Acciones

Highlights So What? The Trump administration is focusing on re-election in 2020, which could push the recession call into 2021. Why? The midterms were investment-relevant, just not in the way most of our clients thought. We are downgrading our alarmism on Iran; Trump is aware of his constraints. But investor optimism regarding the trade war may be overdone. China has contained its capital outflows, which suggests Beijing will be comfortable with more CNY/USD downside. A new GPS mega-theme: Bifurcated Capitalism! Watch carefully for any upcoming trade action on semiconductors. Feature There is no better feeling than hearing from our clients that we got a call wrong because we misjudged the constraints of the Trump administration by focusing too much on its preferences. Why? Because it means that clients are keeping us honest by employing our most important method: constraints over preferences. This is one of the takeaways from a quarter filled with meetings with our clients in the Midwest, Toronto, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Berlin, Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and sunny Marbella, Spain! In this report, we discuss several pieces of insight from our clients. Midterms Are Investment Relevant Generally speaking, few of our clients agreed with our assessment that the midterm elections were not investment-relevant. The further away from the U.S. we traveled, the greater the sense among investors that equity markets influence U.S. politics: both the upcoming takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party and the odds of trade war intensification. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Both periods of equity market turbulence this year were preceded by a rising U.S. 10-year yield, not any particularly damning trade war chatter (Chart 1). In fact, the intensification of the trade war this summer occurred amidst a fairly buoyant S&P 500! Meanwhile, the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House were priced in well before the October equity decline began. Chart 1Yields, Not Trade, Matter For Stocks Generally speaking, even midterms that produce gridlock have led to a relief rally (Chart 2). This time could be the same, especially because the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has signalled that the main policy goal for 2019 would be infrastructure spending. In her "victory" speech following the election, Pelosi mentioned infrastructure numerous times (impeachment, zero times). Chart 2Stocks Are Indifferent To Midterm Results Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, likely head of the House of Representatives committee overseeing transportation, has already signalled that he will ask for "real money, real investment."1 DeFazio has previously proposed a $500bn infrastructure plan, backed by issuance of 30-year Treasuries and raising fuel taxes. He has rejected the February 2017 Trump proposal, which largely relied on raising private money for the job. Would President Trump go with such a plan? Maybe. In early 2018, he stunned lawmakers by saying that he supported hiking the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon (the federal 18.4 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax has not been hiked since 1993). He has since confirmed that "everything is on the table" to achieve an infrastructure deal. Several clients from around the world pointed out that both Democrats and President Trump have an incentive to make a deal. President Trump wants to avoid the deeply negative fiscal thrust awaiting him in 2020 (Chart 3). Given the House takeover by the Democrats, it is tough to imagine that new tax cuts are the means for Trump to avoid the "stimulus cliff." As such, another round of stimulative fiscal spending may be the only way for him to avoid a late-2020 recession (although the latter is currently the BCA House View). Chart 3Can Trump And Pelosi Reverse... Democrats, on the other hand, have an incentive to ditch "Resistance" and embrace policy-making. Yes, hastening the recession in 2020 would be the Machiavellian play, but President Trump would be able to blame Democrats for the downturn - since they will necessarily have had to participate in planning an infrastructure bill only to sink it. They also learned the lesson from the January 2018 government shutdown, which backfired at the polls and forced Senate Democrats to come to an agreement quickly on a two-year stimulative budget deal. What about the GOP fiscal conservatives? They don't necessarily need to come on board. The House is held by Democrats. And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given that infrastructure is popular, that the president will be pushing it, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget bill in January, we think that even more Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. Another big takeaway from the midterms is that the GOP suffered deep losses in the Midwest. President Trump's party lost ten out of twelve races in the region (Table 1). The two most representative contests were the loss of Republican Wisconsin Governor and one-time rising presidential star Scott Walker, and the victory of the left-wing and über-protectionist Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Senator Brown won his contest comfortably by 6.4% in a state that Trump carried by 8.13%. The appeal of Brown to the very blue-collar voters that Trump himself won is obvious. On trade, there is no daylight between the left-wing Brown and President Trump. Meanwhile, Walker, an establishment Republican who built his reputation on busting public-sector unions, could not replicate Trump's success in Wisconsin. Several of our clients suggested that the GOP performance in the Midwest was poor because of the aggressive trade rhetoric. But that makes little sense. Republicans did not run Trump-style populists in the Midwest, to their obvious detriment. Democrats have always claimed to be for "fair trade" rather than "free trade." And we know, empirically, that Trump saw a key swing of turnout in 2016 in these states, largely thanks to his protectionist rhetoric (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Owes The Midwest The Presidency President Trump cannot take Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin lightly. His performance in 2016 was extraordinary, but also tight. The Democrats will win these states if Trump does not grow voter turnout and support, according to demographic projections - and they lost them by less than a percentage point of white voters (Map 1). As such, we think that Democrats will talk tough on trade and try to reclaim their union and blue-collar voters, while President Trump has to double down on an aggressive trade posture towards China. Map 1Can 'White Hype' Work In 2020? Trump's Margins Are Small The midterms are investment relevant after all, but not in the way some might think. The Democratic takeover of the House, and the resultant gridlock, will potentially avert the "stimulus cliff" in 2020. This ought to support short-term inflation expectations and thus allow the Fed to stay-the-course. For markets, this could be unsettling given the correlation between yields and downturns in 2018. For the dollar, this should be supportive. The odds of an infrastructure deal are good, above 50%, with the key risk being a Democratic House focused on impeaching Trump. Such a bill would augur even higher levels of fiscal spending through 2020, possibly prolonging the business cycle, and setting up an even wider budget deficit when the next recession hits (Chart 5). Chart 5Pro-Cyclical Policy Has To Continue Meanwhile, the shellacking in the Midwest ought to embolden the president to go even harder against China on trade. Rather than the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Buenos Aires, the key bellwether of this thesis is whether Trump signals afterwards that he will implement the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 (and whether he announces a third round of tariffs). Bottom Line: Go long building products and construction material stocks. Stay short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. The 10-year yield may end the year even closer to 3.5% when the market realizes that the odds of an infrastructure deal are higher than previously thought. The political path of least resistance in the U.S. continues to point towards greater profligacy. Trump Is Aware Of His Constraints In The Middle East Throughout 2018, we have flagged U.S.-Iran tensions as the risk for 2019. In early October, we went long Brent / short S&P 500 as a hedge against this risk, a trade that we closed for a 6% gain last week. During our meetings with clients this quarter, however, several astute observers pointed out that in our own analyses we have stressed the geopolitical and political constraints to President Trump. First, we have argued that the original 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Obama had a deep geopolitical logic, allowing the U.S. to pivot to Asia and stare down China by geopolitically deleveraging the U.S. from the Middle East. If President Trump undermined the détente with Iran, he would be opening up a two-front conflict with both China and Iran, diluting his administration's focus and capabilities. Second, we noted that a rise in oil prices could precipitate an early recession and push up gasoline prices in 2019, a probable death knell for any president's re-election prospects. Our clients were right to ask: Why would President Trump face down these constraints, given the high cost that he would incur? We did not have a very good answer to this question. It is difficult to understand President Trump's preferences for raising tensions against Iran beyond the fact that he promised to do so in his campaign, appears to want to undermine all of President Obama's policies, and turned to Iran hawks to head his foreign policy. Are these preferences worth the risk of a recession in 2019? Or worth the risk of triggering yet another military conflict in the Middle East over a country that only 7% of Americans consider is the 'greatest enemy' (Chart 6)? Chart 6Americans Don't Perceive Iran As 'The Greatest Enemy' Given that the administration has offered exemptions to the oil embargo to eight key importers, it now appears that President Trump is well aware of his geopolitical and domestic constraints. The combined imports of Iranian oil by these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d. While we do not have the detail of the volumes that will be allowed under the waivers, it is likely that these Iranian sales will recover some of the ~1mm b/d of exports lost already (Chart 7). Chart 7Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days What does this mean for investors? On one hand, it means that the risk of oil prices spiking north of $100 per barrel have substantively decreased. On the other hand, however, it also means that the Trump administration agrees with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view that oil markets remain tight and that OPEC 2.0's spare capacity may be a constraint to future production increases. Bottom Line: The risks of an oil-price-shock-induced 2019 recession have fallen. However, oil prices may yet surge in 2019 to the $85-95 level (Brent) on the back of supply risks in Venezuela and Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia and Russia prove unable to expand production much beyond their current levels. Most of our clients in the Middle East shared the skepticism of our commodity strategists that Saudi Arabia would be able to increase production much higher than current levels in 2019. However, the view was not unanimous. Risks Of Saudi Arabia Going Rogue Have Declined Clients in the Middle East were convinced that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would have no impact on Saudi oil production decisions. However, the insight from the region is that the incident has probably ended the "blank cheque" that the Trump administration initially gave Riyadh on foreign policy. For global investors, this may not have a major impact. But it may have been at least part of the administration's reasoning behind giving embargo exemptions to such a large number of economies. The incident has likely forced Saudi Arabia to adjust its calculus on three issues: Qatar: The Saudi-Qatari split never made much sense in the first place. It was initially endorsed by President Trump, who may not have understood the strategic value of Qatar to the United States. Defense Secretary James Mattis almost immediately responded by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf country which hosts one of the most strategic U.S. air bases in the world. Yemen: The U.S. has now openly called on Saudi Arabia to end its military operations in Yemen. We would expect Riyadh to acquiesce to the request. Iran: With the U.S. giving major importers of Iranian oil exemptions, the message is twofold. First, the U.S. cares about its domestic economic stability. Second, the U.S. does not care about Saudi domestic economic stability. Our commodity strategists believe that Saudi fiscal breakeven oil price is around $85. As such, the U.S. decision to slow-roll the sanctions against Iran will be received with chagrin in Riyadh, especially as the latter will now have to shoulder both lower oil prices and the American request for higher output. Could Saudi Arabia break with the U.S.? Not a chance. The U.S. is the Saudis' security guarantor. As such, it is up to Saudi Arabia to acquiesce to American foreign policy goals, not the other way around. While we think that President Trump ultimately succumbed to geopolitical and political constraints when he decided to take the "phoney war" approach to Iran, he may have been nudged in that direction by Khashoggi's tragic murder. Bottom Line: A major risk for investors in 2019 was that the Trump administration would treat Saudi preferences for a major confrontation with Iran as its own interests. Such a strategy would have destabilized the global oil markets and potentially have unwound the 2015 U.S.-Iran détente that has allowed the U.S. to focus on China. However, the death of Khashoggi has marginally hurt President Trump domestically - given that it makes him look soft on Saudi Arabia, an unpopular stance in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has come to grips with the risks of a dire oil shock should Iran retaliate. The shift in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia will therefore refocus the Trump administration on its own priorities, not that of its ally in the Middle East. Trade War Is All About CNY/USD In The Short Term... Clients in Australia and New Zealand are the most sophisticated Western investors when it comes to China. The level of macro understanding of the Chinese economy and the markets in these two countries is unparalleled (outside of China itself, of course). We therefore always appreciate the insights we pick up from our clients Down Under. And they are convinced that the massive capital outflow from China has clearly ceased. The flow of Chinese capital into Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney real estate has definitely slowed, and anecdotal evidence appears to be showing up in the price data (Chart 8). Separately, this intel has been confirmed by clients from British Columbia and California. Chart 8Pacific Rim Home Prices Rolling Over The reality is that China has successfully closed its capital account. How else can we explain that a 4.7% CNY/USD depreciation in 2015 precipitated a $483 billion outflow of forex reserves, whereas a 10.1% depreciation this year has not had a major impact (Chart 9)? Chart 9On Balance, China Is Experiencing Modest Outflows To be fair, forex reserves declined by $34bn in October, but that is still a far cry from the panic in 2015. Our other indicators suggest that the impact on capital seepage is muted this time around, largely due to the official crackdown on various forms of capital outflows: Quarterly data (Chart 10) reflecting the change in foreign exchange reserves minus the sum of the current account balance and FDI, indicate that while net inflows have remained negative, they are still a far cry from 2015 levels. Chart 10Far Cry From 2016 Crisis Import data (Chart 11) no longer show the massive deviation between Chinese national statistics and IMF figures. Imports from Hong Kong (Chart 12), specifically, are now down to normal levels, with the fake invoicing problem having quieted down for now. Chart 11No More Confusion Regarding Imports Chart 12Fake Invoicing Has Been Curbed Growth rate of foreign reserves (Chart 13) is not clearly contracting yet, and has been positive this year. Chart 13Severe FX Reserve Drawdown Has Ended Chinese foreign borrowing (Chart 14) is down from stratospheric levels, which limits the volume of potential outflows. Chart 14China's Foreign Lending Has Eased And the orgy of M&A and investment deals in the U.S. (Chart 15) has ended. Chart 15M&A Deals Have Eased Bottom Line: Anecdotal and official data suggest that capital outflows are in check despite their recent uptick. This could embolden Chinese leaders to continue using CNY/USD depreciation as their primary weapon against President Trump's tariffs, especially if the global backdrop is not collapsing. An increase of the 10% tariff rate to 25% on January 1 could, therefore, precipitate further weakness in the CNY/USD. The announcement of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of Chinese imports could do the same. This would be negative for global risk assets, particularly EM equities and currencies. ... In the Long Term, Bifurcated Capitalism Our annual pilgrimage to Oceania included our traditional meeting with The Smartest Man In Oceania The Bloke From Down Under.2 He shares our belief that the long-term result of the broader Sino-American geopolitical conflict will be a form of Bifurcated Capitalism. His exact words were that "countries may soon have to choose between being in the Amazon or Alibaba camp," a great real-world implication of our mega-theme. Australian and New Zealand clients are particularly sensitive to the idea that the world may soon be split into spheres of influence because both countries are so high-beta to China, while obviously retaining their membership card in the West. Our suspicion is that both will be fine as they export mainly a high-grade and diversified range of commodities to China. Short of war, it is unlikely that the U.S. will one day demand that New Zealand stop its dairy exports to China, or that Australia stop iron ore and LNG exports. Countries exporting semiconductors to China, on the other hand, could face a choice between enforcing a future embargo or incurring the wrath of their closest military ally. The Bloke From Down Under has pointed out that, given China's dependency on semiconductor technology, a U.S. embargo of this critical tech could be comparable to the U.S. oil embargo against Japan that precipitated the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Chart 16China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand The global semiconductor market reached $354 billion in 2016, with China accounting for 60% of total consumption (Chart 16). Despite the country's insatiable appetite for semiconductors, no Chinese firm is among the world's top 20 makers. This is why Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan has focused so much on semiconductor capability (Chart 17). The goal is for China to become self-sufficient in semiconductors, gaining 35% share of the global design market. Chart 17China's High-Tech Protectionism A key feature of Bifurcated Capitalism will be impairment of investment in high-tech that has dual-use applications in military. Semiconductors obviously make that list. Another key feature would be investment restrictions in such high-tech sectors, particularly the kind of investments and M&A deals that China has been looking for in the U.S. this decade. Further, clients in California are very concerned about the U.S.'s proposed export controls, which would cut off access to China and wreak havoc on the industry. The Trump administration has already signalled that it will restrict Chinese inbound investment. Congress passed, with a large bipartisan majority, an expanded review system, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The law has expanded the purview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive interagency panel nominally under control of the Treasury Department that can block inbound investment on national security grounds. CFIUS, at its core, has always been an entity focused on China. While the Treasury Department initially signalled it would take as much as 18 months to adopt the new FIRRMA rules, Secretary Mnuchin has accelerated the process. The procedure now will expand review from only large-stake takeovers to joint ventures and smaller investments by foreigners, particularly in technology deemed critical for national security reasons. This oversight began on November 10 and will allow CFIUS to block foreigners from taking a stake in a business making sensitive technology even if it gives the foreign investors merely a board seat. Countries of "special concern" will inherently receive heightened scrutiny, and a country's history of compliance with U.S. law, as well as cybersecurity and American citizens' privacy, will be considerations. A new interagency process led by the Commerce Department will focus on refurbishing export controls so as to protect "emerging and foundational technologies." Such impediments to capital flows are likely to become endemic and expand beyond the U.S. We may be seeing the first steps in the Bifurcated Capitalism concept that one day comes to dominate the global economy. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for Chinese market participants. At the very least, companies whose revenue growth is currently slated to come from expansion in overseas markets may see those expectations falter. At its most pessimistic, however, Bifurcated Capitalism may precipitate geopolitical conflict if it denies China or the U.S. critical technology or commodities. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see David Shepardson, "Democrats to push for big infrastructure bill with 'real money' in 2019," Reuters, dated November 7, 2018, available at reuters.com. 2 At the time of publication, the said investor was unable to secure the permission of his wife for the "The Smartest Man" moniker. Geopolitical Calendar

Despite a stellar Q3 earnings print, the S&P 500 had a terrible October as EPS continues to do the hard work in lifting the market (Chart 1). Chart 1EPS Doing The Heavy Lifting We bought the dip,1 consistent with our view of deploying longer term oriented capital were a 10% pullback to occur, given our view of no recession for the next 9 to 12 months.2 Financials and industrials should lead the next leg up and we believe a rotation into these beaten up stocks is going to materialize in the coming months. On the flip side, as volatility is making a comeback and the fed is on a path to lift rates to 3% by June of next year, fixed income proxies and consumer discretionary stocks should be avoided and a preference for large caps over small caps should be maintained (Chart 2). Chart 2The Return Of Vol May Spoil The Party Further, a valuation reset has taken hold, pushed by the surprising rise of the equity risk premium over the course of the past two years, representing a surge in negative sentiment from investors, despite the usually tight inverse correlation with the ISM, the core sentiment indicator of the manufacturing economy (Chart 3). Chart 3ERP And The Economy Are Inversely Correlated Nevertheless, while everyone is focusing on the euphoric above trend growth of the U.S. economy, a risk lurking beneath the surface is a domestic economic soft patch.3 We have likely stolen demand from the future and brought consumption forward especially with the stock market related fiscal easing that is front loaded to 2018 and less so for next year. On that front our Economic Impulse Indicator is warning that the U.S. economy cannot grow at such a pace, unless a bipartisan divide can be crossed to deliver enough firepower to rekindle GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Economic Impulse Yellow Flag Further, at least part of the blame for higher volatility rests with increasing trade uncertainty as the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive trade policy. Still, the evidence so far indicates that any trade weakness has been borne disproportionately by the rest of the world, to the U.S.' benefit (Charts 5 & 6). Chart 5U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Chart 6U.S. Has The Upper Hand We remain cognizant of a few key risks to our sanguine U.S. equity view. Principal among these is the rising U.S. dollar and its eventual infiltration into S&P 500 earnings, which has thus far been muted (Chart 7). Chart 7Watch The U.S. Dollar Further, a softening housing market bodes ill for U.S. economic growth. This is the first time since the GFC that residential investment's contribution to real GDP growth turned negative for three consecutive quarters (Chart 8). Chart 8Peak Housing Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Daily Insight, "Time To Bargain Hunt," dated October 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "The "FIT" Market," dated October 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Critical Reset," dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. S&P Financials (Overweight) Unchanged from its trajectory when we updated our cyclical indicators earlier this year, the S&P financials CMI has continued to accelerate. A historically low unemployment rate, combined with unusually resilient economic growth, underpin the surge in the CMI to its highest levels post-GFC. Further goosing the indicator, particularly with respect to the core banks sub-sector, is the recent rise in Treasury yields and a modest steepening in the yield curve both of which bode well for bank profits. However, financials have not responded to this exceptionally bullish data the way we expected, with worries over future loan growth fully offsetting the positive backdrop; financials have been falling throughout 2018. Still, inflation is threatening to rise (albeit gradually) and a selloff looms in the bond market. We highlighted earlier this fall that sectors who benefit from rising interest rates while serving as inflation hedges should outperform against this backdrop. Cue the return of S&P financials. As shown in Chart 10, the S&P financials index has shown a historically strong positive correlation with interest rates and inflation expectations and we expect the recent divergence to be closed via a catch-up in the former. As noted above, bearishness has reigned in 2018 and the result has been a steep fall in our valuation indicator (VI) to more than one standard deviation below normal while our technical indicator (TI) is deep in oversold territory. Chart 9S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 10Financials Are Trailing Rates S&P Industrials (Overweight) S&P industrials, much like their cyclical brethren S&P financials, benefit from higher interest rates and also serve as hedges against rising inflation. As we have noted in recent research, industrials are levered to the commodity cycle and thus represent an indirect inflation hedge. This hedge only becomes problematic when industrials stocks are unable to pass these rising commodity costs through to the consumer. As shown in Chart 12, pricing power is not yet an issue for these deep cyclicals. Given the positive macro backdrop for S&P industrials, the CMI has risen to new cyclical highs. Despite the forgoing, fears over trade wars and tariff-driven higher input costs, combined with slowing global demand for capital goods, have weighed on the index. The result is that S&P industrials remain deeply oversold on a technical basis while hovering around the neutral line from a valuation perspective. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. Chart 11S&P Industrials (Overweight) Cjart 12Resilient Industrials Pricing Power S&P Energy (Overweight, High-Conviction) Our energy CMI has moved horizontally since our last update of the cyclical macro indicators. However, this followed a snap-back recovery from the extremely depressed levels of 2016 and 2017. Nevertheless, the S&P energy index has moved sideways in line with the CMI. Energy stocks have significantly trailed crude oil prices since the latter broke out roughly a year ago (Chart 14). Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on the index, along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. There are high odds that a catch up phase looms, especially if BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view of a looming oil price spike materializes, and we reiterate our overweight recommendation. Our VI has been hovering at one standard deviation below fair value, while our TI trending into oversold territory. Chart 13S&P Energy (Overweight, High-Conviction) Chart 14Crude Prices Are Still Leading The Way S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Unchanged from our previous update, our consumer staples CMI has moved sideways, near a depressed level. However, share prices have finally been staging the recovery we have anticipated for several years on the back of firm consumer data, solid sector profitability and an overall cyclical rotation into staples. Despite the recent outperformance, both from an earnings and market perspective, consumer staples remain a deeply unloved sector. With respect to the former, earnings growth has outstripped the market's reaction by a wide margin. This is reflected on our VI which only recently rose from one standard deviation below fair value while our TI has only just begun a retreat from oversold territory. Staples' share of retail sales have arrested their steep declines from 2014-2016, which we view as a precursor to a rebound in weak industry sales (top panel, Chart 16). Exports of consumer staples have already been staging a comeback, despite the strengthening of the U.S. dollar which has historically presaged a relative earnings outperformance (middle panel, Chart 16). Considering the already-strong industry return on equity, any relative earnings gains should result in a valuation rerating (third panel, Chart 16). We reiterate our outperform rating on this cyclically defensive index. Chart 15S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 16Staples Are Making A Comback S&P Health Care (Neutral) In a mid-summer report , we upgraded the S&P pharma and biotech indexes to neutral which, considering their ~50% weight of the S&P health care index, took our overall recommendation on S&P health care to neutral. In the report, we proffered five reasons why the S&P pharma and biotech indexes were set for a rebound following their precipitous decline from 2016 onwards. These were: firming operating metrics, late cycle dynamics, likelihood of pricing power regulatory relief, the rising U.S. dollar and investor and analyst capitulation. Our timing has proved prescient as the S&P pharma index has been dramatically outperforming since the upgrade (top panel, Chart 18). With respect to pharma's operating metrics, our pharma productivity proxy (industrial production / employment) has been soaring, implying that earnings should surge (second panel, Chart 18). This seems particularly likely as the pace of improvement in drug shipments exceeds inventory growth by a fairly wide margin (third and bottom panels, Chart 18). Despite the upbeat backdrop for pharma, our health care CMI has declined modestly, though remains at a neutral level relative to history. Further, the pharma recovery has taken our VI from undervalued to a neutral position, a reading which is echoed by our TI. Chart 17S&P Health Care (Neutral) Chart 18Pharma Strength Is Lifting Health Care S&P Technology (Neutral) The stratospheric rise of tech profits, particularly in the past two years, have done most of the heavy lifting in pulling the S&P 500's profit margin ever higher (second panel, Chart 20) as well as pushing the index itself to new all-time highs in September. The San Francisco Fed's tech pulse index - an index of coincident indicators of technology sector activity - suggests more profit growth is in the offing (third panel, Chart 20), an intimation repeated by our technology CMI. However, we remain cognizant of three material risks to bullishness in tech. First, the tech sector garners 60% of its revenues from abroad and thus the appreciating U.S. dollar is a significant profit headwind (bottom panel, Chart 20). Second, a rising U.S. inflation backdrop along with the related looming selloff in the bond market should knock the wind out of the tech sector's sails. Third, leading indicators of emerging Asian demand are souring rapidly and were the trade war to re-escalate, EM economic data would retrench further. Lastly, neither our VI nor our TI send particularly compelling messages, as both are on the expensive side of neutral, despite the recent tech selloff. We sustain a barbell portfolio within the sector by recommending an overweight position in the late-cyclical and capex-driven technology hardware, storage & peripherals and software indexes while recommending an underweight position in the early-cyclical semi and semi equipment indexes. Chart 19S&P Technology (Neutral) Chart 20Tech Is King But Beware The U.S. Dollar S&P Materials (Neutral) Our materials CMI has recently plumbed new lows, a result of tightening monetary policy and the accompanying selloff in the bond market. As a reminder, the heavyweight chemicals component of the materials index typically sees earnings (and hence stock prices) underperform as real interest rates are moving higher. Despite this negative backdrop, chemicals fundamentals have remained surprisingly resilient. Pricing power has stayed in its multi-year uptrend (second panel, Chart 22) while productivity gains have accelerated, coinciding with an erosion of sell-side bearishness (third panel, Chart 22). Still, chemical production has clearly rolled over (bottom panel, Chart 22) which could lead to a quick reversal of the gains in our productivity proxy and a faltering in rebounding EPS estimates. Combined with BCA's view of rising real interest rates for the next year, this is enough to keep us on the fence. Our VI too shows a neutral reading, though our TI has declined steeply into an oversold position. Chart 21S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 22Fundamentals In Chemicals Have Improved S&P Utilities (Underweight) Our utilities CMI is at a 25-year low, driven down by the ongoing backup in interest rates. Such a move is predictable, given that utilities stocks are the closest to perfect fixed income proxies in the equity space. The S&P utilities sector has been enjoying a relative resurgence recently, driven by spiking natural gas prices and a supportive electricity demand backdrop from a roaring economy (ISM survey shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 24) and, more than anything, a general market retreat into safe haven assets. We recently trimmed our exposure to the sector from neutral to underweight because the S&P utilities sector was yielding 3.5% and the competing risk free asset was near 3.2% and investors would prefer to shed, at the margin, riskier high-yielding equities and park the proceeds in U.S. Treasurys (top panel, Chart 24). Since the run up in S&P utilities without a corresponding decline in Treasury yields, that spread has narrowed. Neither our VI nor our TI send compelling messages as both are in neutral territory, though our bearish thesis on utilities has less to do with their valuation relative to themselves or other equities than to bonds. Chart 23S&P Utilities (Underweight) Chart 24Utilities Should Still Be Avoided S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Our real estate CMI has reversed a recent recovery to set a new decade low; the only time it has shown a lower reading was during the Great Financial Crisis. Excluding the inflating of the property bubble in advance of the GFC, REITs have had a very tight inverse correlation with UST yields; the resulting downward pressure on the S&P REITs index is thus very predictable (top panel, Chart 26). Much like the S&P utilities sector in the previous section, and in the context of BCA's higher interest rate view, we continue to avoid this sector. The rate-driven downward pressure could be overlooked if all was well on an operating basis but this is not the case. Non-residential construction continues to rise (albeit more slowly than last year) in the face of higher borrowing rates (second panel, Chart 26). Further, demand looks slack as occupancy rates clearly crested at the beginning of last year (bottom panel, Chart 26). As well, on the residential front, multi-family housing starts remain elevated which should prove deflationary to rents. Our VI suggests that REITs are fairly valued, which is somewhat surprising given the negative backdrop, while our TI echoes a neutral view. Chart 25S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Chart 26A Bearish Backdrop For REITs S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) While we remain constructive on financials that benefit from higher rates, we continue to recommend investors avoid the consumer discretionary sector - the other early cyclical - that suffers when interest rates rise. The second panel of Chart 28 depicts this inverse correlation consumer discretionary equities have with interest rates, especially the fed funds rate. Most discretionary equites are levered off of floating rates and thus any increase in the fed funds rates gets reflected immediately in banks' prime lending rate. Also, most consumer debt is floating rate debt and thus tighter monetary conditions, at the margin, dampen consumer debt uptake and as a knock off on effect, weigh on discretionary consumer outlays. Not only are higher interest rates anchoring consumer discretionary stocks but rising energy prices are also dealing a blow to this sector. We show our Consumer Drag Indicator (CDI, comprising mortgage rates and energy prices) in the bottom panel of Chart 28. Historically, our CDI has been an excellent leading indicator of relative share price momentum. Currently, the message is clear: the sinking CDI signals that a bear market in consumer discretionary stocks has likely commenced. All of this is captured by our CMI which has been sinking since the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, our VI has broken out to nearly its highest level ever which we believe is largely a function of the decreasing diversification of the S&P consumer discretionary index as AMZN now represents more than 30% of its market value following the redistribution of the media indexed to the new S&P communication services index. Our TI has been falling from overbought territory recently and now sends a neutral message. Chart 27S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Chart 28Higher Rates Spell Declines For Consumer Discretionary S&P Communication Services (Underweight) As the newly-minted communication services has little more than a month of existence, we do not have adequate history to create a cyclical macro indicator. However, we have created Chart 29 below with a number of valuation indicators, though we caution that they too are less reliable than the other indicators presented in the preceding pages, owing to a dearth of history. Rather, we refer readers to our still-fresh initiation of coverage on the sector and look forward to being able to deliver something more substantive in the future. Chart 29S&P Communication Services (Underweight) Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Our size CMI has been hovering near the boom/bust line, as it has for most of the last two years. Despite the neutral CMI reading, we downgraded small caps earlier this year , and moved to a large cap preference, based on the diverging (and unsustainable) debt levels of small caps vs. their large cap peers (top and second panels, Chart 31). We expect the divergence in leverage and stock price to be rationalized as it usually has: via a fall in the latter. Considering the dramatic valuation gap that has opened between large and small caps, particularly on a Shiller P/E (or cyclically adjusted P/E, CAPE) basis (bottom panel, Chart 31), no space remains for any small cap profit mishaps. Our VI is trending towards small caps being undervalued, though without conviction while our TI is hovering in the neutral zone. Chart 30Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Chart 31Too Much Debt And High Valuations Should Hurt Small Caps

Highlights Equities had a wild ride in October, ... : The S&P 500 has bounced smartly off of its October 29th lows, but the decline that preceded the bounce was unusually severe. ... that unsettled a lot of investors, and made us reconsider our constructive take on risk assets: To judge by the November 5th Barron's, and some client conversations, several technically-minded investors are unconvinced by the bounce. Nothing has changed with our equity downgrade checklist, however, ... : The fundamental picture hasn't changed at all - neither corporate revenues nor margins appear to be in any immediate difficulty; though we still expect inflation to surprise to the upside, the latest data will not push the Fed to speed up its gradual rate-hike pace; and the combination of blockbuster third-quarter earnings and October's selloff made valuations more reasonable. ... so we see no reason to downgrade equities now, though we do have the admonition of a Wall Street legend ringing in our ears: If the fundamental backdrop remained unchanged, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if the S&P 500 got back to the 2,600-2,640 range, even though we are operating with a heightened sense of vigilance befitting the lateness of the hour. Feature It has been just four weeks since we rolled out our equity downgrade checklist. We would not ordinarily devote an entire Weekly Report to reviewing all of its components, but the last four weeks have hardly been ordinary. The swiftness of the decline, and the apparent lateness of the cycle, have unsettled investors enough to make several of them reconsider just how long they want to stay at the bull-market party. At times when market action provokes emotional gut checks, it is essential for investors to have a process to fall back on. Process provides a rational, objective haven from noise and emotion, and should help foster better decision-making. Our commitment to process underpins our fondness for checklists. They will never be comprehensive - as usual, we have our minds on other important inputs - but they help to ground our thinking, and we're happy to have them when markets make wild swings. Has The Recession Timetable Speeded Up? We are not interested in recessions for their own sake - we'll let the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee tell us when recessions begin and end, several months after the fact - but they're poison for risk assets. Any asset allocator who can recognize them in a timely fashion has a leg up on outperforming the competition. We therefore have been repeatedly monitoring the individual components of our recession indicator (Table 1). They do not betray any more concern than they did four weeks ago. Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist The yield curve is clearly flattening, just as one would expect as the Fed gets further into a rate-hiking campaign, but it is still a comfortable distance from inverting (Chart 1). We think yields at the long end have a way to go before they stop rising, so we expect the fed funds rate will have to get well into the 3's before the 3-month bill rate can overtake the 10-year Treasury yield. The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator is still expanding at a robust clip (Chart 2). Finally, we estimate the fed funds rate is about a year away from exceeding the equilibrium rate, thus signaling that policy has turned restrictive. Chart 1The Yield Curve Is Flattening, But It's Not About To Invert ... Chart 2... And Leading Economic Indicators Are Still Surging The unemployment rate continues to fall. Reversing the trend so that the three-month moving average could back up by the third of a percentage point that has unfailingly accompanied recessions (Chart 3) would require net monthly payroll additions to crater. Assuming annual population growth of 1%, and a constant labor force participation rate, net monthly job gains would have to fall to 100,000 for the three-month moving average to back up to 4% in 2020; if the pace of gains merely held at 120,000, the unemployment recession signal wouldn't be issued until 2021 (Chart 4). We applied the same conditions to the Atlanta Fed's online unemployment calculator to see what it would take for the unemployment rate to cross into the danger zone in 2019 (Table 2). Since the seven-year trend of 200,000 monthly net payroll additions would have to reverse on a dime for unemployment to issue a near-term warning, we do not foresee checking this box anytime soon. Chart 3Investors Should Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate ... Chart 4... But None Is Forthcoming ... Table 2... Unless Hiring Falls Off A Cliff Are Corporate Earnings Coming Under Pressure? As we mentioned last week, we view the labor market as tight and getting tighter. We thereby expect that wages are on their way to rising enough to crimp corporate margins, albeit slowly. The composite employment cost index has been in an uptrend since 2016, but it ticked lower last month, and remains well below its cyclical highs ahead of the last two recessions (Chart 5). Chart 5Snails, Godot, Molasses And Wages October's global upheaval was good for the safe-haven dollar, which surged to a new year-to-date high (Chart 6). The DXY dollar index is now within 3% of the 100 level that would lead us to check the dollar strength box. Even though we're not checking the box yet, the dollar's 10% advance since mid-February will exert a modest drag on S&P 500 earnings for the next few quarters. Triple-B corporate yields have ticked a little higher since we rolled out the checklist, extending their six-year highs (Chart 7), though we still view them as manageable. Chart 6A Gentle Headwind (For Now) Chart 7Higher Yields Aren't Biting Yet A rising savings rate would cancel out some of the top-line benefits from employment gains. It fell pretty sharply in the third quarter, however, amplifying the self-reinforcing effect of new hiring. It's at the bottom of the range that's prevailed since 2014 (Chart 8), but could go still lower if consumption tracks the robust consumer confidence readings, as it consistently has in the past. Chart 8Consumers Are Well-Fortified EM economies have become considerably more indebted since the crisis, as developed-world savings sought an outlet; corporate profits are falling; and a stronger dollar makes it harder for EM borrowers to service their USD-denominated debt. A credit crisis (or multiple credit crises) could slow global activity enough to pressure multinationals' earnings, even if the U.S. economy is mostly insulated from EM wobbles. EM equities have gotten a respite since global equities put in their year-to-date lows, and Chinese stimulus could extend EM economies a lifeline, though BCA expects that Beijing will disappoint investors hoping for a meaningful boost. We remain bearish on emerging markets as a firm, but EM distress is not anywhere near acute enough to justify ticking the box. Is Inflation Starting To Make The Fed Uneasy? There are two channels by which inflation could pose a problem for equities. The first is the Fed: if it is discomfited by what it sees in realized inflation, or perceives that inflation expectations could become unanchored, it is likely to move forcefully to quash upward pressure on prices. A forceful pace is considerably faster than a gradual pace, and would bring forward a monetary policy inflection. If policy flips from accommodative to restrictive sooner than we expect, the window for risk-asset outperformance will shrink. With all of its talk about symmetric inflation targets, the FOMC has made it clear that it will not make any attempt to defend its 2% core PCE inflation target. It is comfortable with an overshoot, and has indeed openly wished for one for much of the post-crisis era. There are limits to its indulgence, however, and we suspect that the Fed would not be comfortable if core PCE inflation were to make a new 20-year high above 2.5%. With that red line far off (Chart 9), inflation is not yet likely to encourage the Fed to quicken the pace at which it removes accommodation. Chart 9Turtles, Sloths And Inflation Inflation expectations aren't yet pressing the Fed to speed things up, either. Long-maturity TIPS break-evens have retreated slightly since mid-October, and have yet to enter the range consistent with the 2% inflation target (Chart 10). The media and the broad mass of investors don't bother with symmetric targets, or implied break-evens; they take their cues from consumer prices. A multiple haircut driven by popular inflation fears is the second channel by which inflation could halt the equity advance, but CPI remains well below the mid-3% levels that would provoke concern (Chart 11). Chart 10Stubbornly Well-Anchored Chart 11No Reason To Trim Multiples Yet So What's To Worry About? Irrational exuberance is always a concern after an extended period of gains, but there's no sign of it in broad market measures right now. Blockbuster earnings gains have pulled the S&P 500's forward P/E multiple back down to the 15s from its January peak above 18. Secondary measures like price-to-sales, price-to-book, and price-to-cash-flow are well below extreme levels in the aggregate. If the S&P 500 is going to get silly, it will have to surge first. That said, the latter stages of bull markets and expansions can be perilous, and we are on high alert. We continue to actively seek out any evidence that challenges our broadly constructive take on risk assets and the U.S. economy. Though we have yet to find anything compelling, an admonition from legendary technical analyst and strategist Bob Farrell has lodged in our mind. Rule number nine of Farrell's ten market rules to remember states, "When all the experts and forecasts agree - something else is going to happen." It's much more fun to bring novel views and analysis to our clients, but we don't get overly concerned about agreeing with investor consensus. It's inevitable that a lot of people will agree in the middle of extended cycles; we simply strive to be among the first to recognize the major macro inflection points and determine the optimal asset-allocation framework to benefit from them. We get a little antsy, though, when everyone knows that something is either certain to happen, or cannot happen by any stretch of the imagination. The near-unanimity with which the investment community believes that a recession cannot begin in 2019 is increasingly eating at us. We have been checking and re-checking the data, and checking and re-checking our colleagues' various models, in search of trouble, but to no avail. Even though recessions begin at economic peaks, and the economy nearly always appears to be in fine fettle when the downturn asserts itself, the sizable fiscal thrust on tap for 2019 seems to obviate the possibility of a contraction. When discussing potential risks in face-to-face meetings with clients this week, we most often cited trade tensions, as any material rollback of globalization would erode corporate profit margins and would strike at global trade, on which much of the rest of world's economies rely. A dramatic worsening of the trade picture is not our base case, but we do expect upside surprises in inflation, and an attendant upside surprise in the terminal fed funds rate. We have been considering that view mainly from the perspective of fixed-income positioning: underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark duration. We also have been assuming that the FOMC would lift the fed funds rate to 3.5% at the end of 2019 via four quarter-point rate hikes, and possibly take it all the way to 4% in the first half of 2020. If it were to speed up its pace, and take the fed funds rate to 3.5% by the middle of next year, and 4% by the end, we believe financial conditions would tighten enough to choke off the expansion. Monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag, so a recession may still not begin until 2020 in that scenario, but we'd bet that an equity bear market would begin in 2019. Investment Implications Balanced investors should maintain at least an equal weight position in equities. Although our checklist is a downgrade checklist, we're alert to opportunities to upgrade as well as downgrade. As we first wrote one week before the October selloff ended, we would look to overweight equities if the S&P 500 were to dip back into the 2,600-2,640 range (Chart 12). If U.S. equities wobble again in line with our Global Investment Strategy team's MacroQuant model's near-term discomfort, investors may get another opportunity before the year is out. Chart 12Only One Chance To Upgrade So Far, But There May Be More Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com

Informe especial

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of participating in the Affin Hwang Capital conference in Kuala Lumpur on November 8th. In addition to sharing my views on today's macro environment, I discussed BCA's recent successes in developing quant-based solutions for bottom-up stock picking and market timing. I have transcribed my remarks on the latter topic below. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature The Arithmetic Of Active Management Every active investor wants to outperform the market. Unfortunately, just like everyone cannot be above-average in height, beauty, or intelligence, not every investor can outperform their benchmark. I think very few people in the audience would dispute this assertion. What could be more surprising to some of you is the following claim, which is that active investors as a group will always underperform the market. I say this not because I have any ill will towards active investors. I'm an active investor myself. I say this simply because it is a mathematical tautology. As Bill Sharpe has emphasized, the market return is simply the weighted average of the returns that passive and active investors earn before fees.1 The passive return must, by definition, equal the market return. This necessarily implies that the average active return must also equal the market return. Since active investors incur higher costs than passive investors, the former group will always underperform the latter group on average. That's the bad news. The good news is that not all active investors are the same. Some are better than others, and while it is not easy, it is possible to isolate certain strategies that active managers employ that help them outperform the market. Before I discuss these strategies, let me make a generic point, which is that most so-called active investors are not particularly active. In fact, according to one academic paper, the fraction of truly active investors - those whose returns deviate significantly from the market benchmark - shrank from 60% in 1980 to less than 20% in 2009 (Chart 1). In contrast to active investors whose portfolio returns broadly mimic the market's, genuinely active investors typically outperform their benchmarks (Chart 2).2 Chart 1How Active Are Active Investors? Chart 2Active Stock Pickers Outperform What are successful active investors doing to beat their benchmark? Well, first of all, let me tell you what they are not doing: They are not taking on more risk. Don't Bet On Beta Chart 3 shows that there is no clear relationship between a stock's beta and its expected return.3 To those familiar with the CAPM model, this may be surprising. The CAPM model predicts that higher-beta stocks will earn superior returns because they are riskier. High-beta stocks outperform the market when the market is going up, but underperform the market when it is going down. Since the market tends to go up more often than it goes down, the expected return to high-beta stocks should exceed the expected return to low-beta stocks. Chart 3Don't Bet On Beta As I will discuss, the reason this theoretical prediction is refuted by the empirical evidence is because the market is rife with inefficiencies. What is more, these inefficiencies reflect pervasive institutional and behavioral biases that are engrained within the market's very own DNA. Active managers who understand these biases can exploit them to outperform their benchmarks. Let me start with the former: institutional biases. The investment industry often encourages a "heads I win, tails you lose" mentality: If a fund manager takes on a lot of risk and gets lucky, he or she will be well remunerated; if the manager is unlucky, he or she may have to look for a new job, but the primary losers will be the clients of the fund. Such an incentive structure encourages managers to take on excessive risk by purchasing, among other things, high-beta stocks. This bids up the price of these stocks to the point where they no longer offer enough additional return to compensate for their higher risk. Size And Value If buying high-beta stocks simply adds more risk without generating more reward, what types of stocks do outperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis? Much of the early academic literature focused on two factors: size and value. Historically, it has been the case that small caps and value stocks have outperformed large caps and growth stocks. Some academics have offered risk-based explanations for the size and value effects. Personally, I find these explanations unconvincing, especially in the case of value stocks. The main problem with risk-based arguments is that they fail to convincingly identify the nature of the risk that investors who purchase value stocks are being compensated for. It is certainly not market risk - value stocks tend to be low beta (Chart 4). Revealingly, companies that do face greater existential risks - those that have high levels of debt relative to equity, for example - tend to underperform the market.4 This is exactly the opposite of what risk-based arguments would predict. Chart 4Value Tends To Outperform Growth When The Stock Market Is Falling The presence of market inefficiencies provides a more compelling explanation for why small caps and value stocks outperform. Consider two companies, identical in every way except that one has a lower market capitalization than the other. Since the only difference between the two companies is the price of their shares, the "cheaper" company will generate higher returns for shareholders over the long haul. The cheaper, smaller capitalization company will also initially trade at a lower price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratio. In other words, it will look more like a small cap value stock. Thus, it is not necessary to invoke complex, risk-based explanations for why small caps and value stock outperform. It is exactly what one would expect if markets are not perfectly efficient. Ignore The Analysts? Of course, some stocks are cheap for a reason. How can we distinguish between hidden gems and fool's gold? Wall Street is populated with thousands of analysts paid to make that determination. But are they any good? For the most part, the answer is no. Chart 5 shows analysts' published earnings forecasts versus realized earnings growth. Analysts have had some success at predicting earnings growth over a one-to-two year horizon, but are almost useless over a five-year horizon.5 In fact, large cap companies favoured by analysts tend to underperform companies that analysts pan. Chart 5A Mug's Game There are two exceptions to this rule. The first applies to small caps. Since many smaller companies are not widely followed, analysts that do follow them often add significant value. Unlike their large cap brethren, small cap stocks with buy recommendations tend to outperform stocks with sell recommendations. Second, changes in analyst recommendations do predict returns. Stocks that have recently been upgraded tend to outperform those that have recently been downgraded.6 Insiders And Short Interest How about insiders? Here, the data suggests that insiders know what they are doing. The shares of companies with a lot of insider buying tend to rise more than those that have experienced insider selling. Short interest also predicts returns. Heavily-shorted companies tend to underperform companies that have attracted few short sellers. Combining data on insider activity and short interest can help supercharge returns. Chart 6 shows the highest returns are earned when insiders are buying and short interest is decreasing.7 The worst-performing stocks end up belonging to companies where insiders are heavy sellers and short interest has risen over the prior 12 months. Chart 6Prefer Stocks Where Insiders Are Buying And Short Interest Is Falling Mo' Money What about technical analysis? The academic literature on this topic is a mixed bag, with some studies deeming it useless and others suggesting it can be useful in certain situations. For most technical indicators, the noise-to-signal ratio is very high. Nevertheless, some technical indicators are worth following. Momentum is one of them (Chart 7). Over short-term horizons of about one month, mean reversion prevails - stocks that did well over the prior month tend to do poorly during the subsequent month. In contrast, over medium-term horizons of about 12 months, return continuation is the name of the game - stocks that have done well over the last 12 months tend to do well during the subsequent month. Interestingly, at very long time horizons of three-to-five years, mean reversion takes over again: Stocks that have done well over the last five years tend to do poorly over the subsequent month. The implication is that the best stocks are those that have underperformed the market over the past one month and over the past three years, but have outperformed the market over the past 12 months. Chart 7The Three Phases Of Momentum Putting aside the short-term reversal effect which, in practice, is hard to exploit due to trading costs, what are the drivers of the medium-term return continuation effect and the longer-term return reversal effect? I think three factors explain the medium-term return continuation effect. The first is institutional inertia. A large money manager cannot instantly jump in and out of a position. It may take many months to build a position to its desired size and just as much time to liquidate it. Persistent buying and selling generates momentum in equity returns. The second factor is imperfect information. A lot of the return continuation effect occurs around the time of earnings reports. If a company reports better-than-expected earnings, its stock goes up. As others hear about and process the good news, the stock usually continues to advance over the subsequent days. The third factor is behavioral biases. People tend to be quite eager to lock in gains but are usually reluctant to realize losses. When a company reports good news, investors are too quick to sell. This premature selling prevents the stock price from rising to its fair value instantaneously. During the time it takes the stock to reach fair value, the share price displays upward momentum. Conversely, when the company reports bad news, investors avoid taking losses, hoping instead that some miracle will bail them out. The lack of willing sellers prevents the stock from falling to its fair value immediately. In the time it takes investors to come to terms with the fact that a miracle is not forthcoming, the share price displays downward momentum. What about the longer-term return-reversal effect? Ironically, it is probably a function of the medium-term return continuation effect. Upward momentum attracts interest from trend-following investors. People who sold too early or never got in from the beginning kick themselves and look for the slightest dip to buy. All this buying interest eventually pushes the stock price above its fair value, setting the stage for a prolonged period of subpar returns. Anomalies Abound Let me briefly mention a few other factors that predict equity returns. Share turnover is one of them. Investors often presume that high turnover is intrinsically a good thing. Terms such as "healthy volume" abound. The truth is that companies with low rates of share turnover actually outperform the market, all things equal.8 Part of this outperformance reflects a liquidity premium. Part of it may also simply reflect the fact that undervalued companies often hide in the shadows of the market, away from the spotlight. There are also balance sheet and earnings quality factors that are worth highlighting. I already mentioned that companies with high debt-to-equity ratios tend to underperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis. It is also true that companies with high accruals - firms that fail to convert most of their earnings into cash flow - underperform the market. More surprisingly, companies whose assets have been growing very quickly also tend to underperform the market. Such asset growth often ends up reflecting empire building rather than prudent corporate management. Relatedly, a significant dispersion in analyst earnings estimates is often a red flag.9 Companies with something good to say usually say it. Companies that do not have much good to say often clam up, leading to greater uncertainty about their earnings prospects. When analysts have little visibility on what earnings a company is poised to deliver, be careful. Picking Stocks With ETS I have discussed a variety of factors that help predict the performance of individual stocks. There are dozens of others that I could have mentioned but did not. Clearly, successful bottom-up investing requires that one sort through a lot of information. What one would like is a system that distills all this information into a single score that ranks stocks from best to worst. The ideal system should dynamically adjust factor weightings to account for the fact that there is momentum in factor returns. For example, if value stocks have recently been doing well, they are likely to continue to do well. At BCA Research, we have constructed our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) to do just that.10 Chart 8 shows the backtested returns of the ETS model. As you can see, they are quite impressive. Chart 8ETS Model Back Tested Performance To Date I have been personally trading a variant of the ETS model for the past 18 years and once wrote a blog chronicling the journey.11 I have added a line in the chart that shows my own personal performance on a pre-tax basis inclusive of brokerage commissions and other trading costs. I typically hold about 30 to 50 stocks. Except in very rare cases, I don't let any single stock exceed five percent of my portfolio. I normally hold a cash cushion of about 10%-to-15%, although occasionally, as in late 2008/early 2009, I have bought stocks on margin. I have lost a lot of money shorting stocks, so I rarely do it. I am not sure how lucky I have been over the years or how scalable my results are - I generally invest only in small cap companies that most money managers would not touch. But it does give you a sense of what is possible with this system. Market Timing With MacroQuant Of course, stock selection is only one half of a successful investment formula. The other half is market-timing - knowing when to scale back or increase exposure to the stock market. That's where our soon-to-be-released MacroQuant model comes in. The model uses over 100 variables on the economy, financial and monetary conditions, sentiment, and valuations to predict the direction of the stock market. Chart 9 shows the back-tested performance of the model. Chart 9MacroQuant* Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted What is MacroQuant saying today? The signal from the model moved into bearish territory in the lead up to October's correction and continues to flag downside risks to stocks. This is mainly because the leading economic data has softened outside the United States, and more recently, in the U.S. itself. Financial conditions have also tightened on the back of rising bond yields, wider credit spreads, and a stronger dollar. Sentiment enters our model in both level and directional terms. We have found that the best configuration for stocks is when sentiment is bearish but improving while the worst configuration is when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. Going into October, sentiment began to slip from very bullish levels, which was a warning sign for stocks. Valuations have improved over the past month, but still remain somewhat stretched by historic standards. We do not believe that we are at the beginning of a bear market in stocks. However, our model does suggest that the correction may have further to run. With that, let me conclude my formal remarks, and open it up to questions. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 William F. Sharpe, "The Arithmetic of Active Management," The Financial Analysts Journal 47:1 (January/February 1991): 7-9. 2 Antti Petajisto, "Active Share And Mutual Fund Performance," Financial Analysts Journal 69:4 (July/August 2013): 73-93. 3 Andrea Frazzini And Lasse Heje Pedersen, "Betting Against Beta," Journal Of Financial Economics 111:1 (January 2014): 1-25. 4 John Y. Campbell, Jens Hilscher, and Jan Szilagy, "In Search Of Distress Risk," The Journal of Finance 63:6, (December 2008): 2899-2939. 5 Louis K. C. Chan, Jason Karceski, And Josef Lakonishok, "The Level And Persistence Of Growth Rates," The Journal Of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2 (2003): 643-684. 6 Ireneus Stanislawek, "Are Stock Recomemndations Useful?"1741 Asset Management Ltd Research Note Series, (IV 2012). 7 Amiyatosh K. Purnanandam, And H. Nejat Seyhun, "Do Short Sellers Trade On Private Information Or False Information?"Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.53, 3 (2018): 997-1023. 8 Vinay T. Datar, Naik Y. Narayan, and Robert Radcliffe, "Liquidity And Stock Returns: An Alternative Test," Journal of Financial Markets 1:2, (1998): pp. 203-219; and Charles M.C. Lee and Bhaskaran Swaminathan, "Price Momentum And Trading Volume," The Journal of Finance 55:5, (October 2000): 2017-2069. 9 David Veenman and Patrick Verwijmeren, "Earnings Expectations And The Dispersion Anomaly," (January 2015). 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy and Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach To Bottom-Up Stock Picking," dated December 3, 2015. 11 My now-defunct blog, stockcoach.blogspot.com, discussed my real-time trading progress between 2004 and 2007. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Overweight The S&P consumer finance index, much like their larger financials peers in the S&P banks index, have mostly not participated in the rise in Treasury yields, a relationship that has heretofore been relatively tight (top panel). This is despite credit card interest rate spreads that are pushing close to their post-GFC highs; such moves in the spread have typically heralded bullish sell-side sentiment changes and the current message is no different as earnings estimates have soared (second panel). While rate-driven revenues are climbing, the cost picture remains stable. The credit card delinquency rate has ticked up modestly but remains at severely depressed levels, driven by historically low unemployment (bottom panel). We continue to expect a sector rotation with financials and industrials leading the next phase of the market advance, a result of the bond market selloff gaining steam into year-end and beyond.1 Accordingly, we reiterate our overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CFINX - AXP, DFS, SYF, COF. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "The "FIT" Market," dated October 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.