Mercados Financieros

Puntos destacados El acuerdo comercial interino de "fase 1" alcanzado la semana pasada representa un avance significativo hacia una distensión en la guerra comercial entre China y EE. UU. Independientemente de lo que ocurra después en las negociaciones del Brexit, se evitará una salida dura. Mantener posición larga en la libra. Es probable que el crecimiento de los beneficios en EE. UU. sea plano en el tercer trimestre, en contraste con las expectativas "bottom-up" de una caída interanual. El crecimiento de los beneficios debería repuntar a medida que el crecimiento global vuelva a acelerarse hacia fin de año. Un crecimiento global más fuerte presionará a la baja al dólar estadounidense. Mantener sobreponderación en acciones globales respecto a los bonos en un horizonte de 12 meses. Las acciones cíclicas deberían comenzar a superar a las defensivas. El sector financiero finalmente tendrá su momento de gloria. Vientos favorables del comercio En nuestra Perspectiva estratégica del cuarto trimestre publicada hace dos semanas, argumentamos que las acciones globales habían entrado en una fase de "demuéstramelo", lo que significa que sería necesaria evidencia tangible de una desescalada en la guerra comercial y una recuperación del crecimiento global para que los índices bursátiles subieran.1  Recibimos algunas noticias positivas en el frente comercial el pasado viernes. A cambio de suspender la subida prevista de aranceles del 15 de octubre del 25% al 30% sobre $250 mil millones de importaciones chinas, China acordó comprar entre $40 y $50 mil millones de dólares de productos agrícolas estadounidenses por año, mejorar el acceso al mercado para las empresas de servicios financieros de EE. UU. y aumentar la transparencia en la gestión del tipo de cambio. Admitimos que aún queda mucho por hacer. El texto del acuerdo aún no se ha finalizado. Ambas partes apuntan a concluir el pacto para la cumbre de la APEC en Santiago, Chile, los días 16 y 17 de noviembre. Teniendo en cuenta que quedan sin resolver una serie de cuestiones clave, incluyendo qué tipo de mecanismos de cumplimiento y resolución se incluirán en el acuerdo, son posibles más retrasos o incluso un colapso en las conversaciones. El acuerdo interino pactado la semana pasada también aplaza la espinosa cuestión de cómo manejar las protecciones de propiedad intelectual a una "fase 2" de las negociaciones programada para comenzar poco después de que se cierre la "fase 1". Según la independiente y bipartidista Comisión sobre el robo de la propiedad intelectual estadounidense, los productores de EE. UU. pierden entre $225 y $600 mil millones anuales por el robo de PI.2 China a menudo ha sido considerada entre los peores infractores. Dada la importancia del tema de la PI, será necesario un progreso significativo para asegurar que no se introduzcan aranceles del 15% sobre aproximadamente $160 mil millones de importaciones chinas el 15 de diciembre. Trump quiere un acuerdo A pesar de los muchos obstáculos que quedan, los acontecimientos de la semana pasada aumentan significativamente las probabilidades de una distensión en la guerra comercial de 18 meses. Como autoproclamado "maestro negociador", el presidente Trump ha puesto en juego su credibilidad al describir las negociaciones como un "festival de amor", llamar al pacto comercial "el mayor y mejor acuerdo jamás hecho para nuestros grandes y patrióticos agricultores" y decir que tiene "poca duda" de que se alcanzará un acuerdo final. Al igual que hizo con el sucesor del TLCAN, el USMCA —un acuerdo que es sustantivamente similar al que reemplazó— es probable que Trump pase a modo de promoción, pregonando el nuevo acuerdo "tremendo" que ha negociado en nombre del pueblo estadounidense. Desde el punto de vista político, esto tiene perfecto sentido. Con razón o sin ella, los votantes valoran más a Trump por su manejo de la economía que por cualquier otra cosa (Gráfico 1). Una guerra comercial prolongada socavaría la economía estadounidense y, por tanto, dañaría las perspectivas de reelección de Trump. Gráfico 1 Trump recibe calificaciones relativamente altas por su manejo de la economía, pero no por mucho más Kumbaya Kumbaya Gráfico 2 Las empresas chinas no están soportando la mayor parte de los aranceles Kumbaya Kumbaya A pesar de sus afirmaciones en sentido contrario, la evidencia sugiere firmemente que son los consumidores estadounidenses, más que las empresas chinas, quienes están pagando la mayor parte de los aranceles. Gráfico 2 muestra que los precios de importación de EE. UU. desde China apenas han disminuido, aun cuando las tasas arancelarias sobre las importaciones chinas han aumentado. En la medida en que las últimas rondas de aranceles se centran en bienes chinos para los que hay poca competencia en EE. UU. o en terceros países, la capacidad de los productores chinos para repercutir el coste de los aranceles solo aumentará. Si se implementaran todas las subidas de aranceles anunciadas, la tasa arancelaria efectiva sobre las importaciones chinas subiría desde alrededor del 15% a finales de agosto hasta un máximo del 25% en diciembre (Gráfico 3). Tal tasa arancelaria reduciría los ingresos disponibles de los hogares estadounidenses en más de $100 mil millones de dólares, borrando la mayor parte de las ganancias de los recortes fiscales de 2017. Trump no puede permitir que la guerra comercial llegue a ese punto. Gráfico 3 Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse. Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse. ¿China adoptará una postura dura? Un riesgo para una resolución favorable de la guerra comercial es que China vea cada vez más a Trump como desesperado por cerrar un acuerdo. Esto podría llevar a los chinos a adoptar una postura dura en las negociaciones. Aunque no se puede descartar este riesgo, lo atenuamos por tres razones: Primero, aunque los exportadores chinos han podido mantener cierto poder de fijación de precios durante la guerra comercial, los volúmenes comerciales han sufrido, con las exportaciones a EE. UU. cayendo casi un 22% interanual en septiembre. Segundo, como han demostrado las sanciones paralizantes contra ZTE, China sigue siendo muy dependiente de las tecnologías estadounidenses. Esto le da a Trump mucha palanca en las negociaciones comerciales. Gráfico 4 ¿Quién ganará la nominación demócrata de 2020? Kumbaya Kumbaya Tercero, como al propio Trump le gusta decir, a China le resultará más fácil negociar con él durante su primer mandato que en un segundo. Esperar que Trump perdiera su intento de reelección podría haber tenido sentido para China hace unos meses cuando Joe Biden iba por delante en las encuestas; pero ahora que Elizabeth Warren ha emergido como la favorita para asegurar la nominación demócrata, esa esperanza se ha desvanecido (Gráfico 4). Como señalamos hace varias semanas, es probable que China encuentre a Warren no menos problemática en asuntos comerciales que a Trump.3  Todo esto sugiere que China, al igual que Trump, buscará formas de enfriar las tensiones comerciales en las próximas semanas. ¿Avance en el Brexit? Cuando se cierra esta edición, las perspectivas de un acuerdo del Brexit han mejorado. Aunque los detalles aún no se han publicado, el acuerdo propuesto pondría efectivamente a Irlanda del Norte en una verdadera superposición cuántica donde está tanto en el mercado común europeo como en el Reino Unido al mismo tiempo. Esta hazaña se conseguiría manteniendo a Irlanda del Norte dentro de la jurisdicción política del Reino Unido pero aún alineada con las normas regulatorias de la UE. Las negociaciones aún podrían torcerse. A pesar de la garantía del primer ministro Boris Johnson de que logró "un gran nuevo acuerdo", el socio de coalición de los conservadores, el Partido Unionista Democrático de Irlanda del Norte, todavía está reteniendo su apoyo al pacto. El líder laborista Jeremy Corbyn también ha rechazado el acuerdo, diciendo que es aún peor que el pacto originalmente propuesto por Theresa May. Independientemente de lo que ocurra en los próximos días, seguimos pensando que se evitará un Brexit duro. A lo largo de todo el calvario del Brexit, hemos sostenido que no existía suficiente apoyo político dentro de la clase dirigente británica para un Brexit sin acuerdo. Esa convicción solo se ha reforzado a medida que los datos de opinión han revelado que una mayor proporción de votantes elegiría permanecer en la UE si se celebrara otro referéndum (Gráfico 5). Hemos mantenido una posición larga en la libra frente al euro desde el 3 de agosto de 2017. La operación ha ganado un 6.6% en este periodo. Los inversores deberían mantener esta posición. Basándonos en los diferenciales de tasas de interés reales, GBP/EUR debería cotizar cerca de 1.30 en lugar del nivel actual de 1.16 (Gráfico 6). Esperamos que el cruce se mueva hacia su valor justo a medida que disminuyan aún más los riesgos de un Brexit duro. Gráfico 5 Angustia por el Brexit: un caso de arrepentimiento por Brexit Angustia por el Brexit: Un caso de Bremorse Angustia por el Brexit: Un caso de Bremorse Gráfico 6 Importante potencial alcista en la libra Potencial Alcista Sustancial en la Libra Potencial Alcista Sustancial en la Libra   Mejoran las perspectivas de crecimiento global Gráfico 7 La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos blandos La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos suaves La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos suaves Gráfico 8 La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio del desplome del ISM La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio de la caída del ISM La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio de la caída del ISM Una distensión en la guerra comercial y una resolución de la saga del Brexit deberían ayudar a sostener el crecimiento global. La debilidad en los datos económicos ha sido mucho más pronunciada en las medidas denominadas "blandas", como las encuestas empresariales, que en las medidas "duras" como la producción industrial (Gráfico 7). Notablemente, la producción manufacturera estadounidense se ha estabilizado en los últimos tres meses, aun cuando el índice manufacturero ISM se ha desplomado (Gráfico 8). A medida que el sentimiento se recupere, los datos blandos deberían mejorar. Las condiciones financieras globales se han relajado significativamente en los últimos cinco meses, en gran parte gracias al giro acomodaticio de la mayoría de los bancos centrales (Gráfico 9). El número neto de bancos centrales que recortan tasas suele adelantar al PMI manufacturero global entre 6 y 9 meses (Gráfico 10). Además, la decisión de la Fed de volver a comprar bonos del Tesoro aumentará la liquidez en dólares, contribuyendo así a unas condiciones financieras más laxas. Gráfico 9 Condiciones financieras más fáciles impulsarán el crecimiento global Condiciones financieras más favorables impulsarán el crecimiento mundial Condiciones financieras más favorables impulsarán el crecimiento mundial   Gráfico 10 Los efectos de la relajación de la política monetaria deberían filtrarse pronto a la economía Los efectos de la flexibilización de la política monetaria deberían llegar pronto a la economía. Los efectos de la flexibilización de la política monetaria deberían llegar pronto a la economía. Un estímulo chino reforzado también debería ayudar a activar el crecimiento global. El crecimiento del dinero y del crédito en China superó las expectativas en septiembre. El PBoC ha estado recortando los requisitos de reservas, lo que ha contribuido a reducir las tasas interbancarias. Es probable que se realicen nuevos recortes a la facilidad de financiación a medio plazo durante el resto de este año. Los cambios en el crecimiento del crédito chino adelantan al crecimiento global en aproximadamente nueve meses (Gráfico 11). Gráfico 11 El crédito chino debería apoyar la recuperación del crecimiento global El crédito chino debería respaldar la recuperación del crecimiento mundial El crédito chino debería respaldar la recuperación del crecimiento mundial Mantener sobreponderación en acciones globales Aunque el camino para finalizar un acuerdo de "fase 1" a tiempo para la cumbre de la APEC probablemente será accidentado, reiteramos nuestra recomendación de que los inversores sobreponderen acciones globales frente a bonos en un horizonte de 12 meses. Esperamos mejorar la valoración de las acciones de mercados emergentes (EM) y europeas en las próximas semanas una vez que veamos más evidencia de que el crecimiento global está tocando fondo. En última instancia, la trayectoria de las acciones dependerá de lo que ocurra con los beneficios. La temporada de resultados en EE. UU. comenzó esta semana. Hasta la semana pasada, los analistas esperaban que las EPS del S&P 500 disminuyeran un 4.6% en el tercer trimestre respecto al mismo trimestre del año anterior, según datos compilados por FactSet. Tenga en cuenta, sin embargo, que el crecimiento de las EPS ha superado las estimaciones en alrededor de cuatro puntos porcentuales desde 2015 (Gráfico 12). Por tanto, una apuesta razonable es que los beneficios estadounidenses se mantendrán planos este trimestre, superando una baja barrera de expectativas. Gráfico 12 Las EPS reales generalmente han superado las estimaciones Kumbaya Kumbaya Gráfico 13 Los beneficios y el PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono Las ganancias y el crecimiento del PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono Las ganancias y el crecimiento del PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono El hecho de que el 83% de las 63 empresas del S&P 500 que han informado beneficios hasta ahora hayan superado las estimaciones —mejor que la media histórica del 64%— respalda la opinión de que las estimaciones actuales para el tercer trimestre son demasiado pesimistas. Mirando hacia adelante, el crecimiento de los beneficios debería mejorar a medida que se acelere el crecimiento del PIB nominal (Gráfico 13). Las acciones europeas y de mercados emergentes generalmente superan al referente global cuando el crecimiento global mejora (Gráfico 14). Esto se debe a la naturaleza más cíclica de sus mercados bursátiles. Además, como moneda contracíclica, el dólar tiende a debilitarse en un entorno de crecimiento más rápido. Un dólar más débil beneficia de manera desproporcionada a las acciones cíclicas (Gráfico 15).   Gráfico 14 Las acciones de EM y de la zona euro suelen superar cuando mejora el crecimiento global Las acciones de los mercados emergentes y de la zona del euro suelen tener un mejor rendimiento cuando mejora el crecimiento global. Las acciones de los mercados emergentes y de la zona del euro suelen tener un mejor rendimiento cuando mejora el crecimiento global. Gráfico 15 Las acciones cíclicas superarán si el dólar se debilita Las acciones cíclicas tendrán mejor desempeño si el dólar se debilita Las acciones cíclicas tendrán mejor desempeño si el dólar se debilita Incluiríamos a los financieros en nuestra definición de sectores cíclicos. A medida que mejore el crecimiento global, los rendimientos de los bonos a largo plazo aumentarán en el margen. Dado que los bancos centrales no tienen prisa por subir las tasas, las curvas de rendimiento se empinarán. Esto impulsará los beneficios bancarios y los precios de las acciones (Gráfico 16). Las acciones cíclicas están actualmente bastante baratas en comparación con las defensivas (Gráfico 17). Del mismo modo, las acciones no estadounidenses son relativamente baratas en comparación con sus homólogas estadounidenses, incluso si se ajusta por diferencias en la composición sectorial entre regiones. Mientras que las acciones estadounidenses cotizan a 17.5 veces las ganancias a futuro, las acciones internacionales cotizan a un PER a futuro más atractivo de 13.7. La combinación de mayores rentabilidades por beneficios y tipos de interés más bajos en el extranjero implica que la prima de riesgo de la renta variable es aproximadamente dos puntos porcentuales más alta fuera de Estados Unidos (Gráfico 18). Gráfico 16 Curvas de rendimiento más empinadas beneficiarán a los financieros Curvas de rendimiento más pronunciadas beneficiarán al sector financiero Curvas de rendimiento más pronunciadas beneficiarán al sector financiero Gráfico 17 Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas   Gráfico 18 La prima de riesgo de la renta variable es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de EE. UU. La prima de riesgo de las acciones es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de Estados Unidos. La prima de riesgo de las acciones es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de Estados Unidos. Esperamos mejorar la valoración de las acciones de mercados emergentes (EM) y europeas en las próximas semanas una vez que veamos más evidencia de que el crecimiento global está tocando fondo.   Peter Berezin, Jefe de Estrategia Global Estrategia Global de Inversiones peterb@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1Consulte Estrategia Global de Inversiones, “Perspectiva estratégica del cuarto trimestre de 2019: un mercado 'muéstrame',” con fecha 4 de octubre de 2019. 2 “Actualización del Informe de la Comisión sobre el Robo de la Propiedad Intelectual: El informe de la Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property,” The National Bureau of Asian Research, 2017. 3Consulte Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren y los mercados,” con fecha 13 de septiembre de 2019. Estrategia & tendencias del mercado Modelo MacroQuant y puntajes subjetivos actuales Kumbaya Kumbaya Recomendaciones estratégicas Operaciones cerradas

Informe especial

Highlights A recovery in Chinese auto sales is not imminent. Car sales will likely stage only a rate-of-change improvement, moving from deep to mild contraction or stagnation over the next three-to-six months. Low-speed electric vehicles are a cheap substitute for regular low-end cars. Their production requires fewer inputs and parts compared to cars. Hence, their rising penetration will be negative for economic activity at the margin. Auto ownership will continue to rise in China in the years to come. However, this does not necessitate rising car sales. In fact, auto ownership can increase with car sales contracting in each consecutive year. This scenario represents a major risk to auto stock prices. Feature Chart 1Chinese Auto Sales: An Extended Downturn Chinese automobile sales have been deep under water for 15 consecutive months. The magnitude of the contraction has been even worse than the one that occurred in 2008-‘09. Annualized sales1 have declined from a peak of nearly 30 million units in June 2018 to 26 million this September (Chart 1). To put this 4-million-unit decline into perspective, only about 5 million units of automobiles were produced in Germany last year. Given the already long and deep contraction, does this mean Chinese auto sales and production are about to stage an imminent recovery? Although a revival sometime next year is plausible, we are not positive in the near term. Car sales will stage a rate-of-change improvement only, moving from deep to mild contraction or stagnation (i.e. zero growth) the next three to six months (Chart 1, bottom panel). Gauging The Demand Outlook Chart 2Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Falling Reluctance to purchase a car and curtailed financing are the causes of the deep auto sales contraction in China. The factors that have weighed on consumers’ willingness to purchase cars remain intact. First, our indicator for household marginal propensity to spend continues to fall, indicating no immediate signs of a turnaround (Chart 2). Cyclically, decelerating economic activity is weighing on income expectations, prompting consumers to delay their discretionary spending. Besides, the growth rate of disposable income per capita is at the lower end of its historical range and is falling in real (inflation-adjusted) terms (Chart 3). In addition, Chinese households are more leveraged now than their U.S. counterparts (Chart 4). Their debt levels have reached over 120% of annual disposable income. Chart 3Real Disposable Income Growth Is Weakening Chart 4Chinese Households Are Increasingly Indebted   Meanwhile, the U.S.-China confrontation continues to foster uncertainty among consumers and businesses in the Middle Kingdom. Although some sort of agreement was reached last week, the future of longer-term U.S.-China relations remains highly uncertain. Hence, the potential “phase-one” trade agreement is unlikely to shift Chinese consumers’ and businesses’ overall cautious sentiment. These factors will continue to weigh on consumers’ purchasing behavior, especially on big-ticket items like automobiles. Reluctance to purchase a car and curtailed financing are the causes of the deep auto sales contraction in China. Second, Chinese auto financing penetration rate – measured as the proportion of autos bought using borrowed funds – has risen from 20% in 2014 to about 48%2 last year. This remains well below the 70%-plus penetration rate in major western countries (the U.S., Germany and France), but is not far from the 50% rate in Japan. The rapid increase in the use of auto financing has facilitated auto sales in China over the past several years. Financing for auto purchases has been provided by banks via loans and credit cards, dealer/manufacturer loans and peer-to-peer lending (P2P). While banks contribute about 40% of auto financing and auto dealers/manufacturers account for about 30%, the peer-to-peer platform has become the third major source of auto loans in recent years. Chart 5Limited Auto Financing From Peer-To-Peer Platforms However, since early last year, bankruptcies and closures of P2P platforms have significantly reduced available auto financing. P2P financing continues to shrink, further depressing loans for auto purchases (Chart 5). Third, there is an ongoing structural decline in consumers’ willingness to purchase cars due to greater traffic congestion, limited parking and improved public transportation. In addition, greater use of ride-sharing and car-sharing services, which the government is aiming to promote, will also continue to reduce the need to buy a car. Concerning government incentives for auto buyers, auto sales have failed to recover, so far this year, despite policy support and significant auto price cuts (Box 1). Although the government recently loosened some restrictive auto sales policies in certain cities,3 the scale was much smaller than what was done earlier this year. As in any market, production decisions are driven by sales, not inventories. Box 1 Policy Support And Auto Price Cut During January-September 2019 Since late January, Chinese authorities have released a set of pro-auto-consumption measures aimed at spurring auto sales. These measures include the approval of 100,000 new license plates in Guangzhou province and an additional 80,000 in Shenzhen. Since May, auto dealers in China have slashed prices of their Emission Standard 5 cars in order to liquidate inventories, as 15 provinces/provincial level cities have been implementing the new emissions standards since July 1, 2019 – one year earlier than the national implementation deadline. According to the law, vehicles that do not meet the new standard will not be allowed to be sold or registered once the new standard is implemented. Another pertinent question to address is whether inventories can be used to identify a bottom in this industry. This is difficult to gauge in China, as inventories at different stages of the supply chain are currently sending conflicting signals. Manufacturers’ inventories have dropped to low levels (Chart 6). Yet, dealers’ inventories remain elevated according to the newly released inventory data for September (Chart 7). Chart 6Auto Manufacturers Inventories Are Low... Chart 7...But Dealers Inventories Remain Elevated   Chart 8Auto Demand Drives Production As in any market, production decisions are driven by sales, not inventories. The chain reaction always starts from demand: rising sales lead to rising production. Producers do not typically ramp up output when sales are falling, even if inventories are low (Chart 8). Without a strong and durable rise in demand, manufacturers will not significantly increase their inventories. In short, low car inventories among manufacturers could lead to a short-term rise in output. A sustainable and lasting recovery in production, however, is contingent on a cyclical revival in auto sales. Bottom Line: A cyclical recovery in auto sales is not imminent in the next three-to-six months. A Threat From A Cheap Substitute In many small cities (from Tier 3 to Tier 6 cities), towns and villages where auto buyers are more sensitive to prices, consumers are opting to purchase low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) – a cheap substitute for regular autos. Last year, LSEV makers sold about 1.5 million units in China, accounting for about 6% of passenger vehicle sales for the year. In comparison, even with massive government subsidies, total new energy vehicle (NEV, mainly including pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) sales only reached 1.2 million units in 2018, 20% lower than LSEV sales. In many small cities, towns and villages consumers are opting to purchase low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) – a cheap substitute for regular autos. LSEVs are small, short-range electric vehicles (three- or four-wheeled cars) with top driving speeds below 80km per hour and with a similar look to regular cars.4 They have much lower technical and safety standards: LSEVs are not considered automobiles by the country’s motor vehicle management system. Consequently, official auto production and sales data released by authorities do not include LSEV figures. Chart 9Significant Output Expansion In Low-Speed Electric Vehicles Technically, these vehicles are within some sort of grey area of Chinese regulations, but that has not stopped the industry's remarkable growth. Shandong province accounts for about 40% of the country’s LSEV output. The dramatic LSEV production expansion in the province gives a glimpse into the booming LSEV industry in China (Chart 9). Last year’s LSEV production drop was due to the government’s tightening of LSEV output policies and greater competition from small-size pure electric vehicles, which benefited from government subsidies. Both factors have diminished this year due to policy changes and the termination of subsidies for the small-size pure electric vehicle. Looking forward, consumers will continue purchasing LSEVs as a substitute for lower-end cars. They will have negative effect on low-end car sales, especially when household budgets tighten. Table 1 lays out the main differences between an LSEV and a lower-end passenger car. Clearly, the most attractive feature of an LSEV is its price, which can be as cheap as 10,000 RMB (less than US$2,000) with a big proportion of LSEVs ranging from 20,000 RMB to 30,000 RMB. In comparison, prices of lower-end passenger vehicles in general range from 50,000RMB to 80,000 RMB, more expensive than LSEVs. As nearly half of Chinese households already own an automobile, the potential of future auto sales clearly lies in lower-income households. However, the 2018 NBS household survey showed the annual household disposable income for the lowest 60% percentile rural households was lower than the low-end price of regular auto – 50,000 RMB (US$ 7,050) (Chart 10). In comparison, a much cheaper LSEV will be affordable for them. Given that they are inferior goods, LSEVs could become even more attractive at times of weak disposable income growth. In addition to cheap prices, Box 2 reveals other attractive features that will make LSEVs the most convenient and affordable form of transportation for many potential auto buyers. This will also help promote the popularity of the LSEVs in small cities and rural areas. Table 1The Comparison Between LSEVs And Lower-End Passenger Cars Chart 10Low-Speed Electric Vehicles: Affordable For Lower-Income Households   Further, this year’s regulatory changes are also favorable for the LSEV industry (Box 3). This marked a clear policy reversal from last year when the government executed a crackdown on LSEV production and issued a policy prohibiting new capacity of LSEVs. Box 2 The Non-Price Reasons For The Increasing Popularity Of The LSEVs The LSEV is more convenient as it is easy to drive and to park because of its small size. The drive range of 100 km per charge of the battery is sufficient for a person who only uses it to go to work or pick up the kids from school. It is particularly useful in small cities and rural areas where the public transportation network is poor. The speed of 40-60 km per hour is also fast enough to drive in small cities and rural area where there are not much road traffic and the roads are often designed for low driving speed. LSEVs also have the benefit of being able to charge from home electrical outlets, eliminating the need to use public charging/fueling infrastructure. Box 3 Policy On LSEV Industry: More Favorable In 2019 Than In 2018 In March, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced that by 2021 the national standards of the “Technical Conditions of Four-Wheel Low-Speed Electric Vehicles” would be established. This will eventually bring the LSEV market under the government’s supervision while giving LSEV makers two years to improve their technology. This will help improve the quality and safety measures of LSEVs. In May and June, over 20 cities started to issue car plates for LSEVs and approved of the LSEVs right to be on the road. This signals that the government is aiming to regulate the LSEV sector in a positive way, rather than simply banning production. Bottom Line: Cheap LSEVs will be a low-cost substitute for regular low-end cars. Their production requires fewer inputs and parts compared to cars. Hence, their rising penetration will be negative for economic activity at the margin. What About NEV Demand? New Electric Vehicle (NEV) sales were a bright spot among all categories of auto sales in China last year, with year-on-year growth of 62%. However, NEV sales growth has decelerated considerably this year as the government began cutting subsidies (Chart 11). NEV sales will remain under pressure. Table 2 shows the timeline of China’s NEV subsidy exit plan, which was released in late March. The subsidy is set to be phased out by 2021. Chart 11New Electric Vehicle Sales Growth Will Slow But Remain Positive Table 2The China’s New Electric Vehicle Subsidy Exit Plan   In comparison to last year, there will be no subsidy at all for pure electric vehicles (PEVs) with recharge mileage of 250 kilometers and lower. This will make it more difficult for mini-PEVs to compete with LSEVs with respect to price. For PEVs with recharge mileage of 250 kilometers and above, the subsidy has also been cut significantly. However, we still expect NEV demand growth to remain positive. The government will continue to maintain zero sales tax on NEVs until the end of 2020. This gives it a major advantage over non-NEV vehicles, which carry the 10% sales tax. In addition, NEVs are exempt from license restrictions on car sales and time or area restrictions on on-road autos, in cities where such policies apply. This is an attractive privilege for car buyers to consider. Current NEVs that can achieve recharge mileage of 300-450 kilometers, sell at a price of RMB 100,000 to RMB 150,000 per unit. They are both affordable and appealing for upper-middle-income and high-income urban households who prefer either green options or energy cost savings. The recharge mileage is sufficient for most daily use, and prices are in line with prices of traditional gasoline or diesel cars. If and as auto sales fail to stage a notable recovery in the next several months, Chinese auto stock  prices will likely break down. Bottom Line: With the gradual phasing out of subsidies, the period of exponential NEV sales growth is over. Nevertheless, NEV demand growth will likely remain positive. Investment Implications Chart 12Chinese Auto Stock Prices Could Break Down There are three pertinent investment implications to consider. First, Chinese auto stock prices in the domestic A-share market have dropped by 60% from their 2017 highs, and have lately been moving sideways (Chart 12). Notably, these listed automakers’ per-share earnings have plunged, and the companies have cut dividends by more than the drop in their share prices (Chart 13). As a result, their trailing P/E ratio has risen and the dividend yield has dropped (Chart 14). This implies that investors are looking through the current sales contraction and expecting an imminent recovery. Chart 13A Major Contraction In Corporate Earnings And Dividends Chart 14Rising Trailing P/E And Falling Dividend Yield   If and as auto sales fail to stage a notable recovery in the next several months, these share prices will likely break down. Second, petroleum demand growth from the transportation sector will be decelerating in China over the coming years. Rising NEV sales as a share of total auto sales, substituting autos for LSEVs and a slower pace of growth in the number of vehicles on roads imply diminishing demand for gasoline in the coming years (Chart 15). Today BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service is also publishing a Special Report discussing India’s demand for oil. The report argues for slowing growth in Indian oil demand. Combined, China and India make up 19% of the world’s oil consumption (slightly lower than the 21% accounted for by the U.S.), and weaker demand growth in these economies is negative for oil prices. Third, investors should differentiate between a long-term economic view and investment strategy. We do not disagree with the economic viewpoint that auto ownership will rise in China in the years to come. But this will happen even if auto sales decline on an annual basis over the next 10 years. Chart 16 illustrates this point: if annual auto sales drop by 2% during each consecutive year over the next decade, and the scrap rate is around 3%, car ownership, defined as the share of households owning one car, will continue to rise from the current 50% level, reaching 80% by 2030. Chart 15Falling Growth In Existing Vehicles Entails Slower Growth In Gasoline Demand Chart 16Stimulation: Car Ownership Can Rise With Shrinking Auto Sales   Nevertheless, such a scenario – a 2% annual drop in car sales in each consecutive year over the next decade - is bearish for automakers’ share prices. Any stock price is very sensitive to long-term growth expectations for corporate earnings.5 A 2% recurring annual drop in car sales will be disastrous for auto stock valuations. This is a case when the long-term economic view on rising prosperity and car ownership in China stands in contrast with a negative investment outcome for the auto sector and its shareholders. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Sales of total automobiles, including passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles. 2      From Chinese Banking Association Report on June 18, 2019. https://www.china-cba.net/Index/show/catid/14/id/26688.html 3      Guangzhou further added 10,000 car plates open to the public while Guiyang eliminated cap on new-vehicle sales. 4      https://www.wsj.com/video/big-in-china-tiny-electric-cars/CF7E986A-7C70-4EE3-8F7B-441621F10C94.html 5      The reason is that both interest rates and earnings long-term growth rate are present in the denominator of any cash flow discount model (Stock Price = Expected Dividends / (Interest rate – Earnings long-term growth rate)). Hence, they have the potential to affect share prices exponentially while dividends/profits are present in the numerator so their impact on equity prices is linear.

Pervasive global policy uncertainty continues to fuel USD safe-haven demand. This keeps the Fed’s broad trade-weighted dollar index for goods close to record highs, which continues to stifle oil demand. At present, we do not expect this pervasive uncertainty to dissipate. For this reason, we are lowering our oil-demand growth expectation slightly for this year and next. Our estimate of global supply growth is slightly lower for this year and next, as well; we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline and for capital markets to restrain U.S. shale-oil growth.1 Our price forecast for 4Q19 is $66/bbl on average, an estimate that includes a risk premium reflecting continued tension in the Persian Gulf. Our updated supply-demand balances for 2020 reduce our Brent price forecast to $70/bbl versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration likely will not renew Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela when it expires October 25. This raises the likelihood the country’s oil output will fall below 300k b/d, down from the 650k b/d we currently estimate.2 Production could revive next year, if Russian or Chinese firms step in to fill the void. This is not certain, however, as the U.S. is pressing both to end their support for the Maduro regime. Separately, the Aramco IPO could occur as early as November, according to press reports. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges in Asia are staging a recovery, clocking in at $56.70/MT at the end of last week, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets. The MB index fell to a record low of $49.20/MT in late August. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold volatility remains elevated – standing at 15.1% p.a. on the COMEX – as markets continue to process news re a partial easing of tensions in the Sino-US trade war. Geopolitical tensions, which now encompass Turkey-US relations, remain elevated. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Uncertainty around a partial deal involving ag exports from the U.S. to China remains high, as negotiators deliberately minimize expectations of a successful outcome. The big sticking point appears to be whether U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports due to kick in in December will be removed. Feature Uncertainty arising from global economic policy risk continues to dominate commodity markets. This has been the case going on three years. While it is ubiquitous, it is difficult to isolate. In earlier research, we noted the tightening of global financial conditions – largely the result of the Fed’s rates normalization policy, which resulted in four rate hikes last year, and China’s deleveraging policy – were responsible for the sharp slowing of oil demand seen in 2H18-1H19.3 Recently concluded research allows us to extend our earlier thesis to account for the effect of pervasive global policy uncertainty over the past three years, which has dominated our analysis of commodity markets generally, oil in particular. To wit: We find a strong, positive correlation between uncertainty, as measured by the Baker-Bloom-Davis Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index, and the Fed's USD broad trade-weighted index for goods (TWIBG) from January 2017 to now (Chart of the Week).4 Chart of the WeekUSD Absorbs Global Policy Uncertainty USD Absorbs Global Uncertainty Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Prior to 2017, the correlations between the GEPU index and the USD TWIBG were running at 33% and 63% for the periods 2000 to 2016 and 2010 to 2016, the post-GFC period for y/y returns. However, as right- and left-wing populism gained ground globally and monetary policy generally became more “data dependent” and ad hoc at the Fed, ECB and BoJ, the GEPU and USD TWIBG indices became highly correlated, surpassing 90% (Chart 2).5 This period saw the U.S. become more and more assertive vis-à-vis trade and foreign policy, particularly in re China, Iran and Venezuela, which caused those states to implement their own policy responses. In addition, as monetary policy generally became increasingly accommodative, central banks – and policy analysts – became less certain about the effects of their policies on the broader economy (e.g., the Fed shifting away from rates normalization, the ECB’s re-launching of QE, and the BoJ’s interest-rate targeting regime). Chart 2Co-Movement In GEPU, USD TWIBG Often, commodity markets were forced to adjust to sudden policy changes – e.g., the imposition of trade tariffs against China, or the granting of waivers to Iran’s eight largest importers in November 2018 just before oil-export sanctions were re-imposed. Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Increasing uncertainty translated into a steadily increasing USD TWIBG, with safe-haven demand for dollars rising, as the Chart of the Week indicates. To date, we have not decomposed the drivers of monetary conditions, particularly in re central-bank accommodation versus global economic policy uncertainty on the evolution of the USD. The GEPU index hit a record high in August 2019, while the USD TWIBG hit a record in September 2019. It is possible the effects of general policy uncertainty could be cumulative – as earlier uncertainties remain unresolved and new ones are added to the global mix (e.g., US-Turkey foreign-policy tensions now have been added to other geopolitical risks). It is entirely possible global monetary policy easing – particularly from the Fed – is accommodating safe-haven demand accompanying higher uncertainty. If the Fed were to tighten while uncertainty remains elevated the USD could rally sharply and impact commodity demand even more. Persistent USD Strength Lowers Oil Price Forecast Based on our analysis, the effects of the uncertainty we observe in the USD above are transmitted to GDP globally, which feeds through to commodity demand. As the USD strengthens, it raises the local-currency cost of commodities and the cost of servicing USD-denominated debt ex-US. In addition, on the supply side, a stronger dollar lowers local production costs at the margin, which stokes deflation globally.  All else equal, these effects push oil prices lower by reducing demand and increasing supply at the margin. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth. This is most pronounced in EM economies (Chart 3), but there are feedback effects into DM in the form of reduced trade volumes, which hits manufacturing economies like Germany harder than service-dominated economies like the US. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth to 1.13mm b/d this year and 1.40mm b/d in 2020 (Chart 4). This is down slightly from 1.2mm b/d this year and 1.5mm b/d next year. In line with the U.S. EIA, we also lowered our estimate of 2018 demand, which has the effect reducing the level of demand we expect in 2019 and 2020. Chart 3Local-Currency Oil Costs Are High Chart 4BCA Research Supply-Demand Balances We maintain our expectation fiscal and monetary stimulus globally will revive demand, but, given the deleterious effects of global uncertainty and its effects on demand via the USD, we are moderating our position some, as the downward adjustment to consumption indicates. On the supply side, we expect KSA’s output to be fully restored by November, and for production in the Kingdom to average 9.9mm b/d in October and November. We are expecting overall OPEC 2.0 output growth of 250k b/d on average in the 2Q20 to 4Q20 interval, down from our previous growth estimate of 500k b/d. In the US, we expect shale-oil output to grow 900k b/d in 2020, versus 1.3mm b/d in 2019, which will leave overall U.S. crude output at 13.3mm b/d next year on average, as capital-market constraints continue to act as a governor on total output (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Shale-Oil Output Will Remain Capital-Constrained Overall, we expect global supply to finish 2019 at 100.8mm b/d and at 102.3mm b/d next year, which is down slightly from our earlier estimates (Table 1). Even with demand moderating, we expect inventories to continue to draw this year and into 3Q20 before they resume building, as the combination of OPEC 2.0 production discipline and capital markets constrain output (Chart 6). Chart 6OECD Oil Inventories On Track To Draw Table 1 Investment Implications Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand. Given our supply-demand expectations, we forecast Brent will trade lower next year, at $70/bbl on average versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. This is ~ $10/bbl above the median consensus. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand, which will keep Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated next year (WTI was in a slight carry earlier this week, while Brent was backwardated). We would caution that any resolution of the profound uncertainty currently dogging global markets could unleash pent-up demand that would sharply rally commodities generally, and oil in particular. This could take the form of a broad trade agreement that ends the Sino-US trade war – an unlikely, but not impossible,  turn of events – or an unexpected reduction in tensions in the Persian Gulf, again, unlikely but not impossible. Bottom Line: Resolution of global policy uncertainty would revive commodity demand, as safe-haven USD demand gives way to higher consumer spending, renewed growth in global trade and investment. Until then, uncertainty will continue to hamper commodity demand growth, particularly for oil.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the moniker we coined for the producer coalition formed at the end of 2016 to regain control of production following the disastrous market-share war launched by OPEC in 2014, which took Brent prices from above $100/bbl to $26/bbl by early 2016.  The coalition is led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2      Please see Venezuelan oil output could be halved without Chevron waiver extension: analysts, posted by S&P Global Platts October 14, 2019.  3      Please see our report entitle Central Bank Easing Key To Oil Prices, published September 5, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      This GEPU is a monthly GDP-weighted index of newspaper headlines containing a list of words related to three categories – “economy,” “policy” and “uncertainty.”  Newspapers from 20 countries representing almost 80% of global GDP (on an exchange-weighted basis) are scoured monthly to create the index.  Please see GEPU and Baker-Bloom-Davis for additional information. 5      Both series are plotted as percent changes y/y in Chart 2. For the 2017 - 2019 period, the coefficient of determination for this model is 0.81 using a regression of the USD on the GEPU.  There was no statistically significant relationship between them either from 2000 to 2016, or from 2010 to 2016.  Insert SOFTS text here Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights New structural recommendation: long GBP/USD. The substantial Brexit discount in the pound makes it a long-term buy for investors who can tolerate near-term volatility. The most powerful equity play on a fading Brexit discount would be the U.K. homebuilders. Specifically, Persimmon still has a further 25 percent of upside. Take profits in long Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. Within Europe, close the overweight to Switzerland and the underweight to the Netherlands. Stay overweight banks versus industrials. Stay overweight the Euro Stoxx 50 versus the Nikkei 225. Fractal trade: long NZD/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Pound Has Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades Carnival Says The Pound Is Cheap Carnival, the world’s largest cruise liner company, lists its shares on both the London and New York stock exchanges. But there is an apparent riddle: in London the shares trade on a forward PE of 8.8, while in New York they trade on 9.4. How can Carnival trade at different valuations on the two sides of the Atlantic when the market should instantly arbitrage the difference away? The answer to the riddle is that the London listing is quoted in pounds, the New York listing is quoted in dollars, while Carnival’s sales and profits are denominated in a mix of international currencies. Neither Brexit developments nor a potential Jeremy Corbyn led government will prevent the pound from rallying in the longer term.  Carnival is trading on a higher valuation in New York versus London because the market is expecting its mixed currency earnings to appreciate more in dollar terms than in pound terms. Put another way, the valuation differential is expecting the pound to appreciate versus the dollar to a ‘fair value’ of around $1.40 (Chart I-2). Likewise, BHP Billiton shares are trading on a higher valuation in their Sydney listing compared to their London listing. This valuation differential is expecting the pound to appreciate versus the Australian dollar to around A$2.00 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Carnival Says The Pound Is Cheap Chart I-3BHP Billiton Says The Pound Is Cheap In other words, the market believes that neither Brexit developments nor a potential Jeremy Corbyn led government will prevent the pound from rallying in the longer term. We tend to agree. The Wrong Way To Pick Stock Markets… And The Right Way Before continuing with the pound’s prospects, let’s wander into the wider investment landscape. One important lesson from dual-listed companies like Carnival and BHP Billiton is that a multinational’s valuation will appear attractive in a market where the currency is structurally cheap.1 This lesson has deep ramifications. Today, multinationals dominate all the major stock markets, meaning that the entire stock market will appear cheap if its currency is cheap. The stock market will also appear cheap if it is skewed towards lower-valued sectors. But sectors trade on a low valuation for a reason – poor long-term growth prospects. Through the past decade, Japanese banks seemed a relative bargain, trading on a forward PE of less than half of that on personal products companies (Chart I-4). Yet Japanese banks were not a relative bargain. Quite the contrary. Through the past decade Japanese personal products have outperformed the banks by 500 percent! (Chart I-5) Chart I-4Japanese Banks Seemed A Relative Bargain... Chart I-5...But Japanese Banks Were Not A Relative Bargain Hence, beware of picking stock markets on the basis of observations such as ‘European stocks are cheaper than U.S. stocks’. Given that a stock market valuation is the result of its currency valuation and its sector composition, assessing relative value across major stock markets is extremely difficult, if not impossible. To repeat, Carnival appears to be trading at a valuation discount in London versus New York, but the cheapness is illusory. Here’s the right way to pick major stock markets. Identify your preferred sectors and currencies, and then pick the regional and country stock markets that are skewed to these preferred sectors and currencies. In this regard, large underweight sector skews also matter. For example, China and EM have a near-zero exposure to healthcare equities, so their performances tend to correlate negatively with that of the global healthcare sector – albeit the causality could run in either direction. Identify your preferred sectors and currencies, and then pick the regional and country stock markets that are skewed to these preferred sectors and currencies. In early May, we noticed that the extreme outperformance of technology versus healthcare was at a critical technical point at which there was a high probability of a trend reversal. This high conviction sector view implied overweight Europe versus China, as well as overweight Switzerland and underweight Netherlands within Europe (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6When Tech Underperforms Healthcare, China Underperforms Switzerland Chart I-7When Tech Underperforms Healthcare, The Netherlands Underperforms Switzerland   Given that this sector trend reversal has played out exactly as anticipated, it is time to bank the profits:   Close long Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. And within Europe, close the overweight to Switzerland and the underweight to the Netherlands. Right now, it is appropriate to overweight banks versus industrials. It is the pace of the bond yield’s decline that has weighed on bank performance this year. But if the sharpest decline in bond yields is behind us, as seems likely, then banks should fare better versus other cyclicals (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If The Sharpest Decline In Bond Yields Is Over, Banks Will Outperform Industrials Once again, this sector view carries an equity market implication: stay overweight the Euro Stoxx 50 versus the Nikkei 225 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Pound Is A Long-Term Buy Back to the pound. The message from the dual listings of Carnival and BHP Billiton is that the pound is cheap, and this is neatly corroborated by the relationship between relative interest rates and the pound versus the euro and dollar. Based on the pre-Brexit relationship between relative real interest rates and the pound’s exchange rate, we can quantify the ‘Brexit discount’. Absent this discount, the pound would now be trading close to €1.30 and well north of $1.40 (Chart of the Week and Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Pound Has Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades In the Brexit psychodrama, we do not claim to know exactly how the next few days or weeks will play out. In the short term, Brexit is a classic non-linear system, and non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable. However, in the longer term we expect the Brexit discount to fade in any sort of transitioned resolution that allows the U.K. to adapt to a new trading relationship with the world, or alternatively to stay in a relationship broadly similar to the current one. Whatever the eventual endpoint is, the key requirement to remove the Brexit discount is to avoid a cliff-edge. We expect the Brexit discount to fade in any sort of transitioned resolution. The stumbling block to a resolution is that the three key actors – the EU, the U.K. government, and the U.K. parliament – have conflicting red lines, so the Brexit ‘Venn diagram’ has had no overlap. The EU will not countenance a customs border that divides Ireland; the current U.K. government wants a Free Trade Agreement, which implies casting away Northern Ireland into the EU customs union; and the current U.K. parliament – unless its intentions suddenly change – wants the whole of the U.K., including Northern Ireland, to remain in the EU customs union.   Given that the EU will not budge its red line, the only way to a lasting resolution is for the government and parliament red lines to realign, This could happen via parliament being willing to sacrifice Northern Ireland, via a second referendum, or via a general election in which the government’s intentions and/or the composition of parliament changed. Given a long enough investment horizon – 2 years or more – it is likely that the government and parliament will realign their red lines to a Free Trade Agreement or to a customs union, one way or another. On this basis, the substantial Brexit discount in the pound makes it a long-term buy for investors who can tolerate near-term volatility. Accordingly, today we are initiating a new structural recommendation: long GBP/USD.  For equity investors, the most powerful play on a fading Brexit discount would be the U.K. homebuilders (Chart I-11). Specifically, if the pound reached $1.40, Persimmon still has a further 25 percent of upside. Chart I-11U.K. Homebuilders Have Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades Fractal Trading System*  Based on its collapsed fractal structure, we anticipate a countertrend rally in NZD/JPY within the next 130 days. Accordingly, go long NZD/JPY setting a profit target of 3 percent and a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-12 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions.   * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 There are also several companies with dual listings in the U.K. and the euro area. Unfortunately, these valuation differentials have been temporarily distorted by the risk of a no-deal Brexit, in which EU27 investors may have been forbidden from trading in the U.K. listed shares. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Fractal Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular Weekly Report this week, tomorrow we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the Chinese automobile industry outlook with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, authored by my colleague Ellen JingYuan He. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Feature Chart 1Chinese Economy Likely To Bottom In Q1 President Trump announced last Friday the first phase of a potential trade agreement with China. For now, the most concrete aspect of the announcement has been the deferral of an increase in tariffs that had been scheduled to occur this week, in exchange for agriculture purchase commitments from China. Market participants initially reacted with caution to the news, given the U.S. administration’s about-face in early-May and given signs from Beijing that China “needs time” to finalize a deal. However, Chinese policymakers have subsequently played up the progress made during the negotiations, and characterized both sides as being on “the same page”. We noted in last week’s report that China’s economy was likely to stabilize in Q1 of next year (Chart 1), but that a further shock to China’s external sector and/or internal policy missteps could easily tip the Chinese economy into a deeper growth slowdown.1 This, to us, justified a tactically bearish stance towards Chinese stocks, despite our positive cyclical bias. Indeed, following our tactical underweight call initiated on July 24,2 relative to global stocks, Chinese investable stocks dropped nearly 3% in the months of August and September in reaction to intensified trade tension. Chart 2Chinese Stocks Have Been Underperforming Since Late April While it is not yet clear how substantive the final deal between the U.S. and China will be, it is our judgment that the odds of a further escalation in the trade war have legitimately fallen over the past week. Both sides of the negotiating table have strong incentives to reach a deal (particularly the U.S.), and both U.S. and Chinese policymakers may finally be acting in a way that is consistent with each side’s respective constraints. As such, we no longer feel that a tactical underweight stance is warranted, and we recommend that clients maintain a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks over the near term. The potential for the talks to collapse once again is keeping us from recommending an outright overweight tactical stance, as well as the small but still non-trivial chance that the final deal is not meaningful enough to help revive economic activity. Cyclically, a substantive trade deal would be bullish for Chinese stocks, as the relative performance of both the investable and domestic markets are meaningfully below their late-April highs (Chart 2). The stimulus that policymakers have already provided should be enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand, and a trade deal should help reinforce a stabilization in sentiment and activity over the coming year. However, one risk to our cyclical positioning is that the removal of uncertainty for China’s exporters strengthens the will of Chinese policymakers to curb “excess” credit growth. For now, this remains “a story for another day”, as investors will almost certainly bid up Chinese stocks (particularly the investable market) in reaction to a deal. But the behavior of China’s credit impulse following the surge in Q1 of this year underscores that policymakers are very serious about preventing another significant rise in the macro leverage ratio. This could lead to a less optimistic outlook over the coming 6-12 months than we originally expected when we recommended upgrading Chinese stocks earlier this year, and is a risk that we will be continually monitoring over the coming months. Stay tuned!   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing”, dated October 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Analysis on Turkey is available below. Highlights A dovish Fed or robust U.S. growth does not constitute sufficient conditions for a bull market in EM. China’s business and credit cycles are much more important factors for EM than those of the U.S. A recovery in the Chinese economy and global manufacturing is not imminent. The common signal reverberating from various financial markets is that the risks to the global business cycle are still skewed to the downside. Feature Current investor perceptions of emerging markets are mixed. Some expect EM to benefit greatly from low U.S. interest rates. These investors view even a partial trade deal between the U.S. and China as sufficient for EM to embark on a bull market. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team disagrees with this narrative. We deliberated the significance of the U.S.-China confrontation to EM in our September 19 report; therefore, we will not go over this subject here. Rather, in this report we discuss some of the more common misconceptions surrounding EM currently, and infer what these mean for investment strategies. Perception 1: The share of resource sectors (materials and energy) in the EM equity benchmark has declined substantially. This along with the expanded role of consumers and consumer stocks (Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu) in EM economies and equity markets has made their share prices less exposed to the global trade cycle and commodities prices. Reality: It is true that in many EM bourses, the weight of consumer stocks has been growing. Nevertheless, their financial markets in general, and equity markets in particular, remain very sensitive to the global trade cycle and commodities prices. Chart I-1 illustrates that the aggregate EM equity index has historically been and continues to be strongly correlated with the global basic materials stock index. The latter includes mining, steel and chemical companies. Global materials stocks also exhibit a very strong correlation with Chinese banks’ share prices. Moreover, global materials stocks also exhibit a very strong correlation with Chinese banks’ share prices (Chart I-2). The rationale for the high correlation is that both mainland banks’ profits and global demand for basic materials are driven by a common factor: China’s business cycle. Chart I-1EM And Global Materials Stocks Move Together Chart I-2Chinese Bank And Global Materials Share Prices Are Highly Correlated For example, construction in China is contracting (Chart I-3), which entails both higher NPLs for Chinese banks and lower demand for basic materials. China accounts for about 50% of global consumption of industrial metals, cement and many other basic materials. Finally, EM ex-China bank stocks also correlate strongly with global basic materials share prices. The basis is as follows: Many emerging economies export raw materials, and commodities price fluctuations impact their business cycle, exports and exchange rates. Chart I-3China: Construction Activity Is Contracting Chart I-4High-Yielding EM: Currencies And Local Bond Yields Historically, in high-yielding EM markets, currency depreciation has led to higher interest rates and lower bank share prices, and vice versa (Chart I-4). Lately, EM bond yields have not risen in response to EM currency depreciation. However, we believe this correlation will soon be re-established if EM currencies continue drifting lower.  In short, China’s money/credit cycles drive not only the mainland’s business cycle, banking profits and NPLs, but also global trade and commodities prices. The latter two - via their impact on exchange rates and in turn interest rates - have historically explained credit and domestic demand cycles in high-yielding EM. Perception 2:  EM stocks are a high-beta play on the S&P 500, i.e., EM equities outperform when the S&P 500 rallies, and vice versa. Reality: Since 2012, the beta for EM equity versus the S&P 500 has often been below one (Chart I-5). Furthermore, since 2012, EM share prices often failed to outpace their DM peers during global equity rallies. Indeed, EM relative equity performance versus DM, as well as the EM ex-China currency total return index, have been closely tracking the relative performance of global cyclicals versus global defensive stocks (Chart I-6). Chart I-5EM Equities Beta To The S&P 500 Chart I-6Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Equity Ratio And EM   In short, EM equities and currencies have been, and will remain, sensitive to the global business cycle rather than the S&P 500. Since 2012, the latter has - on several occasions - decoupled from the global manufacturing and trade cycles. Perception 3:  EM stocks, currencies and fixed-income markets are very sensitive to U.S. interest rates. Hence, a dovish Fed will lead to EM currency appreciation.  Reality: Chart I-7 reveals that EM currencies, total returns on EM local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms and EM sovereign credit spreads do not exhibit a strong relationship with U.S. Treasury yields. U.S. interest rate expectations have a much smaller impact on EM financial markets than commonly perceived by the investment community.  Overall, U.S. interest rate expectations have a much smaller impact on EM financial markets than commonly perceived by the investment community.  Chart I-7EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation Chart I-8China Cycle And EM Stocks Led U.S. Bond Yields On the contrary, the declines in U.S. bond yields in both 2015/16 and in 2018/19 were due to the growth slowdown that emanated from China/EM. The top panel of Chart I-8 illustrates that Chinese import growth rolled over in December 2017, yet U.S. bond yields rolled over in October 2018. What is more, EM share prices have been leading U.S. bond yields in recent years, not the other way around (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Perception 4:  If the U.S. avoids a recession, EM risk assets will recover. Chart I-9EM Profits Are Driven By Chinese Not U.S. Business Cycle Reality: EM per-share earnings contracted in 2012-2014 and in 2019, despite reasonably robust growth in U.S. final demand (Chart I-9, top panel). This suggests that even if the U.S. economy avoids a recession, that will not be a sufficient condition to be bullish on EM. EM corporate profits are highly driven by China’s business cycle. The bottom panel of Chart I-9 illustrates that mainland domestic industrial orders have been the key driver of EM corporate profit cycles since 2008. Perception 5:  EM equities, fixed-income markets and currencies are cheap. Reality: EM stocks are not cheap. They are fairly valued. Equity sectors with very poor fundamentals have very low multiples. Hence, they are “cheap” for a reason. These include Chinese banks, state-owned enterprises in various countries and resource companies. Equity segments with robust fundamentals are overpriced. Given that Chinese banks, state-owned enterprises in various countries, resource companies, and cyclical businesses have very large market caps, EM market-cap based equity valuation ratios are low – i.e., they appear cheap.  To remove the impact of these large market cap segments, we constructed and have been publishing the following valuation ratios: median, 20% trimmed mean and equal-sub-sector weighted (Chart I-10). Each of these is calculated based on the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios. EM equities relative to DM are not cheap either. Chart I-11 demonstrates the same ratios – median, 20% trimmed-mean and equal-sub-sector weighted values for EM versus DM. Chart I-10EM Equities Are Not Cheap Chart I-11Relative To DM EM Stocks Are Not Cheap Further, when valuations are not at extremes as in the case of EM equities at the moment, the profit cycle holds the key to share price performance over a 6 to 12-month horizon. EM earnings are presently contracting in absolute terms, and underperforming DM EPS. Two currencies that offer value are the Mexican peso and Russian ruble. Chart I-12EM Local Yields Are Low In Absolute Terms And Relative To U.S. In the fixed-income space, EM local bond yields are very low in absolute terms and relative to U.S. Treasury yields (Chart I-12). EM sovereign and corporate spreads are not wide either. As to exchange rates, the cheapest currencies are those with the worst fundamentals, such as the Argentine peso, Turkish lira and South African rand. The majority of other EM currencies are not very cheap. Two currencies that offer value are the Mexican peso and Russian ruble. Yet foreign investors are very long these currencies, and a combination of lower oil prices and portfolio outflows from broader EM will weigh on these exchange rates as well. Takeaways And Investment Strategy Chart I-13EM Currencies And Industrial Metals Prices EM risk assets and currencies exhibit the strongest correlation with global trade and commodities prices. Chart I-13 indicates that the EM ex-China currency total return index closely tracks commodities prices. This corroborates the messages from Chart I-1 on page 1 and Chart I-6 on page 4.  China’s business and credit cycles are much more important for EM than those of the U.S. A dovish Fed or strong U.S. growth are not sufficient reasons to bet on an EM bull market. A recovery in the Chinese economy and global manufacturing is not imminent. Individual EM countries’ domestic fundamentals such as return on capital, inflation, banking system health, competitiveness and politics drive individual EM performance. On these accounts, the outlook varies among EM. Readers can find analyses on specific EM economies in our Countries In-Depth page. Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM stocks, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts.  Absolute-return investors should outright avoid EM, or trade them on the short side. Within the EM equity space, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Korea ex-tech, Thailand and the UAE. Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, Philippines, Hong Kong, Turkey and Colombia. The path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up. Continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. We are also short the CNY versus the greenback. As always, the list of our country allocations for local currency bonds and sovereign credit markets is available at the end of our reports – please refer to page 16. Take Cues From These Markets We suggest investors take cues from the following financial market signals. They are unequivocally sending a downbeat message for global growth and risk assets: The ratio between Sweden and Swiss non-financial stocks in common currency terms is heading south (Chart I-14). Swedish non-financials include many companies leveraged to the global industrial cycle, while Swiss non-financials are dominated by defensive stocks. Hence, the persistent decline in this ratio presages a continued deterioration in the global industrial sector. Where is the next defense line for this ratio? To reach its 2002 and 2008 nadirs, it will need to drop by another 10%. In the interim, investors should maintain a defensive posture. Chart I-14A Message From Swedish And Swiss Equities Chart I-15A Breakdown In The Making? U.S. FAANG stocks appear to be cracking below their 200-day moving average. The relative performance of global cyclical versus global defensive stocks is relapsing below the three-year moving average that served as a support last December (Chart I-15). U.S. FAANG stocks appear to be cracking below their 200-day moving average (Chart I-16). If this support gives, the next one will be about 17% below current levels. Finally, U.S. high-beta share prices are on the verge of a breakdown (Chart I-17). The next technical support is 10% below current levels. Chart I-16FAANG Are On The Support Line Chart I-17U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are On The Edge Bottom Line: The common message reverberating from these financial markets corroborates our fundamental analysis that a global business cycle recovery is not imminent, and that global risk assets in general, and EM financial markets in particular, are at risk of selling off further. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Turkey: Is The Mean-Reversion Rally Over? Turkish financial markets have rebounded to their respective falling trend lines (Chart II-1). Are they set to break out or is a setback looming? Chart II-1Back To Falling Trend Chart II-2TRY Is Cheap Pros The economy has undergone a considerable real adjustment and many excesses have been purged: The current account balance has turned positive as imports have collapsed. Going forward, lower oil prices are likely to help the nation’s current account dynamics. The lira has become cheap (Chart II-2).  According to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs, the currency is one standard deviation below its fair value. Core and headline inflation have fallen, allowing the central bank to cut interest rates aggressively. However, the exchange rate still holds the key: if the currency depreciates anew, local bonds yields will rise and the ability of the central bank to reduce borrowing costs further will diminish. Finally, private credit and broad money growth have decelerated substantially and are contracting in inflation-adjusted terms (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Money & Credit Have Bottomed Chart II-4Banks Have Been Aggressively Buying Government Bonds The recent gap between broad money and private credit growth has been due to commercial banks buying government bonds (Chart II-4). When a commercial bank purchases a security from non-banks, a new deposit/new unit of money supply is created. Banks’ purchases of government bonds en masse have capped domestic bond yields. However, if pursued aggressively, such monetary expansion could weigh on the currency’s value.   Cons Presently, potential sources of macro vulnerability in Turkey are: Foreign debt obligations (FDOs) – which are calculated as the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – are at $168 billion, which is sizable. The annual current account surplus has reached only $4 billion and is sufficient to cover only 2.5% of FDOs, assuming the capital and financial account balance will be zero. Clearly, Turkey needs to both roll over most of its foreign debt coming due and attract foreign capital to finance a potential expansion in its imports if its domestic demand is to recover. Critically, $20 billion of net FX reserves, excluding gold, swap lines with foreign central banks and net of domestic banking and non-banking corporations’ foreign exchange deposits, are not adequate either to cover foreign debt obligations. Even though headline and core inflation measures have fallen, wage inflation remains rampant (Chart II-5). If wage inflation does not drop substantially very soon, rapidly rising unit labor costs will feed into inflation leading to negative ramifications for the exchange rate. This is especially crucial in Turkey given President Erdogan has undermined the central bank’s credibility and is resorting to populist measures to revive his popularity. Finally, Turkish banks remain under-provisioned. Currently, the banking regulator is requiring banks to boost their non-performing loans (NPL) ratio to 6.3% of total loans.This a far cry from the 2001 episode when the NPL ratio shot up to 25% (Chart II-6).   Even though interest rates rose much more in 2001 than last year, the private credit penetration in the economy was very low in the early 2000s. A higher credit penetration usually implies weaker borrowers have borrowed money and heralds a higher NPL ratio. Typically, following a credit boom and bust, it is natural for the NPL ratio to exceed 10%. We do not think Turkish banks stocks, having rallied a lot from their lows, are pricing in such a scenario. Chart II-5Surging Wages Are A Risk Chart II-6NPL Ratio Is Unrealistic Investment Recommendation We recommend both absolute-return investors and asset allocators not to chase Turkish financial markets higher. Renewed market volatility lies ahead. Given we expect foreign capital outflows from EM, Turkish companies and banks will encounter difficulties in rolling over their external debt and attracting foreign capital into domestic markets. This will produce a new downleg in the exchange rate. In turn, currency depreciation will weigh on performance of local bonds as well as sovereign and corporate credit. Stay underweight.   Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Informe especial

Feature Financial market stability depends on the availability of liquidity – which means the ability to switch between the market and cash in unlimited size and in either direction without destabilising the market price. Therefore, a fundamental question for investors is: why does liquidity sometimes evaporate and the market lose its stability? (Chart I-1). Feature Chart1929 Wall Street Crash: A Collapsed Fractal Structure Was The Straw The Broke The Camel's Back To answer this question, let’s turn it around: what is the source of market liquidity in the first place? The simple answer is disagreement. If an investor A wants to buy a large quantity of an investment without moving the price, then he must find an investor B who is willing to take the other side and sell the large quantity. Necessarily, this means that the large buyer and the large seller must disagree about the merits of the investment at the current price. It follows that liquidity evaporates and the market loses its stability if there is too much groupthink. After all, if everybody agrees, who will take the other side of the trade without destabilising the price? Market Liquidity Requires A Rich Fractal Structure Why do investors A and B disagree about the merits of the investment when they have the exact same information? The answer is that a healthy market comprises investors with a wide spectrum of investment horizons. This means that two investors can interpret the same information in polar opposite ways. Let’s say a ‘profit surprise’ causes the market price to gap up in euphoria. Investor A, a momentum trader, would interpret that as positive momentum, so he would put on a large buy order. Conversely, investor B, a long-term value investor, would interpret the exaggerated price move as an erosion of value, so he would put on a large sell order at the same price. The two investors have the same ambition: to make money. The difference is that the momentum trader sees the world in time units of days, whereas the long-term value investors sees the world in time units of years. A healthy market comprises investors with a wide spectrum of investment horizons. The presence of these various time horizons means that a healthy market’s price patterns are scale invariant to the time units of measurement – say weeks or months (Chart I-2). This is directly analogous to the scale invariance to length shown by the twigs and branches of a tree (Figure I-1). Just like a healthy tree, the scale invariance of a healthy market defines it as a fractal structure. And we can quantify this by calculating its fractal dimension. For a financial market, a fractal dimension above 1.5 signifies healthy liquidity, efficiency, and stability. Chart I-2AA Healthy Stock Market's Price Patterns Are Scale Invariant Chart I-2BA Healthy Stock Market's Price Patterns Are Scale Invariant Figure I-1A Healthy Tree’s Structure Is Scale Invariant Conversely, a withering fractal structure – and declining fractal dimension – signifies a coalescing of investment horizons, and thereby an erosion of liquidity, efficiency, and stability. Too many value investors are joining the momentum herd rather than dispassionately investing on the basis of a valuation framework. At first, their additional buy orders add fuel to the rally. But a denouement occurs when the fractal dimension has collapsed towards its lower bound close to, but just above, 1. At this point, all the value investors have joined the momentum herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a large sell order, there are two possible outcomes: The trend reverses substantially to attract a large buy order from an ultra-long-term deep value investor who refuses to join the groupthink. The trend continues substantially, because the ultra-long-term deep value investor jumps on the momentum bandwagon too. It turns out that out of these two possibilities, the probability of a trend reversal is much higher than that of a trend continuation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Dollar/Yen: Collapsed Fractal Structures Cause Long-Term Tops And Bottoms When The Fractal Structure Collapses, The Probability Of A Trend Reversal Is 60-70 Percent Almost exactly five years ago in our Special Report “The Universal Constant of Finance” we developed the mathematics to calculate the fractal dimension for any financial asset for any pair of investment horizons (Box I-1). Meaning that the 65 day dimension would measure the fractal structure for the 1 day and 65 day (1 quarter) horizons; the 60 month dimension would measure it for the 1 month and 60 month (5 year) horizons; and so on.1 Box I-1Calculating A Fractal Dimension When the fractal dimension collapsed to its lower bound, we found that the previous trend during the period defined in the dimension – 65 days for a 65 day dimension, 60 months for a 60 month dimension, and so on – had a much higher probability of reversing by a third in the following period (a win) than continuing by a third (a symmetrical loss). In this sense, the collapsed fractal structure signalled the opportunity to toss a coin with the odds significantly tilted in your favour. In the subsequent five years, we have used collapsed fractal structures to recommend 150 countertrend trades in all asset-classes: equities, commodities, bonds, both directional and long/short, and FX. To emphasise, the trades are not back tests, they are live trades with initiations and closes recommended in real time. A denouement occurs when the fractal dimension has collapsed towards its lower bound close to, but just above, 1.  Today, we are delighted to report that out of 146 closed trades, 91 turned out as wins while 55 tuned out as losses, equating to a significantly tilted win ratio of 62.3 percent (Table I-1). Analysing the results by asset-class, this approach was particularly lucrative for FX and commodity long/short trades with win ratios of 67 percent (Table I-2). The equity directional and long/short win ratios were also comfortably above 60 percent. The bond win ratios were favourably tilted at just under 60 percent, albeit based on a much smaller sample of trades. Table I-1Fractal Trading System: Results By Year Table I-2Fractal Trading System: Results By Asset-Class How To Bet On A Rigged Coin: The Kelly Criterion Imagine you had the gift of calling a coin toss correctly 60 percent of the time. Would you have a licence to print money? Yes – but with a crucial caveat. If you foolishly bet everything on the first one or two tosses, the chances of going bust would be a not insignificant 40 and 16 percent respectively. Begging the question, what would be the optimal amount to wager on each toss? The answer comes from the so-called ‘Kelly criterion’ named after its creator J L Kelly, a researcher at Bell Labs, in 1956. In this case, the Kelly criterion says the optimal strategy is to bet 20 percent of your pot on each toss (Box I-2). Follow this strategy, and slowly but surely your wealth will mushroom. Box I-2How To Bet On A Rigged Coin: The Kelly Criterion What should a fund manager do faced with the same decision? For the fund manager the loss limit is not 100 percent, instead it is the maximum drawdown he can suffer before being fired. Let’s assume this limit is a 10 percent drawdown. This means the correct strategy for the fund manager is to bet one tenth of the Kelly criterion – 2 percent of the fund – on the rigged coin toss. All of which brings us back to the opportunities that collapsed fractal structures offer. If your maximum tolerable drawdown is 10 percent and the probability of a countertrend ‘win’ is around 60 percent, you should target a 2 percent profit from each collapsed fractal structure opportunity, accepting that in 40 percent of cases the outcome will be a 2 percent loss. Then repeat the strategy over and over again and watch your wealth mushroom.     How have our recommendations fared on the 2 percent profit target per trade basis? 91 wins and 55 losses means 36 net wins equalling an arithmetic 72 percent gain. However, a few wins and losses were partial in the sense that the trade did not reach its profit target or stop-loss before being closed. Allowing for this and the effects of compounding, the actual gain was 65 percent, equalling an annualised return of 11 percent since 2015. In terms of risk, the worst drawdown was 9.6 percent, just within the self-imposed 10 percent limit. Fractal analysis is particularly lucrative in the FX markets. To be clear, these results do not include any transaction costs. Against this, the outcome is handicapped by the ‘publishing delay’ between spotting the opportunities and writing a weekly report. Taking these two factors in combination, the outcome seems an accurate assessment of what the recommendations have achieved. The results are very satisfying, but this is still work in progress. Rather than an arbitrary one third reversal of the previous trend, a more calibrated amount – such as a Fibonacci retracement – might boost the win ratio. And by being more selective about which collapsed fractal structure opportunities to exploit the win ratio could be enhanced towards 70 percent. Henceforth, each week we will publish cumulative win ratios as these are the statistics that are most crucial for success. To conclude, the evidence is irrefutable: those investors that harness the lucrative opportunities that come from collapsed fractal structures can gain a major competitive advantage over those investors that do not. Fractal Trading System* Based on its collapsed fractal structure, the substantial underperformance of Poland is susceptible to a countertrend reversal. Accordingly, go long Poland versus the world, setting a profit target at 4 percent, with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other positions, short Athex composite versus Eurostoxx 600 closed in profit, while short New Zealand electricity versus market closed at its stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-4MSCI Poland Vs. MSCI World The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘The Universal Constant of Finance’ September 25, 2014 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 2018 Fractal Trades 2017 Fractal Trades 2016 Fractal Trades 2015 Fractal Trades

Highlights Q3/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -30bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The biggest underperformance came from underweight positions in U.S. Treasuries (-28bps) and Italian government bonds (-18bps) as yields plunged, dwarfing gains from overweights in corporate bonds in the U.S. (+11bps) and euro area (+4bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates vs. government debt. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to corporate bond outperformance. Feature Global bond markets have enjoyed a powerful bull run throughout 2019, as yields have plummeted alongside weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty. Those two forces came to a head in the third quarter of the year, with U.S.-China trade tensions ratcheting up another notch after the imposition of higher U.S. tariffs in early August and global manufacturing PMI data moving into contraction territory – especially in the U.S. The result was a significant fall in government bond yields as markets discounted both lower inflation expectations and more aggressive monetary easing from global central banks, led by the Fed and ECB. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and 10-year German Bund yield plunged -40bps and -25bps, respectively, during the July-September period. Yet at the same time, global credit markets remained surprisingly stable, as the option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates index was unchanged over the same three months. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful third quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Good News On Credit Trumped By Bad News On Duration Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Dwarf Credit Gains In Q3/19 The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps (Chart of the Week).1 This brings the cumulative year-to-date total return of the portfolio to +7.8%, which has underperformed the benchmark by a disappointing –67bps. The Q3 drag on relative returns came entirely from the government bond side of the portfolio; specifically, the underweight allocation to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government bonds (Table 1). Those allocations reflected our views on overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and a relative value consideration within European spread product (preferring corporates to Italy). Both those recommendations went against us as global bond yields dropped during Q3, with Italian yields collapsing (the benchmark 10-year yield was down –126bps) as investors chased any positive yield denominated in euros after the ECB signaled a new round of policy easing. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps  Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Overall Return Attribution Providing some partial offset to the U.S. and Italy allocations were gains from overweight positions in government bonds in the U.K., Australia and Japan. More importantly, our overweights in corporate debt in the U.S. and euro area made a strong positive contribution to the performance of the portfolio. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The most significant movers were: Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+3bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+3bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (+2bps) Overweight euro area corporates, both investment grade (+2bps) and high-yield (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-15bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-10bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-5bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-4bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral).2 Ideally, we would look to see more blue bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2019 One thing that stands out from Chart 4 is that every fixed income sector generated a positive return, except for EM USD-denominated corporates. This is a fascinating outcome given the sharp falls in risk-free government bond yields which typically would correlate to a selloff in risk assets and widening of credit spreads. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low.  We maintained an overweight stance on global spread product throughout Q3, as we felt that the monetary policy effect would continue to overwhelm uncertainty. We did, however, make some tactical adjustments to our duration stance after the U.S. raised tariffs on Chinese imports, upgrading to neutral on August 6th.3 We had felt that higher tariffs were a sign that a potential end to the U.S.-China trade conflict was now even less likely, which raised the odds of a potential risk-off financial market event that would temporarily push bond yields lower. We shifted back to a below-benchmark duration stance on September 17th, given signs of de-escalation in the trade dispute and, more importantly, some improvement evident in global leading economic indicators.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the third quarter of the year, with the drag on performance from an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and Italian BTPs overwhelming the gains from corporate credit overweights in the U.S. and euro area. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven by two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Overweight Credit In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we currently have a moderate overweight, equal to eight percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on future global growth. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt at 0.6 years short of the custom benchmark (Chart 6). We recognize, however, that the underperformance from duration in the model portfolio will not begin to be clawed back until there are signs of a bottoming in widely-followed cyclical economic indicators like the U.S. ISM index and the German ZEW. We think that will happen given the uptick in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), but that may take a few more months to develop based on the usual lead time from the LEI to the survey data like the ISM. The hook up in the global LEI does still gives us more confidence that the big decline in global bond yields seen this year is over, especially if a potential truce in the U.S.-China trade war is soon reached, as our political strategists believe to be increasingly likely. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Turning to country allocation, we are sticking with overweights in countries where central banks are likely to be more dovish than the Fed over the next 6-12 months (Germany, France, the U.K., Japan, and Australia). We are staying underweight the U.S. where inflation expectations appear too low and Fed rate cut expectations look too extreme. The Italy underweight has become a trickier call. We have long viewed Italian debt as a growth-sensitive credit instrument rather than the yield-driven rates vehicle it became in Q3 as markets priced in fresh monetary easing measures from the ECB (including restarting government purchases). We will revisit our Italy views in an upcoming report but, until then, we will continue to view Italian BTPs within the context of our European spread product allocation. Thus, we are maintaining an overweight on euro area corporate debt (by 1% each in investment grade and high-yield) while having an equal-sized underweight (-2%) in Italian government bonds. Our combined positioning generates a portfolio that has “positive carry”, with a yield of 3.1% (hedged into U.S. dollars) that is +25bps over that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). That same portfolio, however, generates an estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) of 55bps - well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling and still within the 40-60bps range we have targeted since the start of 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.5 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of U.S. monetary policy. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Base Case (Global Growth Bottoms): The Fed delivers one more -25bp rate cut by the end of 2019, the U.S. dollar weakens by -3%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where the U.S. economy ends up avoiding recession and grows at roughly a trend-like pace. The Fed, however, still delivers one more “insurance” rate cut to mitigate the risk of low inflation expectations becoming more entrenched. Global growth is expected to bottom out as heralded by the global leading indicators. A truce (but not a full deal) is expected on the U.S.-China trade front, helping to moderately soften the U.S. dollar through reduced risk aversion. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +91bps in this case. Global Growth Strongly Rebounds: The Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +20%, the VIX declines to 12, there is a modest bear-steepening of the UST curve. In this tail-risk scenario, global growth starts to reaccelerate in lagged response to the global monetary easing seen this year, combined with some fiscal stimulus in major countries (China, the U.S., perhaps even Germany). The U.S. dollar weakens as global capital flows shift to markets which are more sensitive to global growth. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +106bps in this case. U.S. Downturn Intensifies: The Fed cuts rates by -75bps, the U.S. dollar is flat, oil prices fall by -15%, the VIX rises to 30; there is a bull-steepening of the UST curve. Under this tail-risk scenario, the current slowing of U.S. growth momentum gains speed, pushing the economy towards recession. The Fed cuts rates aggressively in response, helping weaken the U.S. dollar, but not before global risk assets sell off sharply to discount a worldwide recession. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. The underweight duration position, however, will also eventually begin to pay off if the message from the budding improvement in global leading economic indicators turns out to be correct. A collapse of the U.S.-China trade negotiations is the biggest threat to our base case, which would make the “U.S. Downturn Intensifies” scenario a more likely outcome. Bottom Line: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates governments. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to spread product outperformance.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling”, dated August 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The World Is Not Ending: Return To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration”, dated September 17, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Contagion? Until last week, global growth weakness had been wholly confined to the manufacturing sector. But the drop to 52.6 in September’s Non-Manufacturing PMI (from 56.4 in August) raises the specter of contagion from manufacturing into the broader U.S. economy. A further drop would be consistent with an economy headed toward recession, and run contrary to the 2015/16 roadmap that has been our base case (Chart 1). We think it is still premature to abandon the 2015/16 episode as an appropriate comparable for the current period. For one thing, the hard economic data paint a rosier picture than the PMI surveys. Industrial production and core durable goods new orders are up 2.5% and 2.3% (annualized), respectively, during the past 3 months. These data have helped drive the economic surprise index above zero, an event that usually coincides with rising yields (bottom panel). The divergence between soft and hard data makes it clear that trade uncertainties are so far having a greater impact on business sentiment than on actual production, but history tells us that these divergences don’t last long. Some positive news on the trade front will be required during the next few months to raise business sentiment and push bond yields higher. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in September, before giving back 37 bps in the first week of October. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions, and (iii) valuation. At present, the chief conundrum for investors is that while corporate balance sheet health is weak, the monetary environment is extraordinarily accommodative.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is elevated and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still very low, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. This will ensure that interest coverage stays solid and that bank lending standards continue to ease (bottom panel). This is an environment where corporate bond spreads should tighten. How low can spreads go? Our assessment of reasonable spread targets for the current environment suggests that Aaa, Aa and A-rated spreads are already fully valued, while Baa-rated spreads are 13 bps cheap (panels 2 & 3).2 We recommend focusing investment grade corporate bond exposure on the Baa credit tier, and subbing some Agency MBS into your portfolio in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in September, before giving back 117 bps in the first week of October. The junk index’s option-adjusted spread (OAS) has been fairly stable for most of the year, but the sector has become increasingly attractive from a risk/reward perspective.3 This is because the index’s negatively convex nature has caused its average duration to fall alongside declining Treasury yields. Chart 3 shows that while the index OAS has been rangebound, the 12-month breakeven spread has widened considerably.4 In other words, while junk expected returns have been stable, those expected returns now come with considerably less risk. As a result, the junk index OAS looks increasingly attractive relative to our spread target.5 Specifically, we now view the junk index OAS as 171 bps cheap (panel 3). Falling index duration also explains the divergence between quality spreads and the index OAS. Many have observed that the spread differential between Caa and Ba-rated junk bonds has widened in recent months, while the overall index OAS has been stable (panel 4). However, the divergence evaporates when we look at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of OAS (bottom panel). MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, before giving back 25 bps in the first week of October. MBS have underperformed Treasuries by 31 bps, year-to-date. The conventional 30-year zero volatility spread held flat at 82 bps in September, as a 3 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (option cost) was offset by a 3 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). In last week’s report, we recommended favoring Agency MBS over Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds.6 We have three main reasons for this recommendation. First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 57 bps. This is above the pre-crisis average (Chart 4), and only 4 bps below the spread offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond. Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bond spreads also all look expensive relative to our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The 12-month breakeven spread for a conventional 30-year MBS is 21 bps. This compares to 6 bps, 8 bps and 12 bps for Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporates, respectively. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most people have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgage. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2), going forward. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. September returns were concentrated in the Foreign Agency sub-sector. These securities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 55 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign bonds underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 6 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +436 bps. Local Authority and Domestic Agency debt underperformed by 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. Meanwhile, Supranationals bested the Treasury benchmark by a single basis point. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot eventually results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would also perform well in such an environment. Given the much more attractive starting point for U.S. corporate bond spreads, we find it difficult to recommend sovereign debt as an alternative. While sovereign debt in general looks expensive. USD-denominated Mexican sovereign bonds continue to look attractive relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). Investors should favor Mexican sovereigns within an otherwise underweight allocation to the sector as a whole. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -57 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We recommended upgrading municipal bonds from neutral to overweight in last week’s report.7  We based the decision on the increasing attractiveness of yield ratios, despite an underlying credit environment that remains supportive for munis. Municipal bond yields failed to keep pace with falling Treasury yields in recent months, and now look quite attractive as a result (Chart 6). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 4% in September and is now back above 90%. This is well above the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In fact, Aaa M/T yield ratios for every maturity are now above average pre-crisis levels. Though yield ratios still look best at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2), we now recommend owning munis in place of Treasuries across the entire maturity spectrum. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. We showed in last week’s report that our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory, and noted that state & local government interest coverage is positive (bottom panel). Both of those trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, and then bull-steepened sharply last week. All in all, the 2/10 Treasury slope is +12 bps, 12 bps steeper than it was at the end of August. The 5/30 slope is +67 bps, 10 bps steeper than at the end of August. Our fair value models (see Appendix B) continue to show that bullets are expensive relative to barbells across the entire Treasury curve. In particular, 5-year and 7-year maturities look very expensive compared to the short and long ends of the curve. Notice that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, the spread between the 5-year bullet and a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, remains negative despite the recent 2/10 steepening (Chart 7). We have shown in prior research that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are the most highly correlated with our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Our discounter is currently at -74 bps, meaning that the market is priced for nearly three more Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (top panel). We expect fewer cuts than that, and as such, think the Discounter is more likely to rise. 5-year and 7-year maturities would underperform the rest of the curve in that scenario. We also continue to hold our short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 2 more rate cuts during the next 3 FOMC meetings. That outcome is possible, but our base case economic outlook is more consistent with 1 further cut, likely occurring this month. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -142 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 3 bps in September, and then another 2 bps last week. It currently sits at 1.51%, well below levels consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations is becoming increasingly stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low, nowhere near the 2.3% - 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s target. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.8 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 43 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and we maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +72 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps, very close to its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). ABS also appear unattractive on a risk/reward basis, as both Aaa-rated auto loans and credit cards have moved into the “Avoid” quadrant of our Excess Return Bond Map (Appendix C). The Map uses each bond sector’s spread, duration and volatility to calculate the likelihood of earning or losing 100 bps of excess return versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. At present, the Map shows that ABS offer poor expected return for their level of risk. In addition to poor valuation, the ABS sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate in the future (panel 3). Meanwhile, senior loan officers continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, the combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +227 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS held flat on the month, before widening 4 bps last week. It currently sits at 75 bps, below average pre-crisis levels but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). Commercial real estate prices have accelerated of late, but are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +90 bps. The index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, before widening by 5 bps last week. It currently sits at 61 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 74 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate fewer rate cuts over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +48 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 48 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of October 4, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of October 4, 2019) Table 6 Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 4, 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. It can be approximated by OAS divided by duration. 5 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Aspectos destacados Todavía no vemos una recesión en los próximos doce meses, … : Las recesiones solo ocurren cuando la política monetaria es restrictiva. Ahora es acomodaticia, y pasará un tiempo antes de que las condiciones empujen a la Fed a ejecutar la serie de aumentos de tasas necesaria para que sea restrictiva. … pero eso no significa que no nos preocupemos, … : Aunque la curva de rendimiento invertida parece más una reflexión de las compras de activos de la Fed que una señal inequívoca de problemas, los indicadores líderes se han movido en la dirección equivocada durante todo el año. … ya que los datos de encuestas indican claramente que la confianza de los hogares y las empresas es frágil: Los índices de confianza del consumidor y las últimas encuestas ISM dan testimonio de un empeoramiento del ánimo. Los datos duros se están comportando mejor que los datos blandos, pero existe el peligro de que la ansiedad se vuelva una profecía autocumplida. Seguimos siendo constructivos, pero vigilantes ante los riesgos para la perspectiva de crecimiento: El mercado laboral sigue lo suficientemente vigoroso como para ejercer presión a la baja sobre la tasa de desempleo, y los servicios continúan expandiéndose a pesar de la contracción en la manufactura, tanto aquí como en el extranjero. La expansión se ha desacelerado, pero aún no ha terminado. Artículo Aunque el mercado petrolero rápidamente dejó atrás el ataque del mes pasado a la infraestructura energética saudí (Gráfico 1), a los inversores no les faltan otras preocupaciones. A una empresa no le resulta fácil comprometerse con gastos de inversión a largo plazo cuando las negociaciones entre EE. UU. y China oscilan entre un descongelamiento y un estado gélido según el día, el Brexit sigue siendo un traspié envuelto en una farsa dentro de una absurdidad, y se están cavando trincheras para una amarga batalla de impeachment en Washington. Los volúmenes de exportación globales se han contraído interanualmente en seis de los ocho meses hasta julio (Gráfico 2), lo que enfría las perspectivas de beneficios de las multinacionales. Los trabajadores saben que las empresas reducen plantilla cuando caen los beneficios, por lo que la confianza del consumidor también está sujeta a los vaivenes de las negociaciones comerciales. Gráfico 1 Las tensiones en Oriente Medio ya son cosa del mes pasado El ciclo de la preocupación El ciclo de la preocupación Las preocupaciones son bien conocidas, pero podrían provocar una recesión por sí mismas si persisten el tiempo suficiente. Gráfico 2 Si quieres menos de algo, impónle un impuesto Si quieres menos de algo, ponle un impuesto. Si quieres menos de algo, ponle un impuesto. Sería difícil ver el vaso medio lleno si los mercados no hubieran descontado desde hace tiempo las presiones de China y el Brexit. El espectáculo del impeachment es nuevo, pero no estamos seguros de qué deberían temer los inversores y las empresas de una administración de Pence. Sería difícil ver el vaso medio vacío si los datos de las encuestas no señalaran un deterioro constante del sentimiento que pudiera sembrar las semillas de una recesión. En conclusión, estamos en una etapa avanzada del ciclo, y la combinación de datos que se debilitan y tensiones geopolíticas está carcomiendo lo que queda del optimismo de los inversores. Nuestro indicador de recesión/mercado bajista La política monetaria estricta es una condición necesaria, aunque no suficiente, para una recesión. En el periodo de 60 años para el que mantenemos estimaciones de una tasa de fondos federales de equilibrio, las expansiones no se han detenido en seco cuando la tasa de fondos federales cruzó por encima de nuestra estimación de equilibrio, pero no se ha producido una recesión a menos que lo hiciera (Gráfico 3). Actualmente estimamos que la tasa de equilibrio está muy por encima de la tasa objetivo del 2%, que parece dirigirse hacia el 1.75% en la reunión del FOMC a fin de mes. Dado el ritmo benigno de la inflación actual, la política monetaria debería mantenerse acomodaticia durante todo 2020, si nuestra estimación de equilibrio está en el entorno correcto. Gráfico 3 La política monetaria es acomodaticia y se está volviendo más acomodaticia: Verde La política monetaria es fácil y cada vez más fácil: Green La política monetaria es fácil y cada vez más fácil: Green Aunque estamos seguros de que la Fed no está a punto de matar la expansión, los otros componentes de nuestro indicador sencillo de recesión están enviando señales preocupantes. La curva de rendimiento ha estado invertida durante cinco meses consecutivos. Una curva invertida ha sido históricamente un indicador fiable de que la política monetaria es demasiado estricta, y por lo tanto ha acumulado un historial envidiable para predecir recesiones (Gráfico 4). No obstante, la prima por plazo extraordinariamente negativa de hoy podría estar distorsionando el mensaje de la curva de rendimiento, distorsionando las comparaciones con períodos pasados.1 Gráfico 4 La curva se ha invertido, pero ... : Amarillo La curva se ha invertido, pero ... : Amarillo La curva se ha invertido, pero ... : Amarillo El cambio interanual del Leading Economic Index (LEI) del Conference Board es el otro componente de nuestro indicador de recesión. El LEI ha sido tan fiable como la curva de rendimiento, y se está desacelerando rápidamente (Gráfico 5). Observamos, sin embargo, que el LEI previamente se recuperó de dos caídas similares en esta expansión, y aún no se ha contraído. Dado su fuerte enfoque en la manufactura, el LEI probablemente no comenzará a acelerar sin un alivio sustancial de las tensiones comerciales, aunque un acuerdo limitado entre EE. UU. y China no está fuera del ámbito de lo posible. Gráfico 5 El crecimiento del LEI se desacelera rápidamente: Amarillo El crecimiento del LEI se está desacelerando rápidamente: Amarillo El crecimiento del LEI se está desacelerando rápidamente: Amarillo Conclusión: Un semáforo en verde y dos en amarillo no constituyen un respaldo rotundo de las perspectivas del ciclo económico, pero la combinación, no obstante, aboga por mantener el rumbo favorable al riesgo que ha recompensado abundantemente a los inversores a lo largo de la expansión. Un deprimente ISM manufacturero … Estados Unidos se ve afectado por las condiciones globales con un rezago, pero el informe ISM manufacturero de septiembre confirmó que finalmente se ve afectado por ellas. El lúgubre informe ISM manufacturero del martes pasado provocó una venta de dos días en el S&P 500 que las cadenas de televisión financieras se apresuraron a destacar como el peor inicio de un cuarto trimestre desde la crisis. El índice compuesto se situó muy por debajo del consenso de 50, cayendo a su nivel más bajo desde junio de 2009, y pasó un segundo mes consecutivo por debajo de la línea de 50 que separa auge y recesión por primera vez desde la recesión manufacturera global de 2015-16 (Gráfico 6, panel superior). Las exportaciones en desplome (Gráfico 6, segundo panel) y los pedidos nuevos estancados (Gráfico 6, tercer panel) lastraron la lectura compuesta. La única leve chispa de esperanza fue que una contracción de inventarios de considerable tamaño (Gráfico 6, cuarto panel) permitió que la relación Pedidos Nuevos/Inventarios subiera (Gráfico 6, panel inferior). Gráfico 6 La desaceleración manufacturera global llega a EE. UU. La desaceleración manufacturera mundial llega a Estados Unidos La desaceleración manufacturera mundial llega a Estados Unidos Gráfico 7 Los consumidores no se inquietaron por el ISM ... Los consumidores no se inmutaron por el ISM ... Los consumidores no se inmutaron por el ISM ... El informe sorprendentemente malo avivó otra ronda de lamentos recesionistas en los medios, aunque aparentemente no entre el público en general (Gráfico 7). La amenaza económica potencial proviene de la posibilidad de que la publicación desaliente la contratación y la inversión. El informe mensual de empleo de la NFIB publicado el jueves por la tarde sugiere que las empresas más pequeñas todavía buscan activamente cubrir puestos, aunque la cantidad de candidatos cualificados sigue disminuyendo. El modelo GDPNow de la Fed de Atlanta recortó su proyección de la contribución de la inversión fija no residencial al PIB del 3T de +10 a -10 puntos básicos tras la publicación del ISM manufacturero, pero prevé un crecimiento general del 1.8%. … y la confianza del consumidor se deteriora … Las encuestas líderes de sentimiento del consumidor también han estado cayendo, aunque se mantienen en niveles altos en relación con su historia (Gráfico 8). Esa dicotomía sostiene el debate toro contra oso, ya que los toros señalan el nivel elevado mientras que los osos citan la dirección a la baja. No resolveremos aquí la cuestión de nivel frente a dirección, pero observamos que el crecimiento del consumo real ha mostrado una correlación robusta con los componentes de expectativas de las encuestas. Las expectativas en declive apuntan a una caída del consumo, pero mientras el índice de expectativas se mantenga en o por encima de mediados de los 90, parece que el consumo mantendrá el crecimiento económico alrededor de su nivel tendencial (Gráfico 9). Gráfico 8 … y siguen siendo bastante optimistas ... Y Siguen Bastante Optimistas ... Y Siguen Bastante Optimistas Gráfico 9 El consumo aún parece estar bien El consumo aún parece estar bien. El consumo aún parece estar bien. … se enfrentan a datos duros aún sólidos Si bien los datos de encuestas han ido decepcionando sistemáticamente las expectativas (incluido, la semana pasada, el antaño temible ISM no manufacturero), los datos duros han sido fuente de sorpresas positivas. Desde principios de julio, cuando el índice de sorpresas económicas finalmente tocó fondo y se dedicó a revertir a la media, las medidas de actividad real han sido alentadoras (Gráfico 10). Aunque el informe de la situación laboral de septiembre mostró que el ritmo de contratación también se está desacelerando, y el crecimiento salarial desconcertantemente se estancó, la definición más amplia de la tasa de desempleo cayó por debajo del 7% por primera vez desde el pico del boom puntocom y está solo un punto por encima de su mínimo histórico (Gráfico 11Gráfico 12). Gráfico 10 Los datos duros han superado un listón bajo Los Datos Duros Han Superado Un Listón Bajo Los Datos Duros Han Superado Un Listón Bajo Gráfico 11 El mercado laboral sigue absorbiendo holgura El mercado laboral sigue absorbiendo la holgura El mercado laboral sigue absorbiendo la holgura Gráfico 12 Hay espacio para que la tasa de ahorro baje Hay margen para que la tasa de ahorro disminuya Hay margen para que la tasa de ahorro disminuya Poniéndolo todo junto Estados Unidos es una economía comparativamente cerrada que habitualmente reacciona a los acontecimientos globales con un rezago mayor que sus pares de economías principales. Estaba previsto que desacelerara este año por un impulso fiscal interno decreciente, pero la debilidad global ahora ha empezado a llegar a sus costas. La pregunta para los inversores es: ¿hasta dónde llegará la desaceleración? ¿Es simplemente una desaceleración a mitad del ciclo que afectará al crecimiento durante un trimestre o dos, o es el fin de la expansión? La Fed ha prometido actuar adecuadamente para sostener la expansión tantas veces este año que se ha convertido en un mantra. Los mercados lo están tomando en serio, tal como lo hicieron el jueves pasado, cuando el S&P 500 transformó una caída del 1% inmediatamente después de la publicación del ISM no manufacturero en una ganancia del 1%, y el viernes, cuando un informe de la situación laboral mixto dio lugar a otro repunte del 1%. Las malas noticias siguen siendo buenas noticias para las acciones siempre que los inversores crean que la Fed está dispuesta y puede aliviar la política monetaria para mitigar los riesgos para la perspectiva de crecimiento. En un mundo donde la acomodación monetaria es actualmente la regla entre bancos centrales grandes y pequeños, y la Fed tiene margen de maniobra para aflojar, creemos que las acciones están interpretándolo bien. No faltan motivos para que los inversores se preocupen, pero no deberían olvidar que la preocupación alimenta los mercados alcistas. Nuestra postura optimista también está respaldada por un útil máximo de trading. Cuando una acción no cae con las malas noticias (o no sube con las buenas), te está diciendo algo. En este caso, creemos que el repetido fracaso del S&P 500 por hundirse ante ola tras ola de malas noticias revela que ya ha descontado una cantidad considerable de pesimismo. Si, por ejemplo, surgieran noticias significativamente buenas de las negociaciones comerciales entre EE. UU. y China, las acciones podrían reanudar su marcha al alza en línea con el patrón histórico de mercados alcistas de esprintar hasta la línea de meta. Implicaciones para la inversión Los temores de que las encuestas débiles puedan convertirse en actividad débil están bien fundados. Existe un claro potencial de que el pobre sentimiento corporativo y del consumidor se convierta en una profecía autocumplida. Si los directivos de las empresas se quedan de brazos cruzados en medio de la incertidumbre sobre las reglas comerciales, la inversión corporativa y la contratación podrían secarse. El gasto de una persona es el ingreso de otra, y viceversa, y si los hogares desvían el gasto hacia el ahorro, los ingresos caerán. Si los hogares echan el freno en un momento en que las empresas nerviosas tienen poco apetito por invertir, sus ahorros permanecerán ociosos, no haciendo más que reducir las tasas de interés, lo que podría avivar una ansiedad adicional sobre las perspectivas de crecimiento. Puede que no tengamos mucho más que temer que al propio miedo, pero eso es suficiente, dada la naturaleza viral y auto-reforzante del temor. La buena noticia desde nuestra perspectiva es que no creemos que las empresas o los hogares hayan alcanzado el punto de no retorno. La demanda interna final real (PIB excluyendo ajustes de inventarios y exportaciones netas) se mantiene bien a pesar de las fuertes ventas en el mercado en el cuarto trimestre del año pasado, el cierre de gobierno federal de un mes y las continuas tonterías arancelarias. El mercado laboral sigue siendo ajustado, lo que debería ayudar a que las ganancias salariales se aceleren en un momento en que hay pocas posibilidades de que la Fed intervenga para contrarrestar presiones inflacionarias incipientes, abriendo la puerta a un círculo virtuoso. Ningún ciclo dura para siempre, y este seguramente está en sus etapas finales, aunque seguimos siendo positivos en el marco temporal cíclico de tres a doce meses. Somos más cautelosos a corto plazo, y puede ser apropiado posicionar las carteras de forma más conservadora de lo habitual en el horizonte táctico de cero a tres meses, manteniendo las posiciones con un control más estricto. Aunque los inversores tendrán que convivir con un elevado grado de preocupación durante los próximos meses, no deberían perder de vista que los mercados alcistas escalan una pared de preocupación. Doug Peta, CFA Jefe de Estrategia de Inversión para EE. UU. dougp@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 Consulte el U.S. Investment Research Weekly Report de BCA titulado “¡Todos a la piscina!,” publicado el 24 de junio de 2019. Disponible en usis.bcaresearch.com.