Estados Unidos

Highlights The first quarter is in the books, … : Risk may have been out in the fourth quarter, but it is squarely back in fashion so far this year, with equities and high yield posting gaudy first-quarter returns. … and events have compelled us to modify our high-conviction Fed call, … : There may yet be another four or more rate hikes, but they’re not going to occur this year. … but we’re still confident in our asset-allocation recommendations, … : The Fed may no longer be a menacing presence, but that doesn’t mean Treasuries and longer-maturity bonds are going to have it easy from here. … which should benefit from a more accommodative monetary policy outlook: Conditions remain favorable for equities and spread product, and unfavorable for Treasuries, even if the underlying drivers have shifted. Feature Table 1Whipsaw Newton’s Third Law holds that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Markets have been busy supporting the theorem, as the fourth quarter’s sharp selloff has been nearly erased by the potent first-quarter rally (Table 1). Risk assets have been on a rollercoaster ride, though our economic outlook has been more or less unchanged. We chalked up the fourth quarter’s selloff to fears that the Fed was threatening the expansion. Conversely, the first quarter’s snapback likely owed quite a bit to the Fed’s pivot. By shifting its emphasis from trying to prevent inflation from getting away on the upside to trying to keep inflation expectations from falling too far, the Fed has gone from removing the punch bowl to promising to keep it full. In financial markets, risk assets should be the biggest relative beneficiaries. The Fed’s turn thwarted our more-hikes-than-expected call, at least in the near term. That surprise has been compounded by the administration’s seeming intent to pack the board of governors with nominees chosen solely on the basis of their uber-dovishness, and has inspired us to reflect on our calls. We like to share our reflections, as well as the internal BCA discussions and the client questions that shed light on our views. This week’s report examines some of the most important issues on our minds, and the minds of our colleagues and clients. Q: What does the Fed do from here? The quarterly summary of economic projections compiles FOMC meeting participants’ expectations for the likely path of key economic indicators (real GDP growth, unemployment and inflation) and monetary policy. The latest release revealed that Fed governors and regional presidents sharply dialed back their rate hike expectations between the December meeting and the March meeting (Chart 1). The median participant lopped 50 basis points (“bps”) off of his/her year-end 2019 and terminal fed funds rate projections, calling for no hikes in 2019 and just one more for the current cycle, in 2020. The rationale is a bit of a mystery, as the median participant’s estimates of GDP and inflation only came down modestly, and his/her unemployment rate estimates only rose modestly. It made sense for the Fed to turn away from the gradual pace of hikes it pursued in 2017 and 2018 in response to the sharp tightening in financial conditions brought on by the fourth-quarter selloff. The ensuing rallies in equities and high-yield bonds have undone much of that tightening, however. From a data perspective, it seems the Fed is mostly holding off to see how the outlook for the rest of the world evolves. The minutes of the March meeting, released last week, suggested that there may be more nuance to the Fed’s embrace of patience than markets initially perceived. The money markets had been calling for a 25-bps cut in the fed funds rate, to 2.25%, by the end of 2020; following the March meeting, they swiftly moved to price in a high likelihood of a second cut, to 2% (Chart 2). That outlook does not exactly accord with the committee’s more measured take: “Several participants observed that the [‘patient’] characterization … would need to be reviewed regularly[.] … A couple of participants noted that the ‘patient’ characterization should not be seen as limiting the Committee’s options[.] … Several participants noted that their views of the appropriate target range for the federal funds rate could shift in either direction[.] … Some participants indicated that if the economy evolved as they currently expected, … they would likely judge it appropriate to raise the target range … modestly later this year[.]” Chart 2... To Keeping It Full We continue to believe that the Phillips Curve is alive and well inside the Fed’s policy framework. The inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment is embedded in its macroeconomic models, and will compel the Fed to tighten policy in response to an unemployment rate that is nosing around 50-year lows (Chart 3). With the committee seemingly willing to let inflation get a bit of a head start before it tightens policy, it may well have to hike faster, and establish a higher terminal rate, than it otherwise would have if it had continued to follow a steady course. We believe the tightening cycle has been postponed rather than truncated, contrary to the money market’s view. Chart 3Sixties Flashback Bottom Line: The Fed is not going to take the fed funds rate to 3.25 - 3.5% by year end, as we expected late last year. We still believe the terminal rate is in that neighborhood, however, and the longer the Fed cools its heels, the greater the potential that it could exceed our estimate. Q: What is the outlook for the rest of the world? The March minutes revealed that conditions in the rest of the world continue to influence the Fed’s policy decisions. The slowdown in China, the uncertain outcomes of ongoing trade talks and Britain’s separation from the EU shadow the outlook in emerging economies and the major non-U.S. developed economies. The outlook for China, other emerging markets, and Europe have been a spirited subject of discussion within BCA. With a majority of the managing editors perceiving the signs of some green shoots, we upgraded Chinese equities to overweight from equal weight, and European and EM equities to equal weight from underweight, at our monthly View Meeting last week. An end to China’s deleveraging campaign may be all the rest of the world needs to show a little more life. Chart 4As China Goes China is a critical influence on our global view. We expect that policymakers have already begun de-emphasizing their deleveraging campaign, as suggested by March’s credit data, released Friday, and will encourage lenders to lend. No one at BCA expects a stimulus campaign on the order of the massive 2008 and 2016 efforts, but the general view is that policymakers can take steps to end the deceleration in China’s growth, since it was rooted in their deleveraging drive. The deceleration weighed on trade and manufacturing activity around the world (Chart 4), and may have been the catalyst for the global mini-slowdown. The rest of the world should benefit from the easing in financial conditions driven by the global equity rally. The decline in bond yields has also helped ease financial conditions, and the nearly unanimous dovishness of major-economy central banks may provide investors and consumers with additional comfort. The key issue for the U.S. economy, and U.S.-oriented investors, is whether or not the other major economies will slow enough to cool off the U.S. at a time when its fiscal impulse is slowing. We have a sense that China and Europe are beginning to turn, and we do not expect spillovers to drag on U.S. growth, but continued rallies in U.S. risk assets probably require some sort of revival beyond its shores. Q: How do corporate profits look? Is the consensus overly optimistic? The corporate profit outlook is getting less ambitious by the day. Over the last three months, consensus expectations for first quarter S&P 500 share-weighted earnings have fallen by 6.5%, as analysts downwardly revised their year-over-year growth projections from +3.5% to -2.2%. Management teams seek to under-promise and over-deliver, and do their best to guide analyst expectations to a level their companies can exceed. Since 1994, according to Thomson Reuters, about two-thirds of companies have reported earnings that beat estimates. On average over that stretch, companies have beaten estimates by a margin of 3.2%. We are therefore inclined to take the projected earnings contraction with a grain of salt. Corporations seem to have lowered the bar to a level they should be able to clear without too much trouble. Chart 5Wages Aren't Yet Pressuring Margins ... We are further inclined to question the projected 2.2% contraction in earnings, given that revenues are projected to grow by 5% in the quarter. The disparity implies margin contraction of close to 7%. Compensation is the largest component of corporate expenses, with the remainder roughly split between interest expense and other input costs. The other meaningful input is the dollar, which should most often exhibit an inverse relationship with margins. Real unit labor costs is the compensation series that most directly impacts profit margins, and it has been contracting on a year-over-year basis, augmenting margins (Chart 5). It will continue to do so as long as nominal wage growth lags inflation and productivity gains. BBB-rated corporate yields were materially higher in the first quarter than they were a year ago, and may have taken a modest bite out of margins, but they’re now back to where they were then and cannot explain the projected 7-ppt margin haircut by themselves (Chart 6). Producer prices grew just 2.2% on a year-over-year basis, slightly ahead of consumer prices (Chart 7), suggesting that margins only slightly narrowed from the disparity between input costs and selling costs. Chart 6... And Interest Rates Aren't Anymore Chart 7Input Costs Are Manageable The broad trade-weighted dollar gained 6% from 1Q18 to 1Q19. Assuming corporations lower prices to defend market share against foreign competitors, profit margins should fall when the dollar rises. Dollar appreciation likely exerted some incremental pressure on margins, but the internal model we’ve previously referenced pegs the EPS impact of a 10% rise in the dollar at 2.5%, far too small for a 6% rise in the dollar to drive a 7-ppt fall in margins. If the revenue estimates are accurate, it seems to us that management must be sandbagging its earnings guidance to some degree. The 10-year Treasury yield will have a harder time falling further now that the Fed is already awfully dovish. Q: Are you having any second thoughts about your duration recommendation? Our below-benchmark duration call was largely founded on our expectation that the Fed was going to surprise complacent markets by hiking more than they expected. It instead surprised dovishly, and the OIS curve responded by pricing in an additional rate cut by the end of next year. The 10-year Treasury yield melted, in accordance with our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule1 (Chart 8). Chart 8The Golden Rule The surest way to mess up a Fed call is to allow what one thinks the Fed should do to intrude on one’s assessment of what the Fed will do. We did not fall into that trap: our view that the Phillips Curve exerts considerable influence over the Fed and other central banks is founded in the observation that virtually every mainstream macroeconomic model incorporates an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. As noted above, we see the Fed’s hiking campaign as extended rather than ended. We believe pausing the hiking campaign will extend the expansion and allow the economy to build up more momentum. More momentum would merit higher real rates, and we also expect it would promote inflation pressures given that the output gap is already closed. We were admittedly on the wrong side as the 10-year Treasury yield fell from 3.25% to 2.4%, but still lower yields would be incompatible with our constructive view of the U.S. economy. With much of the drag on Treasury yields seeming to have come from overseas, it’s also important to note that lower major-economy yields would be incompatible with our house view that the global economy is on the cusp of rebounding (Chart 9). Chart 9Yields Rise When Green Shoots Appear Bottom Line: We missed the slide in the 10-year Treasury yield because we failed to foresee the Fed’s pivot, and because we may have focused too much on U.S., rather than global, conditions. We do not see yields falling much further, however, now that the Fed’s capacity for dovish surprises is spent, and green shoots are starting to appear in China and Europe. Q: How was the Final Four? Fantastic, and we recommend gathering some old college friends and making the trip to cheer on your alma mater should it qualify. Bring your kids if they’re old enough. If your school wins it all, you’ll share lifelong memories of the sort the Virginia alumni who attended the games will cherish. We’ll always have Minneapolis. Go ‘Hoos!   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Treasuries beat cash when the Fed hikes less than the money market expects, and lag cash when it hikes more than expected. Please see the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” published July 24, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Informe especial

Dear Client, I hosted a Webcast on Thursday, April 4th, during which I discussed the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. A replay can be accessed from this link. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The exodus of baby boomers from the labor market is likely to lower income growth, which will reduce sales growth among publicly-listed companies over the coming years. After-tax profit margins may also come under pressure, while both the risk-free interest rate and the equity risk premium could rise. While it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of these effects, our best guess is that aging will have a moderately negative, though far from catastrophic, effect on equity prices. Even if the headwinds to equities from population aging turn out to be minimal, long-term investors are still likely to earn subpar returns given that valuations are fairly stretched today. In such an environment, a nimble investment approach, which focuses on the state of the business cycle among other things, will be necessary for generating alpha. Investors should maintain a cyclically bullish stance towards global equities for the time being, but begin paring back exposure late next year in advance of a recession in 2021. Feature Will Grandpa Sink The Stock Market? About 55% of U.S. stock market wealth is held by the baby boom generation – those born between 1946 and 1964 (Chart 1). As baby boomers increasingly exit the labor force and draw down their accumulated savings, there is a growing concern that equity prices will come under pressure.  Financial pundit Robert Kiyosaki published a book more than a decade ago arguing, in his usual hyperbolic style, that retiring boomers would trigger “the biggest stock market crash in history.”1 Conveniently, he even gave a date for the crash: 2016, the year when the first baby boomers would celebrate their 70th birthdays. Kiyosaki’s prophesized crash never happened. But does he still have a point? Will aging populations torpedo stocks? A Framework For Thinking About The Value Of The Stock Market Conceptually, the value of the stock market should equal the present value of the cash flows which shareholders can expect to receive. As Appendix 1 explains, this means that today’s dividend yield should equal the difference between the rate that investors use to discount those cash flows and the expected growth rate of cash flows. The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and an equity risk premium. Cash flow growth tends to track earnings growth. The latter can be broken down into sales growth and margin growth. Thus, one can express the dividend yield ( D/P )  as the sum of four variables: The formula shows that an increase in either sales growth or profit margins will reduce the dividend yield (thus implying an increase in equity prices), while an increase in either the risk-free rate (rf) or the equity risk premium (rp) will raise the dividend yield. As we discuss below, demographic trends are likely to shift all four variables in the direction of lower equity prices. As baby boomers increasingly exit the labor force and draw down their accumulated savings, there is a growing concern that equity prices will come under pressure. 1. Aging And Sales Growth At the economy-wide level, business sales closely track GDP growth (Chart 2). GDP growth, in turn, is simply the sum of employment growth and productivity growth. Chart 2Business Sales Closely Track GDP Growth As baby boomers continue to age, more and more of them will leave the labor force. This will result in slower labor force growth. While this development will weigh on GDP growth, it is important to recognize that most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred (Chart 3). Chart 3ADM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (I) Chart 3BDM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (II) The annual growth rate of the labor force in the G7 peaked at 1.7% in 1980, but has averaged only 0.3% over the past decade. The UN estimates that the number of people in G7 economies between the ages of 15 and 64 – a crude proxy for the potential size of the labor force – will contract by 0.1% per year over the next twenty years, a modest step down from positive growth of 0.1% over the past decade. Productivity growth has been quite weak in developed economies since the mid-2000s (Chart 4). Whether this trend persists remains to be seen. On the positive side, robotics, AI, and genetic engineering could all boost productivity growth. On the negative side, cognitive test scores in developed economies have peaked and are now trending lower. Consistent with this observation, Heckman and LaFontaine have shown that properly measured, the U.S. high school graduation rate has been falling since the early 1970s.2 This makes baby boomers arguably the best educated generation in history. An open question concerns the extent to which slower economy-wide GDP growth filters down to sales growth among listed companies. While it is highly likely that S&P 500 sales growth will decline in an environment of weaker growth, the impact of falling GDP growth on sales may be blunted by at least three factors. First, developed economy firms will still be able to benefit from rising sales to emerging markets, even if they are suffering from sluggish sales growth at home. Second, domestic consumption will decelerate more slowly than income growth as older workers deplete their savings. Third, lower productivity growth will coincide with less “creative destruction,” which will benefit incumbent firms. In fact, this is already happening. Chart 5 shows that net firm formation has fallen dramatically since the 1970s. Chart 4In Developed Markets, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade Chart 5A Sharp Drop In New Firm Formation   2. Aging And Profit Margins Population aging can affect profit margins in two ways: First, it can shift spending across sectors. For example, if age-related spending migrates from sectors with high margins to those with low margins, aggregate profit margins will decline. Second, aging can affect margins within sectors. Looking across sectors, health care spending is likely to rise in response to population aging. According to the Congressional Budget Office, health care expenditures are set to increase from 5.2% of GDP to 9.2% of GDP by 2048 (Chart 6). There once was a time when health care margins were double the S&P 500 average (Chart 7). During the past two decades, however, health care margins have fallen, and are now slightly below the S&P average. Chart 7AS&P 500 Margins By Sector (I) Chart 7BS&P 500 Margins By Sector (II) Looking out, it is likely that health care margins will continue to contract, as cash-strapped governments look for ways to cut health care costs. Presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have all championed “Medicare for all.” If implemented, such a policy prescription would decimate health care sector profits by reducing demand for private insurance while giving the federal government more bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices. Most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred. The only silver lining, pardon the pun, for margins is that older people tend to display greater brand loyalty (Chart 8). Whether this is because of experience, habit, or nostalgia is not clear, but older consumers switch products less often, preferring to stick with “what they know.”3 Perhaps reflecting a general tendency for self-reported happiness to increase in old age, elderly consumers also tend to express greater satisfaction with their purchases. Nevertheless, on balance, we expect aging to make a slightly negative contribution to profit margins. 3. Aging And The Risk-Free Rate Proponents of the secular stagnation thesis posit that demographic trends have led to a decline in the neutral rate of interest. As Chart 9 shows, aging could depress the neutral rate if an older population causes the aggregate investment schedule to shift inwards or the aggregate savings schedule to shift outwards. Chart 9Two Ways For Real Rates To Fall According to the standard “accelerator” model, the optimal level of investment spending is determined by the growth rate of aggregate demand.4 To the extent that slower population growth discourages firms from expanding capacity, this will lead to a lower neutral rate of interest. That said, as noted above, most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred. This implies that investment spending may not fall much further from current levels. What about savings? At the outset, aging will increase savings as more people move into their prime saving years (ages 30-to-50). Declining fertility rates will also tend to reduce spending on children, while allowing more women to join the labor force. Aging could morph from a force that has dragged down the neutral rate of interest to one that will start slowly pushing it back up. Over time, however, aging is likely to reduce the savings rate, as more workers retire, leaving fewer workers in the labor force. Once health care spending is included, consumption actually increases in old age, especially in the last few years of life (Chart 10). Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers increased from the early 1970s to the middle of this decade, but has now begun to decline (Chart 11). This suggests that aging could morph from a force that has dragged down the neutral rate of interest to one that will start slowly pushing it back up. Chart 10Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart 11The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally   Instead of running larger deficits to finance pension and health care spending, governments could raise taxes. This would reduce private consumption, thus generating additional savings for the economy. While such a step could prevent the risk-free interest rate from rising, some of the tax burden would likely end up falling on the owners of capital in the form of higher taxes on dividends, capital gains, and business profits. This would lead to lower after-tax profit margins and slower sales growth. The end result would still be the same: weaker equity prices. 4. Aging And The Equity Risk Premium When people discuss the impact that aging baby boomers will have on the stock market, they are usually – whether they realize it or not – talking about the equity risk premium. By definition, for every seller of stock there must be a buyer of stock. If baby boomers start selling shares to finance their retirement spending, someone will need to buy their shares, provided the price is low enough. The question is by how much do share prices need to fall to clear the market? In theory, households should accumulate assets over their working years and then deplete their savings in retirement. In practice, uncertainty about the timing of death, the desire to pass on wealth to future generations, and the need to maintain enough assets to finance unforeseen health care expenses all tend to induce households to run down wealth at only a modest pace during retirement. A study by John Ameriks and Stephen Zeldes using a random sample of 16,000 accounts from a major retirement fund found no evidence that households gradually decrease equity allocations as they age.5 Looking out, it is possible that baby boomers will run down their equity holdings more quickly than prior generations. For instance, the decline in family size over the past fifty years and evolving societal norms may end up causing boomers to bequeath smaller estates than in the past. The increasing popularity of annuities may also reduce the likelihood of unintended bequests. In addition, the proliferation of target-date funds may produce a more rapid shift out of equities than would occur if investors had to consciously decide to reduce exposure to the stock market. Nevertheless, we suspect that any additional selling by baby boomers will only put modest downward pressure on equity prices. This is because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households hold 84% of all stock market wealth, while the bottom 50% hold less than 1% (Chart 12). Households in the top one percent of the wealth distribution hold close to half of all stocks. These ultra-wealthy households tend to consume a fairly small share of their assets during retirement. As a result, most of their assets end up being bequeathed to family members and/or charities when they pass away. Chart 12The Wealthiest 10% In The U.S. Own The Bulk Of Equities Chart 13Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Foreign purchases of U.S. stocks should also blunt the impact of any selling by retiring baby boomers. Foreigners now hold 27% of U.S. stock market wealth, up from 5% in the mid-1970s (Chart 13). If foreign demand for U.S. equities increases in line with global ex-U.S. real GDP, this will add about $250 billion in demand for U.S. stocks (in constant dollars) over the next twenty years. This is five times greater than the roughly $50 billion in annual net selling that would occur if all investors followed the popular rule of thumb which instructs them to take their age and subtract it from 100 in order to determine how much of their financial wealth to allocate to equities. Investment Implications The discussion above suggests that aging is likely to have a moderately negative, though far from catastrophic, effect on equity prices by: 1) reducing sales growth among listed companies; 2) putting downward pressure on after-tax profit margins; 3) increasing the risk-free rate of interest; and 4) raising the equity risk premium. It is difficult to be precise about how large these effects will turn out to be. Three factors cloud any potential calculation. First, as the equation presented at the outset of this report illustrates, small shifts in any one variable can lead to big changes in the fair value of the stock market. To see this point, let us take the current S&P 500 dividend yield of 2.0% and add 1.5% to account for net share buybacks (gross buybacks less share issuance). This gives a “cash flow to shareholders” yield of 3.5%. Now consider a one percentage-point increase in the equity risk premium. An increase in the equity risk premium of this magnitude would require the cash flow yield to rise to 4.5%. This, in turn, would necessitate that equity prices fall by 22%. That’s a lot. The second factor that makes it difficult to be precise about the extent to which demographic changes will affect stock prices is that there are likely to be interaction effects among the variables in the equation above. For instance, rising labor shortages stemming from the withdrawal of baby boomers from the labor market could put downward pressure on profit margins. The resulting increase in labor’s share of income would likely boost aggregate demand, thereby contributing to a higher neutral rate of interest. Chart 14Japan’s Population Bust Was Largely Foreseen At this point, one of two things could happen. On the one hand, if central banks failed to raise rates, this would cause the economy to overheat, leading to higher inflation. Higher inflation could push up the equity risk premium, as was the case in the 1970s. On the other hand, if central banks did raise interest rates, this could cause debt burdens to become unsustainable. That could also push up the equity risk premium. The third factor that makes it challenging to estimate the impact of demographics on stocks is that it is difficult to know the proper baseline for computing the effects of aging on stock market valuations. To the extent that the variables in the equation are all forward-looking, they should incorporate the market’s views on how the retirement of baby boomers will affect the relevant drivers of equity returns. This implies that shifts in equity valuations must stem from forecast revisions rather than from anticipated trends. Thus, as an example, any change to the “sales growth” term should be properly viewed as expressing not how future sales growth will differ from past sales growth, but by how much future sales growth will differ from what investors are currently projecting. It is tempting to assume that the market has already priced in the impact of population aging.  After all, the fact that baby boomers are exiting the labor force is not exactly breaking news. Yet, in the past, markets have proven to be surprisingly oblivious to easy-to-predict demographic developments. For example, Japanese investors were keen to buy stocks and real estate in the late 1980s, despite the fact that published projections at the time showed that the country’s working-age population would decline at an accelerating pace over the subsequent decade (Chart 14). Academic work supports the view that investors tend to understate the importance of demographic forces. Stefano Della Vigna and Joshua Pollet have shown that a trading strategy that exploits predictable age-related changes in spending on such items as toys, bicycles, beer, and life insurance would have earned an annualized risk-adjusted return of approximately six percent.6 Chart 15Poor Long-Term Returns In Store For U.S. Stocks The fact that equity valuations today are stretched in the U.S., and no better than middling in the rest of the world, should add to investor concerns. Chart 15 shows that the ratio of household equity holdings-to-total financial assets has been an extremely reliable predictor of 10-year equity returns in the post-war era. Today, this indicator is pointing to low single-digit returns for U.S. stocks over the next decade. This suggests that even if the headwinds to equities from population aging turn out to be minimal, long-term investors will still earn subpar returns from stocks relative to recent history. In such an environment, a nimble investment approach, which focuses on the state of the business cycle among other things, will be necessary for generating alpha. As discussed in our recently published Strategy Outlook, investors should maintain a cyclically bullish stance towards stocks for the time being, but begin paring back exposure late next year in advance of a recession in 2021.7   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Robert T. Kiyosaki, and Sharon L. Lechter, “Rich Dad's Prophecy: Why the Biggest Stock Market Crash in History Is Still Coming...And How You Can Prepare Yourself and Profit from It!” Time Warner, 2003. 2      James Heckman and Paul LaFontaine, "The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels," The Review of Economics and Statistics 92:2, (May 2010): 244–262. 3      Please see Rajesh Iyer, Timothy H. Reisenwitz, and Jacqueline K. Eastman, “The Impact Of Cognitive Age On Seniors’ Lifestyles,” Marketing Management Journal, 18:2, (Fall 2008); and Komal Gyani Karani, and Katherine A. Fraccastoro, “Resistance To Brand Switching: The Elderly Consumer,“ Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8:12, (December 2010). 4      In most economic models, the capital-to-output ratio is assumed to converge towards a stable level over time. By definition, the capital stock in Year t is determined by the capital stock in Year t-1 plus whatever net investment (gross investment minus depreciation) takes place in Year t. In general, the optimal net investment-to-GDP ratio will equal the product of the capital-to-output ratio and the growth rate of GDP. For example, suppose that the capital-to-output ratio is three (meaning that the capital stock is three times as large as GDP). If output does not change from one year to the next, no additional net investment would be necessary to maintain a stable capital-to-output ratio. However, if output is growing at 2%, net investment of 3X2%=6% of GDP would be required. 5      John Ameriks and Stephen P. Zeldes, “How Do Household Portfolio Shares Vary with Age?” Working Paper, 2004. 6      Stefano Della Vigna, and Joshua M. Pollet, “Demographics and Industry Returns,” American Economic Review, 97:5 (2007). 7      Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: From Dead Zone To End Zone,” dated March 29, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

  Underweight The relative resilience of consumer discretionary stocks has been puzzling over the past two years. Typically, rising interest rates prelude a period of underperformance in these highly rate sensitive stocks (fed funds rate shown inverted, bottom panel) but the divergence has grown exceptionally wide. Regardless, we believe our negative thesis is sound. Consumer confidence is near record highs (though it has started to decline), which appears to be driving the relative share price gains but consumer credit has not followed suit (second panel), implying consumers are not backing up their positivity with their wallets. The sell-side too appears to discount soaring consumer confidence as earnings estimates have not kept pace with share prices, driving sector valuations to a 25% premium to the broad market and well above sustainable average levels (third panel). However, this is partially explained by Amazon, which carries roughly 30% weight in the S&P consumer discretionary index but only 12.5% of operating profit, and its exceptional outperformance since the beginning of 2018. Nonetheless, we expect retail sales to follow the opposite path of interest rates, as it always has in past cycles, and a derating to occur. Bottom Line: We reiterate our below-benchmark allocation rating on the S&P consumer discretionary index as valuations have grown excessive and BCA’s view remains that interest rates are near their trough.

Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2      The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD.  We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption.  KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4      For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Overweight With a pickup in oil prices in general and jet fuel prices in particular, a logical inference would be a decline in airlines’ earnings power (second panel). However, the revenue side of the equation has proven much more resilient than anticipated, a result of industry discipline reflected in constrained capacity growth combined with elevated consumer confidence. The upshot is that consumers have been willing to part with greater shares of their wallets in order to fly (third panel). Much of this is reflected in Delta’s results yesterday. The company lifted their full-year guidance on the back of outstanding customer demand driving unit revenues higher, combined with single-digit capacity growth. While it is worth cautioning that DAL does not face the same 737 MAX grounding issues as peers LUV, UAL and AAL, we believe the exceptional fare environment is a tide that lifts all boats. Accordingly, we expect earnings in the S&P airlines index to continue to significantly outpace the broad market (bottom panel), particularly once the transitory 737 MAX grounding issue is resolved. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, UAL, AAL and ALK.   ​​​​​​​