Equities

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations. BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as BCA predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. We remain perplexed by the market’s euphoric rise and near total neglect of weak profit growth fundamentals. This “hope rally”, as we have characterized it in the recent past, may have some more legs with the traditional Santa Rally around the corner, but the set up for stocks could not be more treacherous for 2020. Importantly, we deem the risk of not getting a Sino-American trade deal to be significantly greater than a relief rally in case of a successful deal. Most of the positive trade-related news is already reflected into equities. This complacent backdrop is reminiscent of the early 2018 SPX catapult to 2,870 as back then the fresh fiscal easing package was all priced into stocks in the first 20 trading days of that year. Chart 1 vividly depicts this euphoric melt-up in stocks with the longest dated VIX future trouncing the squashed front month VIX future. While this ratio is not at the stratospheric level hit in late-December 2017, it hit a wall recently forewarning that equities are skating on thin ice. Chart 1VOL... Similarly, speculators are net short vol, but a snap can occur at any time. This is eerily reminiscent of February 2018. Since 2017, this vol positioning measure has consistently troughed prior to the SPX peak on three occasions and a “four-peat” likely looms (vol net spec positions shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2).   On the profit front, sector earnings breadth is sinking like a stone confirming the negatively anchored S&P 500 net EPS revisions ratio (Chart 3). We doubt that 10% EPS growth for calendar 2020 is even plausible, especially given the looming steep deceleration in equity retirement that we highlighted recently.1 Tack on the mighty US dollar, and profit headwinds abound. Chart 2...A Coiled Spring Chart 3No Earnings Pulse Market internals are also screaming that something is off in the equity markets. Small caps are trailing large caps, transports are at stall speed, weak balance sheet stocks are underperforming strong balance sheet stocks, the median stock as per the Value Line Geometric Index is far from all-time highs and high yield bonds (especially CCC rated) are also not confirming the SPX breakout (Chart 4). Importantly, the CBOE’s S&P 500 implied correlation index, which gauges “the expected average correlation of price returns of S&P 500 Index components, implied through SPX option prices and prices of single-stock options on the 50 largest components of the SPX”,2 is rising again over the 40% mark, underscoring that stocks are more and more beginning to move in tandem. Historically this has been a negative omen (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Watch Market Internals Chart 5Reflation No More? Downtrodden M&A activity is also firing a warning shot. A steep divergence of M&A deals from stock prices is atypical at this late stage of the business cycle (middle panel, Chart 5). In fact, out Reflation Gauge comprising the greenback, oil prices and the 10-year Treasury yield has taken a turn for the worse, signaling that economic surprises will likely suffer the same fate (bottom panel, Chart 5). All of this, warns that the risks of a significant pullback in the SPX are rising. What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls. Similar to last year, we are using BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls.3 While last year this was offside, the collapse in the 10-year US Treasury yield from 3% last December to 1.75% currently offers a better backdrop for this view to pan out. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as our BCA house view predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection.4 As a reminder, interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 6). Moreover on a sector basis, the ebbs and flows of the risk free asset directly influence utilities, real estate, financials, consumer discretionary and tech growth stocks or more than half of the S&P 500’s market capitalization. Chart 6Priced To Perfection What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   S&P Managed Health Care (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 (Chart 7). 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 (bottom panel, Chart 7). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG.  Chart 7S&P Managed Health Care S&P Machinery (Overweight) A tentative up-tick in EM data in general and China in particular along with improving operating metrics signal that the US/China trade war wounded machinery stocks deserve a high-conviction overweight status for 2020. In more detail, the budding recoveries in the EM and Chinese manufacturing PMIs herald a brighter outlook for relative share prices. China’s fiscal and credit impulse also signals that a bottom in relative share prices is likely already in place. If this leading indicator proves accurate in the coming months, then relative share prices can reclaim the early-2018 highs. On the operating front, the new orders-to-inventories momentum has traced a bottom. Assuming that the Chinese manufacturing PMI reading stays on an upward trajectory, machinery demand will make a durable comeback. None of these green shoots are reflected in sell-side analysts’ bombed out relative profit and sales growth expectations (bottom panel, Chart 8). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5MACH – CAT, DE, ITW, IR, CMI, PCAR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, XYL, IEX, WAB, SNA, PNR, FLS.  Chart 8S&P Machinery S&P Banks (Overweight) The expected price of credit, still pristine credit quality, and a looming reacceleration in credit growth all argue for including the S&P banks index in our high-conviction overweight list. Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market. As the bond sell-off gained steam, the bank outperformance phase also caught on fire. BCA’s view for next year calls for a 50-75bps selloff in the 10-year Treasury yield, further boosting the allure of bank equities (top panel, Chart 9). Beyond the rising price of credit, credit growth is another key industry profit driver. 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. The upshot is that bank credit growth will likely reaccelerate in the first half of 2020 (third panel, Chart 9). 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. Despite all this enticing news, bank valuations remain anchored near rock bottom levels and a resurgent ROE is signaling that there is a long runway ahead for relative bank valuations (bottom panel, Chart 9). 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.  Chart 9S&P Banks Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps (Overweight) The large cap size bias is our sole hold out from last year’s high-conviction list despite getting stopped out and booking a handsome 9% profit. Today we recommend reinstating a large cap size bias. This call actually represents a slight hedge on BCA’s overall higher interest rates view for next year. Financials comprise 13% of the SPX, but the weight jumps to 18% in small cap indexes. Thus, if the rising interest view is off the mark, the large cap bias will provide an offset. Relative forward profit growth favors mega caps and by a wide margin. One key factor underpinning this increasing profit gap is the massive profit margin divergence (Chart 10). Tack on the fact that index providers omit negative forward profits from their index EPS calculations and the narrative that small caps have cheapened versus large caps falls flat on an adjusted basis. Why? Because a large number of small caps have negative forward EPS. Moreover, we recently created a relative employment proxy that is firing on all cylinders. Not only is the small business labor market crumbling according to the latest NFIB survey, but hard data also suggest that nonfarm private small business payroll employment has ground to a halt. Finally, small caps are debt saddled compared with large caps and small cap b/s have actually been degrading of late (Chart 10). Chart 10Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps S&P Homebuilding (Underweight) We downgraded homebuilders to underweight in late-October, and today we are adding it to our high-conviction underweight call list. Most, if not all, positive profit drivers are already reflected in relative share prices. Specifically, the drubbing in interest rates has been more than accounted for by the year-to-date outperformance in homebuilders. Now that interest rates are moving in reverse, more pain lies ahead for the S&P homebuilding index (Chart 11). Worrisomely, consumers’ expectations to purchase a new home plunged anew last month according to The Conference Board’s survey, and that demand softness will weigh on housing starts and ultimately homebuilding revenues (Chart 11). Adding insult to injury, new house selling prices are losing ground to existing home prices, but such discounting is no longer boosting volumes as new home sales market share gains have stalled. Already, S&P homebuilding sales are contracting and the risk is that deflation gets entrenched in this construction industry (Chart 11). Simultaneously, lumber prices are gaining steam and coupled with contracting new home prices signal that homebuilding profits will suffer a setback. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOME – DHI, LEN, PHM, NVR.  Chart 11S&P Homebuilding S&P Semi Equipment (Underweight) While year-to-date chip equipment stocks are the best performing index in the SPX, we deem them a mania, and include them in our high-conviction underweight basket for 2020. The top panel of Chart 12 shows this irrational exuberance that has permeated the semi equipment universe is similar to the dotcom era excesses. Back in the late-1990s relative profit growth was sky high, but today it is flirting with the zero line, warning that gravity will pull these stocks back down to earth (second panel, Chart 12). The contracting ISM manufacturing survey signals that relative share price momentum running at a breakneck pace is unwarranted. The same holds true for relative forward profit and revenue growth expectations, especially given the ongoing contraction in global semi sales (middle panel, Chart 12). This deficient demand for semis and therefore semi equipment manufacturers is also apparent in deflating DRAM prices, our industry pricing power proxy. Historically, relative profit expectations and pricing power have moved in lockstep and the current message is to fade sell-side analysts’ buoyancy. Net earnings revisions have slingshot from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism during the past quarter and are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lack of profit growth, deficient industry demand, perky valuations and extremely overbought conditions all suggest that the mania in the S&P chip equipment index will likely turn into a panic next year. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC. Chart 12S&P Semi Equipment S&P Utilities (Underweight) Heavily indebted utilities are a high-conviction underweight call for next year. · Relative share prices and the 10-year Treasury yield are closely inversely correlated. Now that the risk free asset is having a more competitive yield, investors will likely start to abandon this niche defensive sector. The jury is still out on the final outcome of the Sino-American trade war. However, there has been a decisive change of heart in US exporters and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new export orders subcomponent reflects an, at the margin, improvement in the US/China trade relationship. This bodes ill for safe haven utilities stocks (Chart 13). Utilities command a 19.4 forward P/E multiple representing roughly a 10% premium to the broad market, but their forecast EPS growth rate at 5% trails the SPX by 400bps. Our composite relative Valuation Indicator has surged to one standard deviation above the historical mean, a level typically associated with recession (Chart 13). On the operating front, natural gas prices are contracting at the steepest pace of the past four years, and electricity capacity utilization is in a multi-decade downtrend, warning that the relative profitability will remain under pressure in 2020. The implication is that this crowded trade is at risk of deflating, especially if the breakout in bond yields gains steam as BCA expects. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5UTIL– PPL, PNW, ATO, PEG, FE, EIX, AEE, SO, SRE, AEP, XEL, DTE, EVRG, WEC, AES, CMS, LNT, ED, NRG, D, AWK, DUK, ETR, EXC, NEE, CNP, NI, ES.  Chart 13S&P Utilities S&P Real Estate (Underweight) We would refrain from chasing high yielding real estate stocks higher, and instead we are including them in our high-conviction underweight call list for 2020. The commercial real estate (CRE) sector is a bubble candidate that exemplifies this cycle’s excesses. CRE prices sit at roughly two standard deviations above both the historical time trend and the previous cycle’s peak (not shown). Worryingly, CRE demand is waning. Not only our proprietary real estate demand indicator has sunk recently, but also the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey revealed that demand for CRE loans remains feeble. Simultaneously, fewer bankers are willing to extend CRE credit according to the same quarterly Fed survey (Chart 14). Occupancy rates have crested and there are increasing anecdotes of credit quality deterioration. As a result, CRE rents are also failing to keep up with inflation which eats into relative cash flow growth prospects. The supply side build up tilts this delicate balance further into deficit. Non-residential construction shows no signs of abating, with multi-family housing starts still running at an historically high rate of roughly 400K/annum (Chart 14). Finally, interest rate related headwinds will also weigh on this high-yielding sector in coming quarters, especially if the selloff in the bond market gains steam as BCA expects. (Chart 14). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5RLST – AMT, PLD, CCI, SPG, EQIX, WELL, PSA, EQR, AVB, SBAC, O, DLR, WY, VTR, ESS, BXP, CBRE, ARE, PEAK, MAA, UDR, EXR, DRE, HST, REG, VNO, IRM, FRT, KIM, AIV, SLG, MAC. Chart 14S&P Real Estate Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gasping For Air” dated November 18, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://www.cboe.com/micro/impliedcorrelation/impliedcorrelationindicator.pdf 3    Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, “OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game” dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4    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%)

Feature Recommended Allocation In late November, BCA Research published its 2020 Outlook titled Heading Into The End Game, an annual discussion between BCA’s managing editors and the firm’s longstanding clients Mr. and Ms X.1 We recommend GAA clients read that document for a full analysis of the macro and investment environment we expect in 2020. In this Monthly Portfolio Outlook, we focus on portfolio construction: how we would recommend positioning a global multi-asset portfolio for the 12-month investment horizon in light of that analysis. First, a brief summary of the BCA macro outlook. We believe the global manufacturing cycle is starting to bottom out, partly because of its usual periodicity of 18 months from peak to trough, and also because of easier financial conditions, and some moderate fiscal and credit stimulus from China (Chart 1).  Central banks will remain dovish next year despite accelerating growth. The Fed, in particular, worries that inflation expectations have become unanchored (Chart 2) and, moreover, will be reluctant to raise rates ahead of the US presidential election. This environment implies a moderate rise in long-term interest rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 2.2-2.5%. Chart 1Reasons To Expect A Rebound Chart 2Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed For an asset allocator, this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks like a very positive environment for risk assets (Chart 3). We, therefore, remain overweight equities and underweight fixed income. We have discussed over the past few months the timing to turn more risk-on and pro-cyclical in our recommendations.2 Since we are increasingly confident about the probability of the manufacturing cycle turning up, this is the time to make that change. Consequently, the shifts we are recommending in our global portfolio, shown in the Recommended Allocation table and discussed in detail below, add to its beta (Chart 4).   Chart 3A Positive Environment For Risk Assets Chart 4Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Chart 5Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Nonetheless, we still have some concerns. China’s stimulus (particularly credit growth) remains half-hearted compared to previous cyclical rebounds in 2012 and 2016. We expect a “phase one” ceasefire in the trade war. But even that is not certain, and it would not anyway solve the long-term structural disputes. To turn fully risk-on, we would want to see signs of a clear rebound in commodity prices and a depreciation of the US dollar, which have not yet happened (Chart 5). The 2020 Outlook proposed some milestones to monitor whether our scenario is playing out and whether we should turn more or less risk-on. We summarize these milestones in Table 1. Given these uncertainties, to hedge our pro-cyclical positioning we continue to recommend an overweight in cash, and we are instituting an overweight position in gold. Table 1Milestones For 2020 Chart 6Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt How will this cycle end? All recessions in modern history have been caused either by a sharp rise in inflation, or by a debt-fueled asset bubble (Chart 6). The Fed will likely fall behind the curve at some point as, after further tightening in the labor market, inflation starts to pick up. How the Fed reacts to that will determine what triggers the recession. If – as is most likely – it lets inflation run, that could blow up an asset bubble (and it was the bursting of such bubbles which caused the 2000 and 2007 recessions); if it decides to tighten monetary policy to kill inflation, the recession would look more like those of the 1970s and 1980s. But it is hard to see either happening over the next 12-18 months. Equities: As part of our shift to a more pro-risk, pro-cyclical stance, we are cutting US equities to underweight, and raising the euro zone to overweight, and Emerging Markets and the UK to neutral. US equities have outperformed fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 7) – except during the two periods of accelerating global growth, in 2012-13 (when Europe did better) and 2016-17 (when EM particularly outperformed). The US today is expensive, particularly in terms of price/sales, which looks more expensive than the P/E ratio because the profit margin is at a record high level (Chart 8). The upside for US stocks in 2020 is likely to be limited. In 2019 so far, US equities have risen by 29% despite earnings growth close to zero. Multiples expanded because the Fed turned dovish, but investors should not assume further multiple expansion in 2020. Our rough model for US EPS growth points to around 8% next year (sales in line with nominal GDP growth of 4%, margins expanding by a couple of points, plus 2% in share buybacks). Add a dividend yield of 2%, and US stocks might give a total return of 10% or so. Chart 7US Doesn't Always Outperform Chart 8US Equities Are Expensive To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Euro zone stocks have a higher weighting in sectors we like such as Financials and Industrials (Table 2). European banks, in particular, look attractively valued (Chart 9) and offer a dividend yield of 6%, something investors should find appealing in this low-yield world. EM is more closely linked to China and commodities prices, which are not yet sending strong positive signals. We worry about the excess of debt in EM (Chart 10), which remains a structural headwind: the IMF and World Bank put total external EM debt at $6.8 trillion (Chart 11). Table 2Equity Sector Composition Chart 9Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Chart 10EM Debt Remains A Headwind Japan is another likely beneficiary of a cyclical recovery. But, before we turn positive, we want to see (1) signs of a stabilization of consumption after the recent tax rise (retail sales fell by 7% year-on-year in October), and (2) clarification of a worrying new investment law (which will require any investor which intends to “influence management” to get prior government approval before buying as little as a 1% stake in many sectors). For an asset allocator this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks very positive for risk assets. We raise the UK to neutral. The market has been a serial underperformer over the past few years, but this has been due to the weak pound and derating, rather than poor earnings growth (Chart 12). It now looks very cheap and, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit off the table, sterling should rebound further. The UK is notably overweight the sectors we like (Table 2). However, political risk makes us limit our recommendation to neutral. Although the Conservatives look likely to win a majority in this month’s general election, which will allow them to push through the negotiated Brexit deal, subsequent arguments over the future trade relationship with the EU will be divisive. Chart 116.8 Trillion In EM External Debt Chart 12The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016   Fixed Income: We remain underweight government bonds. Stronger economic growth is likely to push up long-term rates (Chart 13). Nonetheless, the rise in yields should be limited. The Fed looks to be on hold for the next 12 months, but the futures market is not far away from that view: it has priced in only a 60% probability of one rate cut over that time. The gap between market expectations and what the Fed actually does is what our bond strategists call the “golden rule of bond investing”. US inflation is also likely to soften over the next few months due to the lagged effect of this year’s weaker growth and appreciating dollar. We do not expect the 10-year US Treasury to rise above 2.5% – the current FOMC estimate of the long-run equilibrium level of short-term rates (Chart 14). Chart 13Growth Will Push Up Rates...   Chart 14...But Only As Far As 2.5%   Within the fixed-income universe, we remain positive on corporate credit. But US investment-grade bond spreads are no longer attractive and so we downgrade them to neutral (Chart 15). Investors looking for high-quality bond exposure should prefer Agency MBS, which trade on an attractive spread relative to Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. European IG should do better since spreads are not so close to historical lows, risk-free rates should rise less than in the US, and because the ECB is increasing its purchases of corporate bonds. Chart 15US IG Spreads Are Close To Historical Lows Chart 16US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do We continue to like high-yield bonds, both in the US and Europe. But we would suggest moving down the credit curve and increasing the weight in Caa-rated bonds. These have underperformed this year (Chart 16), mainly because of technical factors such as their overweight in the energy sector and relatively smaller decline in duration.3 With a stronger economy and rising oil prices, they should catch up to their higher-rated HY peers in 2020. To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Currencies: Since the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 17), we would expect it to weaken against more cyclical currencies such as the euro, and commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar. But it should appreciate relative to the yen and Swiss franc, which are the most defensive major currencies. We expect EM currencies to continue to depreciate. Most emerging markets are experiencing disinflation (Chart 18), which will push central banks to cut rates and inject liquidity into the banking system. This will tend to weaken their currencies. Overall, we are neutral on the US dollar. Chart 17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 18Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further     Commodities: Industrials metals prices are closely linked to Chinese stimulus (Chart 19). A moderate recovery in Chinese growth should be a positive, and so we raise our recommendation to neutral. But with question-marks still lingering over the strength of the rebound in the Chinese economy, we would not be more positive than that. Oil prices should see moderate upside over the next 12 months, with supply tight and demand growth recovering in line with the global economy. Our energy strategists forecast Brent crude to average $67 a barrel in 2020 (compared to a little over $60 today). Chart 19Metals Prices Depend On China Chart 20Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge   Gold looks a little overbought in the short term, and less monetary stimulus and a rise in rates next year would be negative factors (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we see it as a good hedge against our positive economic view going awry, and against geopolitical risks. If central banks do decide to let economies run hot next year and ignore rising inflation, gold could do particularly well. We, therefore, raise our recommendation to overweight on a 12-month horizon.     Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Please see "Outlook 2020," dated November 22 2019, available at bcaresearch.com 2   Please see, for example, last month’s GAA Monthly Portfolio Update, “Looking For The Turning-Point,” dated November 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3   For a more detailed explanation, please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Signs Or Buying Opportunity,” dated 26 November 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights BCA still sees green shoots: Our latest view meeting reinforced BCA strategists’ optimistic global outlook, and we are methodically adding international and cyclical exposures to reflect it. Relatively modest M&A activity is not a sign of a top, … : Last Monday was the busiest Merger Monday of the year, but relative merger volumes are not anywhere near the peaks that coincided with the end of the last two expansions. … and neither is small-cap equity underperformance: There is no empirical basis for concluding that small-cap underperformance heralds economic weakness, stock market weakness or heightened risk aversion. Feature Onward. At our latest editorial view meeting, held last week, we completed the step we first began discussing in the spring, upgrading Eurozone equities to overweight in global equity portfolios. BCA continues to recommend investors remain underweight sovereign bonds in balanced and dedicated fixed income portfolios, and we expect that a top in the dollar versus the more cyclical major currencies is coming soon. We downgraded US equities to underweight to make room for the Eurozone overweight, along with new overweights in British and Japanese equities. The move reflects the BCA consensus that global growth has bottomed and is poised to accelerate. Against an improved growth backdrop, the dollar should cede leadership to more cyclically sensitive currencies, providing non-US equities with a relative tailwind.1 The narrowing of the growth differential between the US and the rest of the world should give international equities an additional boost. A revived growth outlook, and a cooling of trade tensions signaled by a signed Phase 1 China-US agreement, would ease some of the safe-haven demand for sovereign bonds, and help interest rates unwind some of the downward pull that dragged them lower across the first eight months of the year. The US equity downgrade is only a relative call, however; US Investment Strategy remains constructive on the absolute return outlook for US stocks. Other economies with a greater reliance on trade will benefit more from a global upswing than the US, which suffered less from the global slowdown than its peers. The S&P 500 has much more exposure to the rest of the world than the US economy, though, and its earnings would get a boost from accelerating global growth and a weaker dollar. At the same time that the fundamental picture is poised to improve, the wall of worry continues to renew itself, and this week we discuss concerns about M&A activity and small-cap stocks’ underperformance, which have come to the fore as Sino-American tensions have relaxed their grip on the collective investor psyche. Mergers And Animal Spirits Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) generated some attention-getting headlines last month. Just last Monday, nearly $60 billion of deals were struck: Charles Schwab purchased TD Ameritrade for $26 billion, LVMH bought jewelry icon Tiffany for $18 billion, Novartis paid nearly $10 billion for drugmaker Medicines Company, and Ebay sold StubHub for $4 billion. Earlier last month, Xerox launched a hostile bid for HP ($32 billion), and KKR reportedly discussed an acquisition of Walgreens that could top $70 billion. A Walgreens transaction is a long shot, as it would potentially be the largest leveraged buyout of all time, but it has set tongues wagging in investment banking and private equity circles and fingers wagging among observers with an inclination to be scolds. M&A overtures cannot be viewed as a pure proxy for animal spirits, but M&A activity has aligned closely with the business cycle over the past two full cycles. The value of completed transactions as a share of equity values and GDP has troughed soon after the recession ends and peaked just before the recession begins, both here and abroad (Chart 1). In early 2016, proportional M&A volumes approached the levels that marked a top in 2000 and 2007, but the signal turned out to be a head fake, at least in terms of the US business cycle. Today’s volumes do not appear to be a concern, especially when compared to equity market value, which has consistently outpaced M&A activity since the 2016 peaks. Chart 1Peaks In M&A Activity Coincide With Business Cycle Peaks, ... It makes intuitive sense that peaks and troughs, or surges and slowdowns, in M&A might provide some insight into corporate confidence. Insight into confidence might in turn offer a preview of capex and hiring activity. Chart 2... But M&A Isn't Predictive Otherwise The empirical record does not support the intuition, however, as non-residential fixed investment growth has not shown much of a relationship with M&A volume as a share of GDP (Chart 2, top panel). Since the crisis, M&A volume has oscillated around the steady climb in hiring intentions (Chart 2, middle panel) and job openings (Chart 2, bottom panel) without exhibiting a clear relationship. What Is Small-Cap Performance Saying? The S&P 500 has made thirteen new all-time highs, or about one every other day, since the last week of October. The S&P SmallCap 600, on the other hand, just narrowly topped its year-to-date high, and remains more than 9% from its all-time high, set at the end of August 2018. Small-caps are more volatile than large-caps and many investors treat relative small-cap performance as a proxy for overall risk aversion. When small-caps are outperforming, investors are presumed to be more willing to embrace risk; when they’re underperforming, investors are supposedly more prone to shun it, with implications for all equities. Small-cap indices are simply too jumpy to predict large-cap equity moves. The empirical record does not support the view that relative small-cap underperformance leads broader market downturns. Because small-cap market cycles tend to be more compressed than large-cap market cycles, there are many more of them. There have been seven complete S&P 500 market cycles since 1970 (Table 1), versus fifteen complete market cycles for the equal-weighted all-cap Value Line Index2 (Table 2). Simple logic holds that all fifteen small-cap events can’t be portents of seven large-cap events, and the S&P 500 has been largely indifferent to small-cap outperformance and underperformance over time (Chart 3). Table 1The S&P 500 Is On Its Eighth Bull Market Since 1970 … Table 2… While The Value Line Index Is On Its Sixteenth Chart 3Independent Events We do not believe that small-cap relative performance is a reliable indicator of investor risk tolerance/aversion, or a proxy for animal spirits. We have found that relative performance is best explained by more prosaic elements like sector composition, valuation and earnings discrepancies, domestic/global performance shifts and cyclical/defensive performance shifts. These elements have sent mixed signals as group so far this year, but sector composition is likely to support small-caps going forward if our constructive economic view pans out. Relative small-cap performance doesn't tell us anything about the S&P 500's future direction. Compositional Factors: The S&P SmallCap 600 Index is not just a mini-me version of the S&P 500 because the benchmarks’ sector composition often varies considerably. The SmallCap 600 currently has much heavier weightings than the S&P 500 in Industrials, Financials, Consumer Discretionaries and Real Estate, and much lighter weightings in Technology, Communication Services and Consumer Staples stocks (Table 3). The small-cap index has a greater share of early cyclicals than the S&P 500, and an equivalently smaller share of defensives, but that hasn’t mattered this year, as small-caps have underperformed large-caps in every sector but Health Care (Table 4). Small-cap underperformance in Energy, Communication Services, Staples, and Financials has been especially stark. Table 3Not Quite Apples To Apples Table 4Year-To-Date Sector Performance Valuation/Earnings Discrepancies: Disparities in index valuation may bear on small- and large-cap performance without revealing anything about underlying business or economic trends, or without providing much insight into investors’ broader appetites for risk. Relative valuation does not appear to have been much of a factor for small- and mid-cap stocks’ relative performance this year, as standardized relative multiples have stayed close to the mean (Chart 4). Both of the SMID indexes have experienced relative de-rating this year, but their underperformance is better explained by lagging earnings growth. According to Refinitiv/I/B/E/S, MidCap 400 and SmallCap 600 earnings are expected to decline by 7% and 19%, respectively, versus the S&P 500’s modest 1% contraction. Chart 4Relative Valuations Are In Line Domestic/Global Discrepancies: Smaller companies are less likely to derive significant portions of earnings and revenues from overseas, and multinationals tend to be mega-caps. The formerly decent correlation between small-cap relative performance and domestic-versus-global industry group performance has unraveled since the 2016 presidential election (Chart 5, bottom panel). It’s possible that investors bid too eagerly for small-caps on expected policy changes after the election and in early 2018, following the cut in the top marginal corporate income tax rate that stood to disproportionately benefit small-caps with effective tax rates equivalent to the top marginal rate.3 It is much easier to buy a small-cap index ETF than it is to assemble portfolios of domestically- and globally-exposed industry groups, which may explain why small-caps decoupled from domestic-versus-global industry groups in two pronounced spikes. A continued small-cap slide would be consistent with BCA’s sanguine global view. Small-caps' relative performance has decoupled from global-facing stocks' relative performance. Could tariffs be hurting them more than expected? Chart 5Small Caps May Not Be Immune To Global Pressures After All Cyclical/Defensive Discrepancies: Differences in exposure to cyclical and defensive sectors offer another perspective on differences in sector composition. The SmallCap 600 Index has just 60% of the S&P 500’s exposure to defensive sectors. Absolute small-cap performance has moved with cyclical-to-defensive performance this year (Chart 6, top panel), but the relative breakdown in small-cap performance that began when defensives took the lead failed to reverse when cyclicals recently revived (Chart 6, bottom panel). We expect cyclicals to outperform defensives in line with our constructive view on global growth, which should translate to a boost for relative small-cap performance. Chart 6Cyclicals Investment Implications The conventional wisdom that small-cap underperformance signals a broader equity downturn does not hold up to examination. Small- and mid-cap earnings have contracted considerably more than S&P 500 earnings, and SMID stocks have de-rated versus large-caps since the fourth quarter of last year, but it is not clear why either of those trends will continue this year. We suspect that SMID underperformance largely reflects a downward revision in expectations that ran a little too high in the wake of the tax cut and the assumption that small-caps would emerge relatively unscathed from new tariff barriers. Large-caps are more globally-oriented, but it’s possible that overweights in Industrials and Discretionaries render small-caps more vulnerable to increased tariff-related input costs. M&A volumes as a share of market cap or GDP have served as a much more reliable proxy for overheated animal spirits. Peaks and troughs in M&A have aligned closely with peaks and troughs in the last two completed business cycles. M&A headlines have revved up in the last month, but the volume of completed deals is not yet at worrisome levels. Our main takeaway from last week’s internal view meeting is that 2019’s worldwide easing of monetary conditions will manifest itself in a pickup in global activity in the first half of 2020. Our bond strategists expect that the Fed’s primary concern is getting inflation expectations up to a level consistent with its inflation target, and that it will strive to maintain policy settings that are perceived as accommodative until it gets the inflation expectations response it seeks. Unless signs of financial instability compel it to tighten policy to contain bubble-like excesses, they expect the Fed to remain on hold for nearly all of 2020. We concur, and therefore expect the monetary backdrop to remain conducive for risk asset outperformance at least into 2021. Investors should maintain risk-friendly positioning against that backdrop.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 All of BCA’s global recommendations are made from a common-currency perspective. 2 A complete market cycle encompasses a completed bull market (at least 20% closing trough to closing peak gain) and a completed bear market (at least 20% closing peak to closing trough decline). We use the Value Line Index as a small-cap proxy here because it has a 50-year history, unlike the Russell 2000 or SmallCap 600. 3 Multinationals’ effective tax rates are often reduced by their ability to shift income among tax jurisdictions.

Highlights Investors should remain overweight global stocks relative to bonds over the next 12 months and begin shifting equity exposure towards non-US markets. Bond yields will rise next year as global growth picks up, while the dollar will sell off. The extent to which bond yields increase over the long term depends on whether inflation eventually stages a comeback. Today’s high debt levels could turn out to be deflationary if they curtail spending by overstretched households, firms, and governments. However, high debt levels could also prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. Which of these two effects will win out depends on whether central banks are able to gain traction over the economy. This ultimately boils down to whether the neutral rate of interest is positive or negative in nominal terms. While there is little that policymakers can do to alter certain drivers of the neutral rate such as the trend rate of economic growth, they do have control over other drivers such as the stance of fiscal policy. Ironically, a structural shift towards easier fiscal policy could lead to a decline in government debt-to-GDP ratios if higher inflation, together with central bankers' reluctance to raise nominal rates, pushes real rates down far enough. This suggests that the endgame for today’s high debt levels is likely to be overheated economies and rising inflation.   Stay Bullish On Stocks But Shift Towards Non-US Equities We returned to a cyclically bullish stance on global equities following the stock market selloff late last year, having temporarily moved to the sidelines in June 2018. We have remained overweight global equities throughout 2019. Two weeks ago, we increased our pro-cyclical bias by upgrading non-US stocks within our recommended equity allocation at the expense of their US peers. Our decision to upgrade non-US equities stems from the conviction that global growth has turned the corner. Manufacturing has been at the heart of the global slowdown. As we have often pointed out, manufacturing cycles tend to last about three years – 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 1). The current slowdown began in the first half of 2018, and right on cue, the recent data has begun to improve. The global manufacturing PMI has moved off its lows, with significant gains seen in the new orders-to-inventories component. Global growth expectations in the ZEW survey have rebounded. US durable goods orders surprised on the upside in October. The regional Fed manufacturing surveys have also brightened, suggesting upside for the ISM next week (Chart 2). Chart 1A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Chart 2Some Manufacturing Green Shoots     Unlike in 2016, China has not allowed a major reacceleration in credit growth this year. Instead, fiscal policy has been loosened significantly. The official general government deficit has increased from around 3% of GDP in mid-2018 to 6.5% of GDP at present. The augmented budget deficit – which includes spending through local government financing vehicles and other off-balance sheet expenditures – is on track to reach nearly 13% of GDP in 2019. This is a bigger deficit than during the depths of the Great Recession (Chart 3). As a result of all this fiscal easing, the combined Chinese credit/fiscal impulse has continued to move up. It leads global growth by about nine months (Chart 4). Chart 3China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally Chart 4Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth The dollar tends to weaken when global growth strengthens (Chart 5). The combination of stronger global growth and a softer dollar will disproportionately benefit cyclical equity sectors. Financials will also gain thanks to steeper yield curves (Chart 6). The sector weights of non-US stock markets tend to be more tilted towards deep cyclicals and financials. As a consequence, non-US stocks typically outperform when global growth picks up (Chart 7). Chart 5The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 6Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials In addition, valuations favor stocks outside the US. Non-US equities currently trade at 13.8-times forward earnings, compared to 18.1-times for the US. The valuation gap is even greater if one looks at price-to-book, price-to-sales, and other measures (Chart 8). Chart 7Non-US Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Chart 8US Stocks Are Relatively More Expensive Trade War Remains A Key Risk The US-China trade war remains a key risk to our bullish equity view. President Trump continues to send conflicting signals about the status of the talks. He complained last week that Beijing is not “stepping up” in finalizing a phase 1 agreement, adding that China wants a deal “much more than I do.” This Wednesday he struck a more optimistic tone, saying that negotiators were in the “final throes” of deal. However, he made this statement on the same day that he decided to sign the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, a decision that was bound to antagonize China. According to our BCA geopolitical team, Trump had little choice but to sign the bill. The Senate approved it unanimously, while the House voted for it 417-1. Failure to sign it would have resulted in an embarrassing veto by the Senate. The key point is that the new law does not force Trump to take any immediate actions against China. This suggests that the trade talks will continue. In fact, from China's point of view, Congress’ desire to pass a Hong Kong bill may provide a timely reminder that getting a deal done with Trump now may be preferable to waiting until after the election and potentially facing someone like Elizabeth Warren who is likely to make human rights a key element of any deal to roll back tariffs. Waiting For Inflation If global growth accelerates next year, history suggests that bond yields will rise (Chart 9). Looking further out, the extent to which bond yields will continue to increase depends on whether inflation ultimately stages a comeback. Right now, most of our forward-looking inflationary indicators remain well contained (Chart 10). However, this could change if falling unemployment eventually triggers a price-wage spiral. Chart 9Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Chart 10An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent     Many investors are skeptical that such a price-wage spiral could ever emerge. They argue that automation, globalization, weak trade unions, and demographic changes make an inflationary outburst rather implausible. We have addressed these arguments in the past1 and will not delve into them in this report. Instead, we will focus on one argument that also gets a fair bit of attention, which is that high debt levels will prove to be deflationary. Are High Debt Levels Inflationary Or Deflationary? Total debt levels in developed economies are no lower today than they were during the Great Recession. While private debt has fallen, public debt has risen by roughly the same magnitude, leaving the overall debt-to-GDP ratio unchanged (Chart 11). Meanwhile, debt levels in emerging markets have risen substantially. A common rebuttal to any suggestion that inflation might rise over the medium-to-longer term is that high debt levels around the world will cause households, firms, and governments to pare back spending. While this may be true, it could also be argued that high debt levels could prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. So which effect will win out? Given the choice, it is likely that most policymakers would opt for higher inflation. This is partly because high unemployment and fiscal austerity are politically toxic. It is also because falling prices make it very difficult to reduce real debt burdens. The experience of the Great Depression bears this out: Private debt declined by 25% in absolute terms between 1929 and 1933. However, due to the collapse in nominal GDP, the ratio of debt-to-GDP actually increased more in the first half of the 1930s than during the Roaring Twenties (Chart 12). Chart 11Global Debt Levels Remain High Chart 12The Experience Of The Great Depression Shows Deleveraging Is Impossible Without Growth   Means, Motive And Opportunity Chart 13A Kinked Relationship: It Takes Time For Inflation To Break Out There is a big difference between wanting to engineer higher inflation and being able to do so. The distinction between success and failure ultimately boils down to a seemingly technical question: Is the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – positive or negative in nominal terms? When the neutral rate is above zero, central banks can gain traction over the economy. Even if the neutral rate is only slightly positive, a zero rate would be enough to keep monetary policy in expansionary territory. When monetary policy is accommodative, the unemployment rate will tend to drop. Eventually the “kink” in the Phillips curve will be reached, resulting in higher inflation (Chart 13). In contrast, when the neutral rate is firmly below zero, monetary policy loses traction over the economy. Since there is a limit to how deeply negative policy rates can go before people decide to hold cash, the central bank could find itself out of ammunition. This could set off a vicious circle where high unemployment causes inflation to drift lower, leading to an increase in real rates. Rising real rates will then further curb spending, causing inflation to fall even more. Drivers Of The Neutral Rate Two of the more important determinants of the neutral rate of interest are the growth rate of the economy and the national savings rate. If either the savings rate rises or economic growth slows, the stock of fixed capital will tend to pile up in relation to GDP, leading to a higher capital-to-output ratio.2 As Chart 14 shows, this has already happened in Europe and Japan. An increase in the capital-to-GDP ratio will drag down the rate of return on capital. A lower interest rate will be necessary to ensure that the capital stock is fully utilized. Chart 14Capital Stock-To-Output Ratios Have Risen Realistically, there is not much that policymakers can do to raise trend GDP growth. While looser immigration policy would allow for a faster expansion of labor force growth, this is politically contentious. Increasing productivity growth is also easier said than done. Fiscal Policy And The Neutral Rate In contrast, policymakers already have a ready-made mechanism for lowering the savings rate: fiscal policy. The fiscal balance is a component of national savings. If the government runs a larger budget deficit in order to finance tax cuts or higher transfer payments to households, national savings will decline and aggregate demand will rise. Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that brings aggregate demand in line with the economy’s supply-side potential, anything that raises demand will also lift the neutral rate. Once the neutral rate has risen above the zero bound, monetary policy will gain traction again. This implies that central banks should never run out of ammunition in countries whose governments can issue debt in their own currencies. While higher inflation stemming from fiscal stimulus will erode the real value of private sector debt obligations, won’t the impact on total debt be offset by the increase in public debt? Not necessarily. True, larger budget deficits will raise the stock of government debt. However, nominal GDP will also rise on account of higher inflation. Standard debt sustainability equations state that the government debt-to-GDP ratio could actually fall if higher inflation pushes real policy rates down far enough. As discussed in Box 1, such an outcome is quite likely when inflation accelerates in response to an overheated economy, but the central bank nevertheless refrains from raising nominal rates. The Final Verdict We are finally ready to answer the question posed in the title of this report: Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. People with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage will always favor inflation over deflation. And there are more voters who owe mortgage debt than own mortgage debt. Chart 15Germany's Competitive Advantage Over The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating Politics is moving in a more populist direction. Whether it is left-wing populism of the Elizabeth Warren/Jeremy Corbyn variety or right-wing populism of the Donald Trump/Matteo Salvini variety, the result is usually bigger budget deficits and higher inflation. Even in those countries where populism has been slow to take hold, there may be pragmatic reasons for loosening fiscal policy. For example, Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area has fallen in half since 2007, largely because German unit labor costs have increased more than elsewhere (Chart 15). As Germany loses its ability to ship excess production to the rest of the world, it may end up having to rely more on easier fiscal policy to bolster demand. Of course, the path to higher inflation is paved with interest rates that stay lower for much longer than the economy needs to reach full employment. This means we are entering a period where first the US economy, and then many other economies, will start to overheat, and yet central banks will still refrain from tightening monetary policy until inflation rises well above their comfort zones. Such an environment will be positive for stocks for as long as it lasts, even if it eventually produces a mighty hangover.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 When Does A Large Budget Deficit Lead To A Lower Government Debt-to-GDP Ratio?   Footnotes 1    Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018. 2   This point can be seen through the lens of the widely used Solow growth model. In steady state, the desired level of investment in the model is given by the formula: I=(a/r)(n+g+d)Y where a denotes the output elasticity of capital, r is the real rate of interest, n is labor force growth, g is productivity growth, d is the depreciation rate, and Y is GDP. Savings is assumed to be a constant fraction of income, S=sY. Equating savings with investment yields: r=(a/s)(n+g+d). A decrease in the growth rate of the economy (n+g) shifts the investment schedule downward, leading to a lower equilibrium rate of interest. This initially makes investing in fixed capital more attractive than buying bonds. Over time, however, the marginal return on capital will fall as the capital stock expands in relation to GDP.    Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

An analysis on Brazil is available below. Feature Chart I-1Poor Performance By EM Stocks, Currencies And Commodities I had the pleasure of meeting again with a long-term BCA client Ms. Mea last week during my trip to Europe. Ms. Mea and I meet on a semi-annual basis, where she has the opportunity to query my analysis and view. In our latest meeting, she was more perplexed than usual by the global macro developments and financial market dynamics. Ms. Mea: All the seemingly positive news on the trade front is pushing up global share prices. In fact, a substantial portion -if not all -of the global equity price gains have occurred on days when there has been positive news surrounding the US-China trade negotiations. Given EM financial markets were the most damaged by the trade war, one would have thought that EM markets would outperform in a rally stemming from progress in negotiations. Yet this has not occurred. EM currencies have failed to advance (a number of currencies are in fact breaking down), EM sovereign credit spreads are widening and the relative performance of EM vs. DM share prices has relapsed (Chart I-1). What is causing this disconnect? Answer: The disconnect is due to a somewhat false narrative that the global trade and manufacturing recession as well as the EM/China slowdown were primarily caused by the US-China trade confrontation. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The latter can only partially be attributed to the US-China trade tariffs and tensions. Chart I-2 illustrates that mainland exports are not contracting while imports excluding processing trade1 are down 5% from a year ago. This implies that China’s growth slump has not been due to a contraction in its exports but rather due to weakness in its domestic demand. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The basis as to why mainland exports have held up so well is because Chinese exporters have been re-routing their shipments to the US via other countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan. Critically, the key force driving EM currencies and risk assets has been Chinese imports (Chart I-3). Mainland imports continue to shrink, with no recovery in sight. This is the reason why EM risk assets and currencies have performed so poorly, even amid the global risk-on environment. Chart I-2Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Chart I-3China Imports Drive EM Currencies   Ms. Mea: Are you implying that a ceasefire in the trade war will not help Chinese growth rebound, and in turn support EM economies? The “Phase One” agreement and possible reductions in US tariffs on imports from China may help the Middle Kingdom’s exports, but not its imports. Crucially, the Chinese authorities will likely be reluctant to augment their credit and fiscal stimulus if there is a “Phase One” deal with the US. Absent greater stimulus, China’s domestic demand is unlikely to stage a swift recovery. In the case of a “Phase One” agreement, a mild improvement in business confidence in China and worldwide is likely, but a major upswing is doubtful. The basis is that business people around the world have witnessed the struggles faced by the US and China in their negotiations. They will likely doubt the ability of both nations to reach a structural resolution – and rightly so. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. Importantly, global investors are miscalculating China’s negotiating strategy and tactics. We put much greater odds than many other investors on the possibility that China will continue to drag out the negotiations without signing the “Phase One” agreement. This could easily derail the global equity rally. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. China’s shipments to the US have been around 3.3% of GDP, even before the trade war began. The value-added to the economy/income generated from China’s exports to the US is less than 3% of its GDP. In contrast, capital spending accounts for the largest share (42%) of China’s GDP. In turn, investment outlays are driven by the credit cycle and fiscal spending, rather than by exports. Chart I-4China: Stimulus And Business Cycle Ms. Mea: Turning to stimulus in China, the authorities have been easing for about a year. By now, the cumulative effect of this stimulus should have begun to revive the mainland’s domestic demand. Why do you still think China’s business cycle has not reached a bottom? Answer: Indeed, our credit and fiscal spending impulse has been rising since January. Based on its historical relationship with business cycle variables – it leads those variables by roughly nine months – China’s growth should have troughed in August or September (Chart I-4). However, the time lags between the credit and fiscal spending impulse and economic cycle are not constant as can be seen in Chart I-4. On average, the lag has been nine months but has also varied from zero (at the trough in early 2009) to 18 months (at the peak in 2016-‘17). Relationships in economics – as opposed to those in hard sciences – are not constant and stable. Rather, correlations and time lags between variables vary substantially over time. In addition, the magnitude of stimulus is not the only variable that should be taken into account. The potential multiplier effect is also significant. One way to proxy the multiplier effect is via the marginal propensity to spend by households and companies. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Our proxies for Chinese marginal propensity to spend by companies and households have been falling (Chart I-5). This entails that households and businesses in China remain downbeat, which caps their expenditures, in turn offsetting the positive impact of stimulus. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Without rapidly rising property prices and construction volumes, boosting sentiment and growth will prove challenging. We discussed the current conditions and outlook of China’s property market in last week’s report. Construction is the single largest sector of the mainland economy, and it is in recession: floor area started and under construction are all shrinking (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: A Weak Multiplier Effect Chart I-6China Construction Is In Recession   It is difficult to envision an improvement in manufacturing and a rebound in demand for commodities/materials and industrial goods without a recovery in construction. Notably, Chart I-6 displays the most comprehensive data on construction, as it encompasses all residential and non-residential construction by property developers and all other entities. Ms. Mea: Why are some global business cycle indicators turning up if, as you argue, the global manufacturing slowdown originated from Chinese domestic demand and the latter has not yet turned around? Answer: At any point of the business cycle, it is possible to find data that point both up and down. Our ongoing comprehensive review of global business cycle data leads us to conclude that the improvement is evident only in a few circumstances, and is not broad-based. In particular: In China and the rest of EM, there is no domestic demand recovery at the moment. China and EM ex-China capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart I-7). Chinese consumer spending is also sluggish (Chart I-8). The rise in China’s manufacturing Caixin PMI over the past several months is an aberration. Chart I-7EM/China Capex Is Very Weak Chart I-8No Recovery For Chinese Consumers     In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, narrow and broad money growth are underwhelming (Chart I-9). These developments signify that EM policy rate cuts have not yet boosted money/credit and domestic demand. We elaborated on this in more detail in our recent report. The basis for such poor transmission is banking-system health in many developing countries. Banks remain saddled with non-performing loans (NPLs). The need to boost provisions and fears of more NPLs continues to make banks reluctant to lend. Besides, real (inflation-adjusted) lending rates are high, discouraging credit demand. In the US and euro area, consumption – outside of autos – as well as money and credit growth have never slowed in this cycle. The slowdown has largely been due to exports and the auto sector. The latter may be bottoming in the euro area (Chart I-10). This might be behind the improvement in some business surveys in Europe. Chart I-9EM Ex-China: Money Growth Is At Record Low Chart I-10Euro Area’s Auto Sales: Is The Worst Over?   European business survey data are mixed, but the weakest segment - manufacturing – remains lackluster. In particular, Germany’s IFO index for business expectations and current conditions in manufacturing have not improved (Chart I-11, top panel). Similarly, the Swiss KOF economic barometer remains downbeat (Chart I-11, top panel). The only improvement is in Belgian business confidence, and a mild pickup in the euro area manufacturing PMI (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-11European Manufacturing And Business Confidence   In the US, shipping and carload data are rather grim. They are not corroborating the marginal improvement in the US manufacturing PMI. Overall, at this point there are no signs that domestic demand is recovering in China and the rest of EM, which have been the epicenter of the slowdown. The improvement is limited to some data in the US and Europe. Consistently, US and European share prices have been surging, while EM equities have dramatically underperformed. Ms. Mea: What about lower interest rates driving multiples expansion in both DM and EM equities? Answer: Concerning multiples expansion, our general framework is as follows: So long as corporate profits do not contract, lower interest rates will likely lead to equity multiples expansion. However, when corporate earnings shrink, the latter overwhelms the positive effect of a lower discount rate on multiples, and share prices drop along with lower interest rates. DM corporate profits are flirting with contraction, but are not yet contracting meaningfully. Hence, it is sensible that US and European stocks have experienced multiples expansion. In contrast, EM corporate earnings are shrinking at a rate of 10% from a year ago as illustrated in Chart I-12. The basis for an EM profit recession is the downturn in Chinese domestic demand and consequently imports. EM per-share earnings correlate much better with Chinese imports (Chart I-13, top panel) than US ones (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12EM Profits And Share Prices Chart I-13EM EPS Is Driven By China Not The US   In fact, we have documented numerous times in our reports that EM currencies and share prices correlate well with China’s business cycle/global trade/commodities prices, more so than with US bond yields. This does not mean that EM share prices are insensitive to interest rates. They are indeed sensitive to their own borrowing costs, but not to US Treasury yields. Chart I-14 demonstrates that EM share prices move in tandem with inverted EM sovereign US dollar bond yields and EM local currency bond yields. Similarly, emerging Asian share prices correlate with inverted high-yield Asian US dollar corporate bond yields (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-14EM Share Prices And EM Bond Yields Chart I-15Chinese Bond Yields Herald Relapse In EM Stocks And Currencies In short, EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Looking forward, exchange rates hold the key. A relapse in EM currencies will push up both the US dollar and local currency bond yields in many EMs. That will in turn warrant a setback in EM share prices. Ms. Mea: What about the correlation between EM performance and Chinese local rates? Answer: This is an essential relationship. Chart I-15 demonstrates that EM share prices and currencies have a strong positive correlation with local interest rates in China. The rationale is that all of them are driven by China’s business cycle. Relapsing interest rates in China are presently sending a bearish signal for EM risk assets and currencies. Ms. Mea: What does all this mean for investment strategy? A few weeks ago, you wrote that if the MSCI EM equity US dollar index breaks above 1075, you would reverse your recommended strategy. How does this square with your fundamental analysis that is still downbeat? Answer: My fundamental analysis on EM/China has not changed: I do not believe in the sustainability of this EM rebound in general, and EM outperformance versus DM in particular. The key risk to my strategy on EM stems from the US and Europe. It is possible that US and European share prices continue to rally. EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Notably, the high-beta segments of the US equity market and the overall Euro Stoxx 600 index are flirting with major breakouts (Chart I-16A and I-16B). If these breakouts transpire, the up-leg in US and European share prices will be long-lasting. This will also drag EM share prices higher in absolute terms. This is why I have placed a buy stop on the EM equity index. Chart I-16AUS High-Beta Stocks Chart I-16BEuropean Equities: At A Critical Juncture   That said, I have a strong conviction that EM will continue to underperform DM, even in such a scenario. Hence, I continue to recommend underweighting EM versus DM in both global equity and credit portfolios. As we have recently written in detail, the global macro backdrop and financial market dynamics in such a scenario will resemble 2012-2014, when EM currencies depreciated, commodities prices fell and EM share prices massively underperformed DM ones (Chart I-17). Further, I am not arguing that the current global trade and manufacturing downtrends will persist indefinitely. The odds are that the global business cycle, including China’s, will bottom sometime next year. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January (please refer to Chart I-12 on page 8). This is an unprecedented historical gap, making EM stocks, currencies and credit markets vulnerable to continued disappointments in EM corporate profitability. Ms. Mea: What market signals give you confidence in poor EM performance going forward? Answer: Even though the S&P 500 has broken to new highs, multiple segments of EM financial markets have posted extremely disappointing performance. These include: Small-cap stocks in EM overall and emerging Asia as well as the EM equal-weighted equity index have struggled to rally (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Underperformed During 2012-14 Bull Market Chart I-18Various EM Equity Indexes: Failure To Rally Is A Bad Omen   Various Chinese equity indexes – onshore and offshore, small and large – have failed to advance and continue to underperform the global equity index. EM ex-China currencies and industrial commodities prices have remained subdued (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Ms. Mea: Would you mind reminding me of your country allocation across various EM asset classes such as equities, credit, currencies and fixed-income? Answer: Within an EM equity portfolio, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our equity underweights are Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa and Colombia. We continue recommending to short an EM currency basket including ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. Today, we add the BRL to our short list (please refer to the section below on Brazil). As to the country allocation within EM local currency bonds and sovereign credit portfolios, investors can refer to our asset allocation tables below that are published at the end of each week’s report and are available on our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Brazil: Deflationary Pressures Warrant A Weaker BRL The Brazilian real is breaking below its previous support. We recommend shorting the BRL against the US dollar. The primary macro risk in Brazil is not inflation but rather mounting deflationary pressures. Inflation has fallen to very low levels, to the bottom of the central bank’s target range (Chart II-1). Deflation or low inflation is dangerous when there are high debt levels. The Brazilian government is heavily indebted. With nominal GDP growth still below government borrowing costs and a primary budget balance at -1.3% of GDP, the public debt trajectory remains unsustainable as we discussed in previous reports (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Brazil: Undershooting Inflation Target Chart II-2Public Debt Dynamics Are Still Not Sustainable   The cyclical profile of the economy is very weak as shown in Chart II-3. Tight fiscal policy and a drawdown of foreign exchange reserves have caused money growth to slow. That in turn entails a poor outlook for the economy, which will reinforce the deflationary trend. Accordingly, Brazil needs to reflate its economy to boost nominal GDP, which is the only scenario where the nation escapes a public debt trap. Yet, fiscal policy is straightjacketed by the spending cap rule, which stipulates that government spending can only grow at the previous year’s IPCA inflation rate. Federal government spending is set to grow only at the low nominal rate of 3.4% in 2020. Hence, monetary policy is the sole tool available for policymakers to reflate. Both bond yields and bank lending rates remain elevated in real terms. This hampers any recovery in the business cycle. Notably, the marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers is declining, foreshadowing weaker economic activity ahead (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Brazil: The Economy Is Weak Chart II-4Brazil: Propensity To Spend Is Declining   The central bank is determined to reduce interest rates further. As such, they cannot control the exchange rate. Indeed, the Impossible Trinity thesis states that in an economy with an open capital account (like in Brazil), the authorities cannot control both interest and exchange rates simultaneously. Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes stated in recent days that tight fiscal and easy monetary policies are consistent with a lower currency value. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. In fact, currency depreciation is another option to boost nominal growth that the nation desperately needs. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. Commodities prices remain an important driver of the Brazilian real (Chart II-5). These have failed to rebound amid the risk-on regime in global financial markets. This suggests that the path of least resistance for commodities prices is down, which is bad news for the real. Brazil’s current account deficit is widening and has reached 3% of GDP (Chart II-6). Notably, not only are export prices deflating but export volumes are also shrinking (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Chart II-5BRL And Commodities Prices Chart II-6Widening Current Account Deficit   Chart II-7The BRL Is Not Cheap Meanwhile, the nation’s foreign debt obligations – the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – are at $190 billion, all-time highs. As the real depreciates, foreign currency debtors (companies and banks) will rush to acquire dollars or hedge their dollar liabilities. This will reinforce the weakening trend in the currency. Finally, the Brazilian real is not cheap - it is close to fair value (Chart II-7). Hence, valuation will not prevent currency depreciation. Bottom Line: We are initiating a short BRL / long US dollar trade. Investors should remain neutral on Brazil within EM equity, local bonds and sovereign credit portfolios. Investors with long-term horizon should consider the following strategy: long the Bovespa, short the real. This is a bet that Brazil will succeed in reflating the economy at the detriment of the currency. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Processing trade includes imports of goods that undergo further processing before being re-exported.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 In 2015, the nominal sales of global listed companies shrank by -11.3 percent, marginally worse than the -11.0 contraction suffered during the Great Recession of 2008.  But because few people are aware of the depth of this latter sales recession, we are calling it the ‘hidden sales recession of 2015’ (Feature Chart).  Chart I-1The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Significantly, all of the major stock markets suffered sales recessions in 2015, even when their domestic economies were expanding healthily (Chart I-2). Which starkly illustrates that the performance of stock markets often has little, or no, connection with the performance of their domestic economies. Chart I-2All The Major Stock Markets Suffered Sales Recessions In 2015 The euro area and UK economies grew strongly in 2015, yet the nominal sales of listed European companies contracted by -7 percent. Meanwhile, the sales of listed companies in the US shrank -3 percent, and in China by -10 percent. However, among the major stock markets, the worst pain was felt by the UK stock market where total nominal sales plunged -20 percent (Charts 3-5). Chart I-3US Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 3 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-4European Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 7 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-5UK Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 20 Percent Despite A Growing Economy The particularly sharp contraction in UK stock market sales, with their heavy exposure to the oil and resource sectors, points to the cause of the sales recession of 2015: the interrelated weakness in emerging markets, oil and other commodity prices, and a surging dollar. What Caused The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015? In 2015, Chinese policymakers started tightening policy to lean against a putative credit bubble. This exacerbated a slowdown in Chinese growth that was already underway. In turn, China’s slowdown set off a domino effect in other emerging economies which relied on China as a major export market. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve signalled its intention to exit its extended period of zero interest rate policy, arguing that extraordinarily easy monetary policy was no longer appropriate for a US economy that had returned to normality. On the other sides of the Atlantic and Pacific though, the ECB and the BoJ were moving monetary policy in the opposite direction, obsessed by the persistent undershoot of inflation relative to the two percent target. This combination of tighter monetary policy in the US combined with looser policy in the euro area and Japan precipitated a surge in the value of the dollar. The surging dollar worsened China’s problems. With the yuan pegged to the dollar, the stronger dollar hurt the competitiveness of Chinese companies. But when China loosened the peg in August 2015, it just unleashed another problem: capital outflows.  The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016. Crucially, the synchronized slowdown across emerging economies hit the demand for commodities, catalysing a collapse in prices across the whole commodity complex. The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016 (Chart I-6); metal markets also suffered, the copper price fell from $7000 to $4500; as did agricultural commodities like soybeans whose prices almost halved. This collapse in commodity prices simply added further pressure on emerging economies that are major commodity producers, like Brazil. Chart I-6The Sales Recession Of 2015 Was About A Collapse In Prices In Key Sectors Of The Economy In turn, the problems in the emerging economies and commodity complex set off other negative feedback loops that further hurt prices. For the significant portion of emerging market debt that is denominated in dollars, a stronger dollar meant a greater debt burden and danger of default. At the same time, the collapse in the oil price endangered the financial viability of the heavily indebted US shale oil producers and thereby their corporate bonds.     To summarise, the stock market sales recession of 2015 was partly about a slowdown in sales volumes. But it was more about a collapse in the prices in certain key sectors of the economy, namely oil, materials, and industrials. And as nominal sales are the product of sales volumes and prices, the nominal sales of listed companies suffered as sharp a recession in 2015 as in 2008. Why Does The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Matter Today? The experience of 2015 painfully illustrates that the nominal sales of the dominant companies in a stock market may have little, or no, connection with their domestic economy, or indeed with conventional measures of the global economy. The reason is that the stock market, which by definition only includes publicly listed companies, has different sector skews compared with the whole economy. This is particularly true for those European stock markets where sector skews make them over exposed to the oil, materials, and industrial sectors, whose output prices can show wild swings that swamp the impact of sales volumes. The years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth. Chart I-7After A Sales Recession, There Is A Snapback There is another important message for today. After a sharp contraction in nominal sales caused by either volumes or prices plunging, as in 2008 and 2015, the first part of the recovery from overly-depressed levels tends to be the sharpest. This sharp snapback phase tends to last no more than two years. So the years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth (Chart I-7). Clearly, the sharp snapback phase is most powerful for the most beaten-up sectors during the nominal sales recession, such as energy and materials. For such ‘value cyclicals’, nominal sales growth tends to outperform that of the aggregate stock market in the snapback, and then underperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Energy Outperforms In The Snapback, Then Underperforms Chart I-9Materials Outperform In The Snapback, Then Underperform Chart I-10Healthcare Underperforms In The Snapback, Then Outperforms The corollary is that the sectors that did not suffer much during the sales recession, such as healthcare do not have a snapback phase. Hence, for such a ‘growth defensive’, nominal sales strongly underperform the aggregate market during the two year snapback, and then outperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-10). Let’s conclude with some brief investment thoughts. First, for mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18. Without any support from lower bond yields and the associated multiple expansion for stocks, this means that stock markets are likely to deliver low single digit returns. Second, value cyclicals such as energy and materials outperformed in the snapback phase from 2017 to mid-2019, but now appear to be rolling over into an underperformance phase. Structurally underweight energy and materials. For mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18.  Third, a growth defensive such as healthcare underperformed sharply in the snapback phase, but now appears to be back in an outperformance phase. Stay structurally overweight healthcare.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com

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