Sectors

Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. Telecom services stocks are down 9%, while the S&P is up 10% YTD. In fact, in Q1 telecom services stocks were the sole sector to register negative year-over-year EPS growth on trough Q1/2016 earnings comparisons. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and are booking profits of 12% and lifting the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Our Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (top panel). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (second panel). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (third panel). Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading (bottom panel) Bottom Line: Lock in gains of 12% in the S&P telecom services sector and lift exposure to neutral. For additional details, please see yesterday's Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, LVLT, CTL.

Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals and both have roughly doubled over the past decade. However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (third panel). If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed in this week's Weekly Report, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (top panel). Industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (bottom panel). While this metric does not suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight, which takes the S&P health care index to underweight. For additional details, please see yesterday's Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P pharmaceuticals index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Factors are falling into place for an earnings-led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Trim to a below benchmark allocation and execute this downgrade via reducing the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index to a below benchmark allocation. The bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Lift to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Downgrade to underweight. S&P Pharmaceuticals - Trim to underweight. S&P Telecom Services - Lift to neutral, lock in gains of 12%. Table 1 Feature Equities stayed well bid last week, trading near all-time highs. Broad-based earnings exuberance buttressed stock prices, trumping political uncertainty. The Fed stood pat and signaled a likely September commencement to a balance sheet wind down. Our fixed income strategists do not expect another hike until the December meeting; a less hawkish Fed augments the goldilocks equities backdrop. Three weeks ago1 we posited that earnings will take center stage and serve as a catalyst to sustain the blow off phase in the S&P 500. A mini profit margin expansion phase is taking root as the most cyclical parts of the SPX are flexing their operating leverage muscle. As long as revenues continue to grow, profit margins and profits will expand, especially given muted wage pressures. The lagged effect from a softening U.S. dollar will also likely underpin EPS in the back half of the year. We are surprised that mentions of the greenback are virtually absent from Q2 conference calls; the domestic market appears front of mind for investors and management teams alike. Globally, the dominant market theme is synchronized global growth paving the way to a coordinated G10 Central Bank tightening cycle. In other words, there is a handoff from liquidity to growth. Charts 1 & 2 highlight this fertile equity backdrop: First BCA's Synchronicity Indicator is as good as it gets. In fact in the G20, only Indonesia and South Africa have a manufacturing PMI below the boom/bust line. Second, our global EPS diffusion index is also at an extreme (diffusion index shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 1). In our sample of 44 EM and DM countries, none have declining year-over-year EPS. Third, global export expectations are recovering smartly, suggesting that global trade is on a solid footing and on track to vault to fresh cyclical highs (bottom panel Chart 2). Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth... Chart 2...Is Bullish For Equities While the IMF recently downplayed the U.S.'s importance as a force in global GDP growth contribution, the resurgent ISM new orders-to-inventories ratio signals that U.S. output will recover in the back half of 2017 (second panel, Chart 2). Importantly, not only are cyclical U.S. businesses vibrant but also the most cyclical corner of U.S. PCE is roaring. As consumers are feeling more flush, they tend to spend more on recreational goods and vice versa. According to the BEA, recreational goods & vehicles outlays are expanding at the fastest clip since 2005, near 10% and 15% per annum in nominal and real terms, respectively. Since 1960, this nominal series has been an excellent predictor of the business cycle. Such discretionary outlays have also been moving in tandem with overall nominal PCE growth, easily surpassing it during expansions, and significantly trailing it in times of distress (Chart 3). Currently, recreational goods spending underscores that overall PCE will likely rebound in the coming quarters. Chart 3The U.S. Consumer Is Alright Resurgent global (including U.S.) growth is unambiguously bullish for U.S. equities. This week we are taking down our overall defensive sector exposure another notch by making an intra-defensive sector switch. Health Care: In The ER The health care reform circus is ongoing in Washington, and such uncertainty will likely cast a shadow on health care stocks and reverse recent euphoria. Year-to-date health care stocks have bested the broad market by over 7%, and have retraced roughly 1/3 of the relative losses from the mid-2016 peak to the end-2016 trough. Technicals are extended, with the six month momentum stalling near the upper band of the past eight year range, and breadth is as good as it gets: 70% of health care sub-groups trade above their 40-week moving average (Chart 4). We are using this opportunity to lighten up exposure on this defensive sector and downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Drug inflation is the biggest risk for the sector. Relative pricing power contracted for the first time in seven years (top panel, Chart 5), warning that the health care top line contraction phase is far from over. This stands in marked contrast to the broad corporate sector that is growing revenues at a healthy clip. Chart 4Sell Into Strength Chart 5Selling Price Pressures Blues While investors appear content to look through this recent weakness as transitory, our sense is that robust pricing power gains of the past are history. Chart 6 shows that since 1982 drug prices have risen fivefold. In fact, since 2011 they have gone parabolic outpacing overall wholesale price inflation by 50%. Importantly, health care sector profits have skyrocketed alongside drug inflation (bottom panel, Chart 6). Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable, especially given recent intense drug price hike scrutiny. Granted, health care spending in the U.S. comprises over 17% of overall consumer outlays, the highest in the world, but it has also likely plateaued (not shown). Real health care spending is decelerating in absolute terms, and contracting compared with overall PCE. This suggests that selling price blues are demand driven and will likely continue to weigh on health care profits (second & third panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Unsustainable Pace Chart 7Even Demand Is Easing Worrisomely, there is no positive offset from international markets. The U.S. dollar has depreciated since the mid-December peak, but health care export growth is hovering around the zero line (bottom panel, Chart 7). News is also grim on the domestic operating front. Not only are selling prices softening, but also our health care sector wage bill is on fire, pushing multi-year highs. Taken together, operating margins will continue to compress, sustaining the recent down drift (Chart 8). Our newly introduced S&P health care sector profit model does an excellent job in capturing all of these forces. Currently, our relative EPS model suggests that the relative profit contraction phase will last into 2018 (Chart 9). Chart 8Margin Trouble Chart 9Heed The Model's Message Factors are falling into place for an earnings led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. We are executing the health care sector downgrade via the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index. Trim Pharma To Underweight Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals since the mid-1970s, and both have roughly doubled over the past decade (top panel, Chart 10). However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (bottom panel, Chart 10). Is it also notable that relative spending on pharma soars in times of recession, highlighting the non-discretionary aspect of health care spending. If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed above, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (Chart 11). Similarly, BCA's view remains that recession is a 2019 story, thus a knee jerk spike in relative pharma spending and relative EPS is unlikely on a cyclical horizon. Chart 10Cresting Chart 11Soft Prices Are Bearish We doubt capital will chase this long duration group with a stable cash flow profile, especially in a synchronized global growth world. The missing ingredient is consumer price inflation, but the depreciating U.S. dollar suggests that the recent disinflationary backdrop will prove transitory. The NFIB survey of small business planned price hikes is still flirting with cyclical highs (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 12). That helps explain the positive correlation between the greenback and relative pharma profit estimates. Synchronized global growth is giving way to a coordinated tightening Central Bank (CB) backdrop with G10 CBs taking cover now that the Fed has paved the way. As a result, the U.S. dollar may continue to grind lower, to the benefit of cyclical sectors but detriment of defensives such as pharmaceutical stocks (bottom panel, Chart 12). Worrisomely, the export relief valve has not provided any significant offsets, despite the currency's year-to-date losses (top panel, Chart 12). Taking a closer look at domestic operating conditions is revealing. Not only are relative outlays steadily sinking but pharmaceutical production is contracting. True, whittled down inventories partially explain the letdown in industry output, but contrast the climbing pharma labor footprint. The implication is that declining productivity will continue to weigh on relative valuations (Chart 13). Finally, industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (middle panel, Chart 14). Similarly, the pharma interest coverage ratio continues to slide, moving in the opposite direction of the NFC sector (bottom panel, Chart 14). While neither of these metrics suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Chart 12No Export Relief Chart 13Waning Productivity Chart 14Modest B/S Deterioration Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P health care index to underweight. Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P pharmaceuticals index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. Book Profits And Upgrade Telecom Services To Neutral Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. Telecom services stocks are down 9%, while the S&P is up 10% YTD. In fact, in Q1 telecom services stocks were the sole sector to register negative year-over-year EPS growth on trough Q1/2016 earnings comparisons. In Q2, it remains at the bottom of the GICS1 sector EPS growth table, trailing the SPX by 500bps. We have been fortunate enough to be underweight this niche sector since late January, adding alpha to our portfolio. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and are booking profits of 12% and lifting the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Relative valuations just breached the one standard deviation below the mean mark according to our Valuation Indicator (VI), signaling that indiscriminate selling is overdone and nearly exhausted. Historically, such a depressed VI reading has led to a playable reversal. Importantly, the relative forward P/E multiple has fallen below the lows hit in the aftermath of the TMT bubble and is clocking all-time lows. Tack on washed out technicals probing a collapse close to two standard deviations below the long-term average and a reflex rebound is likely in the short-term (Chart 15). Extreme bearishness reigns in the sell-side community. Five year forward profit estimates plumbed all-time lows at a 10% decline rate versus the broad market (Chart 16). Surely the bearish story is baked into such glum readings. Chart 15Washed Out Chart 16Too Much Pessimism Meanwhile, our Cyclical Macro Indicator has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (second panel, Chart 15). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (Chart 17). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (Chart 18). Anecdotally, Verizon's first full quarter post the new pricing plans was solid and suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Chart 17Freefalling Chart 18There Is A Ray Of Light Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading. This will also stabilize relative profitability (top and bottom panels, Chart 18). While this sector trades as a fixed income proxy and the recent sell off in the bond market has weighed on relative performance, yield hungry and value investors will start bottom fishing in these stable cash flow, high dividend yielding stocks. However, we refrain from becoming overly bullish. Pricing power is still contracting and the cable industry's veering into wireless phone plan offerings has yet to play out. A more constructive sector view would require the following two developments: a trough in our sales model on the back of firming pricing power and a leveling off in relative consumer outlays signaling that demand for telecom services is on the mend. In sum, the bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Green shoots on the industry's pricing power front and impressive management focus on cost structures argue against being bearish this niche sector. Bottom Line: Lock in gains of 12% in the S&P telecom services sector and lift exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, LVLT, CTL. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Return on Equity (ROE) has historically driven bank share performance, with the yield curve being the key driver for earnings growth. Since the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), however, the recovery in ROE has been anemic, largely due to a sharp reduction in leverage. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks. Return on Assets (ROA), meanwhile, has recovered to close to pre-crisis levels. Profit margin has been the main driver behind the ROA recovery, as asset utilization has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Profit margins in the U.S. have been making new highs, while they are rolling over in Japan, and improving from low levels in the euro area. Global economic growth together with policy normalization will support banks' profit-making ability and share outperformance in the next nine-to-twelve months. Maintain an overweight stance in global Financials, with particular favor toward European banks. Feature We recently upgraded Financials to overweight from neutral in our global equity portfolio on attractive valuations and improving profit prospects (see GAA Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, July 3, 2017). As the largest sector in the MSCI ACWI, Financials account for 19.5% of the MSCI global equity universe. It is, therefore, a key sector investors need to have a view on. Banks account for 56% of the global Financial sector market cap, and bank share performance has lagged the broader market by 10% since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-GFC bottom. In this report, we delve into the main drivers that have historically supported bank profits and share-price outperformance, with a view to confirming whether now is a good time to overweight. Return On Equity (ROE) Return on equity, the ratio of a bank's earnings to its book value, measures how much profit each dollar of common shareholders' equity generates. Based on Dupont analysis, ROE is linked to a bank's return on assets (ROA) together with leverage, while ROA is linked to profit margins and asset utilization.1 As such, ROE has been a very important target for banks - despite the fact that it does not take into consideration the riskiness of capital, and has therefore received various forms of criticism.2,3 History has shown that ROE has been correlated with bank share performance, especially on a relative-to-the-broad-market basis (Chart 1 and Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bank Share Performance Vs. ROE Chart 2Regional Bank Performance Vs. ROE Chart 1 also shows that global bank ROE has averaged about 11.3% since the fourth quarter of 1980, about 10 basis point higher than that of the overall market. In the two decades before the GFC, bank ROE was mostly higher than that of the broad market. Since the GFC, however, bank ROE has been in a very different regime after an initial sharp rebound. Over the past few years, global bank ROE has been in a range of 8-10%, way lower than the historical average. On a relative basis, bank ROE has rebounded faster than bank stock prices. On a regional basis, Chart 2 shows some very interesting divergences: Unlike banks in the U.S. and euro area, banks in Canada, Australia and emerging markets have consistently outperformed their respective broad markets since the GFC, supported by rising ROE spreads. Even in absolute terms, ROE in these countries/regions are at much higher levels, with a long-term average of 15% in Canada, 14% in Australia and 13.5% in emerging markets. This could be due to 1) a less competitive environment in these countries where a handful of large banks hold the majority of domestic banking assets; 2) less risky mortgage lending practices and a lower share of shadow banking;4 and 3) the dominance of banks in the local equity indices. In Japan, banks have consistently underperformed the broader market, despite relative improvement in ROE. This could be due to the low ROE nature of Japanese banks, with an average of only 5%. So, going forward, how will ROE evolve, and how differently will banks perform in various countries/regions? To determine this, we disaggregate ROE. Return On Assets (ROA) And Leverage ROE is the product of ROA and leverage,1 which is defined as total assets divided by common shareholders' equity. ROA and ROE have historically been closely correlated, though they have diverged in the past few years. (Chart 3, panel 1). ROA has recovered to above its historical average, while ROE has been gradually declining after its initial sharp post-GFC rebound - and is still currently below its historical average (top panel). The culprit behind the anemic ROE recovery is the leverage ratio (panel 2), which has gone through three distinctive phases: It declined from very high levels (over 25 times) in the early 1980s to a two decade-low of 18.5 times during the 2001 recession, which was largely the result of the Basel Accord for minimum capital requirements published in 1988 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and fully implemented in 1992. It then started to rise, and hit a high of 20.7 times just ahead of the GFC; since that time, however, it has plummeted to 14.3 times, a historical low since the 1980s, as Basel III came into effect in 2010. In the U.S., the current level of 9.7 times leverage ratio is the lowest in history, and also the lowest compared to other countries. Recently, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced the results of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) of the nation's largest banks, with a 100% pass rate. This is of particular note as it is the largest test (34 financial institutions versus 14 in 2013) and the first perfect score in the CCAR's history, implying that the balance sheets of U.S. banks have been fully repaired. The top panel of Chart 4 shows that U.S. bank leverage has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Any increase in the leverage ratio would translate into a higher ROE. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks after over 30 years of tough regulation. Chart 3Global Bank ROA, ROE And Leverage Chart 4Regional Dynamics Of Bank ROA And Leverage The euro area bank leverage ratio has oscillated lower over time, currently at 18.2 times, also the lowest in its own history but still in line with that of Japan, Canada and Australia - and a lot higher than the U.S. and emerging markets. With a low and rising ROA - currently at 0.2% - EMU banks' ROA should have further room to improve (Chart 4, panel 2) as the euro area economy continues to recover. On July 4, 2017, the European Commission approved Italy's plan to support a precautionary recapitalization of Italian bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena under EU rules, on the basis of an effective restructuring plan. This will help ensure the bank's long-term viability, while limiting competition distortions. We view this as a very positive development in the European banking sector. Profit Margin And Asset Utilization The recovery in ROA has been impressive, but how sustainable is it going forward? Let's look at the two components that jointly determine ROA: profit margin (defined as net profit divided by revenue) and asset utilization,1 which is defined as total revenue divided by total assets. The correlation between ROA and profit margin has been very close, even though profit margin made new highs after the GFC, while ROA is still lower than its pre-GFC peak. (Chart 5, panel 1). The cause lies in the asset utilization ratio, a ratio that measures how much assets are needed to generate $1 of revenue. As Chart 5 panel 2 shows, asset efficiency has been on a consistent downtrend since the 1980s. Should we be concerned about elevated profit margin levels among global banks? Where are they coming from? Chart 6 shows the regional dynamics of profit margin and asset utilization. Chart 5Net Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Chart 6Regional Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Profit margins have been strong across the board, with the U.S. and Canada making historical new highs and Japanese, Australian and emerging market banks' profit margins near their historical peaks. Only EMU banks' profit margins are slightly above their historical average. In absolute terms, EMU banks also have the lowest profit margins, currently standing at around 6%, versus banks in other regions which have profit margins in the mid-to-high teens. Canadian, Australian and EM banks have high profit margins, supporting their consistent outperformance relative to their respective broader markets. U.S. banks also have comparable profit margins, yet they have underperformed their broader market due to lower ROE (see Chart 2 panel 1 on page 2). How can ROE be lower while profit margins are at similar levels? Because ROE is a function of profit margins, asset utilization and leverage. The U.S. leverage ratio is much lower than those in Canada, Australia and emerging markets (Chart 4 on page 5). Japan is another interesting case where high profit margins have not led to superior share performance - because assets are least efficient in terms of generating revenue. Net Interest Margin, Yield Curve and Earnings Growth Banks obtain fees (such as commitment fees or trust fees) from a vast number of different types of transactions. Interest revenue is generated principally from loans but also from repos, investment securities (bonds), and other products. On the funding side, banks pay interest expenses on bank deposits, Federal Funds, other borrowed funds, and debt. As such, net interest margin (NIM), defined as net interest income divided by interest-bearing assets - is an important driver of a bank's net profit. Chart 7 shows the close relationship between EPS growth and net interest margins. Even though data on NIM globally from the World Bank come annually and with a long time lag, the U.S. data proves the point. Because NIM is a function of the yield curve, it makes sense that the yield curve should be a driving force for earnings growth. In fact, the intuitive relationship between EPS growth and the yield curve is empirically robust across the globe, as shown in Chart 8. BCA's profit models for the global Financial Sector incorporates yield curve, 10-year yield changes and credit impulse (defined as the change in loan growth), as well as earnings revisions. They have a reasonably good correlation with actual earnings growth, both trailing and forward, as shown in Chart 9. Chart 7Bank EPS Growth Vs. Net Interest Margin Chart 8Bank EPS Growth Vs. Yield Curve Chart 9Global Financial Earnings Growth The current readings from our profit growth models are in line with our assessment based on BCA's house view of better economic growth leading to better loan growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves. Investment Implications We upgraded global financials in our most recent Quarterly Portfolio Strategy published July 3, 2017 - based on our house view calling for better global growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves over the next nine to twelve months, together with attractive valuations and a favorable technical backdrop. This was financed by a reduction in our allocation to the Technology sector, the second-largest in the global universe (Chart 10). Chart 10Remain Overweight Global Financials Chart 11Favor Euro Area Banks Within the Financial sector, we suggest clients favor banks in the euro area, in agreement with the view of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy dated May 5, 2017. European banks have lost 74% from their peak relative to the MSCI ACWI Index on a U.S. dollar basis (Chart 11, panel 1). Their recent outperformance should be just the start of a more sustainable uptrend because valuations are very attractive, with a 61% discount to the MSCI ACWI based on price to book (Chart 11 panel 4), and economic growth is gaining traction, with better employment prospects (Chart 11, panel 2) and in turn higher demand for loans. An improving loan-performance ratio (Chart 11, panel 3) combined with the prospect for higher interest rates bodes well for bank profits in the region, while profit margins have room to the upside (Chart 6 on page 6). Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 ROE = Net Income (NI) /Common Shareholders' Equity (E) = NI/ Total Assets (TA) * TA/E = Return on Assets (ROA)* leverage; ROA = NI/Sales * Sales/TA = Net Profit Margin * Asset Utilization 2 "Beyond ROE - How to measure bank performance,"European Central Bank, September 2010. 3 "Why Banks Come Back To Return On Equity,"Financial Times, November 15, 2015. 4 Neville Arjani and Graydon Paulin, “Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Bank Performance and Regulatory Reform,” Discussion Paper, Bank Of Canada, 2013.

In what is becoming a familiar refrain, Amazon announced they were entering an established business and the existing competitors saw their share prices tumble. This time it was appliance retail and manufacturers with the deployment of Sears' Kenmore brand and the victims were HD and LOW. We think the stock price declines are an overreaction. First, appliances do not fit the Amazon mold; unit costs are relatively high and features often matter more than price. Second, appliances typically require installation which, in the case of Amazon, would likely be fulfilled by Sears; we think Sears is unlikely to displace HD or LOW and their well-earned installation reputations. Third, appliance sales were 8% and 11% of HD and LOW's 2016 sales, respectively; Kenmore's market share gains would need to be very significant to have a material impact. A more important metric when looking at home improvement retail is lumber prices. Higher prices tend to boost profit margins, given that retailers typically earn a fixed spread such that a high dollar value sold will boost profitability. With lumber pushing against the key $400/1000 board-feet level, we think investors should be treating the Amazon fall as an unexpectedly cheap entry point (middle and bottom panels). Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrading in global economic expectations (please see Monday's Weekly Report), utilities sit at the opposite end of the table (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, top panel), and therefore warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of central banks are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that still overvalued fixed income proxies will continue to suffer. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase (Treasury yield shown inverted, second panel). Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We are making room for the niche S&P materials upgrade to neutral by downgrading the equally small S&P utilities sector to a below benchmark allocation. For additional details please refer to this Monday's Weekly Report.

The gap between the BCA Defense and BCA Aerospace indexes has widened considerably as their respective outlooks have diverged. Aerospace orders have fallen by more than half from their peak in 2013, while defense orders appear to be gaining steam. The domestic outlook for defense remains bright. The Trump administration requested an increase of nearly 10% for the 2018 DoD budget. Further, the House authorized a spending level well in excess of what the President asked for with wide bipartisan support, indicating strong political weight behind expanding defense budgets. The international picture too seems promising; exports are booming as global austerity is receding (bottom panel). Anecdotally, the last several months have seen a number of multi-billion dollar international orders which should pad backlogs for several years. Net, an earnings driven rally seems still in the early stages. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA Defense index are: LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL. Defense Stocks Have Surged; Is The Next Up Leg Coming?

Highlights To shed light on the dichotomies that have surfaced in China's money and credit variables, we have calculated a new credit-money. This new measure is currently corroborating a very downbeat outlook for Chinese growth and China-related plays. We do not mean that investors should put all of their faith in this new measure. Yet, other measures of money and credit such as M1, M2 and banks' total assets all point to an impending deceleration in economic growth in China. While many global investors take for granted that the central government will underwrite credit risk in the entire economy, the top leadership in Beijing is sending the opposite message, at least for now. A new fixed income trade: pay Czech / receive Polish 10-year swap rates. Feature Chart I-1China: A Business Cycle Top Is In The Making Typically, the phrase 'Follow The Money' is used in the investment community to advise in favor of chasing investment flows. Today, we use this phrase in the context of not following investor crowds, per se, but money growth - especially in China. Judging from market actions and elevated inflows into EM assets and investable Chinese stocks, we can infer that investor consensus on China/EM is rather bullish. In the meantime, China's money/credit growth is sending a bearish signal. Investors should heed the downbeat message from Chinese money/credit and not chase EM risk assets higher. To reconcile the different messages from various measures of Chinese money and credit aggregates (more on the differences below), we calculated a new measure of money/credit creation - commercial banks' total credit (referred to below as banks' credit-money). Banks' credit/-oney is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions, and all levels of government, as well as commercial banks'' and PBoC's foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see below for the rationale). This measure, a de-facto aggregate of credit/money originated by banks and the PBoC, is computed using the asset side of banks' balance sheets. The key message from this report is that mainland banks' credit-money growth has already decelerated meaningfully, and points to a considerable slump in China's business cycle and imports in the months ahead (Chart I-1). Notably, banks' credit-money growth is at the lowest level of the past 10 years, excluding the Lehman crisis. It is also well below 2015 lows when the economy was acutely struggling. Exploring Money And Credit Dichotomies In China There has lately been a puzzling divergence between the growth rates of banks' credit-money, M2, and total social financing (TSF) (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Dichotomy Among Various Credit And Money Aggregates In China In 2016, banks' credit-money growth accelerated to 20%, while the pick-up in M2, and bank loan growth was modest. At the same time, TSF and corporate and household credit growth was largely flat. Lately, M1 growth has slowed, M2 and banks' total asset growth have dropped to all-time lows, while banks' loan and total social financing have remained flat. So, what is the true picture of money and credit growth in China? What are these critical variables telling us about the growth outlook? Our measure of banks' credit-money should by and large match broad money (M2) because the former is calculated by adding up various assets, and the latter by aggregation of various liabilities. Indeed, both were correlated well in the past, but decoupled in 2013 (Chart I-3, top panel). There has been another money/credit paradox: banks' credit-money on the one hand, and TSF and banks' RMB loans on the other, also have decoupled since 2013 (Chart I-3, middle and bottom panels). Overall, neither M2 nor TSF and banks' RMB loans mirrored the surge in banks' money-credit origination in 2015 and 2016, as portrayed in Chart I-3. We have been relying on the M2 and TSF aggregates published by China's central bank. Their tame readings in 2016 were the main reason we underestimated the duration and magnitude of China's economic recovery in the past year or so, as well as its impact on the rest of EM and commodities. As to components of banks' credit-money, Chart I-4 demonstrates that the deceleration has been due to the claims on non-financial organizations (companies), non-bank financial institutions and government. In brief, the slowdown has been broad-based; only claims on households continue expanding at a robust rate of 25% from a year ago (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3M2 And Total Social Financing Have Not ##br##Reflected Money Created by Banks Chart I-4Individual Components Of Commercial ##br##Banks' Money Origination We suspect burgeoning financial engineering in China, credit shenanigans, and the non-encompassing nature of the People's Bank of China's broad money (M2) calculation along with the local government debt swap conducted in 2015 have all distorted credit and money data in recent years, producing the above dichotomies. To shed light on these dichotomies and calculate what has been true money/credit origination in China, we have revisited the basics of money and credit creation and have attempted to make sense of the data and the underlying trends. Overall, we have the following observations and comments: New nominal purchasing power in any economy is created by banks when they originate new loans. Hence, measuring properly the amount of new credit/money origination is of paramount importance to forecasting business cycle dynamics in any country. As we argued in our trilogy of Special Reports on Money, Credit and Savings, banks do not need savings or deposits to originate loans.1 They simultaneously create an asset (a loan) and a liability (a deposit) when extending credit to a borrower, which creates purchasing power in the economy. Importantly, there is no need for someone to save (i.e., forego consumption) in order for a bank to create a new loan / originate new money. In the case of China, commercial banks have an enormous amount of deposits - not because households and companies save a lot but because the banking system altogether has originated a lot of credit/money. The household and national savings rates quoted by economists refer to excess production/overcapacity in the real economy and not deposits in the banking system. We have discussed this issue in the past2 and will revisit it in future reports. The restraining factors for banks to originate new credit/money are their capital, regulations, loan demand, and liquidity - but not deposits. Liquidity is banks' excess reserves at the central bank. Commercial banks create deposits but they cannot engender reserves at the central bank, i.e., liquidity. Only the central bank can expand or shrink the amount of liquidity/reserves commercial banks hold with it. Finally, commercial banks do not lend their reserves; they use the reserves to settle transactions with other banks. In turn, central banks do not create new money/purchasing power unless they lend to or buy assets from governments and non-bank entities or issue currency. Central banks have a monopoly over the creation of bank reserves and currency in circulation - high-powered money. A liquidity crunch at a bank occurs when a bank runs out of excess reserves at the central bank, and it cannot borrow/attract additional reserves. Nowadays, many central banks targeting interest rates supply reserves and lend to commercial banks unlimited amounts of reserves on demand to assure interbank rates stay close to their policy target rate. Therefore, in such settings one can infer that banks are not restrained by liquidity to produce new money/expand their assets. In the case of China, the PBoC's claims on banks have skyrocketed - they have surged by 4.5-fold since 2014 (Chart I-5) - entailing that the former has supplied a lot of liquidity to commercial banks. Such liquidity expansion by the PBoC has in turn allowed banks to create tremendous amounts of new money (new purchasing power). To put the amount of money/credit originated by Chinese commercial banks in context, we have calculated the ratio of their credit/money stock to China's nominal GDP and global nominal GDP (Chart I-6). Chart I-5The PBoC Has Injected A Lot Of##br## Liquidity/Reserves Into The System Chart I-6Chinese Banks' Colossal ##br##Money Creation The broad measure of banks' credit/money created presently stands at 250% of Chinese GDP and 32% of global GDP, or US$29 trillion. The latter compares with the U.S. Wilshire 5000 equity market cap of US$ 26 trillion at a time when American share prices are at all-time highs, and the median P/E ratio is at a record high as well. In 2016 alone, Chinese banks' originated RMB 21 trillion, or US$1.7 trillion in new money-credit. Since January 2009, when the credit boom commenced, mainland commercial banks have cumulatively generated RMB 141 trillion, or US$21.12 trillion, of new money/credit. Banks create new money/deposits when they lend or acquire assets. Exceptions are when banks lend to the central bank or to other commercial banks. In those circumstances, a bank draws on its reserves at the central bank, and no new money - and by extension purchasing power - is created. Fluctuations in reserves/liquidity affect purchasing power in an economy indirectly rather than directly. Expanding reserves/liquidity encourage banks money/credit creation and vice versa. In China, commercial banks' excess reserves at the PBoC are presently contracting and stand at historically low level relative to outstanding stock of credit/money (Chart I-7). This is one of the reasons why banks have been scaling back their credit/money origination. Chart I-7China: Banks' Liquidity/##br##Excess Reserves Are Thin The fiscal authorities play a unique role in money creation. Because of the authorities typically have accounts at both the central bank and commercial banks, they can alter the money supply by shifting deposits back and forth between their accounts at the central bank and commercial banks. By transferring deposits from a commercial bank to the central bank, the fiscal authorities can destroy money; by the same token, they can create money by doing the opposite. This is why when computing Chinese banks' credit-money aggregate we have deducted from the credit/money aggregate government deposits at the PBoC. Finally, there is a difference between credit-money originated by banks, and non-bank credit. Non-banks are financial intermediaries that transfer existing deposits into credit. By doing so they do not create new purchasing power. When banks lend or acquire various assets, they do generate new purchasing power - i.e., they create new deposits that did not exist before. This is why banks are not financial intermediaries. This is true for any country and financial system. For more detailed analysis on the difference between banks and non-banks, please refer to the linked paper.3 When examining leverage in the system, one should consider bank and non-bank credit. Yet, when looking to gauge the outlook for growth and inflation, one should consider new credit/money originated by banks. The purpose of this report is to examine and compute new credit-money that determine nominal economic growth in China rather than discuss leverage even though they are often interlinked. Therefore, we are focused on new credit-money originated by banks, and not on the amount of and changes in leverage in the economy. Bottom Line: Whether one prefers M2, banks' total assets or our new measure of banks' credit/money, the message is by and large the same: money-credit growth is slowing and is very weak. Credit-Money And Business Cycle Chart I-8Comparing Two Impulse Indicators How good is the bank credit-money in terms of being an indicator for China's business cycle? We have one caveat to mention before we illustrate its relevance: Banks' credit-money is a stock variable, and our goal is to gauge business cycle trends - i.e., changes in flow variables such as output, capital spending, profits and imports. Also, the first derivative of a stock variable is a flow, while the second derivative of a stock variable is a change in its flow. Therefore, we have calculated credit/money impulse as the second derivative of outstanding credit/money, or a change in annual change, to align it with the growth rate of flow variables. The following illustrates that banks' credit-money impulse has been an extremely good leading indicator for many economic and financial variables. The new impulse of banks' credit-money has since 2014 diverged from the nation's credit and fiscal impulse (Chart I-8). Nevertheless, the new credit-money impulse leads numerous business cycle variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, electricity output, machinery sales, freight volumes, and manufacturing PMI (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Chart I-9AChina's Growth To Decelerate A Lot (II) Chart I-9BChina's Growth To Decelerate A Lot (I) Not surprisingly, this impulse also leads property sales and starts as well as construction nominal GDP (Chart I-10). This impulse often precedes swings in the LMEX industrial metals index and iron ore prices (Chart I-11). Further, it is also a reasonably good indicator for EM EPS growth (Chart I-11, bottom panel). As discussed above, banks' new credit-money creation determines nominal - not real - growth. Chart I-10China: Property / Construction ##br##Are At A Major Risk Chart I-11Downbeat Message For Industrial ##br##Metals And EM Profits By expanding their assets, banks generate new purchasing power, but they do not have any control over whether this new purchasing power is used to boost real output or prices. The recovery of the past 12 months have in some cases boosted prices more than volumes. It might be that China is inching closer to an inflation inflection point. We are not saying that China has runaway inflation at the moment, but persistent enormous overflow of money-credit will inevitably produce higher inflation. If inflation does indeed rise materially, policymakers will have no choice but to tighten. Monetary tightening will be devastating for an economy with already high leverage. Bottom Line: The new measure of banks' credit-money is currently corroborating a very downbeat outlook for Chinese growth and China-related plays. Beijing's Priorities And Investment Implications It is generally believed in the global investment community that China's authorities will not allow the economy to slump - they will boost credit/money growth and fiscal spending to ensure solid growth. It is true that no government wants to see their economy crumble, and China is no exception. However, there are several reasons to expect growth to slump considerably before the government responds: The central bank has been guiding interest rates higher across the entire yield curve. Short-term interbank rates (7-day Interbank Fixing Rate) and 5-year AA domestic corporate bond yields have risen by about 100 and 200 basis points, respectively, since November 2016. In addition, financial regulators are clamping down on off-balance-sheet and fancy financial engineering practices of banks and other financial institutions. Monetary policy works with a time lag, and the current tightening along with the government's regulatory clampdown will impact economic growth in the months ahead. The sharp deceleration in banks' credit/money confirms this. Even though interest rates have recently stopped rising, the damage to banks' credit/money growth has been done as shown in Chart I-12. Business activity is lagging money/credit and will be next to suffer. The central government in Beijing has largely lost control over credit creation/leverage build-up since 2009. The top leadership in Beijing did not want credit to explode and speculative behavior to profligate. Two recent articles by Caixin news agency (links are in footnote4) corroborate that Beijing is unhappy with credit creation and allocation practices prevailing in the financial system as well as among SOEs and local governments. The top leadership appears decisive, at least for now, in clamping down on ballooning credit/money growth and the ensuing misallocation of capital and bubbles. Interestingly, while many global investors take for granted that the central government will underwrite credit risk in the entire economy, or at least among state-owned companies, Beijing is sending the opposite message for now. True, when an economy and financial system crumbles, the central government will undoubtedly step in. However, investors do not want to be on the long side of China-related markets when this occurs. Buying opportunities may occur at that point, but for now the risk-reward profile is extremely poor. The authorities in Beijing tolerated colossal money/credit creation and misallocation of capital when growth in the advanced economies was extremely feeble. Now, with DM economies expanding at a solid pace and China's growth having recovered, they are comfortable tightening. As for the resulting investment strategy conclusions, it is too late to chase this rally in EM risk assets and other China-related assets. We do not mean that investors should put all of their faith in our new measure of China's credit/money. Yet, other measures of money and credit such as M1, M2 or banks' total assets all point to an impending deceleration in economic growth in China. In EM ex-China, narrow (M1), broad money and private credit growth have been and remain lackluster (Chart I-13). As China's growth and imports slump, the majority of EM economies will be materially affected. Chart I-12China: Interest Rates And Money Creation Chart I-13EM Ex-China: Subdued Money / Credit Growth There is no change in our overall investment strategy. Specific country recommendations and positions across all asset classes are always presented at the end of our reports, presently on pages 18-19. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Caitlynn Qi Zeng, Research Assistant caitlynnz@bcaresearch.com Central Europe: A New Fixed-Income Trade In a Special Report titled Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak from June 21st 2017 - the link is available on page 20, we argued that labor shortages in central Europe have been pushing up wage growth, generating genuine inflationary pressures. The Polish, Czech and Hungarian economies are overheating, warranting imminent monetary policy tightening. We elaborated on the reasons why this is happening in that report and as such we will not go through it in detail again here. Based on this theme, our primary investment recommendation was in the currency market: go long the PLN and CZK versus the euro and/or EM currencies. This recommendation remains intact. Today we recommend a new trade based on the same theme: pay Czech / receive Polish 10-year swap rates (Chart II-1). The negative 143 basis points yield gap between Czech and Polish 10-year swap rates is unsustainable and it will mostly close for the following reasons: The relative output gap between the Czech Republic and Poland is showing that the Czech economy is overheating faster than in Poland (Chart II-2). This will eventually lead to inflation rising faster in Czech Republic than in Poland as per Chart II-2. Markedly, relative trend in headline inflation warrants shrinking swap spread between Czech and Polish swap rates (Chart II-3). In effect, the Czech National Bank (CNB) will be forced to hike rates at a faster pace and more than the National Bank of Poland (NBP). The CNB has been artificially depressing the value of its exchange rate by pegging it to the euro since November 2013. Despite the fact that the CNB abandoned its peg in April of this year, the CNB continues to artificially suppress the exchange rate by printing money and accumulating foreign exchange reserves. Chart II-1Pay Czech / Receive Polish ##br##10-year Swap Rates Chart II-2Czech Economy Will Overheat ##br##Faster Than Poland's Chart II-3Inflation Dynamics Warrant ##br##Smaller Swap Spread Foreign exchange reserves, measured in euros, in the Czech Republic are growing at an astronomical 60% annually while growth and inflation are already in full upswing (Chart II-4, top panel). Due to the ongoing foreign currency accumulation - accompanied by insufficient sterilization - the CNB has generated an overflow of liquidity and money/credit in the Czech economy (Chart II-4, middle panels). Chart II-4Monetary Conditions Are Easier In ##br##Czech Republic Relative To Poland In turn, this liquidity overflow has led a real estate boom and has super-charged overall growth (Chart II-4, bottom panel). On the contrary, the NBP has been much less aggressive in easing monetary conditions. The policy rate in Poland is at 1.5% while it is 0.05% in Czech Republic. Therefore, any potential upside in inflation and bond yields will be more limited in Poland than in the Czech Republic. Even though both Czech and Polish economic growth are robust, the Czech economy is showing more imminent signs of overheating and inflationary outbreak than Poland. The CNB is further behind the curve than the NBP. When a central bank is behind the curve, its yield curve should be steeper than a central bank that is not. However, the 10/1-year swap curve is as steep in Poland as it is in the Czech Republic. With the policy rate at a mere 0.05%, the Czech economy is sitting on the verge of an inflationary precipice. The longer the CNB maintains such a low policy rate, the higher long-term bond yields will rise. The basis being that the longer policymakers wait, the more they will have to tighten to slow growth and bring down inflation. Finally, this relative trade offers a hefty 143 basis points carry and is thus very attractive. Investment Conclusions In the fixed income and currency space in central Europe, we have been and continue recommending the following relative positions: A new fixed income trade: pay Czech / receive Polish 10-year swap rates Continue betting on yield curve steepening in Hungary: Receive 1-year / paying 10-year Hungarian swap rates Long Polish and Hungarian 5-year local currency bonds / short South African and Turkish domestic bonds. Long PLN and CZK versus EM currencies and/or the euro - we are long the following crosses: PLN/HUF, PLN/IDR, CZK/EUR For dedicated EM equity investors, we continue to recommend overweighting central Europe within an EM equity portfolio. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016; "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016; "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017; links available on page 20. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017; link available on page 20. 3 Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. 4 Please see, "Local Officials Now Liable for Bad Debt-Management Decisions for Life", July 17th 2017, Caixin Global, available at http://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-07-17/101117307.html Please see, "Local Governments Find New Ways to Play Debt Game", July 14th 2017, Caixin Global, available at http://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-07-14/101116048.html Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Chemicals stocks comprise over 73% of the S&P materials index, and this bump to a neutral stance also moves the broad materials index to a benchmark allocation. The key Chinese economy, the largest commodity consumer, appears to have turned a corner. Historically, the Keqiang Index has been positively correlated with materials revenue growth and the current message is positive (second panel). Further, the recently surging Australian dollar suggests that China is at least not relapsing (third panel). Not only are emerging markets reviving, but also advanced economies are in excellent shape. Synchronized global growth and the coordinated brewing tightening cycle should lead to a selloff in most G7 bond markets. At a minimum, this implies that relative materials performance has put in a cyclical trough. Our newly introduced S&P materials relative EPS model captures this positive macro backdrop for the sector and signals that the relative EPS recovery still has breathing room (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Lift the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation, and lock in profits of 12.8% since inception.

In the summer of 2014 we went underweight the S&P chemicals index, anticipating an earnings underperformance phase, driven by weak revenues as chemicals manufacturers were furiously adding capacity to benefit from lower domestic feedstocks. This view has largely panned out, and now three factors underpin our more neutral bias: synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions. The global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high. Similarly, the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey also vaulted higher. Synchronized global growth suggests that final demand is on the upswing and should bode well for chemical top- and bottom-line growth (second panel). This has driven a relative weakening of the U.S. dollar, much to the benefit of U.S. chemical producers, whose exports appear to be displacing German exports (third panel). Finally, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better. This improving domestic final demand backdrop is reflected in higher resource utilization rates and solid pricing power gains have staying power (bottom panel). Net, evidence is emerging that the bear market in chemicals producers is over; upgrade the S&P chemicals index to neutral (see the next Insight).