Health Care

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Underweight While Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) recent earnings release was in line with expectations, one phrase caught our attention: “Our robust growth can be attributed to volume, not price” - JNJ CEO Alex Gorsky. We agree with Alex Gorsky that industry pricing dynamics are disappointing to say the least, and will remain a headwind for the foreseeable future (third panel). Meanwhile, on the volume front industry level data reveals that retail sales have “caught the flu” and are infecting relative share prices (second panel). Adding insult to injury, the capex cycle has clearly turned for the worse underscoring that the path of least resistance remains to the downside for Big Pharma. Bottom Line: We remain underweight the S&P pharmaceuticals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR – JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, AGN, MYL, PRGO.  

Overweight While our overweight S&P health care equipment (HCE) call has given up some of its gains since inception, profit fundamentals have not changed and we continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in this defensive sector. US medical equipment manufacturers are world leaders in supplying hospitals with quality equipment, and given that BCA’s house view for 2020 calls for a weaker dollar, HCE exporters have a bright future (middle panel, real trade-weighted dollar shown inverted). Further, the industry also showcases some of its defensive characteristics that are similar to its parent GICS1 health care sector, and in light of the recent disappointing ISM manufacturing PMI print, the path of least resistance is higher for relative share prices (bottom panel, ISM manufacturing index shown inverted). Bottom Line: We stand by our overweight S&P health care equipment call. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG: S5HCEP – ABT, MDT, DHR, BDX, SYK, ISRG, BSX, BAX, EW, ZBH, IDXX, RMD, TFX, HOLX, ABMD, VAR, STE.   ​​​​​​​

Overweight We upgraded the S&P managed health care group to overweight in April shortly after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his revamped “Medicare For All” bill. Despite the recent explosive run up in relative share prices – partly owing to the drop in Elizabeth Warren’s odds of winning the Democratic candidacy and partly given her watering down of her “Medicare For All” take up plan – we are adding this health care sub-group to our high-conviction overweight call list. HMOs are finally raising prices at the steepest rate of the past fifteen years and while such breakneck pace is unsustainable, profit margins are set to expand smartly. The profit margin backdrop is enticing for health insurers for another reason: labor cost containment. CEOs have been extremely prudent refraining from adding to headcount. One final profit margin booster is the rising 10-year Treasury yield, as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves. Thus, if BCA’s bond view materializes, it will prove a tonic to both margins and profits. With regard to technicals, relative share prices are not as oversold as they were mid-year, but remain below the neutral zone still offering investors a compelling entry point to this position. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG. ​​​​​​​

Overweight While we were a tad early lifting the broad S&P health care sector to an overweight stance mid-year, quarter-to-date, health care stocks are the best performing GICS1 sector up 10%, besting the SPX by 450bps. Such consistent health care outperformance is significant and we reiterate our overweight stance on this defensive sector. Elizabeth Warren’s moves in the polls are a key driver behind the recent health care stellar returns and we would continue to lean against any increase in her probabilities of both winning the Democratic nomination and the 2020 Presidency (see chart). Importantly, Warren’s toning down of her “Medicare For All” speedy adoption to a more pragmatic phase-in approach over a number of years fueled the stampede into health care stocks in general and managed health care (which we are also overweight) in particular. Bottom Line: Any selloff in health care equities due to Warren’s rise in the polls presents an excellent buying opportunity. Stay overweight the S&P health care sector.

Special Report

Highlights Building on a previous special report focused on the investable market, in this report we construct and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese domestic equity sector outperformance. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the predictors included in our model, our Li Keqiang leading indicator (based on monetary conditions, money, and credit growth) has been the most important. Our base case view argues in favor of domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, but recent sector performance suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. Over the long-term, we argue that investors have a good reason to favor domestic defensives over cyclicals until the latter demonstrates meaningfully better earnings performance. Feature We examined China’s investable equity sector performance in detail in our October 30 Special Report,1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. In today’s report, we extend our approach to China’s A-share market. Our research focused on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the macroeconomic and equity market factors that we found to be important predictors, our Li Keqiang leading indicator was the most significant. This confirms that China’s domestic market is more sensitive to monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than its investable peer. We also note the sharp difference in the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives in the domestic market compared with the investable market, and what this means for investors over the coming 6-12 months. Finally, we argue that investors should maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance, and point to an existing position in our trade book for investors interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of domestic sector performance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report).2 The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market. Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models ##br##Aimed At... Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang (LKI) Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to three months in order to reduce the need to forecast. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, is detailed in Box I-1 of our October 30 Special Report (please see footnote 1). Key Drivers Of Sector Performance: Domestic Versus Investable Pages 11-22 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 11-22 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Following a review of our domestic equity sector outperformance models, differences in the results from those presented in our previous report can be organized into three distinct elements: 1) the breadth of macro & equity market factors in predicting sector performance, 2) the relative importance of our LKI leading indicator, and 3) the difference between domestic/investable cyclical versus defensive performance. The Breath Of Predictive Factors Chart I-3In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Compared with the models for investible sector performance that we detailed in our previous report, our work modeling domestic equity sector performance highlights that the breadth of predictive factors is narrower, particularly among cyclical sectors (Chart I-3). Our model for domestic materials (shown on page 12) is one exception to this rule, but we found that our models for energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary relative performance were all focused on fewer predictors than is the case for the investable market. In addition, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The case of industrials is particularly notable: our model for investable industrials highlighted the importance of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices & earnings, and overbought and oversold technical conditions in explaining past periods of industrial sector outperformance. By contrast, our domestic industrials model is quite simple: the sector has been more likely to outperform, with a lag, when our BCA China Activity Index and LKI leading indicator have been rising, and underperform following periods of extreme overvaluation. One of the core conclusions of our previous report was that investors should view the relative performance of investable industrials versus consumer staples as a reflationary barometer, given the strong sensitivity of both sectors to tight monetary policy. We explained this sensitivity by pointing to the substantial difference in corporate health between the two sectors: industrial firms are heavily debt-laden and thus experience deteriorating operating performance and an environment of rising interest rates. In comparison, food and beverage firms appear to have the strongest balance sheets among the sub-sectors that we have examined, suggesting that they would benefit less from easier monetary conditions than firms in other industries. Our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity has been considerably more important in predicting domestic equity sector outperformance than in the investable market. However, these dynamics appear to be completely absent in influencing performance in China’s domestic equity market. Not only has domestic industrial sector relative performance not been negatively linked to periods of tight monetary policy, but our model for consumer staples (shown on page 15) highlights that periods of staples performance have been driven by two simple factors: the relative trend in staples EPS  (positive sign), and the trend in broad market EPS (negative sign). The Relative Importance Of Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Chart I-4 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that our LKI leading indicator is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, rising economic activity, and oversold technical conditions. The ranking of results shown in Chart I-4 is fairly similar to those that we listed for the investable market, with two exceptions. First, for the domestic market, periods of tight monetary policy were considerably less important than in the investable market as an important predictor of relative sector performance. Instead, our LKI leading indicator was by far the most important predictor, which underscores a point that we have made in previous reports: domestic stocks appear to be much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than for the investable market. This increased sensitivity has helped explain the difference in performance this year between the investable and domestic market, underscoring that the former has more catch-up potential than the latter in a trade truce scenario. Chart I-4Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Second, in the investable market, episodes of significant overvaluation had essentially no power to predict future episodes of equity market underperformance. But this factor was an important or very important contributor to our domestic industrials, health care, and tech models. This finding is consistent with our May 23 Special Report, which noted that value stocks have outperformed in China’s domestic equity market over the past five years and underperformed in the investable market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Has Been A More Successful ##br##Factor In The Domestic Market   Major Differences In The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives The results of our models for domestic equity sector performance did not change the cyclical & defensive labels that we applied in our previous report. The signs of the predictors shown in the tables on pages 11-22 clearly highlight that the domestic energy, materials, industrials consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors, and that consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive. What is striking, however, is that there is a major difference in the relative performance of equally-weighted domestic cyclicals versus defensives compared with what has occurred in the investable market over the past decade. Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B illustrate the different relative performance trends, along with their corresponding trends in relative P/E and relative EPS. Whereas the relative performance of investable cyclicals versus defensives has had somewhat of a stable mean over the past decade, domestic cyclicals have badly underperformed since early-2011. The charts also make it clear that this underperformance has been driven by a downtrend in relative EPS, not due to trend differences in relative valuation. Chart I-6ACyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market... Chart I-6B...But Not So In The Domestic##br## Market Digging further, it appears that this discrepancy can be largely explained by the significant difference in performance between investable and domestic tech over the past decade (Chart I-7). Whereas the former has outperformed the overall investable index by roughly 4-5 times since 2010, the relative performance of the latter has only very modestly risen. In effect, Charts I-6 and I-7 highlight that Chinese cyclical sectors have been structurally impaired over the past decade and have only been “saved” in the investable market by massive outsized outperformance of the tech sector. The fact that investable tech sector performance itself has been largely driven by 2 extremely successful firms underscores how narrowly based the investible cyclical versus defensives performance trend has been. Chart I-7A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Investment Conclusions There are three conclusions that investors can draw from our analysis. First, our research shows that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market. This does not mean that domestic sector performance is not significantly impacted by macro and top down equity market factors, but it suggests that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. As such, investors should be prepared to include episode-specific investigation of abnormal performance as a regular part of their domestic equity sector allocation decisions. Investors should favor domestic cyclicals over the coming year, with exposure focused on consumer discretionary and tech. Second, the fact that our LKI leading indicator is in an uptrend suggests that investors should favor domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, with a caveat. We have noted in several previous reports that our indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the slower pace of money and credit growth than during previous economic upswings suggests that the bar may be higher for some cyclical sectors to outperform. We would advise investors to watch closely over the coming 3-6 months for signs of a technical breakout in all cyclical sectors. But sector performance in Q1 of this year, when the overall A-share market rose sharply versus global stocks, suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus (Chart I-8). Within resources, we prefer the investable energy sector to its domestic peer, due to a sizeable valuation advantage. Chart I-8Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year As a third and final point, abstracting from our bullish outlook for select cyclical sectors over the coming year, Charts 6 and 7 clearly argue for investors to maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance. In the May 23 Special Report that we referred to above, we noted that an A-share portfolio formed of industry groups with above-median return on equity and below-median ex-post beta has significantly outperformed over the past decade. Table I-1 presents the current industry group weights of this portfolio, and shows that overweight exposure is concentrated in the health care, consumer staples, and real estate sectors (all of which are defensive), and a heavy underweight towards industrials. Table I-1Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* For clients who are interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market, we maintain a long position in this portfolio relative to the MSCI China A Onshore index in our trade book, and plan to continue to update the performance of the trade on a weekly basis. Energy Chart II-1 Table II-1 Similar to the investable energy sector, periods of domestic energy sector outperformance are strongly positively related to rising oil prices and rising headline inflation in China. We noted in our previous report that this is a behavioral relationship, rather than a fundamental one. Domestic energy stocks are negatively associated with rising broad market stock prices, unlike their investable peers. This largely reflects the fact that the relative performance of domestic energy stocks has been in a structural downtrend over the past decade. From 2010 to mid-2016, this decline was caused by a persistent underperformance in earnings. Since mid-2016, domestic energy sector EPS have been rising in relative terms, meaning that more recent underperformance has been due to multiple contractions. While not as relatively cheap as their investable peers, domestic energy stocks are heavily discounted versus the broad domestic market based on both the price/earnings ratio and the dividend yield. Consequently, it is possible that domestic energy stocks may at some point begin to outperform in a rising broad equity market environment. For now, our model argues for an underweight stance towards domestic energy due to the lack of a clear uptrend in oil prices. As a pure value play, investable energy stocks maintain a dividend yield of nearly 6.5%, and are thus more attractive than their domestic peers. Materials Chart II-2 Table II-2 Our model for the domestic materials highlights that the sector’s performance has been related to strengthening economic activity and strongly related to a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator. Among the equity market variables that we tested, materials outperformance has been positively associated with rising relative EPS, rising broad market EPS, and prior oversold technical conditions. Similarly, the investable materials sector, these results show that domestic materials are a strong play on accelerating Chinese economic activity. The factors included in our domestic materials sector model are similar to those included in our investable material, except that relative material earnings have also been a significant predictor of sector relative performance. In addition, the macro & equity market predictors included in our domestic materials model have done a better job of leading material sector performance. The odds of domestic materials outperformance rose twice above the 50% mark this year according to our model, without any corresponding improvement in relative stock prices. The spikes in the model occurred largely because domestic materials became significantly oversold; technical conditions for the sector have only twice been weaker over the past decade. This underscores that investors should be watching domestic materials closely in Q1 of next year for signs of a relative rebound. Industrials Chart II-3 Table II-3 The results of our model for domestic industrial sector outperformance are interesting, as they imply that the drivers of performance are different between the domestic and investable markets. In the investable index, we found that industrials were heavily sensitive to monetary policy, rising core inflation, relative sector earnings, and periods of rising broad market stock prices. Our domestic model is considerably simpler: industrials outperform, with a lag, when our activity index and Li Keqiang leading indicator are rising. Periods of strong overvaluation have also been significant in predicting future episodes of domestic industrial sector underperformance. It is not clear to us why the drivers of relative performance for domestic industrials have been different than in the investable equity index, But the good news is that the relative simplicity of the model makes the investment decision making process for domestic industrials considerably easier. Today, domestic industrials are significantly undervalued, and our Li Keqiang leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend. This suggests that domestic industrials are likely to begin outperforming at some point in early-2020 following a bottoming in Chinese economic activity, unless policymakers are quick to tighten once activity begins to improve (which would be contrary to our expectations). Consumer Discretionary Chart II-4 Table II-4 Our domestic consumer discretionary model highlights that the sector’s relative performance is positively associated with a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to its investable peers, domestic consumer discretionary stocks are cyclical, and positive relationship with core inflation may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. Unlike investable consumer discretionary, the domestic consumer discretionary has not been meaningfully impacted by the December 2018 changes to the global industry classification standard. Hence, our model does not exclude the internet & direct marketing retail sector as we did in our previous report on investable sectors. For now, our model suggests that the domestic consumer discretionary sector is likely to continue to underperform, given decelerating core inflation and the lack of a clear uptrend in the broad domestic equity index. However, as a cyclical sector, we will be watching closely for an upside breakout in domestic consumer discretionary performance in the first quarter as a signal to increase exposure to the sector. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Table II-5 Our domestic consumer staples model is significantly different than that shown in our previous report for investable staples. This reflects sizeable differences in investable/domestic staples relative performance over the past decade, particularly from mid-2015 to late-2017 (where domestic staples outperformed significantly and investable staples languished). Of the two predictors found to be significant in explaining historical periods of domestic staples performance, a negative relationship with the trend in broad market EPS has been the most important. This underscores that staples are defensive sector. The trend in staples relative earnings has closely followed in importance, showing that the tremendous outperformance in domestic consumer staples over the past several years has, at least in part, been driven by fundamentals. Still, domestic consumer staples are currently priced at 34x earnings per share, compared with 15x for the overall domestic market. While our model currently argues for continued staples outperformance, the risk of a valuation mean reversion next year, against the backdrop of an improving economy, is above average. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should be closely monitoring domestic staples for signs of waning earnings momentum and/or a major technical breakdown as potential signals to reduce domestic staples exposure. Health Care Chart II-6 Table II-6 Over the past decade, periods of domestic health care outperformance have been negatively associated with rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Oversold technical conditions and periods of overvaluation have also helped predict future episodes of health care relative performance. These factors clearly point to the defensive nature of domestic health care, similar to health care stocks in the investable index. However, one clear difference between investable and domestic health care is that the former appears to have leading properties and the latter does not. We noted in our previous report that periods of investable health care underperformance appeared to lead, on average, our BCA Activity Index, periods of rising core inflation, and uptrends in the broad investable index. By contrast, domestic health care lags the Activity Index and core inflation by just over a year, and also lags the trend in broad market EPS. Our model points to further health care outperformance, but we would expect domestic health care stocks to underperform at some point next year following an improvement in economic activity and a resumed uptrend in broad domestic EPS. Financials Chart II-7 Table II-7 Our outperformance probability model for domestic financials highlights that the sector is countercyclical: periods of outperformance have been negatively related to our LKI leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to the case of the investable index and unlike the case globally, financials are clearly defensive. Investable financials have exhibited atypical performance this year according to the model presented in our previous report. By contrast, domestic financials have performed in line with what our model has suggested: our LKI leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the relative performance of domestic financials has trended flat-to-down since late-2018. Barring a major shift by the PBoC towards a hawkish stance in the coming year (which we do not expect), our base case view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic financials are likely to continue to underperform. Banks Chart II-8 Table II-8 Our model for domestic banks is similar to that of financials, with some important differences. In addition to being sensitive to our LKI leading indicator, domestic bank performance is negatively related to our Activity Index. Oversold technical conditions have also been quite important in predicting future episodes of domestic bank outperformance. The model is currently forecasting domestic bank underperformance, although it was late in predicting the selloff in bank stocks that began late last year. Similar to the case for domestic financials, our baseline view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic bank are likely to continue to underperform over the coming year. Information Technology Chart II-9 Table II-9 Our model for the domestic technology sector is different than that of investable tech, which reflects the vast difference in performance between the two sectors. While the relative performance of domestic tech has trended sideways over the past decade, investable tech stock prices have risen fourfold relative to the broad investable index. This difference is largely accounted for by the absence of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) from the domestic market. Similar to investable tech, domestic technology stocks are negatively related to tight monetary policy, and positively linked with a pro-cyclical economic variable (a rising LKI leading indicator). However, strangely, domestic tech has been strongly and negatively related to rising headline inflation, a finding with no clear fundamental basis. The model has been less successful in predicting domestic tech performance over the past year than in the past, which appears to be linked to the inclusion of headline inflation in the model. Rising headline inflation has been clearly associated with three major episodes of domestic tech underperformance since 2010, but over the past year domestic tech has outperformed as headline inflation accelerated. For now we would advise investors to focus on the other factors in the model: the lack of overvaluation, and our view that policy will remain easy on a measured basis, supports an overweight stance towards domestic tech over the coming year. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Table II-10 Our domestic telecom services relative performance model highlights that the sector is defensive like its investable peer, but the factors driving performance are somewhat different. The only similarity between the two models is that periods of outperformance are negatively related to rising broad market stocks prices for both investable and domestic telecom services, with domestic telecom stocks responding with a lag. Among the macro factors included in the model, periods of domestic telecom services outperformance are negatively and coincidently related to our LKI leading indicator, and positively related to tight monetary policy (with a slight lead). Oversold technical conditions have also proven to help predict future episodes of outperformance. The model failed to predict a brief period of outperformance in mid-2018, but has generally accurately predicted underperformance of domestic telecom stocks since early-2017. Barring a collapse in the US/China trade talks or considerably weaker near-term economic conditions than we expect, domestic telecom services will likely continue to underperform until the specter of tighter monetary policy emerges. This is unlikely to occur until the middle of 2020, at the earliest. Utilities Chart II-11 Table II-11 Overall, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The model shows that the performance of domestic utilities is negatively related to rising core inflation (with a lag) and rising broad market EPS, but these relationships are not particularly strong. We noted in our June 19 Special Report that domestic utilities ranked highly on the impact that relative EPS had on predicting relative stock prices , yet relative sector earnings did not register as a significant predictor in our model. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by differences in the time horizon between these two approaches. The analysis that we presented in our June 19 Special Report examined the relationship between earnings and stock prices over the entire sample period (2011-2018), meaning that it examined the predictive power of earnings over the long-term. The models built in this report have focused strongly on explaining periods of outperformance over a 6-12 month time horizon, there have been enough deviations in the trend between the relative performance of utilities and relative utilities earnings that the relationship between the two was not sufficiently strong to show up in the model. In other words, the long-term link between utilities relative earnings and stock prices is strong, but the short-term link is fairly weak. Real Estate Chart II-12 Table II-12 Similar to investable real estate, our model shows that domestic real estate is a counter-cyclical sector in that it is negatively related to periods of rising economic activity, a rising LKI leading indicator, tight monetary policy, and rising core inflation. Overbought technical conditions have also aided in predicting future episodes of domestic real estate underperformance. Our model for domestic real estate stocks has performed quite well on average, but its predictive success since late-2017 has been mixed. This period of atypical underperformance has coincided with a considerably weaker rebound in residential floor space sold than has occurred in previous recoveries in the real estate market. This suggests that domestic real estate stocks are more susceptible to trends in housing sales than their investable peers (which appear to be mostly sensitive to rising house prices). We noted in our November 6 Weekly Report that floor space sold is picking up , but it still remains weak when compared with history. This, in combination with our view that the Chinese economy will improve over the coming year, suggests that investors should avoid domestic real estate exposure relative to the overall domestic equity market. Footnotes 1  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Equity Sector Earnings: Predictability, Cyclicality, And Relevance," dated June 19, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated November 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Overweight While our overweight call in the S&P biotech index is offside, it is more than offset by the concurrent underweight call we have on the S&P pharma index. But, biotech stocks are now in the recovery ward as the sector made a U-turn in early October and has been rallying ever since. The rebound coincides with the return of M&A activity following the dramatic 50% contraction since the recent peak in dollar terms (middle panel) and completely disappearing premia (bottom panel). As a reminder this is a key theme behind our preference for biotech stocks that big pharma is still on the hunt for (for additional details please refer to our mid-February Weekly Report). Meanwhile, the divergence between biotech’s relative share prices and 10-year Treasury yields has been extreme and is unsustainable. The upshot is that there is plenty of scope for relative share prices to rally further and narrow the gap, despite the recent selloff in the bond market (top panel, 10-year Treasury yield shown inverted). News on the earnings front is also positive as most of the major players have reported a solid quarter.   Bottom Line: We continue to recommend a barbell approach preferring the S&P biotech index at the expense of big pharma. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P biotech index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, AMGN, GILD, BIIB, CELG, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY. ​​​​​​​