Estados Unidos

Highlights Analyses on Indonesia and South Africa are available below. The slowdown in Chinese domestic demand has been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction - not the U.S.-China trade confrontation. China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. and there has been little damage to Chinese total exports. In contrast, Chinese imports have been contracting, dampening global trade. A recovery in the former is contingent on credit stimulus. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Contracting Yet U.S. Ones Are Not With odds of a potential trade deal between the U.S. and China rising, the question now becomes whether an imminent acceleration in global trade will occur, sparking a rally in EM risk assets and currencies. We believe the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China has not been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction and manufacturing recession. The latter has primarily been due to a slowdown in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese imports for domestic consumption (excluding processing trade) are shrinking at 6% while U.S. total imports are still growing at 2% from a year ago. Consequently, an improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Provided the global business cycle is the main factor driving EM risk assets and currencies, there is no sufficient reason to turn bullish on EM at the current juncture. Origin Of The Global Trade Slowdown Tariffs have mainly affected global growth indirectly (via dampening business confidence) rather than directly – by derailing Chinese exports to the U.S. or by affecting American consumer spending. First, U.S. household spending is still reasonably robust, and U.S. imports from the rest of the world have slowed but have not contracted (Chart I-2). Hence, the trade confrontation has not derailed U.S. household spending, and the latter’s impact on global trade has been mildly positive rather than negative. An improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Second, Chinese exports have been more resilient than those of other Asian economies (Chart I-3). If the tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. were the main cause of the global trade slump, Chinese exports would be shrinking the most. Yet Chinese exports are not contracting – their growth rate is close to zero while Korean and Japanese exports have been plummeting (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Consumer Spending And Imports Have Not Been A Drag On Global Trade Chart I-3Exports In China Are Faring Better Than Those In Japan And Korea   While China’s shipments to the U.S. have certainly plunged, there is both anecdotal and empirical evidence that mainland-produced goods have been making their way to the U.S. via Taiwan, Vietnam and other economies (Chart I-4). This is why Chinese aggregate exports are not contracting. Third, Chinese exports are doing better than imports (Chart I-5). This tells us that the underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-4China's Exports To U.S. Have Been Re-Routed Via Rest Of Asia Chart I-5Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Its Exports   Importantly, ongoing contraction in Chinese imports excluding processing trade (i.e., excluding imports of inputs that are assembled and then re-exported) is a clear indication of a slump in Chinese domestic demand (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Capital outlays in general and construction activity in particular remain very weak (Chart I-6). This is consistent with shrinking import volumes of capital goods, base metals, chemicals and lumber (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Capex Is In Doldrums Chart I-7China: Capex-Exposed Imports Are Shrinking   Chart I-8China's Economy Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. Finally, Chart I-8 shows that Chinese exports to the U.S. before the commencement of the trade war represented less than 4% of Chinese GDP. In contrast, capital spending in China is 42% of GDP. Hence, China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. This is why in our research and strategy we emphasize the mainland’s money/credit cycle – which leads capital spending – much more than its exports. To be clear, we are not implying that the U.S.-China trade confrontation has had no bearing on global growth. It has certainly affected business and consumer sentiment in China and hurt confidence among multinational companies. Hence, a trade deal could boost sentiment among these segments, leading to some improvement in their spending. Nevertheless, odds are that businesspeople in China and multinational CEOs around the world will realize that we are witnessing a secular rise in the U.S.-China confrontation, and that any trade deal will be temporary. The basis is that the genuine interests of the U.S. go against China’s national interests, since the U.S. has an interest in preventing the formation of a regional empire that can then challenge it for global supremacy. Conversely, whatever is in the long-term interests of China will not be acceptable for the U.S., particularly China’s rapid military and technological advancement. As such, global CEOs may see through a trade deal and any improvement in their confidence will likely be muted. In fact, if a China-U.S. trade détente leads Chinese authorities to resort to less stimulus going forward, odds are that China’s domestic demand revival will be delayed. Hence, the positive boost to global trade will not be substantial. The underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. In such a case, global manufacturing and trade contraction will likely last longer than financial markets are presently pricing in. Asset prices will need to be reset in this scenario before a new cyclical rally begins. Bottom Line: The trade confrontation has not been the main reason behind the global trade slowdown. Consequently, its temporary resolution may not be enough to produce a cyclical recovery in global trade. Given financial markets have already bounced back in recent weeks, they may follow a “buy the rumor, sell the news” pattern regarding the trade deal. Investors should continue to underweight EM equities, sovereign credit and currencies within respective global portfolios. In absolute term, risks to EM assets and currencies are still tilted to the downside too. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Relapsing Growth Risks Foreign Outflows Indonesian stocks and the rupiah have been benefiting from falling U.S. interest rate expectations. This has been occurring even though domestic fundamentals, namely economic growth and the outlook for corporate profits, have been deteriorating. The Indonesian economy is undergoing a sharp slowdown: The private credit impulse is declining (Chart II-1, top panel). Retail sales volume of various goods are heading south (Chart II-1, middle panel). Mirroring the weakness in investment expenditures, capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Passenger car sales are shrinking and sales of other types of vehicles have stalled. The real estate sector has entered a weak spot as well. House prices are only growing at 2% in nominal local currency terms according to data from the central bank. Growth in rail freight transport has stalled and the manufacturing PMI has dipped below the critical 50 level (Chart II-2, top and middle panels). Domestic cement consumption is contracting (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesia: Domestic Demand Is Slumping Chart II-2Indonesia: Business Activity Is Anemic Finally, exports are dwindling at an annual rate of -8% from a year ago. Chart II-3Borrowing Costs Are Elevated Relative To Nominal Income Growth This growth deceleration is due to the ongoing contraction in exports, slowing domestic loan growth and somewhat conservative fiscal policy. These factors have altogether hit nominal incomes and hurt spending. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth (Chart II-3). Such a gap between nominal income growth and borrowing costs is exerting deflationary pressures on the Indonesian economy. Consistent with worsening growth dynamics, non-financial stocks have been struggling and small cap stocks have been in a bear market since 2013 (Chart II-4). The basis is poor and deteriorating profitability among non-financial firms (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indonesia: Poor Profitability Among Non-Financial Companies Chart II-4Non-Financial & Small Caps Stocks: Dismal Performance   Only shares prices of three banks - Bank Central Asia, Bank Rakyat and Bank Mandiri - have been in a genuine bull market. These three stocks now account for 40% of the overall Indonesia MSCI Index and their rally has prevented an outright decline in the bourse. Chart II-6Indonesian Banks: Higher Provisions, Lower Profits We agree that these three banks are well provisioned and extremely well capitalized. Nevertheless, at a price-to-book value ratio of 4.7 for Bank Central Asia, 2.8 for Bank Rakyat and 1.8 Bank Mandiri, they are expensive. Given the ongoing economic slowdown and still high real borrowing costs, these three banks as well as all commercial banks in Indonesia will face higher NPLs and will be forced to provision for them. As NPL provisioning rise, banks’ profits will slow (Chart II-6). Such a scenario will likely lead to a 10-15% decline in these banks’ share prices in local currency terms. In U.S. dollars terms, the decline will be larger. Finally, as foreign investors in Indonesia begin digesting the magnitude of the country’s ongoing growth slump, their expectations for Indonesia’s return on capital will decline and they will likely reduce their exposure. This will trigger a selloff in the rupiah. Historically, foreign investors in Indonesia have cumulatively pumped $175 billion into debt securities and $105 billion into equity and investment funds. Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth. Moreover, foreign ownership of local currency bonds and equities is high at 38% and 45%, respectively. Therefore, a decline in the rupiah will likely intensify the selloffs in the bond and equity markets. Bottom Line: For now, we continue recommending EM dedicated investors to remain underweight Indonesian equities, local currency bonds and U.S. dollar sovereign credit within their respective portfolios. We continue to recommend a short position in the IDR versus USD trade. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com South Africa: On An Unsustainable Path The backdrop for South African financial assets remains poor, despite the recent surge in precious metals prices and Federal Reserve easing. The rand will continue to depreciate, even if precious metals prices continue to rise. Such a decoupling will not be historically unprecedented. Chart III-1 shows the long-term relationship between gold and the rand. The rand has failed to rally on several occasions during periods of rising gold prices. Chart III-1Rand Has Diverged Historically From Gold Prices What’s more, contrary to popular narrative, the rand and the majority of EM currencies do not typically appreciate when U.S. interest rate expectations drop. We have elaborated on this topic in depth in previous reports. Ultimately, widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. Supply constraints are preventing South Africa from capitalizing on rising gold prices – gold mining output is plummeting (Chart III-2). In fact, the trade deficit has been widening, despite surging gold prices (Chart III-3). Chart III-2Contracting Mining Output Chart III-3Rising Gold Prices ≠ Improving Trade Balance   The overall and primary fiscal deficits are also widening, as government revenues are slumping (Chart III-4). On top of this, the government recently announced a $4.2 billion (ZAR 59 billion) bailout for state-owned utility company Eskom, further worsening the country’s debt sustainability position. The combination of plummeting nominal GDP growth and still-high borrowing costs (Chart III-5) have also worsened debt dynamics among private borrowers, hurting private consumption and investment. Chart III-4Fiscal Deficit Will Widen Further Chart III-5Interest Rates Are Restrictive For Growth   Both business and household demand remain lackluster. South African non-financial companies’ return on assets (RoA) has been declining and has dropped below EM for the first time in the past 20 years (Chart III-6). Falling RoA has been due not only to cyclical growth headwinds but also structural issues such as lack of productivity growth. The falling RoA explains South African financial assets’ underperformance versus their EM counterparts. Finally, the rand is not very cheap (Chart III-7). Given poor fundamentals, including but not limited to a lack of productivity growth and a low and falling return on capital, the currency may need to get much cheaper. Chart III-6Non-Financials: Return On Assets Chart III-7The Rand Needs To Get Cheaper!   Overall, South Africa’s current macro dynamics are unsustainable. On the one hand, widening twin deficits will augment the country’s reliance on foreign funding. FDI inflows have been rather meager and are likely to stay that way. Hence, South Africa remains extremely dependent on volatile foreign portfolio inflows. Historically, foreign investors have cumulatively pumped $100 billion into debt securities and $120 billion into equity and investment funds. In turn, foreign portfolio inflows are contingent on a firm currency and high interest rates. Widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. On the other hand, the economy is choking and public debt dynamics are worsening at a torrid pace due to high interest rates. Much lower domestic interest rates and a cheaper currency are necessary to reflate the economy and stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Ultimately, financial markets will likely push for a resolution of these contradictions. In the medium to long run, international capital flows gravitate towards countries that offer a high or rising return on capital. Provided return on capital in South Africa is very low and falling, foreign portfolio inflows will at some point diminish or grind to a halt. This will likely coincide with a negative global trigger for overall EM.  Reduced inflows or mild outflows of foreign portfolio capital will cause sizable rand depreciation. Bottom Line: The economy requires a cheaper rand and much lower interest rates to grow. The rand will likely act as a release valve: it will depreciate a lot, improving the trade balance, which in turn will ultimately allow interest rates to decline - although local bond yields will spike initially on rand weakness.  Investment recommendations: Remain short the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and underweight stocks and sovereign credit in respective dedicated EM portfolios. Concerning bonds, a depreciating rand will initially cause a selloff in local currency government bonds, warranting an underweight position for now. In the sovereign credit space, we are maintaining the following trade: sell CDS on Mexico / buy CDS on South Africa and Brazil. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Overweight – Downgrade Alert Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market, and we continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P banks index. This is a global phenomenon as even the ultimate global value group, Eurozone bank equities, bottomed out on August 15 alongside their U.S. peers. The latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey painted a bright picture on both the demand and supply of credit. In more detail, bankers reported that a rising number of credit categories reversed course and demand for loans slingshot higher, likely as a delayed consequence of the dramatic fall in interest rates since last November (bottom panel). Encouragingly, bank officers also reported that they were willing extenders of credit. Our in-house calculated overall gauge of loan tightening standards fell compared with last quarter, signaling that at the margin it is easier to get a loan (middle panel). Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P banks index, but keep it on the downgrade watch list, acknowledging the yield curve and manufacturing related risks. Please see the following Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC. ​​​​​​​

Informe especial

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

Overweight The rise in the 10-year U.S. Treasury (UST) yield over the past two weeks has breathed life back into the S&P financials sector, and for the time being we are sticking with an overweight recommendation. While it remains to be seen if the rise in yields will be sustainable, BCA’s long-held view remains that the 10-year UST yield will sell off on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. If this is the case then financials stocks will lead the nascent sector rotation that commenced in late-August and outperform the SPX in the coming months (top panel). Foreign flows had put a solid bid under U.S. bonds and artificially suppressed yields and this is at the margin reversing. In addition, the market was hoping for a 50 bps rate cut from the Fed in the September meeting further weighing on the UST yield, but now the odds of that happening are nil. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (CESI) has also come out of hibernation and spiked in positive territory, evidence that economic data estimates had hit rock bottom. This slingshot recovery in the CESI is tonic for financials stocks (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We are sticking with the S&P financials index. Please refer to the following Weekly Report for more details.​