株式

特別レポート

Highlights Historically, the stocks with the lowest volatility have outperformed the stocks with the highest volatility, a trend that defies some of the most fundamental theories in finance. The low-volatility factor has outperformed the market in absolute return terms, with a substantial reduction in downside risk, in every major equity market. Compensation structure, benchmarking, analyst bias, and the preference for lottery-like stocks are all plausible explanations for why the low-volatility anomaly persists. Shifting some exposure from bonds to minimum-volatility equities might be an attractive way to keep returns high while remaining hedged against downside risk in a world of low interest rates. Feature Chart 1The Low-Volatility Anomaly Conventional wisdom suggests that achieving the right mix between risk and return requires a tradeoff: Take on too little risk, and returns will be subpar, but take on too much, and a large loss becomes likely. However, the empirical evidence shows that no such tradeoff exists in the equity market: Historically, the return of stocks with the lowest volatility has been better than the return of stocks with the highest volatility (Chart 1, top panel). Even when using a measure of systematic risk such as beta, there appears to be very little relationship between risk and return – a result that emphatically contradicts what is predicted by the CAPM (Chart 1, bottom panel). The success of low risk stocks – a well-documented phenomenon known as the low-volatility anomaly1  – challenges some of the most fundamental premises of finance and economics. After all, how could taking on less risk result in better returns? In this report, we dive into this anomaly, with the intent of answering the following questions: What kind of portfolios can exploit this anomaly? What are the risk/return characteristics to this factor and what sectors is it exposed to? Why does this factor work? How can investors use the low-volatility factor in their asset allocation process? To answer these questions we explore the historical performance of the MSCI minimum-volatility index. Additionally, we explore the academic research surrounding the low-volatility anomaly. Finally, we look into how low-volatility equities have performed as a hedge for a global equity portfolio when compared to government bonds. Low Volatility Vs. Minimum Volatility There are two types of portfolios that are generally used to exploit the low-volatility anomaly: Low-volatility portfolios are built first by sorting the stock universe according to the stocks' trailing standard deviation, and then by buying the stocks with the lowest standard deviation. Usually the index buys the bottom quintile of stocks ranked by volatility. Minimum-volatility portfolios are built through an optimization procedure, by which funds are allocated to the stock mix that would have minimized the historical volatility of a portfolio (subject to certain constraints). Chart 2No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol The main advantage of minimum-volatility portfolios over low-volatility portfolios is that they do not consider only low-volatility stocks but also stocks with low covariance between each other. However, the construction of these portfolios also requires estimating large covariance matrices, which are prone to a significant degree of noise, and thus often have to be adjusted by statistical methods.2 That being said, there is little performance difference between these two methodologies in practice, though minimum-volatility portfolios do tend to be much more constrained than low-volatility portfolios (Chart 2). In this report we will focus on the more popular MSCI minimum-volatility portfolios, given that their historical data is more readily available.   Risk-Return Characteristics Of Minimum Volatility At the global level, minimum volatility has outperformed not only the market since 1990, but also the most popular equity factors, with the exception of momentum (Chart 3, top panel). The outperformance relative to the benchmark has proved to be robust, as minimum volatility has beaten the returns for the benchmark in the biggest developed markets as well as emerging markets for almost two decades (Chart 3, bottom panel). The most attractive feature of minimum volatility is the significant reduction in risk it provides. Since 1988, the annualized volatility of minimum volatility has been 10%, a considerable improvement vis-à-vis the market and relative to other popular equity factors (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, even though return skew of minimum volatility has been more negative than the benchmark, minimum volatility achieved a substantial reduction in tail risk with a 10% conditional VaR of only 5% (Chart 4, middle and bottom panel). Chart 3Min Vol Outperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 4Min Vol Provides A Substantial Reduction In Risk In addition to its risk reduction, minimum volatility also has a countercyclical relative return profile, outperforming during bear markets, and underperforming slightly during bull markets (Chart 5, top panel). This return profile occurs partly due to the sector skew of this factor, which overweights defensive sectors such as Utilities and Consumer Staples relative to the global benchmark3 (Chart 5, middle panel). At the global level, this defensive tilt exposes minimum volatility to significant duration risk, given that the stocks in this index tend to have bond-like properties (Chart 5, bottom panel). The negative relationship between interest rates and the low-volatility factor has been well documented by the academic literature: Some studies estimate that up to 80% of the outperformance of low-volatility equities can be explained by exposure to duration risk.4 Chart 5Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Chart 6Min Vol Is Expensive     On average, minimum volatility also tends to overweight stocks with a higher dividend yield than the market (Chart 6, panel 1). This yield difference accounts for roughly a quarter of the return difference between minimum volatility and the benchmark since 1990. However, high dividend yield and minimum volatility are not synonymous: Over the past decade, minimum volatility has selected stocks that are more expensive than the benchmark, a stark difference from high dividend yield portfolios, which exclusively select very cheap stocks (Chart 6, panel 2). The current high overvaluation of minimum volatility relative to the market could spell bad news for this factor in the near future: While valuation and returns do not have a straightforward relationship, extreme levels of valuation relative to the benchmark have historically resulted in subsequent underperformance of this factor relative to the market (Chart 6, panels 3 and 4). Why Does The Low-Volatility Factor Work? Analyst Forecasts It has been shown empirically that equity analysts tend to have an optimistic bias, due to the need of the analyst to maintain good relationships with the companies they cover. Moreover, investors do not adjust for this bias, meaning that the stocks of companies that receive an overly optimistic forecast tend to rise initially when the forecast is released, but then mean-revert once the forecast does not materialize. Chart 7Analyst Bias Is Larger In High-Vol Stocks It seems that this dynamic might be more pervasive in high-volatility stocks. In their paper “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,” Hsu et al. show that analysts’ positive bias is larger for more volatile stocks, even when adjusting for confounding variables like size, sector and country5 (Chart 7).  It is easy to see why this might be the case: An extremely optimistic bias on a low variance stock would look unrealistic to most investors. Thus, analysts are more prone to express a large positive bias on high variance stocks, where bias is harder to detect. Ultimately, this bias causes these stocks to become chronically overvalued. Salary Structure of Managers Chart 8Institutions Favor High Vol The payoff structure of fund managers has also been suggested as a possible cause of the low-volatility anomaly.6 The structure of compensation for fund managers often resembles an option: A bonus is granted if the portfolio returns are higher than a certain threshold. In such a structure, the compensation of portfolio managers resembles a call option: The probability of a payoff increases with volatility, creating an incentive to invest in high-volatility stocks.  However, this preference for high-volatility stocks will overbid them, causing them to underperform. There is some evidence that this is in fact the case. Once the effect of size is neutralized, stocks with high institutional ownership tend to be more volatile than stocks with low institutional ownership (Chart 8). Moreover, a study on the exposure of hedge funds to popular risk factors from 2000 to 2016, showed that hedge funds have a large short exposure to the anomaly, indicating that they favor high-volatility over low-volatility stocks.7   Lottery Stocks Chart 9The Low-Volatility Anomaly Is Most Prevalent In Lottery-Like Stocks Not all high-volatility stocks are chronic underperformers. In the paper “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Hsu et al. identify that the low-volatility anomaly is largest in stocks with strong lottery-like characteristics (the authors define lottery-like as the stocks that had the highest maximum daily return the previous month)8 (Chart 9). Meanwhile, other high-volatility stocks are much more likely to have higher or equal returns than their low-volatility counterparts. Why is this the case? Investors tend to have a preference for “home-run” stocks, which have a large probability of a small loss, but a small probability of a large gain – a well-documented behavioral bias known as the long-shot bias.9 This bias might cause investors to overbid for lottery-like stocks, causing them to underperform as a cohort. This phenomenon might be related to the incentives in the money management industry. Flows to equity funds tend to be very skewed to the very best performing funds. This means that fund managers have a high incentive to invest in stocks that have the potential of an extremely high payoff. Benchmarking Chart 10Benchmarking Could Be To Blame For The Low-Vol Anomaly While the low-volatility anomaly has been found in other asset classes,10 it is interesting to note that the anomaly occurs only within asset classes and not across asset classes. Indeed, the traditional risk-return relationship is conserved when looking at a multi-asset universe (Chart 10, top panel). One possible solution to this puzzle might be the effect of benchmarking. Within an asset class, benchmarked managers are not only measured according to their return relative to their benchmark but also to their tracking risk (volatility of return difference). Under this structure, investors do not have a large incentive to exploit the alpha from low-volatility or low-beta stocks, since such a strategy would result in a relatively high tracking error.11 This high tracking error will make the excess return of low-volatility stocks relatively less attractive for benchmarked managers, even if these stocks are clearly superior in terms of raw risk-adjusted returns (Chart 10, bottom panel). How Can Minimum Volatility Be Used In Asset Allocation? Chart 11Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade The interest rate sensitivity of low-volatility stocks has been a topic of significant interest for academic researchers. A study that attempted to measure this sensitivity found that equities in the lowest volatility decile have an interest-rate exposure equivalent to a 66% equity/34% bond portfolio.12 Moreover, this sensitivity has increased in recent years: Factor analysis shows that while the beta of the excess returns of minimum volatility to the equity market has remained constant, the beta to the bond market has increased significantly over the last decade13 (Chart 11, top panel). Interestingly this process seems to have accelerated as bond yields fell below dividend yields – a result which might arise because the market starts perceiving bonds, and low-volatility equities as close substitutes when they provide a similar cash flow (Chart 11, bottom panel). At first glance, this relatively high duration risk appears to be a red flag, particularly if you share our view that interest rates have reached a multi-year bottom. After all, an environment where interest rates rise would imply that minimum volatility would underperform global equities on a structural basis.  However, the sensitivity of minimum volatility to interest rates can be used to the advantage of an asset allocator. Specifically, in a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. Why would an investor do this? As we discussed in our October 2019 report, low bond yields will cause bonds to generate returns that are much lower than their historical averages. This means that using government bonds as a hedge for an equity portfolio is likely to result in a severe drag on performance.14 On the other hand, while minimum-volatility equities do not have the same hedging potency as bonds, their returns are much higher, which suggests that at the right allocation they could prove to be a better hedge. In a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. How has such a strategy worked historically? Chart 12 shows how allocating incremental amounts of global minimum-volatility equities to an equity portfolio compares to adding incremental amounts of global government bonds. Overall, allocating an additional 3% of minimum-volatility equities to a portfolio had the same effect as adding 1% of government bonds in terms of downside protection and volatility reduction, but with a much higher return. This effect was robust throughout the sample period. Consider a portfolio with 30% government bonds, 30% minimum volatility and 40% global equities. With the exception of the 1990-1994 period, this portfolio had roughly the same 10% conditional VaR in all sub periods as a portfolio with 40% government bonds and 60% equities, but a significantly higher return (Chart 13). Moreover, the volatility of the portfolio that includes minimum volatility has also been lower than the 60/40 portfolio since 2000. Chart 12Min Vol Provides Protection With A Relatively High Return Chart 13Min-Vol Protection Has Been Robust Bottom Line The low-volatility anomaly contradicts what is perhaps the most fundamental pillar in finance: The tradeoff between risk and return. As such, this anomaly might be the most puzzling inefficiency in markets. But will it persist? The evidence suggests that the anomaly is caused by strong institutional incentives, which are likely to continue. Thus, investors should strongly consider investing in low-volatility stocks in the future. However, the following points should be taken into account: Investors who are evaluated according to their information ratio should avoid low/minimum-volatility stocks, given that their large volatility difference with the benchmark will result in a relatively high tracking error. Relatively high valuations and an uptrend in interest rates may hurt the performance of low/minimum-volatility stocks relative to the broad equity market in the near future. However, the interest-rate exposure of low/minimum-volatility stocks might prove attractive to multi-asset investors. Specifically, investing in minimum-volatility equities and reducing bond exposure might be a way to boost returns while remaining hedged.   Juan Correa Ossa, CFA Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The discovery of the low-volatility anomaly predates the discovery of both the size and value anomalies. For more details, please see Michael C. Jensen, Fischer Black, and Myron S. Scholes, “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests,” Studies in the Theory Of Capital Markets, Praeger Publishers Inc., 1972. 2 For more details on the construction of minimum-volatility portfolios, please see Tzee-man Chow, Jason C. Hsu,Li-Lan Kuo, and Feifei Li, “A Study of Low Volatility Portfolio Construction Methods,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2014. 3 However, research has shown that the low-volatility anomaly still holds within sectors, suggesting that its outperformance is not only a result of sector bias. For more details, please see Raul Leote de Carvalho, Majdouline Zakaria, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low Risk Anomaly Everywhere - Evidence from Equity Sectors,” (November 19, 2014). 4 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 5 Please see Jason C. Hsu, Hideaki Kudoh and Toru Yamada, “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,”  Journal Of Investment Management (JOIM), Second Quarter 2013. 6 Please see Nardin L. Baker and Robert A. Haugen, “Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World,” (April 27, 2012). 7 Please see David Blitz, “Are Hedge Funds on the Other Side of the Low-Volatility Trade?”  The Journal of Alternatives Investments, Vol. 21, No. 1, Summer 2018. 8 Please see Jason C. Hsu and Vivek Viswanathan, “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Risk-Based and Factor Investing, pages 291-303; (2015). 9 There is some debate as to whether the long-shot bias is truly irrational in financial markets, where payoffs and probabilities are not known with precision. 10 Researchers have found that the low-volatility anomaly exists in the government and corporate bond market. For more details please see, Raul Leote de Carvalho, Patrick Dugnolle, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low-Risk Anomalies in Global Fixed Income: Evidence from Major Broad Markets,” The Journal of Fixed Income, vol. 23, No. 4, Spring 2014. 11 Please see Malcolm Baker, and Brendan Bradley, and Jeffrey Wurgler, “Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2011. 12 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, and Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 13 We calculate sensitivity for US stocks instead of global stocks due to the effects of currency returns. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Report “Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s,” dated October 29 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy There are high odds that China’s real GDP deceleration will continue for the next decade, casting a shadow over the profit prospects of the S&P 1500 metals & mining index. A structural below benchmark allocation is warranted. Rising total mutual fund assets under management, improved trading revenue prospects, rising investor confidence along with a revival in IPO and M&A activity, all signal that it still pays to be overweight the S&P capital markets index. Recent Changes There are no changes in our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature “When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.” - Charles Owen "Chuck" Prince III (ex-CEO of Citigroup) The SPX remains near all time highs and the invincible tech sector continues to lead the pack. Two weeks ago we showed that the market capitalization concentration of the top five stocks in the S&P 500 surpassed the late-1990s parallel (Chart 1), and Table 2 shows that late in the cycle a handful of stocks explain a sizable part of the broad market’s return.1 However, in terms of valuation overshoot the current forward P/E of these top five stocks is roughly half the late-1990s parabolic episode (Chart 2). Chart 1Vertigo Warning Chart 2Unlike The Late-1990s While the overall market does not fully resemble the excesses of the dot.com bubble era, at least not yet, there are elements that are eerily reminiscent of the late-1990s. Table 2Contribution To Late Cycle Rallies In The SPX Chart 3Correlation Breakdown Contrary to popular belief, during manias historical correlations break down and the forward multiple becomes positively correlated with the discount rate. So in the late 1990s, the fed funds rate and the 10-year yield jumped 200bps in a short time span and the SPX forward P/E soared 40% from roughly 18x to 25x (Chart 3) before collapsing to 14x soon thereafter. Simultaneously, the US dollar was roaring as real interest rates were 4%, but the NASDAQ 100 outperformed the emerging markets, another break in historical correlations. As Chuck Prince mused in 2007, there is a narrative in the equity market today that, “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance”. While the overall market does not fully resemble the excesses of the dot.com bubble era, at least not yet, there are elements that are eerily reminiscent of the late-1990s. We filtered for large cap stocks that are at all-time highs and have increased in value at a minimum 10x since 2010. Among the stocks that met these criteria, five really stand out, Apple, Tesla, Lam Research, Amd & Salesforce, and comprise our “ATLAS” index; the mania in these stocks will likely end in tears (Chart 4). Even their forward P/E ratio has gone exponential, hitting a 60 handle last year similar to top five SPX stocks in the late-1990s. Chart 4ATLAS: Holding The World On His Shoulders Currently, SPX profits are barely growing and the sole reason equities are higher is the massive injection of liquidity via the drubbing in interest rates and the restart of QE. From peak-to-trough the 10-year yield fell 175bps in nine months, and the Fed commenced expanding its balance sheet by $60bn/month since last September; yet profits have barely budged. Ultimately, profits have to show up and the news on this front remains grim. The current non-inflationary trend-growth backdrop is a “goldilocks” scenario especially for tech stocks that thrive during disinflationary periods. While stocks can go higher defying weak EPS fundamentals as they have yet to reach a fully euphoric state according to our Complacency-Anxiety Indicator (Chart 5), a sell-off in the bond market will likely cause some consternation in equities in general and tech stocks in particular similar to early- and late-2018. Chart 5Not Max Complacent Yet Other catalysts that can suddenly cause “the music to stop” are either the recent coronavirus becoming an epidemic or a geopolitical event that would result in a risk off backdrop. Ultimately, profits have to show up and the news on this front remains grim. Our mid-January “Three EPS Scenarios” analysis still suggests that the SPX is 9% overvalued.2 This week we are updating our capital markets view and adding a sixth long-term theme and a related investment implication to our mid-December 2019, Special Report titled, “Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade”.3 Sixth Big Theme For The Decade And Investment Implications China’s ascendancy on the world scene was a mega driver of equity markets in the 2000s following its inclusion in the WTO. The commodity super-cycle captured investors’ imaginations and China’s insatiable appetite for commodities caused a massive bubble in the commodity complex in general and commodity-related equities in particular. Nevertheless, the Great Recession posed a severe threat to China and the authorities injected an extraordinary amount of stimulus into the economy (15% of GDP over two years). This succeeded in doubling real GDP growth, but only temporarily. The unintended consequence was an enormous debt binge fueled by cheap money. Moreover, this debt burden along with falling labor force growth and productivity forced the government to re-think its policies as they caused a steady down drift in real output growth. The sixth big theme for the 2020s is a sustained deceleration of Chinese real GDP growth to a range of 4% to 2% (Chart 6). Not only is the debt overhang weighing on real output growth, but Chinese leaders are adamant about transitioning the economy to developed market status, which is synonymous with higher consumption expenditures at the expense of gross fixed capital formation. Chart 6From Boom… Chart 7…To Bust In other words, China remains committed to weaning its economy off of investment and reconfiguring it toward consumption (Chart 7). This is a strategic plan but it is possible that the Chinese economy can achieve this transition in due time. While this will not happen overnight, the implication is steadily lower real GDP growth as is common among large, mature, developed market economies. China will remain one of the top commodity consumers in the world, as urbanization is ongoing, but the intensity of commodity consumption will continue to decelerate (Chart 8). At the margin, this change in consumption behavior will have knock on effects on the broad basic resources sector in general and the S&P 1500 metals & mining index in particular. Were this Chinese backdrop to pan out in the coming decade as we expect, it would sustain the relative underperformance of metals & mining equities as Chart 6 & 7 depict. Chart 8Commodity Consumption Deceleration Will… Chart 9…Continue To Weigh On Metals & Mining Profits Importantly, these commodity producers will have to adjust their still bloated cost structures to lower run rates which is de facto negative both for relative sales and profit growth (Chart 9). Tack on the large negative footprint mining extraction has on the environment, and if ESG investing (our fifth big theme for the decade4) also takes off, investors should avoid the S&P 1500 metals & mining index on a secular basis. Bottom Line: There are high odds that China’s real GDP deceleration will continue for the next decade, casting a shadow over the profit prospects of the S&P 1500 metals & mining index. A structural below benchmark allocation is warranted. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S15METL – NEM, FCX, NUE, RS, RGLD, STLD, CMC, ATI, CRS, CLF, CMP, X, KALU, WOR, MTRN, HCC, AKS, SXC, HAYN, CENX, TMST, ZEUS. Capital Markets Update Capital markets stocks have come out of hibernation recently and are on the cusp of breaking out – in a bullish fashion – of their 18-month trading range. A number of the indicators we track signal that an earnings-led outperformance period is in the cards for this financials sub-group and we reiterate our overweight stance. Sloshing liquidity has pushed investors out the risk spectrum and high yield bond option adjusted spreads are flirting with multi-year lows. Such a tame junk bond market backdrop coupled with easy financial conditions are conducive to rising M&A activity (Chart 10). Importantly, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey paints an improving profit backdrop for investment banks. Not only are bankers willing extenders of credit, but demand for credit for the majority of loan categories that the Fed tracks is squarely in positive territory (top panel, Chart 11). Chart 10Subsiding Risks Are A Boon To Capital Markets Chart 11Positive Profit Catalysts This is likely a consequence of last year’s drubbing in the price of credit. M&A activity usually goes hand in hand with loan growth, underscoring that business combinations are on track to accelerate (third panel, Chart 10). This will revive a lucrative business line for capital markets firms. Total mutual fund assets are expanding at a brisk rate and hitting fresh all-time highs, signaling an uptick in risk appetite (third panel, Chart 11). Rising investor confidence will facilitate both new and secondary share issuance, an important source of fee generation for capital markets firms. Moreover, equity trading volumes have sprang back to life in recent weeks underscoring that the recent impressive Q4 earnings results will likely continue into Q1/2020 (bottom panel, Chart 10). Meanwhile, the three Fed rate cuts last year should work through the economy and at least stem further losses in the ISM manufacturing survey. The US/China trade détente will also lead to a stabilization in global growth. In fact, the V-shaped recovery in the global ZEW survey suggests that capital markets profits will likely outpace the broad market this year (second & bottom panels, Chart 11). Finally, the recent surge in the stock-to-bond ratio reflects a massive psychological shift, from last year’s recessionary fears to growing investor confidence that tail risks are abating (Chart 12). Still depressed valuations neither reflect the firming capital markets profit outlook nor the rising industry ROE (bottom panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, accelerating total mutual fund assets under management, improved trading revenue prospects, rising investor confidence and a revival in IPO and M&A activity, all signal that it still pays to be overweight the S&P capital markets index.  Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P capital markets index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CAPM – GS, CME, SPGI, MS, BLK, SCHW, ICE, MCO, BK, TROW, STT, MSCI, NTRS, AMP, MKTX, CBOE, NDAQ, RJF, ETFC, BEN, IVZ. Chart 12Valuation Re-Rating Looms     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Ibid. 3     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Top US Sector Investment Ideas For the Next Decade” dated December 16, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4     Ibid.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

ハイライト 世界の成長は今年加速する態勢にあるが、コロナウイルスの感染拡大が短期的に支出を抑制する可能性がある。 歴史的に見て、失業率が非常に低い水準に低下したときに景気後退の確率が高まることが示唆されている。 この相関を説明するために3つの経路が提案されている：1) 失業率の低下により家計や企業が過度に拡張して経済が脆弱になること、2) 逼迫した労働市場に起因する賃金上昇が利益率を圧迫し、設備投資や採用を抑制すること、3) 潜在余力の縮小がインフレを促し中央銀行が利上げを迫られること。 第1の経路は、住宅バブルが形成され家計債務が非常に高水準に達している一部の小規模な先進国経済にとって非常に関連性が高い。しかし、米国、日本、およびユーロ圏の大半では差し迫った懸念ではない。 第2の経路の重要性は過小評価したい。というのも、賃金の加速は総需要を押し上げる可能性が高く、企業が省力化技術への設備投資を増やすインセンティブにもなるからである。 第3の経路が長期的には最大のリスクをもたらすが、今年の市場にとって直ちに重大となる可能性は低い。 投資家は今後12〜18か月間はグローバル株式に対して強気を維持すべきである。より慎重な姿勢は2021年後半から必要になるだろう。 グローバル株式：強気を維持 グローバル株式は8月の安値以降16％上昇しており、短期的な調整に脆弱である。しかし、年間を通じて世界の成長が勢いを増すと予想しているため、今後12か月の株式に対する見方は引き続きポジティブである。 最新の世界の製造業活動に関するデータは概ね当社の建設的な仮説を支持している。ニューヨーク連銀の製造業PMIは予想を上回り、フィラデルフィア連銀のPMIは約15ポイント跳ね上がり8か月ぶりの高水準となった。フィラデルフィア連銀指数の6か月先の企業見通し（ビジネスアウトルック）項目は2018年5月以来の好水準に上昇した。 欧州の製造業も今年改善するはずだ。ZEW指数のドイツ成長期待は1月に急騰し、2015年7月以来の高水準となった（チャート 1）。SentixやIFO指数も上昇している。励みになることに、ユーロ圏の自動車登録台数は12月に前年比22％増加した。 英国では、製造業者対象のCBI調査における企業信頼感が2019年Q3の-44からQ4で+23へと急上昇し、この調査の62年の歴史で最大の上昇幅となった。財政刺激策と混乱を伴うブレグジットのリスク低下も今年の成長を押し上げるだろう。 チャート 1 ユーロ圏に表れ始めた回復の兆し Some Green Shoots Emerging In The Euro Area Some Green Shoots Emerging In The Euro Area チャート 2 新興アジアは回復基調にある EM Asia Is Rebounding EM Asia Is Rebounding アジアの製造業および貿易データは改善している。先週の中国の貿易データ改善を受けて、韓国の輸出は変化率ベースで4か月連続の回復を示した。対中向けの日本の輸出は昨年2月以来初めて増加した。台湾では12月の鉱工業生産と輸出受注が予想を上回った。当社の新興アジア経済ディフュージョン指数は2018年10月以来の高水準に上昇している（チャート 2）。 コロナウイルス：侮れない存在か？ コロナウイルスの感染拡大は、芽生えつつある世界経済の回復に対する短期的な脅威を表している。概念的には、流行は経済に2つの方法で影響を及ぼし得る。第一に、旅行、娯楽、レストラン、あるいは他者との近接を伴うあらゆる支出を抑制することで需要を減らす。第二に、人々が出勤を避けることで供給を減少させる。 実際には、第一の影響が通常第二を上回る。その結果、そのような流行はデフレ圧力をもたらす傾向がある。 ブルッキングス研究所は、2003年のSARS流行が中国の当該年の成長率を約1ポイント押し下げたと推定している。1 今回の流行が中国の旧正月期間中に発生しており、4億人を超える人々が移動する時期であることは、ウイルスの伝播を助長し、経済的被害を増幅させる可能性がある。 とはいえ、同じ動物由来ウイルスの一群に属するものの、初期の所見では今回の株はSARSほど致死的ではない可能性が示唆されている。加えて、中国当局はSARS流行時よりも速やかにリスク対応を行っている。感染源と見られる人口1100万人の武漢市を事実上隔離し、ウイルスの配列を解析して国際医療コミュニティと共有した。これにより米国疾病対策センター（CDC）はウイルス検査を開発でき、数週間以内に利用可能になる見込みである。 低失業率の負の側面 コロナウイルスの流行が封じ込められることを前提とすれば、より強い世界成長は残存する労働市場の余剰を吸収し続けるだろう。ここで問題になるのは、失業率が低下し続けると、ある時点でそれが逆効果になり得るかどうかである。 コロナウイルスの感染拡大は、芽生えつつある世界経済の回復に対する短期的な脅威を表している。 OECDの失業率は現在5.1%で、2007年の最安値5.5%を下回っている（チャート 3）。米国では失業率は50年ぶりの低水準に低下している。 チャート 3 ほとんどの経済で失業率は危機前の最安値を下回っている Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? 金融危機以降の失業率の低下は歓迎すべき動きであることは誰も否定しない。しかし、それには1つの主要なリスクが伴う。歴史的に、失業率が非常に低い水準に低下すると景気後退の可能性が高まることが示されている（チャート 4）。 チャート 4 労働市場が過熱し始めると景気後退の可能性が高まる Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? この正の相関を説明するために3つの経路が提案されている：1) 失業率の低下により家計や企業が過度に拡張して経済が脆弱になること、2) 逼迫した労働市場に起因する賃金上昇が利益率を圧迫し、設備投資や採用を抑制すること、3) 潜在余力の縮小がインフレを促し、これが中央銀行に利上げを強いることで成長を抑制すること。 それぞれを順に検討しよう。 失業率と非合理的な熱狂 チャート 5 一部の経済で拡大する住宅の不均衡 Growing Housing Imbalances In Some Economies Growing Housing Imbalances In Some Economies 強い経済はリスクテイクを促進する。ある程度のリスクテイクは資本主義にとって不可欠だが、過度のリスクテイクは不均衡の蓄積を招き、最終的な下振れの舞台を整える可能性がある。 オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、カナダ、北欧諸国では、低金利と強い経済成長の組み合わせが家計債務を伴う住宅バブルを煽っている（チャート 5、パネル3）。先週議論したとおり、それらの経済で金利が上昇すれば経済的な困窮の芽を生む可能性がある。2 その他ほとんどの国では、金融の不均衡は景気後退を引き起こすほど深刻ではない。チャート 6は、民間部門の金融バランス（民間部門の収入と支出の差）が先進国では依然としてGDPの3.4％の健全な黒字を保っていることを示している。2007年には先進国の民間部門金融バランスは0.4％に低下し、米国では2％の赤字に達していた。民間部門のバランスは2001年の景気後退前にも急速に悪化していた（チャート 7）。 チャート 6 ほとんどの経済で民間部門の支出は所得を下回っている Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? チャート 7 民間部門の黒字は前回の景気拡大終了前よりも大きい The Private-Sector Surplus Is Larger Than It Was Before The End Of Previous Expansions The Private-Sector Surplus Is Larger Than It Was Before The End Of Previous Expansions   米国では個人貯蓄率が約8％まで上昇しており、家計の純資産水準から予想される水準よりもはるかに高い（チャート 8）。2018/19年に実質個人消費は約2.5％で成長したが、消費者信頼感の水準から予想されるペースよりも遅かった。これは家計が比較的慎重な態度を維持していることを示唆している。これと整合的に、家計の負債対可処分所得比は2008年以降で32ポイント低下している。 チャート 8 家計は予想以上に貯蓄している Households Are Saving More Than One Would Expect Households Are Saving More Than One Would Expect 確かに、いくつかのクレジットカテゴリは大きく増加している（チャート 9）。学生ローンは可処分所得の9％に達している。自動車ローンはリセッション前の高水準に戻っている。 前者については大半の学生ローンが政府によって保証されているため、それほど心配していない。自動車ローンの方が懸念材料ではある。しかし、自動車ローン市場は住宅ローン市場の6分の1未満の規模であることを留意しておくべきだ。 さらに、2011年から2016年にかけて自動車ローンの与信基準を緩めた後、銀行はその基準を引き締めてきた。この調整はほぼ完了しているように見える。最新のシニアローン担当者調査では与信基準はこれ以上引き締まらず、自動車ローン需要は2年ぶりの速さで増加した。自動車ローンの延滞に陥る割合は低下傾向にあり、延滞率はピークに達していることを示唆している（チャート 10）。 チャート 9 学生ローンと自動車ローンの増加にもかかわらず米国の家計債務は低下している US Household Debt Levels Have Fallen, Despite Increases in Student And Auto Loans US Household Debt Levels Have Fallen, Despite Increases in Student And Auto Loans チャート 10 自動車ローン：与信基準と延滞率の動向をモニタリング Auto Loans: Monitoring Trends In Credit Standards And Delinquency Rates Auto Loans: Monitoring Trends In Credit Standards And Delinquency Rates 最後に、自動車市場の騒ぎにもかかわらず、自動車ローン担保証券は良好なパフォーマンスを示していることを指摘しておきたい（チャート 11）。デフォルト率は上昇しているが、貸し手は通常、発生する損失を吸収できるだけの利率を設定している。 チャート 11 証券化された自動車ローンは良好な実績を示している Securitized Auto Loans Have Performed Well Securitized Auto Loans Have Performed Well 利益率の低下は景気拡大を狂わせるか？ 利益率は通常、景気後退の発生の数年前にピークに達することが多い（チャート 12、上段）。このため、利益率の低下が企業の採用意欲や新たな生産能力への投資意欲を削ぎ、景気後退をもたらすのではないかと推測する者もいる。 チャート 12 利益率のピーク：不吉な兆候か？ A Peak In Profit Margins: An Ominous Sign? A Peak In Profit Margins: An Ominous Sign? 興味深い理論ではあるが、精査すると支持されにくい。企業景況感調査は明確に、設備投資の意図は賃上げ計画と正の相関があることを示している（チャート 13、左パネル）。賃金の上昇に応じて設備投資を削減するどころか、賃上げを計画している企業の方がむしろ設備投資を増やす傾向がある。 チャート 13A 賃金上昇、採用増、設備投資の増加は同時に進む（I） Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (I) Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (I) チャート 13B 賃金上昇、採用増、設備投資の増加は同時に進む（II） Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (II) Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (II) その一因は、賃金上昇が自動化をより魅力的にすることである。自動化は定義上、より多くの設備投資を必要とする。しかし、それだけが理由ではなく、賃金成長が高まっている期間には企業は同時により多くの労働者を雇用する傾向がある（チャート 13、右パネル）。 これは第三の要因―強い経済成長―が賃金と採用意図の両方を加速させていることを示唆している。実際、実質の企業売上は雇用成長と非住宅投資の双方と強く相関していることがこの主張の証拠である（チャート 12、下段）。 利益率低下：問題の症状に過ぎない 上記の議論は、賃金の加速が企業を採用や設備投資から思いとどまらせる可能性は低いことを示唆している。むしろその逆であろう。一般に、労働者は企業よりも所得の1ドル当たり多くを消費するため、国民所得に占める労働者の取り分が増えれば総需要は上向く。 では、なぜ利益率は通常景気後退前にピークを迎えるのか。その答えは、労働市場の余剰が縮小すると単位労働コストが上昇し、中央銀行が高まるインフレを抑えるために利上げを余儀なくされる傾向があることだ。したがって、利益率の低下は根本問題である経済の過熱の単なる症状にすぎない。景気後退の原因を利益率の低下に帰するべきではない。中央銀行を批判すべきなのである。 インフレはまだ脅威ではない 現時点では、主要経済の単位労働コストのインフレは比較的抑制されている（チャート 14）。しかし、労働市場の余剰と賃金上昇の歴史的関係が崩れたという証拠はほとんどない（チャート 15）。生産性の大幅な上振れがない限り、企業が上昇した労働コストを顧客に転嫁しようとするため、インフレは最終的に加速する可能性が高い。 チャート 14A 当面、単位労働コストは安定している（I） Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (I) Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (I) チャート 14B 当面、単位労働コストは安定している（II） Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (II) Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (II)       チャート 15 労働市場の余剰と賃金上昇の相関は維持されている Correlation Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Growth Remains Intact Correlation Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Growth Remains Intact いつそのような物価・賃金のらせんが出現するかを正確に知ることはできない。インフレは著しく遅行する指標である（チャート 16）。当社の最良の見立てでは、インフレは2021年末から2022年にかけて投資家にとって深刻なリスクになり得る。したがって、投資家は今後12〜18か月はグローバル株式の比重を高める（オーバーウェイト）べきだが、2021年後半にはより慎重になる準備をしておくべきである。 チャート 16 インフレは遅行指標である Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?   Peter Berezin チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト peterb@bcaresearch.com   脚注 1   Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Brookings Institution, 2004年2月付。 2  詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー週次レポート、「Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?」2020年1月17日付を参照のこと。   グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ビュー・マトリクス Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? マクロクォント・モデルと現在の主観的スコア Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment? 戦略的推奨 決済済み取引

Highlights An analysis on India is available on page 12. There is extreme complacency in global financial markets. With currency markets’ implied volatility at a record low, we recommend going long EM currency volatility. The latter will rise in the next six month regardless the direction of global risk assets. For now, we remain long the EM MSCI equity index with a stop point at 1050. In India, nominal income growth has fallen below lending rates. The latter have not declined despite monetary easing. The authorities will force banks to reduce their lending rates, which will hurt bank stocks. Feature “…we have probably seen the end of the boom-bust cycle.” Bob Prince, Co-CIO of Bridgewater World Economic Forum, Davos January 22, 2020 Low Volatility = Complacency Chart I-1Go Long Currency Volatility The comment above by co-CIO of the largest hedge fund declaring the end of boom-bust cycle is consistent with lingering complacency in global financial markets. Any time an influential person made a similar declaration in the past, it marked a major turning point in financial markets. Remarkably, implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies and a wide range of equity markets. Chart I-1 illustrates the implied volatility for EM currencies and the US dollar. Such low levels of implied currency market volatility historically preceded major moves in currency markets and often led to a material selloff in broad EM financial markets. It does not mean that the world economy will crash but financial markets volatility in general and currency market volatility in particular are bound to rise considerably in the months ahead. The risk-reward profile of going long EM currency or US dollar volatility appears very attractive. Today we recommend investors to go long EM currency volatility. The latter will rise regardless the direction of global risk assets. Concerning overall strategy, EM financial markets are entering a testing period. How broader EM risk assets and currencies perform in the coming weeks will signal how durable and long-lasting the current EM rally will be. Given global risk assets are overbought, a correction or consolidation phase is overdue. If EM equities, currencies and credit markets outperform, or at least do not underperform their DM peers in the course of this indigestion phase, it will beckon more upside for EM risk assets in 2020. If during budding market turbulence EM risk assets and currencies underperform their DM peers, it will signal their vulnerability in 2020.Implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies. Implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies. For now, we remain long the EM MSCI equity index with a stop point at 1050. We will upgrade our EM equity and credit market allocations versus DM if the EM universe generally exhibits relative resilience in the coming weeks, and more of our indicators confirm China’s growth recovery. Hints Of Recovery… December economic data out of China were strong, and it seems that the credit and fiscal stimulus are finally beginning to lift growth: Chinese imports and nominal industrial output – among the most reliable measures of the Chinese business cycle – posted very robust growth numbers in December (Chart I-2). DRAM and NAND semiconductor prices are climbing, and China’s container freight index is also in revival mode (Chart I-3). These high-frequency (daily and weekly) data confirm improving business activity in both the global semiconductor sector and in overall world trade. Chart I-2China's December Economic Data Were Strong Chart I-3Asia's Trade Is Recovering   There are tentative signs of amelioration in our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by households and enterprises in China (Chart I-4). A more decisive improvement in these indicators is needed to reinforce the positive outlook for China’s growth. …But Doubts Still Linger Despite the recent improvement in Chinese economic data and the rebound in China-related plays, there are a number of financial market indicators that are not yet confirming a sustainable business cycle recovery in China and global trade. In particular: First, apart from semiconductor stocks, global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors – industrials, materials, and freight and logistics – have begun, once again, underperforming defensive sectors (Chart I-5). Outperformance by these cyclical sectors against defensives is essential in confirming that global and Chinese capital spending – which were the primary sources of the most recent slowdown – are picking up again. Chart I-4China: Tentative Improvement In Household And Corporate Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart I-5Global Equities: Cyclicals Are Again Underperforming Defensives   Notably, the relative performance of EM share prices to the global equity benchmark historically tracks the relative performance of global materials versus the global overall stock index.1 However, the two have recently diverged (Chart I-6). In short, global materials are not corroborating sustainability in the recent EM outperformance. If EM equities, currencies and credit markets outperform, or at least do not underperform their DM peers in the course of this indigestion phase, it will beckon more upside for EM risk assets in 2020. Second, the rebound in Chinese and EM shares prices is not corroborated by Chinese onshore government bond yields, which are dipping to new cyclical lows (Chart I-7). In other words, interest rate expectations in China are falling – i.e., they are not confirming a robust recovery. Chart I-6Unsustainable Decoupling Chart I-7A Message From The Chinese Fixed-Income Market   Third, EM ex-China currencies have not yet broken out versus the US dollar (Chart I-8). Consistently, the broad trade-weighted US dollar has not yet broken down. Chart I-9 illustrates that the greenback’s advance-decline line has not yet fallen below its 200-day moving average, a condition that has historically been required to confirm the dollar’s cyclical bear market. Chart I-8EM Currencies: No Breakout Yet Chart I-9The US Dollar Is At A Critical Juncture   We view these exchange rate patterns as a litmus test to validate turning points in the global business cycle. Finally, the technical profiles of the KOSPI, EM small cap stocks and copper prices are inconclusive (Chart I-10). These markets have rebounded but seem to be confronting a critical technical test. If they decisively break above these technical levels, it will be a sign that the EM bull market will be lasting and durable. Otherwise, caution is still warranted. Bottom Line: There is a good amount of complacency among global investors at a time when there are several market signals that are still challenging the view of enduring revival in China/EM growth. Corporate Profits Will Be The Arbiter Ultimately, economic growth and corporate profits will determine the direction of not only share prices but also EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads as well as their currencies. So far, the EM equity rebound of the past 12 months has been solely due to multiples expansion amid a deepening EM profit recession: Earnings per share in US dollar terms has been contracting by 10% from a year ago, and the rate of change has so far not turned around (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The KOSPI And Copper Are Facing A Resilience Test Chart I-11EM Equities: A Profitless Rally?   Going forward, however, EM corporate profits growth is set to improve. Our indicator for semiconductor companies’ revenues is heralding a revival in semi sector profits (Chart I-12, top panel). The rate-of-change improvement in commodities prices is also foreshadowing potential amelioration in corporate earnings growth among energy producers and materials (Chart I-12, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-12EPS Growth In EM Technology, Energy And Materials We are negative on EM bank profits due to their need to recognize and provision for non-performing loans as well as the authorities’ mounting pressures on them to reduce lending rates. The latter will shrink banks’ elevated net interest rate margins. The profit profile of other EM equity sectors is illustrated in Chart I-13A and I-13B. Chart I-13AEM EPS Growth By Sectors Chart I-13BEM EPS Growth By Sectors   Provided technology, materials and energy stocks account for 33% of the MSCI EM aggregate equity index’s earnings (banks account for another 28% of total profits), it is safe to assume that the growth rate of EM EPS will move from -10% currently to zero or mildly positive territory by mid-2020. Nevertheless, beyond the next several months, our leading indicators on the EM profit outlook are not positive. China’s narrow money growth leads EM EPS by 12 months, and currently suggests the EPS recovery will be both muted and short-lived (Chart I-14). The technical profiles of the KOSPI, EM small cap stocks and copper prices are inconclusive. Further, China’s broad money impulse points to a peak in the credit impulse in the first half of the year (Chart I-15). Given that EM share prices bottomed a year ago, simultaneously with China’s credit impulse, odds are that EM equities could slump with a rollover in the latter. Chart I-14EM EPS: Marginal Improvement Ahead But No Robust Recovery Chart I-15China: A Signpost Of A Potential Top In The Credit Impulse   Chart I-16DM Central Banks' Assets And EM Stocks And Currencies: No Stable Correlation What if the current liquidity-driven rally continues? In our report last week titled A Primer On Liquidity, we elaborated at great length about the different liquidity measures and how they influence financial asset prices. Empirically, changes in DM central banks’ balance sheets have had no stable correlation with either EM share prices or EM local currency bonds, as demonstrated in Chart I-16. There have been periods over the past 10 years when EM risk assets and currencies have performed poorly, despite an accelerating pace of QE programs worldwide (Chart I-16). The true and critical driver for EM equity and currency performance has been EM’s own domestic fundamentals and China’s business cycle (please refer to Chart I-11 on page 7). To be sure, we are not suggesting that DM central bank policies have not affected global and EM financial markets at all. They have done so in spades. By purchasing and withdrawing about $9 trillion in high-quality securities from the marketplace, the monetary authorities have shrunk the stock of available financial assets. Consequently, even though QE programs have expanded broad money supply only modestly,2 the upshot has been that more money has been chasing fewer financial assets. Also, low interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of owning risk assets. These two phenomena have led investors to bid up prices of various securities, including EM ones. Nevertheless, despite the ongoing and indiscriminate global search for yield, EM share prices in US dollar terms and EM ex-China currencies (including carry, i.e. on a total-return basis) are still below their 2010 levels. Such poor performance of EM risk assets has been a corollary of just how bad EM fundamentals have been. Bottom Line: EM corporate profits will improve on a rate-of-change basis in the coming months. However, forward-looking indicators do not yet point to a robust recovery in EM corporate profits as occurred in 2017. Investment Conclusions We are maintaining our long EM equities position with a stop point at 1050 for the MSCI EM stock index (7% below the current level). If EM share prices, credit markets and currencies outperform their DM peers during a correction/consolidation phase, we will upgrade EM allocations to overweight in global equity and credit portfolios. At the moment, EM is confronting a resilience test. Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Russia, Korea, Thailand, Mexico, UAE, Pakistan and central Europe. Our recommended equity underweights include Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong domestic stocks, South Africa, Turkey and Colombia. In sovereign credit and local bond markets, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia, Pakistan and Ukraine. In turn, South Africa, Turkey, Philippines and Indonesia warrant an underweight stance. Today we are upgrading Indian bonds from neutral to overweight (see page 17).  In the currency space, we continue holding a short position versus the US dollar in the following basket of currencies: BRL, ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, PHP and KRW. As always, the full list of our positions is presented at the end of report (please refer to pages 18-19 and on our website).   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com India: Beware Of Private Banks And Consumer Perils Indian private banks and consumer staple stocks have been holding up the Indian equity market at a time when the rest of the bourse has been sluggish. Both sectors, however, are extremely expensive and thus tremendously sensitive to minor profit disappointments. Remarkably, private banks now trade at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 31 and price-to-book value (PBV) ratio of 4. Indian consumer staple stocks, on the other hand, trade at a P/E ratio of 41 (Chart II-1 and Chart II-2). Chart II-1Indian Private Bank Stocks Are Expensive Chart II-2Indian Consumer Staple Stocks Are Very Pricey   Chart II-3A Credit Boom Among Indian Private Banks Given that private banks have been specializing in both mortgages and non-mortgage consumer lending, the call on both private bank and consumer staple stocks is contingent on consumer financial health. The loan book of private banks has expanded tremendously: since 2010 it has grown at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20% and 14% in nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) terms, respectively (Chart II-3).3 In turn, the share of household loans is reasonably large at around 52% of private banks total loan book.  Unfortunately, India’s consumer sector appears to be fragile at the moment. Employment and wage growth have downshifted – the Manpower employment index is at a 14-year low (Chart II-4). Consequently, household disposable income growth has decelerated to 9% in nominal terms (Chart II-5). Critically, households’ ability to service debt has deteriorated as nominal disposable household income growth has fallen slightly below borrowing costs, i.e., bank lending rates (Chart II-5). This development is precarious not only because it makes it more difficult for consumers to service their debt – causing NPLs to rise – but it also dampens consumer credit demand. Consequently, private banks’ considerable exposure to consumers could reverse the fortunes of the former as consumers face increasing difficulties servicing their debt. Moreover, with borrowing costs above nominal income growth, banks in India could face adverse selection problem. The latter is a phenomenon when loan demand primarily comes from riskier borrowers who are in desperate need for funding. In such a case, non-performing loans are bound to mushroom. Chart II-4India's Labor Market Is In Doldrums Chart II-5India: Household Nominal Income And Lending Rate Overall, household spending is in the doldrums. Two- and three-wheeler and passenger car unit sales have all been contracting. In the meantime, consumer demand for non-durable goods has also weakened, as reflected by stalling non-durable consumer goods production. Residential property demand has plummeted. According to the Reserve Bank of India’s December Financial Stability Report – quoting data from PropTiger DataLabs – housing sales units contracted by 20% in September from a year ago. In turn, growth in house prices has been anemic (Chart II-6). Prices are now growing below core inflation, i.e. property prices are deflating in real terms. Households’ ability to service debt has deteriorated as nominal disposable household income growth has fallen slightly below borrowing costs. Going forward, odds are that employment and wage growth will remain weak in India. The basis is the corporate sector is also struggling and still reluctant to invest and hire. Chart II-7 illustrates that the number of investment projects has collapsed, while capital goods production and capital goods imports are both shrinking (Chart II-7). Chart II-6India: Housing Market Is Feeble Chart II-7India: Companies Are Not Investing   Overall, the entire Indian economy is suffering from high borrowing costs in real (adjusted for inflation) terms (Chart II-8, top panel). Chart II-8Lending Rates Have Not Declined Despite Monetary Easing Importantly, the monetary policy transmission mechanism has not been working effectively in India. Even though the central bank has cut its policy rate by 135 basis points in 2019, prime borrowing did not budge (Chart II-8, middle panel). Consequently, loan growth has decelerated sharply (Chart II-8, bottom panel). On the whole, for the economy to recover, it requires considerably lower borrowing costs or a substantial fiscal boost. Indian central and state fiscal aggregate budget deficit is already wide at 6% of GDP. With public debt-to-GDP ratio at 68%, there is some but not enormous room for boosting government expenditures drastically. This makes reducing commercial bank lending rates the most feasible mechanism to jump-start the economy. Consequently, the authorities will become more aggressive in forcing commercial banks to cut their lending rates. This seems to be taking place as in September 2019 the RBI asked Indian commercial banks to link lending rates on certain types of loans more closely to the central bank’s policy rate to ensure more effective monetary policy transmission. Yet doing so will squeeze down commercial banks’ net interest rate margins – which have widened – and will hit banks’ profits. Alternatively, if lending rates do not fall, non-performing loans (NPLs) will increase because only risky borrowers will be willing to borrow while existing debtors will struggle to service their debt at current elevated interest rates. This will also depress bank profits. These two negative scenarios are probably reflected in low valuations of public bank share prices, but they are not yet priced in among private banks stocks. Given the latter’s exuberant valuations, only a small drop in net interest rate margins or a small rise in NPLs, will be enough to drag their share prices lower. Investment Conclusions Chart II-9India Vs. EM Relative Equity Performance Is Often About Oil Travails of the Indian economy will persist for now. Much more policy support is required to turn the business cycle around. EM equity investors should keep a neutral allocation to Indian stocks within an EM equity portfolio. Indian share prices often outperform their EM peers when oil prices drop and lag when crude prices rally (Chart II-9). Given our negative view on oil prices,4 we are reluctant to downgrade this bourse to underweight. Private banks are susceptible to a drawdown as either their net interest rate margins will drop or they will face rising non-performing loans. Consumer staples stocks are expensive and, hence, are vulnerable to marginal profit disappointments. We are upgrading our allocation to Indian domestic bonds from neutral to overweight within an EM local bond portfolio. Consistently, we are closing our yield curve steepening trade in India. This position has produced a 30 basis points gain since July 2016. Low inflation, weak real growth, a struggling credit system and ineffective transmission of monetary easing argue for even lower interest rates in India. The surge in food prices should be viewed as a relative price shock, not inflation. Higher food prices will curb the spending power of consumers and weaken their expenditures on non-food items. In addition, core inflation remains very low. Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please click on the link to access EM: Perception versus Reality report. 2  Commercial banks’ reserves at central banks do not constitute and are not a part of narrow or broad money supply. 3  The calculation is based on the annual reports of four large Indian private banks: HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, and Axis Bank. 4   This is the Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view and it differs for BCA’s house view on oil. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The bank credit 6-month impulse is likely to drop sharply in Europe, drop modestly in the US, but remain positive in China. Hence, the momentum of first-half economic data is likely to be worse in Europe than in China – albeit the Wuhan coronavirus scare is an unknown risk to this view. Initiate long CNY/GBP on a 6-month horizon. Underweight banks and the cyclical-heavy Eurostoxx 50 versus other markets, again on a 6-month horizon. There will be a better time to enter these positions later in the year when 6-month impulses are improving. Long-term investors seeking value in Europe should focus on the main currencies and not on the main equity indexes. Fractal trade: long EUR/GBP. Europe And China Play A Role-Reversal In recent dispatches we have highlighted that the euro area bond yield 6-month impulse stands near +100 bps, posing the strongest headwind to growth for three years. To make matters worse, the impulse has flipped from a strong -100 bps tailwind last summer into the current strong headwind, equating to a marked deterioration in the weather. But in China, it is the opposite story. Last summer, the China bond yield 6-month impulse constituted a strong +80 bps headwind; today the headwind has disappeared. Indeed, it has morphed into a tailwind, albeit a very mild tailwind at just -10 bps. In this sense, Europe and China are now playing a role-reversal. The momentum of first-half economic data is likely to be worse in Europe than in China – albeit with the caveat that the Wuhan coronavirus scare is an unknown risk to this view (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekBond Yields In Europe And China Play A Role-Reversal For the sake of completeness, we should address the world’s other large economy, the United States. Just as in the euro area, the US bond yield 6-month impulse has flipped from a strong -100 bps tailwind last summer into a current headwind. But the headwind, at +50 bps, is not as strong as it is in the euro area (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Headwind Impulses In The Euro Area And The US, But Not In China The Four Impulse Framework For Short-Term Growth The bond yield 6-month impulse is the first component of our proprietary ‘four impulse framework’ for short-term growth. The bond yield 6-month impulse is important because it usually leads the framework’s second component, the bank credit 6-month impulse, by a few months. This relationship makes perfect sense as, at the margin, it is the price of credit that drives credit demand. Indeed, to the extent that monetary policy drives growth, this is the main mechanism by which it operates, albeit with a slight delay. The bond yield impulse usually leads the credit impulse. On this compelling theoretical and empirical evidence, the bank credit impulse is now likely to drop sharply in the euro area (Chart I-3), drop modestly in the US (Chart I-4), but remain positive in China (Chart I-5). Chart I-3The Credit 6-Month Impulse Is Likely To Drop Sharply In The Euro Area... Chart I-4...Drop Modestly In ##br##The US...   Chart I-5...But Remain Positive In China But we must also consider the other two impulses in our four impulse framework. In the case of the euro area, the third important impulse is the oil price 6-month impulse. This is because the euro area relies on oil imports whose volumes tend to be price inelastic. Hence, when the oil price falls it subtracts from imports, thereby adding to net exports and growth – and vice-versa when the oil price rises. In the middle of 2019, the oil price impulse constituted a very strong headwind which helps to explain the midyear sharp slowdown in Germany. Subsequently, the headwind eased, even reversing into a modest tailwind which facilitated a recovery. But the tailwind is now fading (Chart I-6).  Chart I-6A Fading Tailwind From The Oil Price 6-Month Impulse The fourth and final component of our four impulse framework is geopolitical risk. This is not an impulse in the strict mathematical sense, but it is the same broad idea applied to the flow of geopolitical tail-events, both negative and positive. Europe’s positive events came several months ago: first in early-August when Italy ousted the firebrand Matteo Salvini from government; then in early-October when the UK parliament legislated against a no-deal Halloween Brexit. The tailwind from these positive events has now likely faded. For China, a positive geopolitical event and potential mild tailwind has come more recently, with the signing of the phase one trade deal with the US. Against this, the Wuhan coronavirus scare is a new risk – though based on the latest information it is unlikely to impact a 6-month view. The tailwind from the oil price impulse is now fading. On the four impulse framework, the momentum of first-half economic data is likely to favour China over Europe. We have found that the best way of playing this is through the exchange rate (Chart I-7), though given recent moves our preferred expression is versus the pound rather than the euro. Hence, on a 6-month horizon, initiate long CNY/GBP. Chart I-7Play Relative Impulses Through Currencies More generally, can the mild tailwind in China counter the headwinds in the West? No. Despite the improvement in China, the aggregate global bond yield impulse still constitutes a +50 bps headwind, which is almost certain to weigh down the global credit impulse through the early months of 2020 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Global Credit 6-Month Impulse Will Weaken In Early 2020 Therefore, as discussed last week in Strong Headwind Warrants Caution In H1, we recommend an underweight stance to banks and to the cyclical-heavy Eurostoxx 50 versus other markets, again on a 6-month horizon. This is not to say that these positions cannot do better on a 12-month view, as per the BCA house view. But if so, any outperformance will be back-end loaded, and there will be a better time to enter these positions later in the year when 6-month impulses are improving. Where Is The Value In Europe? One of the most common questions we get is: are European equities cheaper than US equities? Usually, this question comes from our US clients who are aware that their own stock market is expensive and wish that Europe might be less so. Unfortunately, the wishful thinking won’t make it come true! Major stock market indexes comprise multinational companies with global footprints. For these multinationals, there is no such thing as a ‘European’ company or a ‘US’ company. They are simply global companies that could list their shares on any major stock market. Now ask yourself this: is it really plausible that such a multinational would be cheaper if its primary listing was in Frankfurt as opposed to New York? Of course not. The valuation depends on the industry and company specifics, but it is highly unlikely to depend on whether the company is listed in Frankfurt or New York. It is not European equities that are cheap, it is European currencies that are cheap. But then why do companies with dual listings in Europe and outside Europe trade at a valuation discount in their European listing? For example, Carnival Cruises trades around 8 percent dearer in New York than in London (Chart I-9); and BHP Billiton trades around 15 percent dearer in Sydney than in London (Chart I-10). The answer is that the London listing is quoted in pounds, the New York listing is quoted in US dollars, the Sydney listing is quoted in Australian dollars, but Carnival’s and BHP’s sales and profits are denominated in a mix of international currencies. Chart I-9Carnival Cruises Trades Dearer In New York Than In London Chart I-10BHP Trades Dearer In Sydney ##br##Than In London Hence, Carnival and BHP are trading dearer in New York and Sydney because the market is expecting their mixed currency earnings to appreciate more in US dollar and Australian dollar terms respectively than in pound terms. Put another way, the market is expecting the pound to appreciate structurally versus the major non-European currencies. Therein lies the important message. It is not European equities that are cheap, it is European currencies that are cheap. For those of you still in doubt, just visit the ECB website. The central bank’s own currency valuation indicator admits that the trade-weighted euro is 10 percent undervalued (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The ECB Admits That The Euro Is 10 Percent Undervalued Hence, investors seeking value in Europe should not focus on the main equity indexes. Instead, they should focus on the main currencies. That said, valuation based investing only works if you have a long enough time horizon, meaning at least two years. For shorter horizons, economic momentum and technical factors dominate. In this regard, the pound’s strong rally faces resistance once post-Brexit trade deal negotiations begin in earnest after January 31. As a tactical trade, go long EUR/GBP (see next section). Fractal Trading System* The Brexit deal unleashed a strong rally in the pound, but this is vulnerable to a countertrend setback once the trade deal negotiations begin in earnest. Accordingly, this week's recommendation is long EUR/GBP. Set a profit target at 2 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long tin achieved its 5 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio stands at 62 percent. Chart I-12EUR/GBP 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. * 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 Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed 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  

Highlights The recently signed Phase One deal is positive for China and global equity markets as it brings a temporary truce to the trade war. However, China is unlikely to change its current policy trajectory to create additional domestic demand to consume $200 billion in new imports from the US. China is likely to meet the commitment only half way in the next two years, and meet the 2020 import target from the US by a redistribution of its purchases overseas. The RMB will modestly appreciate in the next three to six months. On the monetary policy front, there is no sign of further monetary easing from the PBoC. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks in the next six months, relative to the global benchmark. Feature Economic data released last week, including Q4 GDP growth, December industrial production, fixed-asset investment and trade data, all suggest that the Chinese economy bottomed before the end of 2019. The Phase One trade deal between China and the US marks a significant de-escalation in a two-year trade war. The RMB appreciated by 1.4% against the greenback since the beginning of the year, pushing USD-CNY firmly below the key psychological 7 mark. The performance of equities in China’s onshore and offshore markets confirms that the economy has bottomed. Since December 11, 2019, Chinese cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives and both the investable and domestic markets have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages versus global stocks (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1ABoth Onshore And Offshore Equities Signal A Bottoming In China's Economy Chart 1BCyclicals Have Significantly Outperformed Defensives Lately We continue to recommend a cyclical long stance on Chinese stocks. We expect pro-growth policy support to accelerate in the first quarter, economic recovery to further solidify, and the Phase One trade deal to reduce economic and financial market volatility until the November 2020 US presidential election. All of these factors should support an outperformance in Chinese stocks relative to their global peers. Some Inconvenient Truth To The Truce China’s commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in goods from the US was more than market participants anticipated. We do not think China will honor this commitment to its full extent. Moreover, we also do not think this will change China’s domestic economic policy trajectory for 2020. Details in Chapter 6 of the Phase One trade agreement titled “Expanding Trade”1 include: In the next 2 years, China is committed to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of goods and services from the US, from the 2017 baseline. The additional $200 billion amount is split over the next two years: China will need to add no less than $77 billion of imports from the US in 2020, and $123 billion in 2021. This amounts to a 41% increase in 2020 and a 66% increase in 2021, from the 2017 baseline of $186 billion (Chart 2). The text from Chapter 6 of the Phase One deal also specifies that, between January 2020 and December 2021, China will add a total of $77.7 billion in purchases of manufactured goods (including aircraft components), $32 billion in agricultural products, $52.4 billion in energy and $37.9 billion in services from the US (Chart 3). Chart 2Phase One Trade Deal Sets An Ambitious Import Target For The Next Two Years Chart 3Chinese Imports Of Agro And Energy Goods From The US Likely To See The Biggest Increase In 2020 From 2019   China’s annual import growth from the US in 2017 was the highest one in the past ten years.  If we assume that China will simply add $200 billion of new imports in the next two years from the US to this high starting point, it will need to boost domestic demand to accommodate at least a 4-6% increase in total imports in the next two years from 2019.2 In contrast, growth in China’s total imports in 2019 contracted by 3% from 2018, and averaged at only 2% in the last five years. In other words, in 2020 and 2021, even if China does not increase imports from other countries, just the commitment from purchases of US goods alone would require a sizable boost in China’s domestic demand. However, the assumption above is overly simplified and optimistic. Even though Chinese leadership may have shifted their policy priority from financial deleveraging to supporting economic growth this year, we do not think they will fully abandon the battle against systemic risks in the financial sector. Therefore, China is unlikely to significantly deviate from its current policy trajectory and stimulate aggressively to create additional domestic demand to consume the agreed $200 billion in new imports from the US. It is equally unlikely that China will absorb the $200 billion additional imports from the US, at the expense of its domestic production. A more plausible approach, which is our base case scenario, is that China will meet a large portion of the 2020 import target before November, to show good faith. After the US presidential election, China will face the challenge of either a re-escalation from the Phase Two trade talk with a re-elected President Trump, or a new US president with his/her own political agenda. In either case, at this point China is unlikely to have the intention to meet the import target for 2021. Chart 4China Likely To Shift Agro And Energy Import Suppliers To The US In 2020, to absorb a $77 billion additional imports from the US, China will likely shift some of its imports, such as agriculture and energy products, from other countries to suppliers in the US. China currently imports $150 billion of agriculture goods and $298 billion of energy related products on an annual basis, so the pie is large enough to absorb some of increased import commitments by shifting the sources of imports (Chart 4). The same logic goes for the manufactured goods category in the trade agreement, which includes cars, airplanes, steel, industrial machinery, and so on.3 China is likely to choose to shift its import suppliers of these goods to the US, while increasing its own share of intermediate goods supplies to the US manufacturers. Almost all of the eight subcategories under the manufactured goods category in the Phase One trade agreement are deeply integrated in the global supply chain. For example, foreign value-added share accounts for 23% of the total output value of the US automobile industry.4 In other words, if a “Made in America” car is worth $20,000, $4,600 is produced by foreign suppliers of intermediate goods. Since China has been the leading source of this foreign value-added in the US automobile industry, a sizeable slice of these additional imports will likely benefit Chinese manufacturers. In this scenario, we expect an increase in bilateral trade between China and the US in 2020, at the expense of other players in the global supply chain. Lastly, while this is not our base case scenario, it is possible the Phase One trade agreement was set up for failure, if China is simply hoping to delay the imposition of additional tariffs as part of a gamble that President Trump will not be re-elected. In this scenario, China might not make any meaningful additional purchases from the US even in 2020 (while claiming that they will be made closer to the election), implying that bilateral trade between China and the US will only revert to its historical average this year, at best. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are unlikely willing to alter their existing policy trajectory when accommodating more imports of US goods. China will, at best, reshuffle its supply chain to absorb a portion of the commitment before November 2020. The RMB And Monetary Policy: A Refocus On The Economic Fundamentals As tensions from the US-China trade war abate, investors are starting to refocus on economic fundamentals. The RMB has appreciated by 1.4% against the USD since the beginning of this year (Chart 5). The recent appreciation in the currency is a reversal to its fair value, which reflects an ongoing economic recovery (Chart 6). In the next three to six months, the improvement in China’s economic fundamentals and market sentiment should support a continuation in the RMB’s reversal to its structural trend. Chart 5USD/CNY Has Durably Fallen Below 7 Chart 6The Recent Appreciation In RMB Is A Reversal To Its Fair Value   But Chinese leadership’s cautious approach to boosting domestic demand will also cap the upside potential in the RMB appreciation. We think Chinese policymakers will maintain their tight grip this year on local government spending and bank lending, and will continue to fine-tune policies based on economic conditions. This will limit the magnitude in both the stimulus and economic recovery. Baring a major re-escalation in the trade war, the RMB should oscillate within a relatively narrow band through the third quarter of this year. For that reason, the PBoC is unlikely to intervene in the RMB exchange rate by significantly altering its monetary stance (Chart 7). The 3-month interbank lending rate, China’s de facto policy rate, remains low compared with the 2015-16 easing cycle. There is no sign that the PBoC will allow the rate to fall much more. The recent bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate cut provides additional liquidity to the interbank system, but on a net basis liquidity does not seem excessive (Chart 8). Chart 7PBoC Unlikely To Alter Monetary Policy To Intervene RMB Exchange Rate This Year Chart 8No Sign Of Meaningful Monetary Easing From PBoC   Historically, the 3-month interbank lending rate only falls significantly and durably when the PBoC places consecutive RRR rate cuts (in both 2015 and mid-2018) and/or keeps net fund injections positive through the open market for a prolonged period (such as in the 2015/16 easing cycle). Chart 8 suggests the current monetary environment does not indicate that such an extremely easy stance is in place, as PBoC net fund injections through the open market remain negative. Furthermore, neither the 3-month interbank lending rate nor the 10-year government bond yield has fallen below its most recent lows in the third quarter of last year. Bottom Line: While the current environment supports a stronger RMB, the upside potential in RMB appreciation is capped by a modest scale of economic recovery. There is no sign that the PBoC is easing its monetary stance by lowering the policy rate. Investment Conclusions We have been cyclically overweight Chinese stocks on the basis of a bottoming in the economy in the first quarter of 2020, and the likelihood of an eventual trade deal. These two factors were confirmed in the past two weeks. Last week’s small selloffs in both onshore and offshore Chinese equity markets were likely technical corrections and pre-Chinese New Year profit taking, rather than a fundamental shift in investors’ sentiment towards Chinese stocks (Chart 9). We expect Chinese stocks to resume an upward trajectory after the Chinese New Year. Chart 9Small Corrections Following A 14% Gain Since Dec 2019 Chart 10Offshore Stocks Still Showing More Upside Potential Than Onshore China’s economic conditions and corporate earnings should continue to improve, with investable stocks showing more upside potential than their domestic counterparts (Chart 10). As growth supporting measures continue to work their way through the economy and solidify an economic recovery, China’s leadership may pull back the scale of the stimulus in the second half of the year. Therefore, the relative outperformance in both markets may be front loaded and subsequently subside in the second half of 2020. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rVaHxDBUtdew/v0  2   China’s total imports of goods and services in 2019 was $2604 billion, including $168 billion imports from the US. If China was to fully meet the $200 billion target of additional imports from the US, assuming no change to imports from other countries in 2020 from 2019, China’s total imports would jump to $2699 billion in 2020 and $2745 billion in 2021. 3   The eight subcategories of Manufacturing Goods listed in the Annex 6.1 of the Phase One Trade agreement include: Industrial Machinery, Electrical Equipment and Machinery, Pharmaceutical Products, Aircraft, Vehicles, Optical and Medical Instruments, Iron and Steel, Other Manufactured Goods including solar-grade polysilicon and other organic and inorganic chemicals, hardwood lumber, integrated circuits (manufactured in US), and chemical products. 4   WIOD Data, 2016 release and OECD Input-Output Tables (IOTs), 2015 release. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

特別レポート

Highlights Macro winds are slowly changing, compelling investors to take a second look at highly cyclical sectors such as industrials. In this Special Report we highlight that the S&P industrials index is trading at a nearly 10% discount to the market on a forward P/E basis, meanwhile a list of welcoming omens has appeared on the horizon which will serve as a foundation for the relative share price outperformance. Increasing odds of a modest rebound in the US manufacturing PMI Stabilization in EM in general and Chinese economy in particular BCA’s House View of a weaker dollar Healthy industry operating metrics Table 1 Feature While US manufacturing remains in recession, investors have already positioned for a V-shaped recovery according to the spectacular run-up in the S&P 500. However, drilling beneath the surface is revealing. Instead of hypersensitive industrials equities sniffing out a recovery in the manufacturing sector, the SPX’s advance has been solely driven by tech mega caps, and thus leaving in the dust all their deep cyclical peers. Why? Because the industrials complex has borne the brunt of the trade war (Chart 1). However, our expectation remains for a natural healing of the economy sometime in the first half of the year, and a rotation out of tech equities into capital goods stocks. Industrials equities will be among the first beneficiaries of this improving macro backdrop. Specifically, four key themes underpin our bullish stance on the S&P industrials index: Increasing odds of a modest rebound in the US manufacturing PMI Stabilization in EM in general and Chinese economy in particular BCA’s House View of a weaker dollar Healthy industry operating metrics Chart 1Trade War Echoes The ISM Will Soon Turn The Corner ISM’s manufacturing PMI survey is still below the 50 boom/bust line, but much of the macro pessimism is likely already reflected in the data, as it is set to bottom by the end of Q1 2020 and rebound into Q2 2020. To be clear, we are not expecting a jump into the high 50s, but rather look for a more balanced recovery into the low 50s. Nevertheless, it is a 5-point rise from the current recessionary level, and the S&P industrials index will cheer a relief in macro data. Charts 2 & 3 clearly depict that the ISM manufacturing PMI is set to improve in the coming months. First, our demand/supply proxy for the overall US economy (comprising of retail and industrial production data) is signaling that industrial production will likely bottom by mid-2020, despite Boeing’s ails (Chart 2, bottom panel). Industrial production is also known to lag PMI by roughly three months, which translates into PMI bottoming in Q1 2020, if history at least rhymes. Moreover, the bond market is also sending a similar message (Chart 2, third panel). As a reminder, BCA’s House View calls for a sell-off in the bond market to a range of 2.25-2.5% for this year. Chart 2Long Term And … Chart 3… Short Term Drivers Are Positive Both coincident and short-term leading economic variables also emit a positive signal. Lumber prices have recovered sharply over the past year (Chart 3, second panel), and given their close correlation with the ISM manufacturing PMI, the move underscores that the bottoming process in the latter has already begun. Moreover, survey internals have made a modest turn on a three-month moving average basis, suggesting that the path of least resistance is to the upside (Chart 3, bottom panel). On the political front, our sister Geopolitical Strategy service has been right on Trump having to retreat and to agree on a “ceasefire” deal as the 2020 elections are looming. Following the October and December tariff “postponement/cancelation” coupled with lower chances of any tariff hikes at all until the 2020 election will likely provide a further boost to the “soft” survey data. As a reminder, the increase in trade policy uncertainty over 2018-2019 has been a large contributor to data deterioration (Chart 1). EM And Chinese Green Shoots A rising share of international sales for the S&P industrials index originates from the EM, as those countries are responsible for a large percent of world total commodity consumption and construction activity. The EM manufacturing PMI has done a good job at tracing the S&P industrials relative share price performance, and the current divergence between the two can serve as yet another catalyst for a rally (Chart 4, top panel). Most importantly, China is also enjoying green shoots. BCA’s Chinese credit & fiscal impulse has been grinding higher over the past year foreshadowing a further rebound in EM data, and consequently benefiting US industrials. Finally, Chinese infrastructure spending that managed to climb out of negative territory will, at the margin, further boost industrials end-demand (Chart 4, middle & bottom panels). Chart 4International Arena Improving The Dollar Is Petering Out Switching gears to the greenback, more good news is in store for the S&P industrials index. Forty-four percent of sales are international for the S&P industrials sector, making it sensitive to FX fluctuations. BCA’s House View for 2020 calls for a weaker USD and should it be proven correct, industrials P&Ls will enjoy positive currency translation tailwinds. Chart 5 shows a newly created dollar model first published by our sister The Bank Credit Analyst service, heralding a softer greenback in the coming months. The real trade-weighted US dollar has been a key driver for the S&P industrials’ sales ever since 1975 as they remained in positive territory even during the recent manufacturing recession. A turn in the US dollar will reignite sales growth and underpin the relative share price ratio (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5The Softening US Dollar … In addition, a depreciating US dollar has been synonymous with a relative multiple expansion phase, and a definitive fall in the dollar will likely serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent value in bombed out relative valuations (Chart 6, third panel). Looking at sales from a different angle, our industrials sector exports proxy has a tight inverse correlation with the USD, and is likely to hook higher given that the US dollar is flat on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6, second panel). Chart 6… Holds The Key … Chart 7… And So Do Our EPS Models Finally, our relative earnings growth model does an excellent job at encapsulating all the profit drivers and is signaling that an earnings-led outperformance period looms (Chart 7). Enticing Operating Metrics Drilling down and away from macro and toward industry-level data is instructive. First, industrials forward earnings breadth – defined as the net number of sub-sectors with higher forward earnings revisions – has bounced off extreme lows signaling that the sell-off in relative share prices is reaching exhaustion. Historically, similar sharp bounces have marked previous price reversals (Chart 8, second panel). Chart 8Selling Climax? Chart 9More Welcoming News Expanding profit margins since mid-2018 also reflect positive sector dynamics as the industry managed to shrug off falling selling prices at the expense of labor (Chart 8, third & fourth panels). Importantly, the CRB raw industrials index is tracing a bottom and a depreciating US dollar will assist in orchestrating a recovery in industrials PPI (Chart 9). With regard to balance sheet health, interest coverage and net debt-to-EBITDA ratios are not sounding alarm bells as they are comparable to the broad market. Industrials are also steadily pumping out healthy free cash flow numbers, which should be a welcoming sign for investors (Chart 10). Despite all these tailwinds, sell-side analysts are still overly pessimistic on relative long-term profit prospects (Chart 11, fourth panel). Chart 10Good B/S All Around Chart 11No Red Flags Neither BCA composite Valuations nor Technical Indicators caution against overweighting the S&P industrials index (Chart 11, second and third panels). In fact, on a forward P/E basis, the sector is trading at a nearly 10% discount to the broad market making it an historically “cheap” addition to one’s portfolio (Chart 11, bottom panel). Risks To Monitor There are a few key risks to our view. First, we treat the current de-escalation in the trade war as temporary. Should Trump get reelected in 2020 for another term, all of the pre-election constraints will be lifted, likely allowing him to get back to his tariff hawkishness. Second, the US economy has already suffered too much damage making it vulnerable to an external shock. Were a black swan to materialize, the dollar would skyrocket putting our industrials view offside. Finally, should the Chinese government miscalculate the amount of stimulus required to reignite their economy, US industrials will again be among the first ones to suffer the consequences via the final-demand link. Put simply, any combination of these risks would slay animal spirits and postpone capex-led US industrials sector recovery. Bottom Line: Increasing chances of a rebound in the ISM manufacturing PMI coupled with green shoots in the EM, expectations for a weaker US dollar and sound industry level data, argue for an above benchmark allocation in the S&P industrials index. Please stay tuned for an upcoming Special Report on how to position within the industrials complex.     Arseniy Urazov Research Associate ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com