6.            22nd April: Short PKR/USD                 As anticipated, PKR/USD corrected in the subsequent month. 7.            6th May: Short Corn vs. Wheat 8.            6th May: Short Timber (Chart I-5) Chart I-5Short Timber 9.            13th May: Short Soybeans 10.          20th May: Short Copper 11.          20th May: Short Tin 12.          27th May: Short Iron Ore                 As anticipated, all the above commodities have corrected, and in some cases very sharply. But the correction is still underway. New Recommendation Finally, this week’s new recommendation comes from the MSCI world equity index universe. The massive outperformance of Austria versus Chile – in large part due to the different sector compositions of the two markets – is fragile on all fractal dimensions: 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Short Austria Vs. Chile Accordingly, the recommendation is to short Austria versus Chile, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 7 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights President Biden’s FY2022 budget largely confirms consensus views of the economy – which means that it overrates the government’s tax-collecting powers and underrates its fiscal profligacy. The US fiscal thrust will turn negative as the budget deficit contracts in the coming years but the private economic recovery looks robust and positive government spending surprises will mitigate the fiscal cliff. The Biden administration may attempt to pass its capital gains tax hike in the next budget reconciliation bill and make it retroactive to 2021. We doubt this will occur but investors will need to book some profits to be on the safe side. Big Tech still faces a “slow boil” when it comes to government regulation. Stay long materials and infrastructure relative to tech. We were stopped out of our long energy large caps trade. The energy sector is still a beneficiary of a strong macro backdrop for oil and commodities. Close our long municipal bonds trade for a gain of 2%. Feature President Biden’s budget proposal for fiscal 2022 is a confirmation of macro policy trends that the market is well aware of and has already priced. The presidential budget, released on May 27, is a symbolic document. Congress controls the purse strings and congressional dynamics will work out differently from what the White House intends. Still, the budget is significant for highlighting the administration’s big spending preferences and the critical structural theme: the return of Big Government. That is not to say that Biden will fail to overcome various checks and balances with regard to his major legislative priorities, the American Jobs Plan (AJP) and American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s measurable political capital is still moderate-to-strong. His popular approval remains above 50% and slightly improved in the latest opinion surveys (Chart 1). It should stay above the halfway line as the economy recovers. Chart 1ABiden’s Approval Rating Holding Up Chart 1BBiden’s Approval Rating Holding Up Consumer confidence improved again in May, on the back of what promises to be a rollicking disease-free summer for households. Political polarization continued to abate in the wake of the contested 2020 election. It may be hitting resistance levels (we expect polarization to remain elevated despite dropping off from Trump-era peaks) but the market implications will only become relevant after Biden’s legislative agenda grinds to a halt following the passage of his second reconciliation bill. Polarization will revive around September with the debt ceiling and the 2022 budget appropriations process and ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, which have a subjective 75% chance of gridlocking Congress. But that time has not yet come and Biden is still capable of signing one or two major bills into law. New data on government spending underscores the big government trend. Fiscal thrust – in this case the unadjusted change in the budget deficit – grew substantially in the first quarter of 2021 relative to the fourth quarter of 2020. It went from 4.6% of GDP in Q4 to 13.1% of GDP in Q1, an increase of 8.5%. The budget deficit will contract in the coming years, a headwind for the economy, but not too dangerous of a headwind as long as the private economy continues to recover, as it should. Real wages are growing at a steady pace, leaping up from a 1.9% growth rate in November to 11.7% in April. What is more notable is the continued decline in consumer loan delinquencies from 1.8% to 1.7% in the first quarter – i.e. flat and marginally declining. It is impressive that the US suffered a recession without considerable consumer or business bankruptcies or delinquencies. When government support ends – when the moratorium on home evictions expires this month and unemployment insurance dries up in September 6 – it will be critical to watch for an increase in distress to determine if the Fed will become more or less inclined to taper asset purchases, the preliminary to raising interest rates. Given that the pandemic caused the recession, and that the pandemic is ebbing on the back of vaccinations, our base case is that the private economy will recover even as government support declines. Most of the good news of the US recovery and government stimulus is priced into the market. Investors will now focus on the Federal Reserve and the passage of Biden’s two big bills. We agree with the BCA House View that the Fed will deliver dovish surprises despite the improving economy as it cannot afford to renege on its new monetary policy strategy but must convince the market that it remains dedicated to an inflation overshoot. Biden’s Budget In A Few Simple Charts Biden’s first presidential budget projects a sea change in US government spending, a “normalization” in US government taxation (reversal of President Trump’s tax cuts), and an economy whose underlying conditions remain the same despite the policy sea change. In reality the economy will respond to the sea change in policy. Real economic growth is projected to slow from 5.2% this calendar year to 4.3% in 2022 and then to settle at around 2% through 2031 (Chart 2). This is in line with forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and consensus expectations of potential GDP growth. Productivity and labor force growth, which make up potential GDP, are hard to predict. We would note that the Biden administration has drastically cut back on immigration law enforcement. It will be hard to dislodge the Democrats in 2024 given that the economy will be robust and the Republican Party is divided. Therefore immigration policy will not undergo a substantial tightening at least through 2028, though bipartisan immigration reform is possible after 2022 and would marginally tighten inflows. Chart 2Presidential Budget Growth Rate Assumption Meanwhile a substantial increase in federal funding for infrastructure, research and development, and STEM education could improve productivity later in the decade, if only on a cyclical rather than structural basis. In other words the administration is not too optimistic regarding growth assumptions even though it assumes higher growth than the Fed or CBO. Inflation is expected to peak at 2.3% in 2025 and continue at that rate throughout the decade (Chart 3). We will not enter into the inflation debate here. Suffice it to say that the risk lies to the upside despite the above points regarding potential growth. Republican voters have abandoned any semblance of fiscal austerity, as signified by President Trump’s success, while the Democrats under Biden are flirting with modern monetary theory. The Fed has adopted a new monetary policy that is aimed at fighting deflationary tail risks at all costs. The budget deficit and trade deficit are ballooning and the US dollar is weakening. The US has fundamentally shifted trade policy, at least with regard to China, which is pushing up input costs. Chinese and global demographics imply a falling ratio of workers to dependents, which implies a secular rise in wages. Chart 3Presidential Budget Inflation Assumption In terms of taxing and spending, the presidential budget is overly optimistic about the ability of the federal government to maintain policy orthodoxy. Budgetary receipts are expected to rise on Biden’s tax hikes and the expiration of the Trump tax cuts in 2025. This is exaggerated, since Biden has already said he will accept a corporate tax hike half as large as that in the budget (25% instead of 28%). It is true that finding the votes to extend the Trump tax cuts will be politically difficult and the expiration date arrives at the beginning of a new administration in a non-election year when some fiscal tightening is manageable. But the projection that spending will stay stable at less than 25% of GDP despite Biden’s “Great Society”-style spending is infeasible (Chart 4). Chart 4Presidential Budget Tax-And-Spend Assumptions Major spending cuts are far less likely in the foreseeable future than they were back in 2011, when the Budget Control Act was passed. True, Republicans will rediscover their fiscal rectitude in the opposition. But in a social environment of populism and anti-austerity they will either fail to obtain full control of Congress or they will fail to execute deep spending cuts. The party’s political base is now the working class so it will have to rethink cuts to entitlements (mandatory spending), just as it is already rethinking its commitment to corporate tax cuts. Democrats will not cut mandatory or non-defense discretionary spending and will oppose any Republican efforts aggressively (Chart 5). Chart 5Presidential Budget Mandatory Versus Discretionary Spending While the presidential budget envisions stable defense spending, the truth is that the one area where Republicans are likely to succeed in influencing fiscal policy substantially lies in defense, which will grow. The US is phasing out its “small wars” and focusing on struggle among the Great Powers. Biden anticipates that defense spending will be flat while non-defense rises sharply but this is unlikely to occur. Regardless of Biden’s specific budget, the US is engaged in the largest government spending since the 1940s and yet there is neither a Great Depression nor a World War II taking place. However, this extravagant peacetime spending looks less extravagant when one considers that there are some historical parallels to the 1930s-40s. There have been two major economic shocks over the past 13 years and there is an emerging cold war with China. The US public has taken a populist turn, the political establishment is determined to provide more largesse to win back the hearts and minds of the people, and the defense and intelligence establishment are well aware of the rising security threats from China and Russia. Federal spending will persistently surprise to the upside while tax hikes could be stymied as early as the 2022 midterm elections. The result is a larger-than-expected budget deficit. The implication for the short-to-medium term is higher inflation and a weaker US dollar. But soaring geopolitical conflict and China’s structural slowdown will eventually put a floor under the dollar. Fiscal Thrust And Budget Deficit Projections Financial markets are already pretty well aware of these trends. The FY2022 presidential budget, which assumes that Biden’s entire legislative agenda passes Congress, does not project a budget deficit that is very different from a back-of-the-envelope “Status Quo” scenario, which assumes that the American Jobs and Families Plans do not pass (Chart 6). Chart 6Presidential Budget Deficit Scenario Alongside Previous Scenarios Of course, the AJP, at least, is likely to pass. If a bipartisan deal is struck this week or shortly thereafter then full passage is possible by the end of July. The Democrats would then spend the entire fall legislative session crafting a bill that combines some of the remaining portions of the AJP with the high-priority parts of the AFP into a single budget reconciliation bill that would be likely to pass by Christmas or early 2022. Nevertheless Biden’s budget reveals that there is not much distance in budget deficit projections with regard to the AFP (Chart 7). Even though the price tag of the AFP is huge, at $1.8 trillion, the truth is that it will be watered down in negotiation and it will also be accompanied by at least some tax hikes. Thus the market already has most of the information it needs regarding US budget deficit projections. Everything else depends on events in the private economy and external sector. The good news of the US budget deficit blowout is largely priced. Future upward surprises in the deficit, which we expect, serve to mitigate the contraction in the budget deficit, i.e. to reduce the negative fiscal thrust that drags on the economy as stimulus wanes. In other words the looming “fiscal cliff” is probably overrated from an economic point of view even though it may contribute to a pullback in the stock market. Chart 7Small Difference Between Biden’s Two Plans Changes In The Post-Infrastructure Agenda After Biden passes his infrastructure plan (the AJP), whether via bipartisanship or reconciliation, the AFP presents a much tougher political slog in Congress. The revised AFP promises to be a Frankenstein monster of social spending – a new “Alphabet Soup” of government programs including affordable child care, elderly care, universal pre-kindergarten schooling, subsidized community college, and paid leave. It will have to be pared back somewhat to appease moderate Democratic senators. The administration has tried to pitch the new social spending as “human infrastructure,” since infrastructure is more popular than welfare, but while Democrats accept this rhetorical gimmick, a majority of independent voters (along with opposition Republicans) apparently do not (Chart 8). Still the AFP could very well pass before the midterm on the condition that Biden signs the AJP this summer. We stick with our 50/50 odds for now. Chart 8Much Tougher Slog On Social Spending Bill The presidential budget introduced a new risk regarding the impending capital gains tax hike: the possibility that it will be enacted retroactively, taking effect in 2021, rather than in 2022 or thereafter as expected. The administration proposes to raise the long-term capital gains rate to 39.6%, which, combined with the Obamacare surtax of 3.8% would result in a 43.4% rate on capital gains for investors making over $1 million. A compromise will be necessary but the top rate could still end up above 32%. If Biden completes a bipartisan infrastructure deal this summer then he is much more likely to get this and other individual tax hikes into the reconciliation bill at the end of this year. Retroactivity is possible but it would be bad politics ahead of the midterm election. Therefore we stick with our view that individual tax hikes will take effect in 2023 if at all. But from a prudential perspective, investors will have to book some gains to prepare for negative tax surprises and that suggests near-term profit taking could weigh on the stock market (Chart 9). Chart 9A Retroactive Capital Gains Tax? Since Biden is guaranteed to get a lot of spending through two or three reconciliation bills (one already passed), he will not get much when it comes to regular appropriations. We are more likely to see the GOP refuse to cooperate on budgetary appropriations. This could lead to a debt ceiling crisis and government shutdown at the end of this year or early next year; hence the aforementioned return of polarization. However, these events will play out very differently from 2011-13. The GOP must tread carefully as they are already divided among pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions and will suffer even worse in public support if they induce a shutdown. A government shutdown would not be market negative in an already highly stimulated economy but it could jeopardize Republican odds in 2022, thus marginally increasing the risk of upward surprises in Democrats’ tax-and-spend policies. Congress is also moving forward on a raft of other legislative proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Most of these proposals will fall short of the bipartisan support necessary to get the required 60 votes in the Senate. The most promising bills involve efforts to resurrect US industrial policy, research and development, technological leadership (particularly in semiconductors), supply chain resilience, and domestic manufacturing. Anything that aims to coordinate the two parties in the face of geopolitical competition with China is likely to pass, as we have highlighted in our sister Geopolitical Strategy service. The result, as mentioned above, is likely to be a cyclical uptick in productivity (we will not speculate here on whether the structural downtrend will be broken). Table 1Pending Legislation In Congress Under Biden The Slow Boil Of Tech Regulation In a recent report on the Biden administration’s regulatory threat to the tech sector we argued that while popular opinion and government interest were creating a “slow boil” for Big Tech, nevertheless the reflationary macroeconomic backdrop posed a much larger short-term risk. We stand by this view especially in light of recent developments. In particular, legislative priorities, gridlock in all key agencies, slow movement in the Department of Justice’s staffing, an evenly divided Senate, and a recent Supreme Court judgement against the Federal Trade Commission all lend confirmation to our thesis, at least for now. To elaborate: A bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart 10) and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle. However, not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, even if they show strong majorities are skeptical of Big Tech’s influence. And Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation, with Republicans averse to “content moderation,” or ideological censorship, and Democrats eager to retain their advantage in political fundraising from Silicon Valley. Any bill requiring 60 votes in the Senate would be an opportunity for Republicans to demand that their speech and press rights be preserved, which would be a poison pill for Democrats. The lack of cooperation on the proposed commission to investigate the January 6 riot at the US Capitol highlights the inability to bridge the ideological gap. Chart 10Bipartisan Consensus On Tech Regulation Most of the Democrats’ political capital will be spent on passing the infrastructure bill and the next budget reconciliation bill. There is limited space for other legislation, aside from the strategic competition with China. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar’s anti-trust efforts, including parts of the Competition and Antitrust Enforcement Reform Act, have some chance of passage. She has proposed steps that Republicans can agree on, such as increasing fees on big mergers to fund anti-trust agencies, preventing anti-competitive pricing, and protecting whistleblowers. Her main bill avoids the debate over censorship and arguably preserves the almighty “consumer welfare” standard for determining where harm has occurred and government intervention may be necessary. Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has said some positive things about the bill and argues that it would not replace consumer welfare (though not all Republicans will agree and the judicial system will separately defend the consumer welfare standard). Regulatory reform is far more effective when backed by a new legislative overhaul. For example, reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act becomes more difficult without new legislation. Regulation via the executive branch can be important but requires focus from the president and a strong consensus in key positions in the bureaucracy. Democrats must confirm two nominations to the Federal Communications Commission, which is currently deadlocked, in order to achieve a partisan majority and make headway on policy priorities (Table 2). Cybersecurity, net neutrality, and overseeing broadband internet expansion will compete with any regulatory probes into Big Tech. The Senate will also have to confirm two nominations for the Federal Trade Commission, which is also deadlocked at the moment (Table 3). One of these, for anti-trust scholar Lina Khan, a critic of Big Tech, is in process. Yet the FTC has possibly lost some of its bite after a Supreme Court ruling in April (AMG Capital v. FTC) determined that the agency cannot seek monetary relief under one of its most frequently used legal authorities (Section 13b of the Federal Trade Commmission Act). The FTC will thus lose some ability to impose penalties, particularly in consumer protection cases. Facebook is already attempting to use this ruling to dismiss the FTC’s case against it, which could result in a forced sale of popular subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram. Table 2Balance Of Power On The FCC Table 3Balance Of Power On The FTC As for the Department of Justice, while Biden’s appointments have all been confirmed, the anti-trust division is bogged down by ethics concerns since several officials would have to recuse themselves in cases against Big Tech due to their previous work representing plaintiffs against Big Tech. The bottom line is that Big Tech is in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as Big Banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. Both public and government willingness to prosecute and regulate Big Tech have gone up, creating a permanently higher level of regulatory risk. Yet government focus and capability are lacking in the short run. Investment Takeaways Most of the major reflation trades have taken a pause in recent weeks, as expected. The stock-to-bond ratio has stalled, the cyclicals to defensives ratio has peaked twice, and TIPS have lost momentum relative to duration-matched nominal treasuries. The big five tech firms’ shares have tentatively arrested their fall relative to the other 495 companies on the S&P500. It is not clear if they will break down further but the above analysis suggests that they will. We are sticking with our long materials / short tech trade (Chart 11). Chart 11Long Materials Versus Technology Investors should stay invested, maintain pro-cyclical trades, favor value stocks relative to growth stocks, but avoid taking on large new risks in the current environment. The post-vaccine rally has lost steam but the overall macro backdrop remains favorable as the global economy recovers. We are closing our long municipal bonds trade for a gain of 2.3%. Our large cap energy trade has stopped out at -5% with small caps outperforming in the face of regulatory and ESG headwinds for the supermajors. Biden’s regulatory risk to energy small caps has been outweighed by the macro context but will become relevant at some point.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

Special Report

Dear client, This week, I am conducting a BCA Academy Marcroeconomic seminar in the Middle East. In lieu of our regular report, we are publishing a piece written by my colleague Jeremie Peloso. In it, Jeremie explores how to adjust valuation metrics to build country and sector selection tools which can be deployed to manage global equity portfolios. I trust you will find that this report provides a useful approach to equity selection. Best Regards, Mathieu Savary Chief European Strategist   Highlights We introduce our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator for European equities to identify extreme valuations at the country and sector level. At the country level, the historical track record of relative valuations as an alpha-generating tool is mixed; however, they demonstrate impressive predictive power at the sector level on a 3- to 12-month time horizon. A trading strategy consisting of a basket of the five cheapest relative valuations generates excess returns with high batting averages. The current reading from our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator suggests investors should overweight the following European sectors: consumer discretionary relative to both Swedish and British counterparts, tech relative to Australian counterparts, communications relative to Spanish counterparts, and utilities relative to Italian counterparts. Also, favor UK energy stocks relative to their Eurozone competitors. Feature European equities have been underperforming their foreign peers for the past 10 years (Chart 1). The persistently lower profitability of European stocks partly explains their subpar performance; a DuPont decomposition of RoE reveals how Europe’s economic malaise affects corporate profitability (Chart 2). Chart 1Structural Underperformance From The Past... Chart 2... And The Future The Eurozone’s excessively large capital stock is chief among these culprits (Chart 2, bottom panel). It suggests that a large proportion of the capital stock in the Eurozone is misallocated which, in turn, hurts profit margins and renders the Euro Area’s asset turnover inferior to that of other countries. Compared to the US, greater economic rigidities and lower market power and concentration in Europe also hurt profitability. On net, these forces indicate that the case for overweighting European equities on a structural investment horizon (5 to 10 years) remains weak. Despite the poor long-term outlook, European stocks could still perform well on both a tactical and cyclical investment horizon. We currently recommend a modest overweight in European stocks for cyclical investors. One of our main investment themes for the remainder of 2021 is that European growth will surprise to the upside, once the re-opening of economic activity in the Eurozone gets fully underway, supported by the rapid recent progress of vaccination campaigns. This process will cause a re-rating of European assets. Our recent work shows that positive changes in economic surprises translate into generous returns for European equities and EUR/USD. Moreover, prolonged accommodative monetary policies via low rates and the ECB’s PEPP program, as well as continued fiscal support via the NGEU recovery fund, will be supportive for European assets in absolute terms. However, there are risks to our upbeat view, which we explored last week. They are as follows: (1) a slowdown in the Chinese economy, (2) a global credit impulse deterioration, and (3) inflation surges that are faster than expected. While none of these risks constitute our base case scenario, they could derail the positive cyclical environment we anticipate for European equities. In order to diversify portfolio risk away from traditional cyclical factors, this Special Report presents a mechanical valuation framework for European equities to identify high-probability attractive excess returns on a 3- to 12-month time horizon. At the country level, the historical track record of relative valuation as a selection tool is mixed; however, it demonstrates impressive predictive power at the sector level. Therefore, this method provides an attractive starting point for sector selection. The Mechanics Of The Mechanical Approach The starting point of this analysis is to select different valuation metrics. We opt for the following measures commonly accepted by the investment community: Price-to-earnings, Forward price-to-earnings, Price-to-sales, Price-to-book,  Price-to-cash flows, Long-term growth in earnings. Next, we detrend each valuation measure by subtracting its 5-year moving average. We subsequently compute the difference between the detrended valuation metrics of the Euro Area MSCI equity benchmark and its chosen counterpart. For example, the calculation for the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) with the US is as follows: Valuation Gap = (Euro Area P/E - 5-year m.a.) - (US P/E - 5-year m.a.) Then, we divide each of the valuation gaps shown above by their 5-year moving standard deviation: Mechanical Indicator = Valuation Gap / (5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The resulting valuation indicator mean-reverts and oscillates between +/- 2 standard deviations (Chart 3). We repeat this process for each valuation metric across 15 countries (including the All Country World and emerging markets MSCI indices) and the 10 GICS sectors. Considering the importance of relative sectoral biases, we create two versions of the mechanical indicators for the purpose of country analysis: a regular market-cap weighted version and a sector-neutral one, in which we weight all 10 GICS sectors equally. As Chart 4 illustrates, the differences in sector composition between the Eurozone and other regions lead to a sector-neutral valuation metric that deviates substantially from its market-cap weighted counterpart. Importantly, the sector-neutral mechanical indicators perform better on average than the market-cap weighted versions, thus reinforcing the importance of relative sectoral biases when it comes to equity valuation. Chart 3Mechanical Valuation Indicator Example Chart 4Sector Composition Matters Finally, given the sheer amount of computations performed, we only present the summary output from our analysis. The appendix, which starts on page 11, displays the detailed results for each of the valuation metrics, countries, and sectors. A Well-Oiled Mechanical Tool? Simple valuation measures make unreliable market timing tools. However, they are useful at extreme levels, which is precisely how the mechanical indicator is supposed to be used. The next step of our analysis is to assess our methodology and see where it displays predictive power. For this purpose, we back-tested trading rules relying on outlying readings of the relative Mechanical Valuation Indicator. More specifically, we calculated the common currency (US$) excess returns over 3-, 6-, and 12-month horizons generated by the following: Going long (overweight) European stocks, when they stood at 1 and 1.5 standard deviations on the cheap side of fair value. Going short (underweight) European stocks, when they stood at 1 and 1.5 standard deviations on the expensive side of fair value. We define excess returns as the returns in excess of the average returns observed over the past 10-year period. In other words, we want to ensure that the mechanical approach delivers more alpha than a passive buy-and-hold strategy. We use the 1.5 standard deviation threshold rather than the 2-sigma hurdle because of the lack of sufficient observations at the 2-standard deviation bar. If we had stuck to the 2-sigma threshold, the results from the back-test would not have been reliable, despite a sample with history going back to 2003. Table 1 presents the indicator’s batting average at the country level for all the valuation metrics - that is, the number of times both trading rules generated positive excess returns as a percent of the total number of signals. Table 1Mechanical Valuation Indicator (Sector-Neutral) Historical Track Record: Country Level The results are mixed. Individually, none of the metrics display batting averages that significantly exceed 50% and none of the valuation metrics seem to perform uniformly across either time horizons or trading rules. On the bright side, we observe an improvement in excess returns between the +/- 1 and 1.5 standard deviation signals, especially when the mechanical indicators signal that European equities are the most expensive. Looking more closely at each valuation metric reveals that the long-term expected growth in earnings and the price-to-cash flows provided much better signals than the forward P/E and the price-to-book metrics. We repeat the same exercise at the sector level by calculating mechanical indicators for European sectors relative to comparable sectors from other regions - for example, European industrials relative to US or Chinese industrials. The results displayed in Table 2 consist of the average excess returns and batting averages across all sectors. The results for each sector can be found on page 19.    Table 2Mechanical Valuation Indicator Historical Track Record: Sector Level The historical track record of valuation-based trading rules yields much better results for sector selection than for country picking. All of the valuation metrics provide respectable predictive ability except for the long-term expected growth in earnings. In fact, the indicator generates positive excess returns more than two-thirds of the time; in half of the cases when the indicator fails to generate alpha, the Mechanical Valuation Indicator is computed using the long-term expected growth in earnings. Furthermore, the batting averages are above the 50% mark often, except over 12-month time horizons. Strength In Numbers: Combining The Signals The mixed results obtained from applying trading rules based on our mechanical indicator at the country level suggest we could improve the predictive power of this framework. Since individual valuation metrics do not cut it, we combine them into a simple average. Table 3Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (Sector-Neutral) Historical Track Record: Country Level At the country level, the results are once again disappointing. As can be seen from Table 3, the quality of the signals from our combined mechanical indicator is not consistent across the board. The predictive power of the combined signals only appears to be effective when European equities are 1-sigma cheap or 1.5-sigma expensive. When the combined mechanical indicator is 1.5 standard deviations away from fair value on the expensive side, which, admittedly, is not a very common occurrence, going short (underweight) European equities deliver excess returns of 4.2%, 3.2%, and 2.6% over  3-, 6- and 12-month time horizons, respectively. Table 4Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator Historical Track Record: Sector Level Despite this disappointment, the mechanical indicator once again truly shines at the sector level. Combining the valuation metrics, excluding the long-term expected growth rate of earnings (which, as we showed does a poor job), provides an excellent predictive power on all fronts (Table 4). All the excess returns are positive, and the batting averages are satisfying, especially on the 3-month and 6-month time horizons. The most impressive performance came from the mechanical indicator signaling European equity sectors were 1.5-sigma cheap. Out of 61 occurrences, following the signal resulted in earned excess returns of 3.3% and 4.8% on average over a 6- and 12-month time horizon, respectively. Importantly, the batting averages were both close to 60%. Bottom Line: Our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator is a useful tool, especially for sector selection in a global portfolio. It sports an impressive historical track record and allows us to identify pockets of attractive relative valuation that generate alpha for investors on a 3- to 12-month time horizon. Investment Implication What is the current message from our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator? Chart 5Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicators (Sector-Neutral): Country Level At present, the approach only sends two signals at the +/- one-sigma threshold at the country level and both stand on the cheap side of fair value (Chart 5). According to the sector-neutral mechanical indicator, the European MSCI equity benchmark is cheap compared to emerging markets and Chinese benchmarks. And, while not at extremes, US and global equities are still expensive relative to Eurozone stocks. Chart 6 provides the current reading from the mechanical indicator for each sector. Chart 6ACombined Mechanical Valuation Indicators: Sector Level Chart 6BCombined Mechanical Valuation Indicators: Sector Level Chart 7Favor UK Energy Stocks Vs. European Ones A few things stand out. First, there appears to be no extreme relative valuations within materials. Second, European energy stocks turn out to be expensive relative to all other regions included in the analysis, especially against energy stocks out of China and the UK. In fact, it makes a compelling case for investors to underweight Euro Area energy stocks relative to UK counterparts (Chart 7). Third, within the communications sector, Eurozone stocks are cheap against all their counterparts except for German ones. The relative valuation does not, however, stand at an extreme. Finally, if we were to select the five strongest signals, we would select the following pairs: Overweight European consumer discretionary stocks relative to Swedish counterparts Overweight European communications stocks relative to Spanish counterparts Overweight European tech stocks relative to Australian counterparts Overweight European consumer discretionary stocks relative to UK counterparts Overweight European utilities stocks relative to Italian counterparts This basket should deliver positive excess returns over a 3- to 12-month time horizon (Chart 8). Chart 8Going With The Strongest CMVI Signals   Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com   Appendix A The tables below present the historical track record of the sector-neutral mechanical valuation indicator for each of the valuation metrics at the country level. Euro Area vs. USEuro Area vs. All Country World Euro Area vs. Emerging Markets Euro Area vs. Germany Euro Area vs. France Euro Area vs. Italy Euro Area vs. Spain Euro Area vs. The Netherlands Euro Area vs. UK Euro Area vs. Sweden Euro Area vs. Switzerland Euro Area vs. Japan Euro Area vs. Canada Euro Area vs. Australia Euro Area vs. China   Appendix B The tables below present the historical track record of the mechanical valuation indicator for each of the valuation metrics at the sector level. Industrials Materials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Technology Communications Utilities Health Care Appendix C The tables below present the historical track record of the sector-neutral combined mechanical valuation indicator (CMVI) at the country level.   Euro Area vs. US Euro Area vs. All Country World Euro Area vs. Emerging Markets Euro Area vs. Germany Euro Area vs. France Euro Area vs. Italy Euro Area vs. Spain Euro Area vs. The Netherlands Euro Area vs. UK Euro Area vs. Sweden Euro Area vs. Switzerland Euro Area vs. Japan Euro Area vs. Canada Euro Area vs. Australia Euro Area vs. China     Appendix D The tables below present the historical track record of the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (CMVI) at the sector level. Industrials Materials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Technology Communications Utilities Health Care   Footnotes