Equities

Highlights   Portfolio Strategy Firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities were range bound last week, digesting the aftermath of the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities and the kneejerk oil price spike, and the Fed’s at the margin hawkish interest rate cut (Chart 1). While the U.S./China trade war news headlines took the back seat, it is disquieting that the largest oil production disruption in recent memory came to the forefront. Crude oil prices spiked and oil volatility skyrocketed as market participants were not pricing in any geopolitical risk premium on crude prices (Chart 1). This is a wake-up call for market participants and there are longer-term ramifications if the previously dormant geopolitical risk premium returns with a vengeance in the oil markets as we expect. Chart 2 shows that historically, an oil price shock is coincident with a U.S. recession. Given that our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service would not rule out another oil price surge in the coming months, a near doubling in oil inflation would likely be the straw that broke the camel’s back and check the final box for recession. Chart 1Mind The Oil Vol Spike Chart 2Doubling In Oil Prices Are A Bad Omen For Stocks To be precise, since the mid-1970s a 91% year-over-year oil price increase – using end of period monthly data – is synonymous with recession, with no false positives. In order for that prerequisite to be satisfied, WTI crude oil would have to surge to roughly $86/bbl by December (top panel, Chart 2). While this may seem as a tall order, our CES service has started assigning a rising probability to a sizable oil price jump in the coming months. With regard to equities, in all previous five oil price shocks the S&P 500 suffered significant losses, and if history at least rhymes, then the SPX would steeply contract anew (middle panel, Chart 2). While the U.S. economy is not currently in recession, it is fragile enough that an exogenous oil price shock would tilt it in recession. As a reminder, the U.S. benefits from the “good deflation” i.e. lower oil prices and suffers from oil spikes. Chart 3 depicts this inverse correlation. Importantly, re-reading James D. Hamilton’s “Historical Oil Shocks” NBER paper was insightful.1 In this piece Hamilton documents that “All but one of the 11 postwar recessions were associated with an increase in the price of oil, the single exception being the recession of 1960.” Hamilton then argues that “The correlation between oil shocks and economic recessions appears to be too strong to be just a coincidence…This is not to claim that the oil price increases themselves were the sole cause of most postwar recessions. Instead the indicated conclusion is that oil shocks were a contributing factor in at least some postwar recessions (emphasis ours)”. Chart 3GDP And Oil Are Inversely Correlated  This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Table 2Real GDP Growth (Annual Rate) And Contribution Of Autos To The Overall GDP Growth Rate In Five Historical Episodes While only the energy sector benefits from the oil price shock, the consumer, and most other sectors of the economy, have to contend with rising energy input costs. Hamilton finally makes a key point on auto production and a link to output: “one of the key responses seen following an increase in oil prices is a decline in automobile spending, particularly the larger vehicles manufactured in the United States”. He shows this relationship in Table 2 that we have replicated.2 Chart 4 also shows a number of different automobile-related economic series, and the current message is grim. It is clear that, were an oil price shock to hit, the motor vehicle-related production destruction would subtract from overall output and raise the probability of recession. Chart 4What’s Up With Autos? In sum, geopolitical risk is getting priced into the crude oil markets and were an oil spike to take place near $86/bbl, then this external shock would most likely tilt the economy in recession as has happened in all previous such oil inflation surges since the 1970s. We would refuse the temptation to listen to pundits that, similar to the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, would declare that “this time is different”. As a result of all this heightened uncertainty, we remain cautious on the prospects of the overall equity market. This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Energy’s Time To Shine? The recent drone attacks in Saudi Arabia’s oil processing and production facilities have re-concentrated investors’ minds on reassessing geopolitical risk premia in the crude oil market (top panel, Chart 5). Given the heightened risk of a future oil price spike that BCA’s CES and Geopolitical Strategy services outlined recently, we remain overweight in the S&P energy sector and re-iterate our high-conviction overweight status.   Rising oil prices will also filter through to rising inflation expectations and further boost the allure of the S&P energy sector (middle & bottom panels, Chart 5). This crude oil supply disruption comes at an inopportune time as U.S. crude oil inventories have been depleting recently; this represents another source of support for the relative share price ratio (crude oil supply shown inverted, second panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Energy Catch Up Phase Looms Chart 6Energy Can Burst Higher On the demand front, non-OECD demand remains on an upward trajectory since the start of its recovery path in the aftermath of the 2015/2016 manufacturing recession. Importantly, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index is accelerating driven by the emerging markets and signals that recent easing monetary policy measures in EM economies will put a lid under EM oil demand (Chart 6). As a result, still depressed relative S&P energy sales expectations should turnaround (third panel, Chart 6). Turning over to the financial statements of this now niche deep cyclical sector, there are no major red flags waving. Net debt-to-EBITDA is near 2x, on a par with the broad nonfinancial sector, and interest coverage is at a respectable 5x (Chart 7). The sector has been more stringent with shareholder friendly activities and the dividend payout ratio has fallen back to the historical mean (not shown). In more detail, the S&P energy sector sports the highest dividend yield compared with the rest of the GICS1 sectors, a full 185bps above the SPX, offering a relatively safe home for yield hungry investors in the era of depressed global interest rates (bottom panel, Chart 7). In fact, the S&P energy sector is so extremely undervalued that all of its 28 constituents combined are now worth as much as one stock, Microsoft. Indeed, our relative Valuation Indicator has plunged and is now roughly two standard deviations below the historical mean, a three decade low (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Repaired B/S With The Highest GICS1 Sector Dividend Yield Chart 8Oversold And…   Energy sector technicals are also bombed out, with our relative Technical Indicator in deeply oversold territory. Such depressed levels have marked prior reversals and a violent snap back would not surprise us. Internal energy sector dynamics reveal a similarly extreme picture, with both the percentage of subgroups trading above the 40-week moving average and with a positive 52-week rate of change perched at the zero lower bound (fourth & fifth panels, Chart 8). Sell-side analysts are equally pessimistic, assigning a low probability in energy sector revenues and profits besting the overall market. This is not only a near-term phenomenon, but the sell side has also thrown in the towel on a 5-year time horizon (Chart 9). All of this extreme bearishness overshadowing the S&P energy sector is contrarily positive. One key risk to our overweight stance in the S&P energy sector is the U.S. dollar. Historically, the higher the greenback goes the lower oil prices and energy shares fall. This multi-decade inverse correlation remains intact and were the U.S. dollar to materially increase from current levels, it would heavily weigh on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 8). BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy’s relative profit growth macro-models have an excellent track record in forecasting relative profit trends as they accurately capture most of the key profit drivers. Currently, the relative EPS models are in a slingshot recovery, which stands in marked contrast to the overly pessimistic sell side analyst community (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9…Undervalued Netting it all out, firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy sector. This deep cyclical sector also remains on our high-conviction overweight list. Double Down On Exploration & Production Stocks S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) stocks have closely tracked crude oil prices, but recently a wide gap has opened and we reckon that it will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the former (top panel, Chart 10). Even natural gas prices have come out of hibernation and caught a bid of late and similarly suggest that relative share prices are uncharacteristically depressed by steeply deviating from the underlying commodities (second panel, Chart 10). There is so much pessimism ingrained in the E&P space with net EPS revisions sinking to “as bad as it gets” warning that even a modest rise in oil prices can serve as a catalyst to raise the profile of this unloved corner of the deep cyclical universe (bottom panel, Chart 10). While the energy default rate has risen lately, the high yield E&P option adjusted spread is neither surging a la 2015/2016 nor sending a distress signal. If anything, given the recent jump in oil prices and prospects of an oil price surge, independent oil producers’ bond holders should further breathe a sigh of relief (junk spread shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Primed To Follow Oil Prices Higher Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. With regard to operating metrics, free cash flow has more than doubled since the 2016 trough and has now stabilized (second panel, Chart 12). This highly capital intensive industry has gotten forced to live within its means and be more careful with expansion plans financed by rising indebtedness. Use of cash has also come under scrutiny. Capex as a percentage of overall cash flow rose from 35% to over 60% at the recent cyclical peak and has now corrected to 47%, just above the two decade average (Chart 12). Chart 11No Yellow Flags Chart 12Cash Discipline Should Start To Pay Off Similar to the broad energy space, E&P stocks are compellingly valued irrespective of the valuation metric chosen. To name a few, the dividend yield differential is at 150bps versus the broad market, relative price-to-sales has corrected from 3x to par, and on an EV/EBITDA basis E&P stocks trade at a 35% discount to the broad market (Chart 13). Nevertheless, there is a risk to our still constructive view of the E&P index. Oil prices have to stay above the $50-$55/bbl range in order for the shale oil space to breakeven and sustain crude oil production at recent all-time high levels. As a reminder, an industry capex collapse is synonymous with oil price plunges and major relative share price drawdowns (Chart 14). Chart 13Bombed Out Valuations Chart 14Capex Collapse Is A Big Risk Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: S5OILP – COP, PXD, DVN, HES, APA, MRO, XEC, COG, CXO, EOG, FANG, NBL.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   footnotes 1      https://www.nber.org/papers/w16790 2      Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Energy Stocks Are Heading North Banks Clamoring For Higher Rates And A More Hawkish Fed Homebuilding Stocks Are Catching Up To Housing Starts Will Global Trade Get “Fed-Exed”? Do Not Try To Bottom Fish… ... In Cyclicals Vs. Defensives​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights Investors should pay particular attention to definition and methodology when evaluating value versus growth strategies, both academically and in practice. Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap universe. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large- and mid-cap investors should not be making bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels.  GAA remains neutral on value versus growth, but prefers to use sector positioning (cyclicals versus defensives, financials versus tech and health care) and country positioning (euro area versus U.S.) to implement style tilts. Feature Investing by way of style is as old as investing itself. Value versus growth has been one of the most frequently asked questions among our clients of late, particularly given the sharp style reversal in recent weeks. In this report, we attempt to answer some of the most often-asked questions on value versus growth. We have arranged these questions into five separate sections: First, we look at 93 years of history of the Fama-French value and growth portfolios to see how value, growth, and size have interacted over time, because academics have mostly used the Fama-French framework. Second, we look at how comparable U.S. style indices are, including the S&P, the Russell and the MSCI, since practitioners mostly use these commercial indices as their benchmarks. Third, we investigate if international markets share the same value-growth performance cycles as the U.S., using the MSCI suite of value-growth indices (since MSCI is the only index provider that produces value-growth indices for each market under its global coverage). Fourth, we investigate if pure exposure to value and growth can actually improve the value-growth performance spread by comparing the pure style indices from the S&P and the Russell to their standard counterparts. Finally, we present the GAA approach to style tilts in a section on our investment conclusions. 1. Is It True That Value Outperforms Growth In The Long Run? There has been overwhelming academic evidence supporting the existence of the value premium.1 Academically, the “value premium”, also known as the HML (high minus low) factor premium, or the value outperformance, is defined as the return differential between the cheapest stocks and the most expensive. Even though Fama and French used book-to-price as the sole valuation criterion,2 many researchers have combined book-to-price with other valuation measures such as earnings-to-price, sales-to-price, dividend yield,3 and so on.  There is also academic evidence suggesting that “value outperformance is almost non-existent among large-cap stocks.”4 What is more, in 2014 Fama and French caused a huge stir by publishing “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model” working paper demonstrating that “HML is a redundant factor” because “the average HML return is captured by the exposure of the HML to other factors” (such as size, profitability, and investment pattern) based on U.S. data from 1963 to 2013.5 For non-quant practitioners, especially the long-only investors, value and growth are two separate investment styles, even though the style classification shares the same principle as the academic “value factor.” Their definitions vary, as evidenced by how S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell, and MSCI define their value and growth indexes (see next section on page 7). In general, value stocks are cheap, with lower-than-average earnings growth potential, while growth stocks have higher-than-average earnings growth potential but are very expensive. The indices published by commercial index providers do not have very long histories, however. Fortunately, Fama and French also provide value-growth-size portfolios on their publicly available website.6  Table 1 shows that for 93 years, from July 1926 to June 2019, U.S. value portfolios in both large-cap and small-cap buckets based on the well-known Fama-French approach have returned more than their growth counterparts, no matter whether the portfolios are equal-weighted or market-cap-weighted. Most strikingly, equal-weighted small-cap value outperformed its growth counterpart by over 10% a year in absolute terms, and has more than doubled the risk-adjusted return compared to its growth counterpart. Table 1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Portfolio Performance* Some media reports have claimed that value stocks are “less volatile” because they are on average “larger and better-established companies.”7 This may be true for some specific time periods. For the 93 years covered by Fama and French, however, this common belief is not supported. In fact, value portfolios in both the large- and small-cap universes have consistently had higher volatility than growth portfolios, no matter how the components are weighted. The excess returns, however, have more than offset the higher volatilities in three out of four pairs, with the exception being market cap-weighted large-cap growth, which has a slightly higher risk-adjusted return due to much lower volatility than its value counterpart. From a very long-term perspective, the value outperformance does come from taking higher risk. Further investigation shows that the superior long-run outperformance of value relative to growth came mostly in the first 80 years of Fama and French’s 93-year sample. In more recent years since 2007, however, value has underperformed growth significantly in three out of the four Fama-French value-growth pairs, with the equal-weighted small-cap value-growth pair being the sole exception, as shown in Table 2. Even though the equal-weighted small-cap value has still outperformed its growth counterpart in the most recent period, the hit ratio drops to 54% compared to 76% in the first 80 years, while the magnitude of average calendar-year outperformance drops to a meager 1.3%, compared to 12.5% in the first 80 years. Table 2The Fight Between Value And Growth* Statistical analysis is sensitive to the time period chosen. How have value and growth been performing over time? Chart 1 shows the long-term dynamics among value, growth, and size. The following conclusions are clear: Value investors should favor small caps over large caps, while growth investors should do the opposite, favoring large caps over small caps, albeit with much less potential success (Chart 1, panel 1). Small-cap investors should favor value stocks over growth stocks (panel 2). Value outperformance in the large-cap space (panel 3) is much weaker than in the small-cap space (panel 2). Chart 1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth. Fama and French define small and large caps based on the median market cap of all NYSE stocks on CRSP (Center for Research In Security Prices), then use the NYSE median size to split NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ (after 1972) into a small-cap group and a large-cap group. The value and growth split is based on book-to-price, with stocks in the lowest 30% classified as growth, and the highest 30% as value. Interestingly, small-cap value and small-cap growth account for only a very small portion of the entire universe, as shown in Charts 2A and 2B. Chart 2ASmall-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Chart 2BLarge-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Value stocks’ average market cap is about half of that of growth stocks, in both the large- and small-cap universes (panel 3 in Charts 2A and 2B). Again, this does not support some media claims that value stocks are larger and better-established companies. However, it does add further support to the claim that all investors should favor small-cap value stocks. Unfortunately, “small-cap value” is a very small universe. As of June 2019, the CRSP total U.S. equity market cap was $26.2 trillion, with small-cap value accounting for only 1.5% (about $383 billion); even large-cap value comprises only a relatively small weight, 13% (US$3.5 trillion). The U.S. market is dominated by large-cap growth stocks with a heavy weight of 56% (US$14.7 trillion, as of June 2019). This is encouraging because academic research does show that the value premium among large caps is weak. But the large-cap value weakness mostly started from 2007, after 80 years of strength relative to large-cap growth (Chart 1, panel 3). The Fama-French approach is widely used in academic research, partly due to its long history from 1926. For non-quant practitioners, especially long-only investors, however, commercial indexes from FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI are more often used as performance benchmarks. In this report, we study a series of commercial value-growth indexes in the U.S. and globally to shed light on value-growth dynamics, and how asset allocators can incorporate them into their decision-making processes. 2. Not All U.S. Style Indexes Are Created Equal Three major index providers have style indices. They are FTSE Russell (which launched the industry’s first set of value-growth indexes in 1987), S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI. MSCI is the only provider that has a full suite of value-growth indices for all individual markets under coverage. While all three provide “standard” style indices that include the full component of the parent index, the FTSE Russell and the S&P Dow Jones also provide “pure” style indices. There are two major differences between “standard” and “pure” style indices: 1) the standard indices are market-cap weighted, while the “pure” indices are weighted based on style score. 2) Standard value and standard growth have overlapping components, while pure value and pure growth do not share any common components. Other than book-to-price, the value variable used by the Fama-French approach, the three providers have added different variables in the determination of value and growth, as shown in Table 3. This also reflects the evolution of the industry’s understanding on value and growth. For example, when MSCI first launched its style index in 1997, it used only book-to-price, but changed its approach in May 2003 to the current “multi-factor two-dimension” framework. Table 3Value-Growth Index Criteria Because of the differences in index construction methodology, value-growth indices for the U.S. have behaved differently. The S&P 500, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI standard (large and mid-cap) indices are widely followed institutional benchmarks, with back-tested history dating to the 1970s. Chart 3 shows the relative value/growth performance dynamics from the three index providers, together with that from Fama and French (market value-weighted, to be consistent with the approach from the index providers). One can observe the following: Chart 3Which Value/Growth? None of the three pairs looks exactly like Fama-French’s market-cap value-weighted value/growth. This raises the question of how historical analysis based on the long history of Fama-French value/growth portfolios can be applied to the commercial indices. In the first cycle from 1975 to February 2000, all three index pairs made a round trip, with flat performance between value and growth. Also, even though the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 were more closely correlated with one another than with the MSCI, the three were quite similar. In the current cycle that began in February 2000, however, Russell value/growth has rebounded much more strongly than the other two. But in the down period that started in 2007, the three indices performed in line with each other, as shown in Table 4. Table 4U.S. Style Index Performance* In addition, the difference between S&P and Russell does not just lie between the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000. It actually exists in every market-cap segment, as shown in Chart 4. Unfortunately, MSCI does not provide history from 1975 for the detailed cap segments. In the current cycle since February 2000, S&P value rebounded the least between 2000 and 2006. Why? Chart 4Know Your Benchmark Further investigation reveals some interesting observations, as shown in Chart 5. Chart 5Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P At the aggregate level, the S&P 1500, the Russell 3000 and their respective style indices have performed largely in line with one another in the most recent cycle starting from February 2000 (Chart 5, panel 4), reflecting the industry trend of index convergence. In different market cap segments, however, the divergence is still prominent, especially in the small-cap space (panel 1). The S&P 600 has consistently outperformed the Russell 2000 in both the value and growth categories. In addition to different style factors, this consistency also reflects different universes, size distribution, and sector exposure, as explained in an earlier GAA Special Report on small caps.8 Managers with Russell 2000 as their performance benchmark could simply beat it by doing a total-return-performance swap between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600. Bottom Line:  Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth.  3. How Have Value And Growth Performed Globally? MSCI is the only index provider that also produces value-growth indices for each equity market under its global coverage, using the same methodology. Unfortunately, only the “standard” (i.e., large- and mid-cap) universe has a long history, dating from December 1974. Charts 6A and 6B show the value/growth dynamics in major DM and EM markets. The relative performance of MSCI DM value versus growth shares a similar pattern to that of the U.S. in the latest cycle since 2000, but looks very different in the period before 2000 (Chart 6A). The ratio of EM large- and mid-cap value versus growth did not peak until February 2012, about five years after the peak of its DM peer (Chart 6B, panel 1). On the other hand, EM small-cap value has resumed its outperformance versus growth since early 2016 after having peaked around the same time as its large-cap counterpart. Chart 6AIs Value Dead In DM? Chart 6BIs Value Dead In EM? The global value/growth dynamics also show that the “value outperforming growth” effect is more prominent in the small-cap space. But why has small value also underperformed small growth in most DM markets? Our explanation is that the EM universe is much less efficient than the DM universe because there are not many quant funds dedicated to the EM small-cap space –  in addition to the fact that, in general, EM small caps are much smaller than those in DM markets. This is also in line with our finding that, in general, factor premia are more prominent in the EM universe.9 Bottom Line: Value premium is more prominent in non-U.S. markets, especially the EM small-cap universe. 4. Do Pure Style Indices Improve Performance? Both S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell provide pure-value and pure-growth indices. Unlike the standard value-growth indices, which target about 50% of the parent market cap, the pure-style indices include only stocks with the strongest value and growth characteristics. There is no overlap between the two. We prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts tactically. In theory, the pure-style indices should outperform the standard-style indices because of their concentrated exposure to style factors. How do they do in reality? Table 5 shows that in terms of absolute return, this is indeed the case for 14 out of the 18 pairs of indices from S&P and Russell for the period between 1998 and 2019. However, the higher returns from greater exposure to style factors have largely come from much higher volatility in 17 out of the 18 pairs. Pure style has higher volatility than standard style in general, the only exception being the Russell mid-cap value space. As such, on a risk-adjusted basis, pure style is not necessarily better. Table 5Purer Is Not Necessarily Better Charts 7A and 7B show the different performance dynamics for the S&P and Russell families of style indices. For the S&P indices, pure growth has outperformed standard growth for the entire period in all three market-cap segments, but only the S&P 500 pure value outperformed its standard counterpart. Therefore, more concentrated exposure to style characteristics has improved the value-growth spread only in the large-cap space, but it has actually worsened the value-growth spread in the mid- and small-cap universes (Chart 7A). Chart 7AS&P Pure Styles* Chart 7BRussell Pure Styles* For the Russell indices, it’s clear that there were a lot more tech stocks in its pure-growth indices leading up to the 2000 tech bubble, because pure growth shot up significantly more than the standard growth before the bubble burst, and also crashed more severely following it. Overall, only in the small-cap space did the value-growth spread improve by the more concentrated exposure to style factors. However, this improvement was not because of the outperformance of the pure-style relative to the standard indices. In fact, both pure value and pure growth in the small-cap universe underperformed their standard counterparts, but pure growth performed even worse (Chart 7B and Table 5). 5. Investment Conclusions Value and growth can mean very different things and behave very differently. Investors should pay special attention to the definitions and methodologies when evaluating style indices or strategies, both academically and in practice.  Depending on an investor’s mandate, the following is recommended: Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap space. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large-and mid-cap investors should not make bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels. Price-to-book is the only common variable used in the determination of value and growth by academics and practitioners. Its track record as a systematic return predictor has been poor, as shown in panel 2 of Charts 8A and 8B. Another factor we have a long history for is dividend yield. Its predictive power is even worse than that of price-to-book (panel 3). Chart 8AValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Chart 8BValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Globally Many factors have been used in conjunction with price-to-book by both academics and practitioners to time the rotation between value and growth. However, the results have been mixed. Regression models that correctly predicted in the past may not work in the future. For example, a regression model based on valuation spread and earnings-growth spread using data from January 1982 to October 1999 successfully predicted the rebound of value outperformance starting in early 2000,10 but the universal suffering of value funds over the past several years implies that this model may have given many false signals. Chart 9 demonstrates how difficult it is to use regression models as a timing tool for value and growth rotation. A simple regression is conducted between value and growth return differentials (subsequent 60-month returns) and relative price-to-book. For data from December 1974 to July 2019, the r-squared for the MSCI world is 0.38 and for the U.S. it is 0.09. In hindsight, both models predicted the value outperformance starting in early 2000. However, the gaps between actual value and fitted value started to open, long before 2000. By late 1998, the gaps were already wider than the previous cycle lows, yet they continued to widen as value continued to underperform growth until February 2000.  Chart 9How Good Is The Fit? What should investors currently do, based on these models? The gaps are large, but not as large as in early 2000. At which point should investors start to shift into value given its more than 12 years of underperformance? We have often written that we prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts.11, 12 This preference has not changed. Value and growth indices have sector tilts that change over time. Currently, the S&P Dow Jones large- and mid-cap value indices have a clear overweight in financials but an underweight in tech and health care compared to their growth counterparts (Table 6). Table 6Sector Bets In Value And Growth Indices* Chart 10Prefer Sector And Country Positioning To Style Tilts We have been neutral on value and growth, but would likely change this view if we change our country equity allocation between the U.S. and the euro area, and our equity sector allocation between cyclicals and defensives as well as between financials and information technology (Chart 10).     Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR Working Paper, July 2, 2019. 2Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993). 3Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 42 No.1, Fall 2015.  4Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,”Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 108, Issue 2, May 2013 5Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Working Paper, University of Chicago, September 2014. 6Fama-French value-growth-size portfolios. 7Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” Investopedia, Jun 25, 2019. 8Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact or Myth?” dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?” dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2000. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - March 2016,” dated March 31, 2016, and available at gaa. bcaresearch.com. 12Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - April 2019,” dated April 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Small cracks are forming in the labor market according to the ISM manufacturing, ISM services and NFIB surveys, and if the Fed goes ahead and cuts interest rates in half in the coming year as the bond market currently forecasts, then a recession would be a foregone conclusion. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising Citi Economic Surprise Index (CESI) into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Healthy credit growth, still pristine credit quality and early signs of a recovery in the price of credit all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index.  Recent Changes Last Wednesday we removed the S&P software index from the high-conviction overweight list for a 10% gain. Last Wednesday we removed the large cap size bias from the high-conviction list for a 9% gain. Table 1 Feature The SPX built on recent gains last week, but failed to surpass the July highs. Beneath the surface, some big sector shifts are taking place, but it is still early to declare a definitive change in trend. Dormant value stocks have awaken and are riding a high at the expense of growth and momentum names, on the back of a selloff in the bond market (Chart 1). Similarly, small cap stocks have a pulse, and started to outshine large caps. Even in a red SPX day, small cap indexes managed to close in the black (Chart 1). As a reminder with regard to our portfolio, last Wednesday we obeyed our S&P software stop and removed it from the high-conviction call list for a 10% gain, and simultaneously booked gains in the tactical large cap bias and removed it from the high-conviction call list (Chart 1). In both cases our shorter-term confidence was taken down a notch, and we intend to obey our cyclical trailing stops in both positions in order to protect gains for our portfolio (for additional details please refer to the Daily Sector Insights available here and here). Following up from last week’s ISM-related analysis, we turn our attention to the labor market that is beginning to reveal some minor cracks. While the ISM debate has centered around the steep divergences between services and manufacturing on the headline number and the new orders subcomponents, the labor components have gone nearly unnoticed. Chart 1Healthy Rotation Worrisomely on the employment front, the surveys are in agreement (second panel, Chart 2), warning that the labor market will have trouble standing on its own two feet. This is a bearish backdrop for the broad equity market (third panel, Chart 2). Tack on the latest NFIB survey, and the news gets grimmer. Chart 3 shows that an equally-weighted index of small business job openings and hiring plans is quickly losing momentum. Given that roughly 2/3 of job creation originates in small and medium businesses, non-farm payroll growth will likely continue to lose steam in the coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2Labor Market… Chart 3…Yellow Flags This week, we update an early cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Finally, the still sinking stock-to-bond ratio corroborates the ISM and NFIB surveys’ messages. Crudely put, the longer that bonds outperform stocks, the higher the chances that employment will suffer a severe setback (Chart 4). Chart 4Last Man Standing Granted, the labor market is a lagging indicator and typically one of the last, if not the last, shoes to drop on the eve of recession. With regard to recession, a simple thought experiment is in order. If we assume the bond market’s forecast for another 100bps of fed funds rate (FFR) cuts in the coming year as accurate, then the FFR will fall to 1.25%. This Fed policy easing will represent a 44% fall in the FFR on a year-over-year basis. Since the late 1960s recession there have not been any mid-cycle slowdowns that the Fed has engineered by clipping the FFR in half (Chart 5). Put differently, when the Fed is compelled to cut interest rates so deeply in every iteration we examined a recession followed suit. Chart 5When The Fed Funds Rate Gets Halved, Recession Is The Reason In sum, small cracks are forming in the labor market according to the ISM manufacturing, ISM services and NFIB surveys and if the Fed goes ahead and cuts interest rates in half in the coming year, as the bond market currently forecasts, then a recession would be a foregone conclusion. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. This week, we update an early cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Stick With Financials… The 45bps rise in the 10-year U.S. Treasury (UST) yield over the past two weeks has breathed life back into the S&P financials sector, and for the time being we are sticking with an overweight recommendation. While it remains to be seen how sustainable the rise in yields will be, BCA's long-held view remains that the 10-year UST yield will sell off on a cyclical 9-12 time month horizon. If this is the case then financials stocks will lead the nascent sector rotation that commenced in late-August and outperform the SPX in the coming months (top panel, Chart 6). Foreign flows had put a solid bid under U.S. bonds and artificially suppressed yields and this is at the margin reversing. In addition, the market was hoping for a 50bps rate cut from the Fed in the September meeting further weighing on the UST yield, but now the odds of that happening are nil. Finally, the Citi Economic Surprise Index (CESI) has also come out of hibernation and spiked in positive territory, evidence that economic data estimates had hit rock bottom. This slingshot recovery in the CESI is tonic for financials stocks (bottom panel, Chart 6). On the earnings front, our profit growth model has kissed off the zero line. While financials sector EPS cannot grow indefinitely at a 30%/annum clip, the turn in our three-factor macro model is a positive development (second panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Moving In Lockstep With Rates Chart 7Unwarranted Extreme Bearishness Importantly, it stands in marked contrast to the sell side community. Analysts have been feverishly cutting EPS estimates for the sector, and now net earnings revisions have sunk to a level last hit during the great recession (middle panel, Chart 7). Similarly, relative 12-month and five-year forward profit growth forecasts are overly pessimistic. The upshot is that this lowered profit bar will be easy to surpass. With regard to shareholder friendly activities, while the overall share buyback frenzy has taken a breather, financials sector equity retirement is alive and kicking and on track to register the largest annual buyback since the short history of the data (second panel, Chart 8). If there is any sector with pent up buyback demand it is the financials sector that has been a net equity issuer until very recently still wrestling with equity dilution in the aftermath of the GFC. Adding it all up, the budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising CESI into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Dividend growth has been steady and in expansionary territory and the dividend payout ratio is far from waving any yellow flags. Moreover, financials yield 2.07% or 25bps higher than the 10-year UST yield and 17bps higher than the SPX, which is attractive for yield seeking investors (Chart 8). Moving on to relative valuations beyond the enticing relative dividend yield, relative price-to-book, relative forward P/E and our bombed out composite relative valuation indicator that collapsed to all-time lows suggest that financials are a screaming buy. Technicals remain oversold and also suggest that an overweight stance is warranted (Chart 9). Chart 8Pent-Up Demand For Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 9Undervalued And Unloved Adding it all up, the budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising CESI into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P financials sector, that is compellingly valued, under-owned, and with promising profit prospects. … And Banks For A While Longer Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market, and we continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P banks index. This is a global phenomenon as even the ultimate global value group, Eurozone bank equities, bottomed out on August 15 alongside their U.S. peers. While the broad financials index is levered to interest rate movements, banks – that comprise roughly 42% of the S&P financials sector – are hyper-sensitive to changes in the risk-free asset. Thus, the recent jack up in interest rates represents a profit-augmenting opportunity for this early cyclical subgroup (Chart 10) Beyond the rising price of credit, credit growth is another key industry profit driver. Our bank loan models have crested, but are still expanding at a healthy clip (second and bottom panels, Chart 11). As long as they manage to remain above the zero line, they will prove a boon to bank earnings. Specifically on the consumer front, sky high consumer confidence coupled with rising wage inflation signal that consumer credit growth prospects remain upbeat (Chart 11). Chart 10Rising Rates=Buy Banks Importantly, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey painted a bright picture on both the demand and supply of credit. In more detail, bankers reported that a rising number of credit categories reversed course and demand for loans slingshot higher, likely as a delayed consequence of the dramatic fall in interest rates since last November (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Loan Growth… Chart 12…Prospects Are Firming Encouragingly, bank officers also reported that they were willing extenders of credit. Our in-house calculated overall gauge of loan tightening standards fell compared with last quarter, signaling that at the margin it is easier to get a loan (middle panel, Chart 12). Netting it all out, early signs of a recovery in the price of credit, healthy credit growth and still pristine credit quality signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index.  Finally, credit quality, the third key bank profit driver, is also emitting a positive signal. While a few loan categories have deteriorated recently in absolute terms, as percentage of loans outstanding, credit quality remains pristine (Chart 13). The upshot is that this credit quality backdrop combined with a jump in bank return-on-equity to low double digits, should serve as catalysts to unlock excellent value (third & bottom panel, Chart 13). Nevertheless, there are two risks worth close monitoring. First, parts of the yield curve inverted last December and more recently the 10/2 yield curve slope inverted warning that the path of least resistance is lower for bank net interest margins (NIMs, middle panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Pristine Credit Quality Is A Catalyst To Unlock Excellent Value Chart 14Two Risks To monitor Second, the ISM manufacturing survey fell below the boom/bust line in August for the first time since the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart 14). Given that C&I loans are the largest loan category on the asset side of bank balance sheets, the current manufacturing recession may hurt bank profitability in two distinct ways. Not only C&I credit quality will worsen as the risk of defaults rises, but also C&I loan growth may take the back seat and weigh on bank profit growth prospects. Netting it all out, early signs of a recovery in the price of credit, healthy credit growth and still pristine credit quality signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index.  Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P banks index, but keep it on the downgrade watch list, acknowledging the yield curve-related potential decline in NIMs and manufacturing recession-related C&I loan growth risks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Highlights The ECB loaded a bazooka, and core Eurozone yields rose: The ECB surprised dovishly last Thursday, and European bond yields duly fell … for an hour. Then they began to back up as fast as they fell, and when Friday’s trading ended, only Greek and Italian yields were lower than where they started. The market action supports our contention that things are not so bad, assuming the worst-case trade scenarios do not materialize: Underpinned by a robust labor market, the U.S. should have little trouble growing at a trend pace over the next twelve months. Meanwhile, the global economy may be in the process of turning. Reversals within the U.S. equity market have gotten a lot of attention so far this month, but it’s too early to claim that a broad factor inflection is underway: If global growth prospects have bottomed, defensive sectors’ outperformance is due to reverse, which will cause havoc for momentum strategies. It is premature to call for a value revival, however. Feature Maybe long Treasury yields aren’t going to zero after all. After bottoming just below 1.43% the day after Labor Day, the 10-year Treasury yield surged 45 basis points across eight sessions as of Friday’s lunchtime peak (Chart 1). The move has been enough to retrace better than three-fifths of its steep slide from mid-July to the beginning of September, but relative to the extended plunge from 3.24% that began last November, the bounce barely registers. Chart 1Up, Up And Away Chart 2Pulled Lower By Expected Rate Cuts... The takeaway is that it’s important to keep the moves in context. Just as the collapse in Treasury yields didn’t indicate that the U.S. economy was headed for an imminent recession, their modest, if rapid, recovery doesn’t indicate that all the dark clouds are gone from the horizon. From a purely domestic perspective, the 180-basis-point (“bps”) peak-to-trough decline in the 10-year Treasury yield unfolded nearly step-for-step with an equivalent decline in the expected fed funds rate twelve months out (Chart 2). Since a 1.25% target fed funds rate this time next year is incompatible with our view of the economy, we expect rates will move higher. The ECB committed itself to accommodation for longer than markets had expected; … Chart 3...And Other Sovereign Yields Chart 4Better Times Ahead? The Treasury market doesn’t exist in a vacuum, however. Yield moves in similarly-rated sovereign bonds have an effect on Treasuries, and declines in European sovereign yields have exerted a gravitational pull all year long (Chart 3). The backup in yields that followed the ECB’s dovish surprise on Thursday suggests that Eurozone sovereign bond markets may have bought the rumor and sold the news. If global growth is in the process of bottoming, as global leading indicators suggest, falling yields would run counter to the fundamental backdrop (Chart 4). You May Fire When Ready, Draghi To judge by the spate of columns urging helicopter-style accommodation measures, the expectations bar for the European Central Bank’s long-awaited September meeting had been set pretty high. The cut in the ECB’s deposit facility rate to -0.5% from -0.4%, with provisions to mitigate the pressure negative rates exert on banks, was in line with the market consensus, as was a resumption of quantitative easing. Investors did not foresee that the ECB would embark on open-ended bond purchases, however, a plan quickly labeled “QE Infinity.” The ECB also dumped its no-hikes-before-mid-2020 guidance – now it won’t move until the inflation outlook “robustly” moves toward its 2% target – and lengthened the maturities on TLTRO loans while lowering their rates.1 The surprise indicated that the ECB is taking the slowdown seriously, at home (most evident in Germany, which is flirting with recession after a quarter-over-quarter GDP contraction) and abroad. It is premature to declare the action a flop, as headline writers were quick to do, citing the evanescent decline in core bond yields and the euro, because QE impacts are subject to several factors. Sovereign yields can rise on QE announcements if markets judge the impact of relaxed inflation vigilance will outweigh the impact of the entry of a new, price-insensitive buyer to the marketplace. As long as real yields fall, the central bank will have achieved its goal. … if it develops that the incremental accommodation wasn’t necessary, equities and spread product should reap the benefits. U.S. investors are mostly concerned with the impact on global markets and the global economy. Even if nominal sovereign yields have bottomed and competitive devaluation has neutered the currency channel, incremental easing should boost risk assets’ prospects, via pushing incumbent sovereign holders into spread product (the portfolio balance effect), promoting business and consumer confidence, incentivizing bank lending, and nudging other central banks (like Denmark’s, which immediately cut its policy rate in response) to ease monetary conditions themselves (Figure 1). On those counts, we view the ECB’s surprise as modestly improving the prospects for risk assets. TINA is alive and well. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy The Employment Situation We have repeatedly cited the robustness of the labor market as a reason for not giving up on the U.S. economy, or equities and spread product. If expanding payrolls and increasing compensation can keep consumption growing at just a 2% clip, the probability of a U.S. recession, and of an equity bear market and a new default cycle, is fairly slim. If the labor market isn’t as strong as we’ve judged, more defensive portfolio positioning may be in order. Since the beginning of the second quarter, the monthly employment situation reports have revealed a slowing in hiring activity, halting the quickening that stretched from last year through the end of the first quarter (Chart 5). The slowing trend is less concerning than it might appear to be on its face. The current expansion, 122 months old and counting, is the longest on record, and now that it has already drawn considerable numbers of people back into the labor force and back to work, it has become increasingly difficult to find and attract new workers. Even the current monthly pace of job gains, 156,000 over the last three months, still puts downward pressure on the unemployment rate, as it takes less than 110,000 new jobs to maintain the status quo. With net job gains outpacing new entrants into the labor force, wages should rise. Average hourly earnings rose 3.2% in August on a year-over-year basis, though the 0.4% month-over-month gain suggests they may be about to challenge the top end of the tight 3.1-3.2% range that’s prevailed all year. Investors’ and economists’ patience with the Phillips Curve is increasingly wearing thin, as they wait for the decline in the unemployment rate to show up in wage gains, but we consider the underlying supply-demand relationship to be immutable. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio hit an 11-year high in August, and is solidly back in the middle of the range that has prevailed over the 30 years that female participation gains have stabilized (Chart 6). Chart 5Slower Payroll Gains... Chart 6...Will Still Tighten The Labor Market Chart 7The Unkinked Phillips Curve The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is an important measure for the Phillips Curve because it exhibits a consistent linear relationship with wage gains. The fit between the non-employment-to-population ratio (1 minus the employment-to-population ratio) and the employment cost index (Chart 7, top panel) is a little tighter than the fit with average hourly earnings (Chart 7, bottom panel), but both regression equations project an annual increase in wages of 3.3% at the current 20% (1-80%) level, and a 7-bps gain for every 20-bps decline in the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio. Given that our payrolls model projects a pickup in the pace of hiring (Chart 8, top panel), and the quits rate just moved off of its extended plateau (Chart 9), upward pressure on wages will continue to build.   Chart 8Demand For Workers Is Still Solid Chart 9Movin' On Up Bottom Line: Payroll gains are slowing, but they remain robust enough to push the key prime-age employment-to-population ratio higher, and exert upward pressure on wages.   Factor Rotation Chart 10Momentum Hits The Wall,... Reversals within the U.S. equity market have been drawing increasing amounts of attention, as momentum stocks have hit a wall while long-suffering value stocks have begun to peel themselves off the canvas (Chart 10). We can easily see a scenario in which the momentum factor has a very difficult time, if relative performance shifts from defensive sectors to cyclical sectors as investors begin to perceive that they have been overly pessimistic about the domestic and global business cycle, and cease to hide in bond proxies like Utilities and REITs. Given the defensives’ run of outperformance over the last year, momentum indexes disproportionately favor them over cyclicals. The S&P 500, MidCap 400 and SmallCap 600 Momentum Indexes all show a pronounced defensives bias, with Health Care, Utilities and Real Estate all commanding double their baseline weight in at least one index (Table 1), making S&P’s momentum indexes vulnerable to a defensives-to-cyclicals rotation. Table 1The Dullest Stocks Have Been The Hottest Over the last three years, we have thought a lot about the value factor, asking how it should be defined, which financial statement metrics indicate its presence, and the business and monetary policy cycle backdrops that are most conducive to its outperformance. Low-priced stocks have been in a punishing extended slump versus high-priced stocks since early 2007 (Chart 11), and we think they have yet to bottom. The recent value stock rally has been a function of higher 10-year Treasury yields, and banks’ (which account for an outsized share of popular value benchmarks) recent tendency to trade in lockstep with them. We do not think a two-week backup in yields is the stuff that a genuine value factor inflection point is made of. Chart 11...But The Value Factor Has Yet To Turn A detailed explanation of our rationale is beyond the scope of this report,2 but the following points summarize our take: The value factor has gotten killed since the crisis, but we doubt that it’s dead. Value has historically treaded water during bull markets, and shined in bear markets. The fed funds rate cycle is the best predictor of value’s relative performance. Value has historically crushed the overall market when monetary policy is restrictive. The most popular style indexes have barely any factor merit. The S&P 500’s Growth and Value indexes are little more than Tech and Financials proxies. Value will shine again, but not until monetary policy is restrictive. If the Fed doesn’t hike the fed funds rate above the equilibrium fed funds rate until 2021, value investors will have to gut out another year-plus of underperformance. Bottom Line: The momentum factor could suffer in the near term if cyclicals reassert primacy over formerly hot defensives. The value factor’s fortunes will not turn for at least another year. Investment Implications We understand the discomfort of investors who feel like ZIRP, NIRP and QE have obliterated normal investing relationships. Disorienting as it has been to see nominal Treasury returns shrivel, the rising tide of negative-yielding bonds is like a surreal detail from a David Lynch movie. The investment world has indeed turned upside-down when investors buy bonds for capital gains to offset the interest they have to pay for the privilege of lending. Austrian School advocates are surely not the only dearly departed investing veterans rolling in their graves. It’s not the environment we wanted, but it’s the environment we got, so we’re going to buck up and do our best to squeeze excess returns out of it. We have to invest in the markets we have, however, not the markets we want. It does neither ourselves nor our clients any good to throw up our hands, bitterly lament our fate and wish ill upon the exponents of the activist, ultra-accommodative approach to central banking that is now in fashion. Some old relationships still apply, and the combination of a quietly improving global economic backdrop with incremental monetary accommodation everywhere one turns is good for risk assets. We continue to recommend that investors resist the urge to get defensive before the excess-return window closes for this cycle. We are not advocating that investors let their guard down, and assume that central banks will be able to keep the plates spinning indefinitely. They will not – monetary interventions are a poor substitute for organic growth in productivity or the size of the working-age population, and so are inefficiently directed fiscal spending programs – but we bet they can through the next quarterly or annual period over which an institutional manager is going to be evaluated. The upshot is that investors should remain especially vigilant for signs of trouble, and be prepared to act more tactically than normal to adjust their portfolios, but shouldn’t de-risk them yet, lest they miss the last of the fat-year returns they’ll need to tide themselves over during the coming lean years.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) are ECB loans to banks intended to encourage lending to households and non-financial corporations. 2 Interested readers should see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, “Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update – Is Value Still Worth It?,” the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?,” and the October 2, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, “When Will Value Work Again?,” available at etf.bcaresearch.com, www.bcaresearch.com and usis.bcaresearch.com, respectively.

Highlights We remain bullish on global equities and spread product but acknowledge a variety of risks to our thesis. One such risk involves a scenario where a weaker U.S. economy hurts President Trump’s re-election prospects, causing investors to price in an Elizabeth Warren victory. According to the betting markets, she is the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination. A Warren presidency would likely be bad news for drug makers and health care insurers, defense contractors, banks, oil and gas companies (especially frackers), and tech stocks. Infrastructure and home builder stocks would probably benefit at the margin. Despite these risks, equity investors can take comfort in the following: 1) Global growth should strengthen, thanks in part to easier monetary policies; 2) China will be more keen to cut a trade deal with Trump if Warren looks like she will become the Democratic nominee; and 3) A Warren victory is less likely to translate into a Democratic takeover of the Senate than, say, a Biden victory. Feature The Warren Factor We remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets but continue to be on the lookout for evidence of any scenario that could undermine our thesis. One particular risk, which we explore in this week’s report, is the possibility that a weaker U.S. economy further undermines Donald Trump’s poll numbers, thus raising the odds that Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren wins the White House next year. Presidential approval ratings tend to correlate well with the state of the economy (Chart 1). Since 1952, no sitting president has lost an election when unemployment has been falling except for Gerald Ford in the wake of Nixon’s scandal and unprecedented resignation. In contrast, two presidents (Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush) have lost against the backdrop of rising unemployment. Chart 1Incumbents Fare Better When The Economy Is Doing Well President Trump’s approval ratings are quite poor given how low unemployment is these days. His perceived handling of the economy is the only area where he has continued to poll relatively well (Chart 2). If he were to lose his standing on this issue, his re-election prospects would deteriorate substantially. Chart 2Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Among the Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Warren is currently running behind Joe Biden in the polls, but bests Biden in online betting markets such as PredictIt (Chart 3). It is not clear if Warren’s standing in the betting markets is a statistical anomaly or truly reflects the “wisdom of the crowds.” Warren tends to poll best among better-educated voters – the sort who are more likely to use betting markets. Like Andrew Yang, who PredictIt gives a rather dubious 12% chance of winning the Democratic nomination (above the 11% garnered by Kamala Harris), Warren’s prospects may be inflated by the composition of the betting pool. That said, Warren is benefiting from a deep-seated shift to the left in political preferences among Democratic primary voters, as BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recently observed in a report entitled “American Politics Warrants Near-Term Caution.1” Chart 4 shows that the share of Democrats who identify as “liberal” has more than doubled since the mid-1990s at the expense of those who identify as “moderate” or “conservative.” The “Great Awokening” is transforming the Democratic Party into a much more radical force than it was under Bill Clinton or even, for that matter, under Barack Obama.2 Chart 3Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? Chart 4Democratic Party Shifting To The Left   Soak The Rich If Donald Trump was the right’s answer to populism, Warren, along with fellow traveler Bernie Sanders, is the left’s embodiment of the populist spirit. Not only has Warren pledged to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, she has promised to roll back Trump’s corporate tax cuts. If that were not enough, she has also touted a 2% annual wealth tax on households with a net worth in excess of $50 million (rising to 3% for those with a net worth above $1 billon). Her team claims the wealth tax would bring in $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period (roughly 1% of GDP).3 It would help finance free universal health care coverage, fund a “Green New Deal,” and pay off most student loans. A Different Type Of Protectionist While Warren holds fairly protectionist views on international trade, they are qualitatively different from Trump's vision. Whereas Donald Trump has focused his efforts on reducing America’s bilateral trade deficits with other economies, Warren has concentrated on “social justice” issues. In the first few decades following World War II, trade agreements strove to cut tariffs and other overt trade barriers. Once this had been largely achieved, negotiations began to focus on fostering what trade economist Robert Lawrence has called “deep integration.” This involved harmonizing tax and regulatory policies across countries, strengthening intellectual property rules, and so on. Warren and other critics on the left have complained that this newfound emphasis of trade policy has helped multinational companies at the expense of ordinary workers. She has espoused creating prerequisites for all future trade agreements, including stronger protections for human rights, collective-bargaining, and environmental standards. Such preconditions would make it difficult for many countries, China included, to reach a deal with the U.S. on trade. What Warren Means For Investors Regardless of what one thinks about the overall merits of Elizabeth Warren’s political agenda, it is reasonable to conclude that equity investors would suffer if most of her preferred policies were implemented. In fact, as we were writing this report, Warren retweeted a CNBC story entitled “Wall Street executives are fearful of an Elizabeth Warren presidency” with a trollish comment saying “I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message.”4 Box 1 reviews the impact of a Warren victory on various industries. Briefly stated, a Warren presidency would likely be bad news for drug makers and health care insurers, defense contractors, banks, oil and gas companies (especially frackers), and tech stocks. Infrastructure and home builder stocks would probably benefit at the margin. BOX 1 Elizabeth Warren’s Impact On U.S. Equity Sectors Negative Health care: Favors eliminating private health insurance; Backs price controls on pharmaceuticals; Advocates creating a government-owned pharmaceutical manufacturer to mass-produce generic drugs. Banks: Supports making it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy; Would restore Glass-Steagall, effectively reversing some the mergers that took place during the financial crisis; Favors making private equity firms responsible for the debts of the companies they purchase as well as for some of their pension obligations. Defense: Has called for a smaller defense budget and promised to end “the stranglehold of … the so-called Big Five defense contractors.” Energy: Pledged to sign an executive order on her first day in office placing a complete moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for offshore drilling and on public lands; Favors banning fracking everywhere and supports the introduction of a cross-border carbon tax. Tech: Anti-trust efforts are likely to be increased under a Warren administration. She has singled out Amazon, Facebook, and Google as companies she believes should be broken up. She recently added Apple to the list, citing her belief that the Apple app store unfairly gives an edge to Apple products. Marginally Positive Infrastructure: Infrastructure stocks (except for nuclear) would probably benefit from a Warren victory due to increased public-sector investment spending. Home builders: Home builders could gain from stepped-up efforts to expand home ownership. Warren is also in favor of decriminalizing illegal immigration which, despite her ostensible efforts to help blue collar workers, could dampen wage pressures in the construction sector. Despite these clear downside risks, we would dissuade investors from turning bearish on stocks right now. There are a few reasons for this. Global Growth Should Rebound Chart 5Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth First and foremost, global growth is likely to stabilize over the coming months and rebound into yearend. Global financial conditions have loosened significantly, thanks in part to easier central bank policy (with the ECB’s rate cut and QE announcement this week being just the latest example). Looser financial conditions are positive for growth prospects (Chart 5). Manufacturing activity has been held back by weakness in the auto sector (Chart 6). Judging by the outperformance of auto stocks since mid-August (Chart 7), the auto recession may be coming to an end (we have been recommending global auto stocks since August 29). Chart 6Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 7Global Auto Manufacturers: Better Times Ahead?     In the U.S., the economic surprise index has jumped firmly into positive territory (Chart 8). Real consumer spending is on track to rise by a sturdy 3.1% in Q3, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, following a blockbuster 4.7% reading in Q2. Given the decline in mortgage rates over the past few months, residential investment should also recover later this year (Chart 9).       Chart 8U.S. Data Has Begun To Surprise On The Upside Chart 9Lower Mortgage Rates Bode Well For Housing Trump, Warren, And Trade The trade war represents the biggest risk to our sanguine outlook on global growth. Now that Trump has proven his credentials as “Tariff Man,” he has to prove that he is the “Master Negotiator” he claimed to be on the campaign trail. This means getting a deal done with China. As we saw with the revised NAFTA agreement, the new deal does not need to be radically different from the status quo for Trump to sell it as a game changer, and a 'win' for the American people. Trump’s decision to delay the October 1st tariff hikes by two weeks, following China’s announcement that it will waive tariffs on some U.S. imports, certainly moves things in the right direction. As we go to press, conflicting media reports are circulating that Trump is considering an interim trade deal that would delay and possibly roll back some U.S. tariffs in exchange for commitments from China to purchase more U.S. agricultural goods and better enforce intellectual property rights.5 If such an agreement materializes, it would be very much consistent with our expectation of a de-escalation in the trade war as the election approaches. How Warren’s ascent could alter the trade war calculus is unclear. On the one hand, given her own protectionist leanings, Trump may be reluctant to cede any ground to her by further softening his stance towards China. On the other hand, the Chinese are more likely to cut a deal with Trump if Biden’s star continues to fade, thus making it easier for Trump to secure an agreement. From China’s perspective, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. On balance, we lean towards the latter theory, although much will depend on how the ongoing trade negotiations unfold. Trump Prefers Warren What does seem certain is that Trump’s re-election prospects are better if Warren gets the nomination than if Biden does. In head-to-head matchups against Trump, Biden outperforms Warren in the country as a whole, as well as in individual swing states (Chart 10). Chart 10Biden's Chances Of Beating Trump Are Better Than Warren’s Even if Warren did become the nominee and went on to beat Trump, her margin of victory would be slimmer than Biden’s. This implies that she would have a smaller chance of bringing over the Senate to the Democratic side. Without Democratic control of the senate, the Republicans will thwart much of her agenda and many of the pro-business policies they have enacted will remain on the books. Investment Conclusions When it comes to investing, there is no shortage of risks to worry about. One way of benchmarking the degree to which stocks are discounting these risks is by estimating the equity risk premium. Today, equity risk premia remain fairly elevated, especially outside the United States (Chart 11). Chart 11AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 11BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II)   One can see this point by calculating how much various stock market indices would need to fall over, say, the next ten years for stocks to underperform bonds. Even if one were to assume that nominal dividend payments per share do not rise at all over the next decade, U.S. equities would still need to decline by more than 18% in real terms for stocks to underperform bonds. Japanese stocks would need to fall by 28%. Euro area stocks would need to drop by 41%. U.K. stocks would need to tumble by almost 60%! (Chart 12). Chart 12AStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (I) Chart 12BStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (II)   To be sure, much of the relative attractiveness of stocks is a function of how low real yields are. In absolute terms, global equities are poised to deliver long-term real returns on par with their historic average. U.S. stocks should generate returns that are somewhat below their historic average given that they trade at premium to their global peers. Valuations are mainly useful for gauging the long-term outlook for assets. Over a horizon of around 12 months, cyclical factors are the dominant drivers of both stocks and bonds (Chart 13). The rebound in government bond yields since last Thursday has erased most of the extreme overbought conditions that prevailed in fixed-income markets. Nevertheless, as we highlighted in last week’s report entitled “Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom,” yields should move higher over the coming months as global growth picks up and inflation eventually rises.6 As a countercyclical currency, the dollar should also start to weaken later this year. The combination of stronger global growth and a weaker dollar will boost commodity prices, EM currencies and equities, and cyclical stocks. Industrials, materials, and energy stocks should all gain. Financials will also benefit from a modest resteepening of yield curves. Financials are overrepresented in value indices while tech is underrepresented. Indeed, a trade that is long the former while short the latter has tracked the value/growth split very closely (Chart 14). Value stocks are very cheap compared to growth stocks based on standard valuation measures such as price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yield. The outperformance of value stocks over the past few days versus both growth and momentum stocks is likely to continue. Chart 13Economic Growth Drives Stocks And Bonds Over 12-Month Horizons Chart 14Is Value Turning The Corner?   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “American Politics Warrants Near-Term Caution,” dated July 19, 2019. 2      Matthew Yglesias, “The Great Awokening,” Vox, April 1, 2019. 3      Please see Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, January 18, 2019. 4      Elizabeth Warren, “I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message,” Twitter, 10 September 2019, 2:39 pm. 5      Jenny Leonard and Shawn Donnan, “Trump Advisers Considering Interim China Deal to Delay Tariffs,” Bloomberg, September 12, 2019. 6      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom,” September 6, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Neutral Global gold stocks have gone parabolic over the past four months and are in desperate need of a breather (top panel).  Simultaneously, were President Mario Draghi to re-commence QE in the form of sovereign and corporate bond purchases as market participants expect, this would likely exert upward pressure on global interest rates including the U.S. (bottom panel), especially given the one-sided positioning in the respective global risk free assets. The implication is that the shiny metal and global gold miners would suffer a setback as real yields would rise. As a reminder, gold bullion yields nothing and gold mining equities next to nothing, thus when competing safe haven assets at the margin start yielding higher, investors flee gold and gold miners and flock to risk free assets. Bottom Line: Downgrade the global gond mining index to neutral and move to the sidelines. Please see Monday’s Weekly Report for additional details. ​​​​​​​

Please note that this abbreviated weekly report complements today’s Special Report titled China’s Foreign Debt, And A Secret Weapon published in collaboration with BCA’s China Investment Strategy service. Feature A major rotation has commenced in recent days in global financial markets: beaten-down value companies have begun outperforming richly-priced U.S. growth stocks. This has cogently coincided with the rise in U.S. bond yields. Further, U.S. small caps have also begun outpacing U.S. large caps. Do these signals mean that EM will start outperforming DM in general and U.S. in particular? We do not think it is likely to occur on a sustainable basis. We agree that certain trends in global financial markets have become over-extended and a mean-reversion is overdue. U.S. bond yields have probably dropped much more than justified by U.S. economic strength. Although U.S. manufacturing, exports and capex have been extremely week/contracting, consumer spending is expanding at a decent clip. We believe fears of a full-blown U.S. recession are presently exaggerated. It is also critical to gauge what is the underlying cause of this financial market rotation. Is it receding fears of U.S. recession or China’s recovery or both? We believe that the rotation is caused by unwinding of recessionary fears in the U.S., not a revival in the Chinese economy or a recovery in global trade and manufacturing. Unwinding U.S. recessionary fears will not be sufficient to produce a strong and lasting rally in EM risk assets and currencies even if it leads to a breakout in DM share prices in absolute terms. EM risk assets and currencies are much more sensitive to China and global growth rather than to the U.S. economy. Watch The Dollar For Clues Chart I-1EM Relative Equity Performance Correlates With U.S. Dollar Whether the sell-off in global safe-haven bonds and outperformance of global cyclical vs. defensive equity sectors is due to a genuine recovery in China or the U.S. will be revealed in the trend of the U.S. dollar (Chart I-1). If the dollar continues grinding higher, it would entail that the recent financial markets rotation is due to amelioration in U.S. growth expectations and that there is little recovery in the Chinese economy as well as global manufacturing and trade. In this scenario, EM risk assets will underperform. On the contrary, if the greenback begins exhibiting persistent and broad weakness, it would signify that the reversal in global safe-haven bond yields and global cyclical stocks is due to a revival in Chinese demand. In such a case, a lasting recovery in global manufacturing and trade are likely. This would be consistent with a durable EM rally and outperformance. Chart I-2Bullish Technicals For U.S. Dollars So far, the greenback has remained well bid (Chart I-2). In addition, industrial commodities prices remain weak and have failed to rebound (Chart I-3). These entail that the recent spike in U.S. bond yields and outperformance of cyclical equity sectors is primarily due to unwinding of pessimism on U.S. growth rather than a reflection of growth amelioration in China. Notably, cyclical data out of China and global trade/manufacturing remain dismal. Chinese overall imports are contracting (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Breakdown Remains In Play Chart I-4Shrinking Chinese Imports Global semiconductor sales and car purchases continue shrinking at a rapid pace (Chart I-5). China’s credit and money growth and impulses appear to be rolling over, having failed to rise as much as in the previous stimulus episodes (Chart I-6). Finally, the pace of EM corporate EPS contraction is accelerating (Chart I-7). Any rally in EM share prices will be unsustainable without a bottom in EM EPS growth. Chart I-5No Improvement In Global Growth Chart I-6Chinese Credit Impulse Is Weak   Chart I-7EM EPS & Share Prices Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar has failed to sell off despite the optimism in global equity markets. This entails that any rebound and outperformance in EM risk assets and currencies will prove to be short-lived.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The structural message for equities: prefer equities over bonds. As long as the global 10-year bond yield remains below 2 percent, the equity market’s rich valuation is underpinned, albeit the long-term return from equities is likely to be a feeble low single-digit. The structural message for bonds: overweight the higher yielding versus the lower yielding quality sovereigns, most notably overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds. 10-year yields cannot rise much – maybe only 50-100 basis points – before the rise destabilises equity and other risk-asset valuations. But 10-year yields that are deeply in negative territory can fall even less. The structural message for currencies: tilt towards lower yielding currencies, with a preference for the yen. Once monetary policy is already ultra-accommodative, a central bank’s ability to devalue its currency becomes more and more constrained. Feature Japanification: Bring It On! I have always been bemused and perplexed by people using ‘Japanification’ as a pejorative for the European economy (Chart of the Week). In the west, the received wisdom is that Japan is a ‘basket case’, a fate to be avoided at all costs. Yet nothing could be further from the truth: Japan is, in many ways, an economic role model to which Europe and the rest of the western world should aspire. Chart of the WeekEmbrace 'Japanification' Over the past twenty years, Japan’s productivity growth has outperformed all the other major economies (Chart I-2). To be clear, this is based on real GDP per head of working age (15-64) population, the cohort of people who generate economic output. Still, some people counter that this definition flatters Japan’s productivity growth by omitting the significant number of over 65s who work, and that a fairer definition should divide by the total population. Yet even on this alternative definition, Japan has been doing just fine, performing better than France and broadly in line with Canada (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Japan Is Not A 'Basket Case' Chart I-3Japan Is Doing Just Fine Japan’s real output per head has improved while consumers have enjoyed genuine price stability (Chart I-4). Meaning zero inflation, and not the ‘fake price stability’ of 2 percent inflation that central banks are trying – and failing – to reach. ‘Japanification’ is a state that Europe should not eschew; it is a state that Europe should espouse. Moreover, contrary to what the Philips Curve would have you believe, the absence of inflation does not mean there is a reserve army of the unemployed. Japan’s unemployment rate, at 2.2 percent, is one of the lowest in the world. As is income inequality (Chart I-5). While life expectancy is one of the highest in the world. Chart I-4Japan Has Enjoyed Genuine ##br##Price Stability... Chart I-5...And The Absence Of Extreme Income Inequality This combination of rising productivity, genuine price stability, absence of extreme income inequality, and rising life expectancy means that, in Japan, living standards have been rising for the many, and not just for the few. In turn this has meant that while populist backlashes have erupted elsewhere in the world, Japan has remained a paragon of political stability. In all of these important regards, ‘Japanification’ is a state that Europe should not eschew; it is a state that Europe should espouse. Countering The Counterarguments Nevertheless, in the interests of a balanced debate, we must address the main counterarguments: First, isn’t Japan’s declining population evidence of a national malaise? No. Japan lacks living space. Its mountainous islands are habitable on only tiny slivers along the coasts, and these are among the most densely populated regions in the world. Therefore, as the journalist and Japan specialist Eamonn Fingleton explains, Japan’s low birth rate is a fundamental national policy that can be traced back to the late 1940s. Japan lacks living space. Shorn of empire, Japan faced a major food security problem. At a stroke, Japanese officials stopped dead in its track a huge baby boom which took hold between 1946 and 1948. Ever afterwards Japan has enjoyed – yes, that is the appropriate word – a low birth rate. Although the program’s rationale is not recognized in the West, it is fully understood in the East and both Singapore and China went on to formulate similar policies. Chart I-6Japan's Rising Public Indebtedness Counterbalanced A Plunge In Private Indebtedness Clearly, a nation whose working population is shrinking will produce less than it otherwise might have, but this doesn’t mean the economy is a basket case. Far from it. On a per head basis, as we have shown, Japan is doing just fine, and the imbalance between workers and retirees will gradually work out as people adjust their retirement ages (just as they will have to in the west). A second counterargument is that Japan’s government indebtedness has skyrocketed to over 200 percent of GDP, the highest among any major economy. But this increase in public debt was needed as a crucial counterbalance to a sharp decline in private indebtedness, and thereby prevent a deep slump (Chart I-6). Japan’s total indebtedness has remained broadly flat for decades. Third, the Nikkei 225, at 21,500 today, is barely at half of its 39,000 peak value in 1989. The simple explanation is that the main determinant of any long-term return is the starting valuation. The 1989 peak bubble valuation was so extreme – a price to sales of 2.2 compared to 0.75 today – that the subsequent dire returns were baked in the cake (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Japan's Bubble Was So Extreme That Subsequent Dire Returns Were Inevitable Fourth, Japanese bond yields have been near-zero or negative for almost two decades, which some commentators claim is a classic sign of an economy in ‘secular stagnation’. But as we have shown, these ultra-low yields have coexisted with a Japanese economy that is doing just fine. More recently, the residents of Switzerland and Sweden will vouch for the same thing – that negative bond yields categorically do not mean that their economies are ‘basket cases’. But have these economies progressed only because they have these ultra-low bond yields? No, the charts in this report show no (inverse) relationship between bond yields and long-term productivity growth. Which begs the question: if ultra-low bond yields are not a sign of an economy stuck in a funk, what are they a sign of? The Real Reason For Ultra-Low Bond Yields Chart I-8Inflation Is Stuck Well Short Of The 2 Percent Target Today, like a stuck record, the ECB will repeat again that inflation remains well short of its 2 percent target (Chart I-8), but that its resolve to reach the target is unwavering. Just as it was at the last meeting… last year… the year before that… and five years before that! Instead of loosening even further, the ECB should be explaining why, in spite of years of negative interest rates and trillions of euros of QE, inflation expectations have barely budged. As the ECB will not provide the explanation, we will. The public’s expected inflation – a fundamental input into economists’ models during the past half-century – is not well defined when an economy has reached price stability, as it has now. Chart I-9Unemployment Rates Are At Multi-Decade Lows Confirming what this publication has previously argued, Professor Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard University explains “most people pay little attention to the inflation rate when price growth is as low as it has been in recent years.” As a result, argues a paper from the NBER, large policy change announcements in the U.S., the U.K., and the euro area seem to have only limited effects on the inflation expectations of households and firms.1 However, as most economists and central banks fear that their credibility is at stake, they remain fixated on the need to reach the 2 percent inflation target. This requires them to double down, triple down, and then quadruple down on extreme accommodation, even though prices are stable, the economy is progressing, and unemployment rates have declined to multi-decade lows (Chart I-9). So in answer to our previous question, ultra-low bond yields are not a sign of an economy stuck in a funk; they are a sign of central banks that are chasing the wrong inflation target, and that are too scared to change the target for the damage it would do to their credibility. What Does This Mean For Stocks, Bonds, And Currencies?   Ultra-low bond yields are coexisting with economies that are doing fine, as we have seen in Japan, Switzerland, and Sweden. But at such low yields, the unattractive asymmetry of limited bond price upside with unlimited downside justifies exponentially higher valuations for equities and other risk-assets. Chart I-1010-Year Bond Yields Can Rise By Only 50-100 Basis Points So the structural message for equities is: as long as the global 10-year bond yield remains below 2 percent, the equity market’s rich valuation is underpinned. And on anything other than a trading horizon, equities are to be preferred over bonds – albeit the long-term return from equities is likely to be a feeble low single-digit. The structural message for bonds is: 10-year yields cannot rise much – maybe only 50-100 basis points – before the rise destabilises equity and other risk-asset valuations, thereby acting as a limiter (Chart I-10). But given that there is a lower bound to policy interest rates, 10-year yields that are deeply in negative territory can fall even less. Hence, the risk-reward dynamic suggests going overweight the higher yielding versus the lower yielding quality sovereigns: most notably, overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds. On a structural horizon, prefer equities over bonds. The structural message for currencies is essentially the opposite to that for bonds: tilt towards lower yielding currencies because in a ‘race to the bottom’, a central bank’s ability to devalue its currency becomes more and more constrained. But which low yielding currency? As Japan has already undergone its ‘Japanification’, we like the yen. Fractal Trading System* With geopolitical risks having ebbed somewhat, a good tactical trade would be to lean against the technically overbought conditions in high-quality government bonds. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to short the U.S. 10-year T-bond setting a profit target of 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In yield terms, this broadly equates to a target yield of 1.9% and stop-loss at 1.5%. Chart I-11U.S. 10-year T-Bond Price 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. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Footnotes 1 Please see http://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f117592.pdf and the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘The Case Against Secular Stagnation’ August 29, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Content Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

We are removing the large cap bias we have had on a tactical basis since our December 2018 High-Conviction Call report and booking gains of 9% (top panel). We are also setting a stop near the 10% return mark to protect cyclical profits since the May 7, 2018 inception of the large cap bias. Rising interest rates along with diminishing odds of an ultra-easy Fed in the upcoming September FOMC meeting have kept the dollar upbeat with some trade-weighted Fed indexes vaulting to all-time highs. Large caps have significant foreign sourced sales exposure and an appreciating currency will eat into profits, a headache that small caps do not have to sweat over. In addition, there are early signs that investors are beginning to treat small caps as trade war insulated companies anew, given their domestic focus. Bottom Line: While we are not ready to book cyclical profits in our large over small cap preference (please see this Weekly Report for more details),1 in the near term our confidence in additional large cap gains has decreased and we recommend removing the large cap bias from the high-conviction call list for a gain of 9% since inception.   1      Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com