Banks

特別レポート

Highlights Building on a previous special report focused on the investable market, in this report we construct and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese domestic equity sector outperformance. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the predictors included in our model, our Li Keqiang leading indicator (based on monetary conditions, money, and credit growth) has been the most important. Our base case view argues in favor of domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, but recent sector performance suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. Over the long-term, we argue that investors have a good reason to favor domestic defensives over cyclicals until the latter demonstrates meaningfully better earnings performance. Feature We examined China’s investable equity sector performance in detail in our October 30 Special Report,1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. In today’s report, we extend our approach to China’s A-share market. Our research focused on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the macroeconomic and equity market factors that we found to be important predictors, our Li Keqiang leading indicator was the most significant. This confirms that China’s domestic market is more sensitive to monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than its investable peer. We also note the sharp difference in the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives in the domestic market compared with the investable market, and what this means for investors over the coming 6-12 months. Finally, we argue that investors should maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance, and point to an existing position in our trade book for investors interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of domestic sector performance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report).2 The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market. Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models ##br##Aimed At... Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang (LKI) Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to three months in order to reduce the need to forecast. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, is detailed in Box I-1 of our October 30 Special Report (please see footnote 1). Key Drivers Of Sector Performance: Domestic Versus Investable Pages 11-22 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 11-22 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Following a review of our domestic equity sector outperformance models, differences in the results from those presented in our previous report can be organized into three distinct elements: 1) the breadth of macro & equity market factors in predicting sector performance, 2) the relative importance of our LKI leading indicator, and 3) the difference between domestic/investable cyclical versus defensive performance. The Breath Of Predictive Factors Chart I-3In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Compared with the models for investible sector performance that we detailed in our previous report, our work modeling domestic equity sector performance highlights that the breadth of predictive factors is narrower, particularly among cyclical sectors (Chart I-3). Our model for domestic materials (shown on page 12) is one exception to this rule, but we found that our models for energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary relative performance were all focused on fewer predictors than is the case for the investable market. In addition, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The case of industrials is particularly notable: our model for investable industrials highlighted the importance of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices & earnings, and overbought and oversold technical conditions in explaining past periods of industrial sector outperformance. By contrast, our domestic industrials model is quite simple: the sector has been more likely to outperform, with a lag, when our BCA China Activity Index and LKI leading indicator have been rising, and underperform following periods of extreme overvaluation. One of the core conclusions of our previous report was that investors should view the relative performance of investable industrials versus consumer staples as a reflationary barometer, given the strong sensitivity of both sectors to tight monetary policy. We explained this sensitivity by pointing to the substantial difference in corporate health between the two sectors: industrial firms are heavily debt-laden and thus experience deteriorating operating performance and an environment of rising interest rates. In comparison, food and beverage firms appear to have the strongest balance sheets among the sub-sectors that we have examined, suggesting that they would benefit less from easier monetary conditions than firms in other industries. Our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity has been considerably more important in predicting domestic equity sector outperformance than in the investable market. However, these dynamics appear to be completely absent in influencing performance in China’s domestic equity market. Not only has domestic industrial sector relative performance not been negatively linked to periods of tight monetary policy, but our model for consumer staples (shown on page 15) highlights that periods of staples performance have been driven by two simple factors: the relative trend in staples EPS  (positive sign), and the trend in broad market EPS (negative sign). The Relative Importance Of Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Chart I-4 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that our LKI leading indicator is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, rising economic activity, and oversold technical conditions. The ranking of results shown in Chart I-4 is fairly similar to those that we listed for the investable market, with two exceptions. First, for the domestic market, periods of tight monetary policy were considerably less important than in the investable market as an important predictor of relative sector performance. Instead, our LKI leading indicator was by far the most important predictor, which underscores a point that we have made in previous reports: domestic stocks appear to be much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than for the investable market. This increased sensitivity has helped explain the difference in performance this year between the investable and domestic market, underscoring that the former has more catch-up potential than the latter in a trade truce scenario. Chart I-4Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Second, in the investable market, episodes of significant overvaluation had essentially no power to predict future episodes of equity market underperformance. But this factor was an important or very important contributor to our domestic industrials, health care, and tech models. This finding is consistent with our May 23 Special Report, which noted that value stocks have outperformed in China’s domestic equity market over the past five years and underperformed in the investable market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Has Been A More Successful ##br##Factor In The Domestic Market   Major Differences In The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives The results of our models for domestic equity sector performance did not change the cyclical & defensive labels that we applied in our previous report. The signs of the predictors shown in the tables on pages 11-22 clearly highlight that the domestic energy, materials, industrials consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors, and that consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive. What is striking, however, is that there is a major difference in the relative performance of equally-weighted domestic cyclicals versus defensives compared with what has occurred in the investable market over the past decade. Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B illustrate the different relative performance trends, along with their corresponding trends in relative P/E and relative EPS. Whereas the relative performance of investable cyclicals versus defensives has had somewhat of a stable mean over the past decade, domestic cyclicals have badly underperformed since early-2011. The charts also make it clear that this underperformance has been driven by a downtrend in relative EPS, not due to trend differences in relative valuation. Chart I-6ACyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market... Chart I-6B...But Not So In The Domestic##br## Market Digging further, it appears that this discrepancy can be largely explained by the significant difference in performance between investable and domestic tech over the past decade (Chart I-7). Whereas the former has outperformed the overall investable index by roughly 4-5 times since 2010, the relative performance of the latter has only very modestly risen. In effect, Charts I-6 and I-7 highlight that Chinese cyclical sectors have been structurally impaired over the past decade and have only been “saved” in the investable market by massive outsized outperformance of the tech sector. The fact that investable tech sector performance itself has been largely driven by 2 extremely successful firms underscores how narrowly based the investible cyclical versus defensives performance trend has been. Chart I-7A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Investment Conclusions There are three conclusions that investors can draw from our analysis. First, our research shows that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market. This does not mean that domestic sector performance is not significantly impacted by macro and top down equity market factors, but it suggests that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. As such, investors should be prepared to include episode-specific investigation of abnormal performance as a regular part of their domestic equity sector allocation decisions. Investors should favor domestic cyclicals over the coming year, with exposure focused on consumer discretionary and tech. Second, the fact that our LKI leading indicator is in an uptrend suggests that investors should favor domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, with a caveat. We have noted in several previous reports that our indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the slower pace of money and credit growth than during previous economic upswings suggests that the bar may be higher for some cyclical sectors to outperform. We would advise investors to watch closely over the coming 3-6 months for signs of a technical breakout in all cyclical sectors. But sector performance in Q1 of this year, when the overall A-share market rose sharply versus global stocks, suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus (Chart I-8). Within resources, we prefer the investable energy sector to its domestic peer, due to a sizeable valuation advantage. Chart I-8Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year As a third and final point, abstracting from our bullish outlook for select cyclical sectors over the coming year, Charts 6 and 7 clearly argue for investors to maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance. In the May 23 Special Report that we referred to above, we noted that an A-share portfolio formed of industry groups with above-median return on equity and below-median ex-post beta has significantly outperformed over the past decade. Table I-1 presents the current industry group weights of this portfolio, and shows that overweight exposure is concentrated in the health care, consumer staples, and real estate sectors (all of which are defensive), and a heavy underweight towards industrials. Table I-1Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* For clients who are interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market, we maintain a long position in this portfolio relative to the MSCI China A Onshore index in our trade book, and plan to continue to update the performance of the trade on a weekly basis. Energy Chart II-1 Table II-1 Similar to the investable energy sector, periods of domestic energy sector outperformance are strongly positively related to rising oil prices and rising headline inflation in China. We noted in our previous report that this is a behavioral relationship, rather than a fundamental one. Domestic energy stocks are negatively associated with rising broad market stock prices, unlike their investable peers. This largely reflects the fact that the relative performance of domestic energy stocks has been in a structural downtrend over the past decade. From 2010 to mid-2016, this decline was caused by a persistent underperformance in earnings. Since mid-2016, domestic energy sector EPS have been rising in relative terms, meaning that more recent underperformance has been due to multiple contractions. While not as relatively cheap as their investable peers, domestic energy stocks are heavily discounted versus the broad domestic market based on both the price/earnings ratio and the dividend yield. Consequently, it is possible that domestic energy stocks may at some point begin to outperform in a rising broad equity market environment. For now, our model argues for an underweight stance towards domestic energy due to the lack of a clear uptrend in oil prices. As a pure value play, investable energy stocks maintain a dividend yield of nearly 6.5%, and are thus more attractive than their domestic peers. Materials Chart II-2 Table II-2 Our model for the domestic materials highlights that the sector’s performance has been related to strengthening economic activity and strongly related to a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator. Among the equity market variables that we tested, materials outperformance has been positively associated with rising relative EPS, rising broad market EPS, and prior oversold technical conditions. Similarly, the investable materials sector, these results show that domestic materials are a strong play on accelerating Chinese economic activity. The factors included in our domestic materials sector model are similar to those included in our investable material, except that relative material earnings have also been a significant predictor of sector relative performance. In addition, the macro & equity market predictors included in our domestic materials model have done a better job of leading material sector performance. The odds of domestic materials outperformance rose twice above the 50% mark this year according to our model, without any corresponding improvement in relative stock prices. The spikes in the model occurred largely because domestic materials became significantly oversold; technical conditions for the sector have only twice been weaker over the past decade. This underscores that investors should be watching domestic materials closely in Q1 of next year for signs of a relative rebound. Industrials Chart II-3 Table II-3 The results of our model for domestic industrial sector outperformance are interesting, as they imply that the drivers of performance are different between the domestic and investable markets. In the investable index, we found that industrials were heavily sensitive to monetary policy, rising core inflation, relative sector earnings, and periods of rising broad market stock prices. Our domestic model is considerably simpler: industrials outperform, with a lag, when our activity index and Li Keqiang leading indicator are rising. Periods of strong overvaluation have also been significant in predicting future episodes of domestic industrial sector underperformance. It is not clear to us why the drivers of relative performance for domestic industrials have been different than in the investable equity index, But the good news is that the relative simplicity of the model makes the investment decision making process for domestic industrials considerably easier. Today, domestic industrials are significantly undervalued, and our Li Keqiang leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend. This suggests that domestic industrials are likely to begin outperforming at some point in early-2020 following a bottoming in Chinese economic activity, unless policymakers are quick to tighten once activity begins to improve (which would be contrary to our expectations). Consumer Discretionary Chart II-4 Table II-4 Our domestic consumer discretionary model highlights that the sector’s relative performance is positively associated with a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to its investable peers, domestic consumer discretionary stocks are cyclical, and positive relationship with core inflation may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. Unlike investable consumer discretionary, the domestic consumer discretionary has not been meaningfully impacted by the December 2018 changes to the global industry classification standard. Hence, our model does not exclude the internet & direct marketing retail sector as we did in our previous report on investable sectors. For now, our model suggests that the domestic consumer discretionary sector is likely to continue to underperform, given decelerating core inflation and the lack of a clear uptrend in the broad domestic equity index. However, as a cyclical sector, we will be watching closely for an upside breakout in domestic consumer discretionary performance in the first quarter as a signal to increase exposure to the sector. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Table II-5 Our domestic consumer staples model is significantly different than that shown in our previous report for investable staples. This reflects sizeable differences in investable/domestic staples relative performance over the past decade, particularly from mid-2015 to late-2017 (where domestic staples outperformed significantly and investable staples languished). Of the two predictors found to be significant in explaining historical periods of domestic staples performance, a negative relationship with the trend in broad market EPS has been the most important. This underscores that staples are defensive sector. The trend in staples relative earnings has closely followed in importance, showing that the tremendous outperformance in domestic consumer staples over the past several years has, at least in part, been driven by fundamentals. Still, domestic consumer staples are currently priced at 34x earnings per share, compared with 15x for the overall domestic market. While our model currently argues for continued staples outperformance, the risk of a valuation mean reversion next year, against the backdrop of an improving economy, is above average. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should be closely monitoring domestic staples for signs of waning earnings momentum and/or a major technical breakdown as potential signals to reduce domestic staples exposure. Health Care Chart II-6 Table II-6 Over the past decade, periods of domestic health care outperformance have been negatively associated with rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Oversold technical conditions and periods of overvaluation have also helped predict future episodes of health care relative performance. These factors clearly point to the defensive nature of domestic health care, similar to health care stocks in the investable index. However, one clear difference between investable and domestic health care is that the former appears to have leading properties and the latter does not. We noted in our previous report that periods of investable health care underperformance appeared to lead, on average, our BCA Activity Index, periods of rising core inflation, and uptrends in the broad investable index. By contrast, domestic health care lags the Activity Index and core inflation by just over a year, and also lags the trend in broad market EPS. Our model points to further health care outperformance, but we would expect domestic health care stocks to underperform at some point next year following an improvement in economic activity and a resumed uptrend in broad domestic EPS. Financials Chart II-7 Table II-7 Our outperformance probability model for domestic financials highlights that the sector is countercyclical: periods of outperformance have been negatively related to our LKI leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to the case of the investable index and unlike the case globally, financials are clearly defensive. Investable financials have exhibited atypical performance this year according to the model presented in our previous report. By contrast, domestic financials have performed in line with what our model has suggested: our LKI leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the relative performance of domestic financials has trended flat-to-down since late-2018. Barring a major shift by the PBoC towards a hawkish stance in the coming year (which we do not expect), our base case view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic financials are likely to continue to underperform. Banks Chart II-8 Table II-8 Our model for domestic banks is similar to that of financials, with some important differences. In addition to being sensitive to our LKI leading indicator, domestic bank performance is negatively related to our Activity Index. Oversold technical conditions have also been quite important in predicting future episodes of domestic bank outperformance. The model is currently forecasting domestic bank underperformance, although it was late in predicting the selloff in bank stocks that began late last year. Similar to the case for domestic financials, our baseline view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic bank are likely to continue to underperform over the coming year. Information Technology Chart II-9 Table II-9 Our model for the domestic technology sector is different than that of investable tech, which reflects the vast difference in performance between the two sectors. While the relative performance of domestic tech has trended sideways over the past decade, investable tech stock prices have risen fourfold relative to the broad investable index. This difference is largely accounted for by the absence of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) from the domestic market. Similar to investable tech, domestic technology stocks are negatively related to tight monetary policy, and positively linked with a pro-cyclical economic variable (a rising LKI leading indicator). However, strangely, domestic tech has been strongly and negatively related to rising headline inflation, a finding with no clear fundamental basis. The model has been less successful in predicting domestic tech performance over the past year than in the past, which appears to be linked to the inclusion of headline inflation in the model. Rising headline inflation has been clearly associated with three major episodes of domestic tech underperformance since 2010, but over the past year domestic tech has outperformed as headline inflation accelerated. For now we would advise investors to focus on the other factors in the model: the lack of overvaluation, and our view that policy will remain easy on a measured basis, supports an overweight stance towards domestic tech over the coming year. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Table II-10 Our domestic telecom services relative performance model highlights that the sector is defensive like its investable peer, but the factors driving performance are somewhat different. The only similarity between the two models is that periods of outperformance are negatively related to rising broad market stocks prices for both investable and domestic telecom services, with domestic telecom stocks responding with a lag. Among the macro factors included in the model, periods of domestic telecom services outperformance are negatively and coincidently related to our LKI leading indicator, and positively related to tight monetary policy (with a slight lead). Oversold technical conditions have also proven to help predict future episodes of outperformance. The model failed to predict a brief period of outperformance in mid-2018, but has generally accurately predicted underperformance of domestic telecom stocks since early-2017. Barring a collapse in the US/China trade talks or considerably weaker near-term economic conditions than we expect, domestic telecom services will likely continue to underperform until the specter of tighter monetary policy emerges. This is unlikely to occur until the middle of 2020, at the earliest. Utilities Chart II-11 Table II-11 Overall, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The model shows that the performance of domestic utilities is negatively related to rising core inflation (with a lag) and rising broad market EPS, but these relationships are not particularly strong. We noted in our June 19 Special Report that domestic utilities ranked highly on the impact that relative EPS had on predicting relative stock prices , yet relative sector earnings did not register as a significant predictor in our model. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by differences in the time horizon between these two approaches. The analysis that we presented in our June 19 Special Report examined the relationship between earnings and stock prices over the entire sample period (2011-2018), meaning that it examined the predictive power of earnings over the long-term. The models built in this report have focused strongly on explaining periods of outperformance over a 6-12 month time horizon, there have been enough deviations in the trend between the relative performance of utilities and relative utilities earnings that the relationship between the two was not sufficiently strong to show up in the model. In other words, the long-term link between utilities relative earnings and stock prices is strong, but the short-term link is fairly weak. Real Estate Chart II-12 Table II-12 Similar to investable real estate, our model shows that domestic real estate is a counter-cyclical sector in that it is negatively related to periods of rising economic activity, a rising LKI leading indicator, tight monetary policy, and rising core inflation. Overbought technical conditions have also aided in predicting future episodes of domestic real estate underperformance. Our model for domestic real estate stocks has performed quite well on average, but its predictive success since late-2017 has been mixed. This period of atypical underperformance has coincided with a considerably weaker rebound in residential floor space sold than has occurred in previous recoveries in the real estate market. This suggests that domestic real estate stocks are more susceptible to trends in housing sales than their investable peers (which appear to be mostly sensitive to rising house prices). We noted in our November 6 Weekly Report that floor space sold is picking up , but it still remains weak when compared with history. This, in combination with our view that the Chinese economy will improve over the coming year, suggests that investors should avoid domestic real estate exposure relative to the overall domestic equity market. Footnotes 1  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Equity Sector Earnings: Predictability, Cyclicality, And Relevance," dated June 19, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated November 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Feature Chart I-1Lebanese Bond Yields Have Surged To Precarious Levels In a May 2018 Special Report, we warned that a devaluation and government default were only a matter of time in Lebanon. The country's sovereign US dollar bond yields have now reached a whopping 21% and local currency interest rates stand at 18% (Chart I-1). On the black market, the Lebanese pound is already trading 12% below its official rate. A public run on banks and bank deposit moratorium, as well as public debt default and a massive currency devaluation are now unavoidable. A Classic Case Of EM Bank Run And Currency Devaluation… The current state of Lebanon’s balance of  payments (BoP) is disastrous: The current account (CA) deficit has oscillated between 10% and 20% of GDP in the past 10 years (Chart I-2). This wide CA deficit has been funded by speculative portfolio flows into local currency government bonds, sovereign bonds and bank deposits. However, since the middle of 2018 these inflows have dried up. In turn, to defend the currency peg to the US dollar and avoid a currency depreciation in the face of the BoP deficit, the Central Bank of Lebanon (BDL) has been depleting its foreign exchange (fx) reserves, i.e., the central bank has been financing the BoP deficit (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Lebanon's Chronic Current Account Deficit   Chart I-3Lebanon: The BoP Has Been Deteriorating Substantially   BDL’s gross fx reserves – including gold – have dropped from $48 billion in 2018 to its current level of $43 billion. We estimate that BDL’s net foreign exchange reserves excluding commercial banks’ US dollar deposits at BDL are at just $26 billion. This amount is insufficient in light of the panic-induced outflows the country and the banking system are experiencing.1  As a result of the two-week long bank shutdown amid massive protests, confidence in the banking system is quickly collapsing and capital is leaving Lebanon. Chart I-4Depositors’ Are Heading For The Exit Worryingly, as a result of the two-week long bank shutdown amid massive protests, confidence in the banking system is quickly collapsing and capital is leaving Lebanon.2   Moreover, after opening their doors, Lebanese commercial banks are now imposing unofficial capital controls – they are paying US dollar deposits in local currency only and are no longer providing dollar-denominated credit lines to businesses and importers. This will only intensify the panic among depositors. Chart I-4 illustrates that local currency deposits have already been declining while US dollar deposits have been slowing, and will likely begin contracting soon. In short, capital outflows will intensify in the coming weeks as people and businesses quickly realize that banks cannot meet their demand for deposits. Critically, we suspect Lebanese commercial banks are short on US dollars to meet people’s demand for the hard currency. Commercial banks’ net foreign currency assets stand at negative $70 billion or 127% of GDP. They hold, roughly, somewhere around $20 billion worth of US dollars in the form of liquid and readily available deposits (in banks abroad and deposits in the central bank) versus $124 billion worth of dollar deposits. Over the years, Lebanese commercial banks have been an attractive place for investors and residents to park their US dollars given the high interest rate paid by the banks. In turn, Lebanese commercial banks have been converting these US dollar deposits into local currency in order to buy government bonds. With domestic bonds yielding well above the rates on US dollar deposits - and given the exchange rate peg to the dollar - commercial banks have been de facto playing the carry trade. In addition, commercial banks also lent some of these dollars directly to the private sector. With the economy collapsing and the widening dollar shortage, banks will not be able to either collect their dollar loans or purchase dollars in the market.   Without new dollar funding – which is very likely to persist – banks will fail to meet the demand for dollars. As a result, a bank run is imminent. At this point, the sole option is for the central bank to keep pushing local interest rates higher to discourage capital flight and a run on the banks. Yet, at 18% and surging, interest rates will suffocate the Lebanese economy and the property market. This will dampen sentiment further and cause a bank run. Bottom Line: A bank run is brewing and bank moratorium as well as currency devaluation are inevitable. …As Well As Public Debt Default Lebanese commercial banks are not only being squeezed by capital outflows and deposit withdrawals, they are also about to face a public debt default. Chart I-5Public Debt Dynamics Are Toxic Lebanese commercial banks are not only being squeezed by capital outflows and deposit withdrawals, they are also about to face a public debt default. Commercial banks own 37% of outstanding government debt. This will come on top of skyrocketing private-sector non-performing loans and will push banks into outright bankruptcy. Lebanon’s fiscal and public debt dynamics have reached untenable levels. The fiscal deficit stands at 10% of GDP and total public debt stands at 150% of GDP (Chart I-5). Surging government borrowing costs will push interest payments as a share of government aggregate expenditures to extremely high levels. These are unsustainable fiscal and debt arithmetics (Chart I-6). Meanwhile, government revenues will decline as growth falters (Chart I-6, bottom panel). The pillars of the Lebanese economy – private credit growth and construction activity – have been already collapsing (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Surging Interest Rates Will Make Public Debt Servicing Impossible Chart I-7Lebanon: Domestic Economy Has Been Collapsing Bottom Line: The Lebanese government will be forced to default on both local currency and dollar debt. This will be the final nail in the coffin of the Lebanese banking system.    Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    BDL does not publish its holding of net foreign exchange reserves. However, other estimates of BDL’s net fx reserves  are even lower. Please refer to the following paper: Financial Crisis In Lebanon, by Toufic Gaspard and the following article: Lebanon Warned on Default and Recession as Its Reserves Decline. 2   Banks shut down allegedly as a result of the ongoing civil disobedience that was sparked by the government’s reckless decision to tax WhatsApp's call service. The protests quickly escalated to a country-wide uprising, causing the government to resign on October 29.

特別レポート

Highlights In this report, we build and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese investable equity sector outperformance, based on a set of macroeconomic and equity market factors. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to help investors to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Among the top six factors explaining historical periods of sector performance, three were macroeconomic in orientation, and two were directly related to the broad Chinese equity market. We see this as strongly supportive of the potential returns to be earned from active top-down sector rotation within China’s investable market. Cyclical stocks are very depressed relative to defensives, and we would favor them versus defensives over the coming year if China strikes a trade deal with the US and the Chinese economy incrementally improves, as we expect. Feature In our June 19 Special Report, we reviewed the predictability and cyclicality of equity sector earnings in China's investable & domestic markets, and examined the relevance of earnings in predicting relative sector performance over the past decade. We noted that a few sectors scored highly in terms of earnings predictability and the relevance of those earnings in predicting relative performance. But we also highlighted that most of China's equity sectors, in both the investable and domestic markets, either demonstrated earnings trends that were difficult to predict based on the trend in overall market earnings or exhibited relative performance that was difficult to explain based on the relative earnings profile. Our models are designed to predict equity sector relative performance using a series of macroeconomic and equity market factors. In short, our June report underscored that China’s equity sectors warranted a closer examination, with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. Today’s report examines this question in depth, focused on China’s investable equity market. We hope to extend our research to the A-share market in the near future. Our approach focuses on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We conclude by highlighting the substantial underperformance of cyclical vs defensives sectors over the past two years, and argue that it is highly unlikely that cyclicals will underperform defensives over the coming 12 months if China strikes a trade deal with the US and the economy incrementally improves, as we expect. We also explain the importance of monitoring the relative performance of health care & utilities stocks over the coming few months, and present a unique sector-based barometer for gauging China’s reflationary stance. The latter two relative performance trends are likely to assist investors in positioning for the big call: the outperformance of Chinese investable stocks vs the global benchmark. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of sector outperformance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report1), and investors will often see it (in its conceptually different but practically similar probit form) employed when analyzing the likelihood of an economic recession. The New York Fed’s US recession model is a notable example of the latter,2 which has received much attention by market participants over the past year following the inversion of the US yield curve. The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). Charts I-1A and I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models Aimed At... Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Charts I-2A and I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to 3 months in order to reduce the need to forecast. The link between tight monetary policy and industrial sector performance is one exception to this rule that we detail below. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, are detailed in Box 1. Box 1 Accounting For China’s 3½-Year Credit Cycle Over the course of the analysis detailed in this report, judgments concerning how much of a lead or lag to allow when accounting for any leading or lagging relationships between sector relative performance and either macroeconomic & stock market predictors were necessary. In cases where sector relative performance led any of our predictors, we capped the lead at 3-months to reduce the need to forecast the predictors when using the models. As explained below, the 8-month lead between industrial sector relative performance and tight monetary policy was the only exception to this rule. We also did not include any leading relationship between relative sector stock performance and the trend in relative sector EPS, and allowed at most a co-incident relationship. Limits were also required in the cases where our predictors led relative sector performance. While more lead time is usually better from the perspective of investment strategy, Chart I-B1 presents strong evidence of a 3½ -year credit cycle in China. Chart I-B2 illustrates the problem with including significant lags between predictors and relative sector performance when economic cycles are short. The chart shows the lead/lag correlation profile of the stylized cycle shown in Chart I-B1, and highlights that lags greater than 12-14 months risk picking up the impact of the previous economic cycle. Given this, we have limited the extent to which our predictors can lead relative sector performance in our models, and in practice lead times are generally less than one year. Chart I-B1Over The Past Decade, China Has Experienced A 3½-Year Credit Cycle Chart I-B2With Short Cycles, Excessive Lags Risk Picking Up The Previous Cycle The Key Drivers Of Chinese Investable Equity Sectors Pages 12-23 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 12-23 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Rising core inflation in China is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis. Chart I-3China’s Sectors Linked Strongly To Core Inflation, Monetary Policy, And Growth Chart I-3 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that rising core inflation in China is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by tight monetary policy, rising economic activity, rising broad market stock prices, oversold technical conditions, and rising broad market earnings. Chart I-3 highlights two important points: If regarded through the lens of causality alone, the strong relationship between rising core inflation and sector performance is somewhat surprising: normally, pricing power is subordinate to revenue/sales/demand as the primary factor driving fundamental performance. However, given that inflation is a lagging economic variable, we suspect that the significance of inflation in our models actually reflects the middle phase of the economic cycle in which sectors tend to best exhibit meaningful out/underperformance. It is also a stronger predictor of periods of tight monetary policy in China than headline inflation.3 This is an encouraging result for investors, as it suggests good odds that future episodes of meaningful sector outperformance can be identified given a particular macro view. Among the top six factors explaining historical periods of sector performance, three were macroeconomic in orientation, and two were directly related to the broad Chinese equity market. While Chinese equity sector performance can sometimes be idiosyncratic, we see this as strongly supportive of the idea that investors can earn positive excess returns by actively shifting between China’s equity sectors using a top-down approach. Turning to the specific results of our sector models, we present the following big-picture findings of our research: Defining China’s Cyclical & Defensive Sectors From a top-down perspective, the most important element of sector rotation typically involves shifting from defensive to cyclical stocks when economic activity is set to improve (and vice versa). In China, it is clear from the results of our models that the investable energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors. The relative performance of these sectors exhibits a positive relationship to pro-cyclical macro variables, or broad market trends. Following last year’s GICS changes, we also include the media & entertainment industry group (within the new communication services sector) in this list. Correspondingly, investable consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive sectors in China. Chart I-4Cyclical Stocks Are Bombed Out Versus Defensives Chart I-4 illustrates how these sectors have performed over the past decade by grouping them into equally-weighted cyclical and defensive stock price indexes, as well as the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives. The chart makes it clear that cyclical stock performance is essentially as weak as it has ever been relative to defensives over the past decade, with the exception of a brief period in 2013. Panel 2 highlights that all of the underperformance of cyclicals over the past two years has been due to de-rating, rather than due to underperforming earnings. The Atypical Case Of Financials & Real Estate The fact that financial and real estate stocks are defensive in China is somewhat curious. In the case of financials, the abnormality is straightforward: most global equity portfolio managers would consider financials to be cyclical, and our work suggests that this is not true for the investable market. Our explanation for this apparent discrepancy is also straightforward: while small and medium banks in China have obviously grown in prominence over the past decade, large state-owned or state-affiliated commercial banks are still dominant in the provision of credit to China's old economy. In most cases China’s large banks lend to state-owned enterprises with implicit government guarantees, meaning that the earnings risk for Chinese banks has typically been lower than for the investable market in the aggregate. It remains to be seen whether this will remain true in a world where Chinese policymakers are keen to slow the pace at which China’s macro leverage ratio rises and to render the existing stock of debt more sustainable for the non-financial sector. Indeed, over a multi-year time horizon, the risk are not trivial that banks will be forced to recapitalize as a result of forced changes to loan terms (eg: significant increases in the amortization period of existing loans) or the recognition of sizeable loan losses, which would clearly increase the cyclicality of the Chinese investable financial sector. Chart I-5A Seeming Contradiction: Real Estate Is High-Beta, But Defensive On the real estate front, the anomaly is not that real estate stocks respond defensively to macroeconomic and stock market variables, it is that real estate stock prices are considerably more volatile than this defensive characterization would suggest. Globally (and especially in the US), real estate stocks are often viewed as bond proxies and thus are typically low-beta, but Chart I-5 shows that this is not the case in China. In our view, this issue is reconciled by the fact that Chinese investable real estate stocks are also highly positively linked to Chinese house price appreciation, with relative performance typically leading a pickup in house prices by up to 1 year. This strongly leading relationship has meant that real estate stocks have often outperformed the broad market as economic activity is slowing, in anticipation that policy easing will lead to an eventual recovery in house prices. Chart I-6Still Following The Defensive Playbook This Year In effect, investable real estate stocks are a high-beta sector that have acted counter-cyclically due to the historical interplay between economic activity, monetary policy, and the housing market. Real estate performance this year has not deviated from this playbook (Chart I-6), and so for now we are content to include real estate stocks in our defensive index. But similar to the case of financials, we can conceive of scenarios in which ongoing Chinese financial sector reform may change this relationship in the future. The Unique Monetary Policy Sensitivity Of Industrials And Consumer Staples Pages 14 and 16 highlight that industrials and consumer staples stocks have typically been sensitive to periods of tight monetary policy. In the case of industrials the relationship is negative, whereas consumer staples relative performance has been positively linked to these periods. In both cases, relative performance has led periods of tight monetary policy, significantly so in the case of industrials (by an average of 8 months). While the relative performance of banks, tech, and real estate stocks have also been linked to periods of tight monetary policy, industrials and consumer staples are the only sectors that have tended to lead these periods. Chart I-7Diverging Corporate Health Explains Industrials/Staples Monetary Policy Sensitivity This is a revelatory finding, and in our view it is explained by divergences in corporate health and leverage for the two sectors. We reviewed Chinese corporate health in our August 28 Special Report,4 and noted that the food & beverage sub-industry was a clear (positive) outlier based on our corporate health monitors. In particular, Chart I-7 highlights that food & beverage corporate health is markedly better than that for machinery companies or for industrial firms in general, supporting the notion that high (low) leverage is impacting the relative performance of industrials (consumer staples). The Leading Nature Of Health Care & Utilities Health care and utilities exhibit similar key drivers of relative performance: in both cases, periods of rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices are all negatively associated with performance. Health care and utilities relative performance also happens to lead all three of those predictors, by 1-3 months on average depending on the variable in question. Our modeling work highlights that these are the only sectors whose relative performance has led multiple factors, suggesting that health care & utilities stocks are particularly interesting market bellwethers to monitor. Core Inflation Matters More Than Headline, Except For Energy & Real Estate As highlighted in Chart I-3, rising core inflation has been a much more important signal about relative sector performance than headline inflation. Chart I-8In China, Food Prices (Not Energy) Account For Headline/Core Differences The two exceptions to this rule relate to the energy and real estate sectors, with the former positively linked to headline inflation and the latter negatively linked. In both cases, we suspect that the relationship is a behavioral rather than a fundamental one. For energy, while rising headline inflation in developed countries is usually associated with rising energy prices, this is not true in the case of China. Chart I-8 highlights that differences between headline and core inflation over the past decade have almost always been driven by rising food prices. This implies that some investors (incorrectly) view energy stocks as a hedge against increases in consumer prices, even if those increases are not driven by rising fuel costs. In the case of real estate, investor expectations of eroding real disposable income and its impact on the housing market are likely the best explanation for the negative link between real estate relative performance and rising headline inflation. Whereas rising core inflation likely reflects a durable improvement in economic momentum (and thus would be positively correlated with income growth), episodes of rising Chinese headline inflation often reflect supply shocks that investors may perceive to be detrimental to household spending power (and thus expected housing demand). Investment Conclusions Our work aimed at explaining historical periods of Chinese investable sector outperformance has three investment implications in the current environment. Cyclicals will probably outperform defensives over the coming year if China strikes a trade deal with the US and the Chinese economy incrementally improves, as we expect. First, within China’s investable market, Chart I-4 illustrated that cyclical stocks are very depressed relative to defensives. Given our view that Chinese investable stocks are likely to outperform their global peers over a 6-12 month time horizon, we would also favor cyclicals to defensives over that period. For investors who are not yet overweight cyclical stocks in China, we would advise waiting for concrete signs that growth has bottomed (which should emerge sometime in Q1) before putting on a long position as we remain tactically neutral towards Chinese versus global stocks. But the key point is that it is highly unlikely that cyclicals will underperform defensives over the coming year if China strikes a trade deal with the US and the Chinese economy incrementally improves, as we expect. Second, the fact that investable health care and utilities stocks have particularly leading properties suggests that they should be monitored closely over the coming few months. A technical breakdown in the relative performance of these sectors would be an important sign that market participants are anticipating a bottoming in China’s economy, which may give investors a green light to position for a bullish cyclical stance. For now, both of these sectors continue to outperform (Chart I-9), supporting our decision to remain tactically neutral towards Chinese stocks. Third, the heightened negative sensitivity of industrials and positive sensitivity of consumer staples to monetary policy suggests that the relative performance trend between the two sectors may serve as a reflationary barometer for China’s economy. Chart I-10 shows that industrials outperformed staples last year once the PBOC shifted into easing mode, and anticipated the recovery in the pace of credit growth. However, industrials soon began to underperform staples, which also seems to have anticipated the fact that the recovery in credit was set to be less powerful than what has occurred during previous cycles. The fact that the relative performance trend is off its recent low is notable, and may suggest that China’s existing reflationary stance will be sufficient to stabilize economic activity if a trade deal with the US is indeed finalized in the near future. Chart I-9Key Defensive Sectors Are Still Outperforming, Supporting Our Neutral Tactical Stance Chart I-10Industrials Vs. Staples Anticipated That Easing Would Only Be Measured As a final point, BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use the models as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We hope you will find these models to be a helpful quantification of the risk versus return prospects of allocating among China’s investable sectors. As always, we welcome any feedback that you may have about our approach.   Energy Chart II-1 Table II-1   Unsurprisingly, our energy sector model highlights that periods of energy outperformance are strongly linked to periods of rising crude oil prices. However, what is surprising is that periods of accelerating headline inflation in China are even more closely linked to periods of energy sector outperformance than episodes of rising oil prices, and that these periods of accelerating inflation are not generally caused by rising energy prices. The lack of a clear economic rationale for this relationship implies that some investors (incorrectly) view energy stocks as a hedge against increases in consumer prices, even if those increases are largely driven by rising food prices. The model also highlights that periods of strong undervaluation have historically been significant in predicting future energy sector outperformance, with a lag of roughly 8 months. The probability of energy sector outperformance has fallen sharply according to our model, but for now we continue to recommend a long absolute energy sector position on a 6-12 month time horizon. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects oil prices to trade at $70/barrel on average next year,5 Chinese headline inflation continues to rise, and we noted in our October 2 Weekly Report that energy stocks are heavily discounted.6 Barring a durable decline in oil prices below $55/barrel, investors should continue to favor China’s energy sector. Materials Chart II-2 Table II-2 Our model highlights that the materials sector is one of the clearest plays on accelerating industrial activity within the investable universe. Among the macro variables that we tested, periods of investable materials outperformance are strongly positively linked with periods when our BCA Activity Index and our leading indicator for the index have been rising. Periods of materials sector outperformance have also been positively correlated with prior periods of oversold technical conditions and rising broad market stock prices, underscoring that materials are a strongly pro-cyclical sector. We currently maintain no active relative sector trades, but our model suggests that investors should be underweight the investable materials sector relative to the broad investable index. Industrials Chart II-3 Table II-3 Periods of industrial sector outperformance have historically been positively correlated with relative industrial sector earnings, broad market stock prices, and prior oversold technical conditions. They have been negatively correlated with periods of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, and prior overbought technical conditions. Since 2010, periods of industrial sector performance have led periods of tight monetary policy by 8 months, the longest lead of relative equity performance to any macro variable that we tested in our model (and the longest lead that we allowed). Industrial sector performance has also been strongly negatively linked with periods of rising core inflation. These findings, and the fact that our Activity Index and its leading indicator have not been highly successful at predicting periods of industrial sector outperformance, strongly suggest that industrials, while pro-cyclical, are primarily driven by expectations of easy monetary policy. We noted in an August 2018 Special Report that state-owned enterprises have become substantially leveraged over the past decade,7 and in a more recent report we highlighted that industries such as machinery have experienced a significant deterioration in corporate health over the past decade.8 This helps explain why industrial sector performance is so negatively impacted by tight policy. Our model suggests that the best time to be overweight industrial stocks is the early phase of an economic rebound, when Chinese stock prices are rising but market participants are not yet expecting tighter policy. These conditions may present themselves sometime in Q1, but probably not over the coming 0-3 months. Consumer Discretionary Ex-Internet & Direct Marketing Retail Chart II-4 Table II-4 Besides materials, China’s investable consumer discretionary sector has historically been the most positively associated with coincident and leading measures of industrial activity. Rising core inflation is also highly positively related to consumer discretionary outperformance, which may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. The strong link with industrial activity is in contrast to depictions of China’s consumer sector as being less correlated to money & credit trends than the overall economy, and is supportive of our view that industrial activity forms one of the three pillars of China’s business cycle.9 We ended the estimation period of our model as of December 2018, in order to avoid including the distortive effects of last year’s changes to the global industry classification standard (which resulted in Alibaba’s inclusion and overwhelming representation in the investable consumer discretionary sector). As such, the results of our model apply today to consumer discretionary stocks ex-internet & direct marketing retail. For now, the absence of an uptrend in our Activity Index and in core inflation is signaling underperformance of discretionary stocks outside of internet & direct marketing retail. Outperformance this year largely reflects a significant advance in consumer durable and apparel: by contrast, automobiles & components have underperformed the broad market by roughly 14% year-to-date. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Table II-5 Historically, periods of consumer staples outperformance have been predicted by a falling Activity Index, periods of tight monetary policy, and over/undervalued conditions. The impact of monetary policy is particularly heavy in the model, suggesting that consumer staples are somewhat the mirror image of industrials in terms of the impact of leverage on relative equity performance. This too is supported by our August 28 Special Report,10 which noted that corporate health for the food & beverage sector was the strongest among the sectors we examined. However, the model failed to capture what has been very significant staples outperformance this year, highlighting the occasional limits of a rule-of-thumb approach to sector allocation. Investable consumer staples are reliably low-beta compared with the broad market, and we are not surprised that investors have strongly favored the sector this year amid enormous economic and policy uncertainty. An eventual improvement in economic activity, coupled with fairly rich valuation, should work against consumer staples stocks sometime in the first quarter of 2020. Investors who are positioned in favor of China-related assets should also be watching closely for any signs of a technical breakdown in the relative performance trend of investable staples. Health Care Chart II-6 Table II-6 Among the macro variables tested in our model, periods of health care outperformance are negatively related to coincident and leading measures of industrial activity and strongly negatively related to rising core inflation.  Health care outperformance is also strongly negatively related to periods of rising broad market stock prices, and positively related to prior oversold technical conditions. These results clearly signify that investable health care is a defensive sector, to be owned when the economy is slowing and when investable stocks in general are trending lower. Our model suggests that health care stocks are likely to continue to outperform, as they have been since the beginning of the year. A substantive US/China trade deal that meaningfully reduces economic uncertainty remains the key risk to health care outperformance over a 6- to 12-month time horizon. Financials Chart II-7 Table II-7 Our model highlights that periods of financial sector outperformance over the past decade have been negatively associated with periods of rising core inflation (a strong relationship), and with periods of rising index earnings. Oversold technical conditions have also helped explain future episodes of financial sector outperformance. The link between core inflation and the outperformance of financials appears to represent a behavioral rather than a fundamental relationship. When modeling periods of rising financial sector relative earnings, the trend in broad market EPS is more predictive than that of core inflation, highlighting that the latter’s explanatory power is due to investor behavior. The results of our model, and the fact that core inflation leads Chinese index earnings, suggests that financials are fundamentally counter-cyclical and that investors see rising Chinese core inflation as confirmation that an economic expansion is underway (and that broad market earnings are likely to rise). Our model is currently predicting financial sector outperformance, but investable financials have modestly underperformed since the beginning of the year. This appears to have been caused by the underperformance of financial sector earnings this year as overall index earnings growth has decelerated, contrary to what history would suggest. We suspect that the ongoing shadow banking crackdown is related to financial sector earnings underperformance, and we would advise against an overweight stance towards investable financials until signs of improving relative earnings emerge. Banks Chart II-8 Table II-8 Our model shows that periods of banking sector outperformance are more linked to macro variables than has been the case for the overall financial sector. Specifically, bank performance is negatively correlated with leading indicators of economic activity and rising core inflation, and especially negatively correlated with periods of tight monetary policy. Banks have also typically outperformed following periods of oversold technical conditions. Similar to financials, bank earnings are typically counter-cyclical, but relative bank earnings have not been good predictors of relative bank performance over the past decade. Still, the negative association of relative stock prices with leading economic indicators, rising core inflation and rising interest rates underscores that investors should normally be underweight banks if they expect overall Chinese stock prices to rise. Also similar to the overall financial sector, our model is currently predicting outperformance for bank stocks, but investable banks have underperformed year-to-date. The shadow banking crackdown is also likely impacting investable bank earnings, leading to a similar recommendation to avoid bank stocks until relative earnings look to be trending higher. “Tech+”   Chart II-9 Table II-9 Our technology model has worked well at predicting periods of tech sector outperformance over the past several years, particularly from 2015 – 2017. The model suggests that, in addition to being negatively related to prior overbought conditions, periods of technology sector outperformance are associated with improving growth conditions, easy monetary policy, and rising prices. In other words, tech stocks are a growth & liquidity play. Owing to last year’s changes to the GICS, the results of our model apply today to Chinese investable internet & direct marketing retail, the media & entertainment industry group (within the new communication services sector), and the now considerably smaller information technology sector (the sum of which could be considered the “tech+” sector). The model has been predicting tech sector outperformance since May (in response to easier monetary policy), which has occurred for the official information technology sector. However, the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks are only up fractionally in relative terms from their late-May low. Our expectation that China’s economy is likely to bottom in Q1 means that we may recommend upgrading “tech+” stocks relative to the investable benchmark in the coming months. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Table II-10 Our model for telecommunication services (now a level 2 industry group within the communication services sector) illustrates that telecom stocks have historically been counter-cyclical. Periods of telecom outperformance have been negatively associated with periods of rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, and rising broad market EPS. It is notable that telecom services stocks are driven more by cycles in overall stock prices than by cycles in economic activity. This suggests that investors tend to focus on the fact that telecom stocks are reliably low-beta compared with the overall investable market, causing out(under)performance of telecoms when the broad market is falling(rising). Similar to financials & banks, telecom stocks have not outperformed this year, in contrast to what our model would suggest. Earnings also appear to be the culprit, with the level of 12-month trailing earnings having fallen nearly 10% since the summer. China Mobile accounts for a sizeable portion of the telecom services index, and the company’s recent earnings weakness seems to be due to depreciation charges stemming from forced investment on 5G spending (mandated by the Chinese government). Our sense is that this will have only a temporary effect on telecom services EPS, meaning that investors should continue to expect the sector to behave in a counter-cyclical fashion over the coming year. Utilities Chart II-11 Table II-11 The early performance of our utilities model was mixed, as it generated several false sell signals during the 2011 – 2013 period despite recommending, on average, an overweight stance. However, over the past five years, the model has performed extremely well in terms of explaining periods of relative utilities performance. The model highlights that utilities are straightforwardly counter-cyclical. The relative performance of utilities stocks is positively related to its relative earnings trend, and negatively related to economic activity, rising core inflation, and broad market stock prices.  Consistent with a decline in the overall MSCI China index, the model has correctly predicted utilities outperformance this year. We expect utilities to underperform over a 6-12 month time horizon, but would advise against an aggressive underweight position until hard evidence of a bottom in Chinese economic activity emerges. Real Estate Chart II-12 Table II-12 Our model for the relative performance of investable real estate has been among the most successful of those detailed in this report, which is somewhat surprising given the macro factors that the model shows drive real estate performance. While periods of relative real estate performance are modestly (negatively) associated with periods of tight monetary policy, rising headline inflation is the most important macro predictor of real estate underperformance. Among market factors driving performance, real estate stocks reliably underperform when broad market EPS are trending higher, and they historically outperform for a time after becoming relatively undervalued. Real estate relative performance is also strongly linked to periods of rising house prices, but the former tends to significantly lead the latter. Given that core inflation has better predicted episodes of tight monetary policy than headline inflation, investor expectations of eroding real disposable income is likely the best explanation for the negative link between real estate relative performance and rising headline inflation. Whereas rising core inflation likely reflects a durable improvement in economic momentum (and thus would be positively correlated with income growth), episodes of rising Chinese headline inflation often reflect supply shocks that investors may perceive to be detrimental to household spending power (and thus expected housing demand). Beyond the negative link between higher inflation and interest rates on investable real estate performance, the strong negative association with broad market earnings underscores that investors treat real estate as a defensive sector. We thus expect real estate stocks to continue to outperform in the near term, but underperform over a 6-12 month time horizon.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1. Please see China Investment Strategy, "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019. 2. Please see Federal Reserve Bank of New York, The Yield Curve as a Leading Indicator at https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/capital_markets/ycfaq.html 3. This is despite frequent concerns among investors that the PBOC is inclined to tighten in response to detrimental supply shocks. 4. Please see China Investment Strategy, "Messages From BCA’s China Industry Watch," dated August 28, 2019. 5. Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth," dated October 17, 2019. 6. Please see China Investment Strategy, "China Macro & Market Review," dated October 2, 2019. 7. Please see China Investment Strategy, "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging," dated August 29, 2018. 8. Please see China Investment Strategy, "Messages From BCA’s China Industry Watch," dated August 28, 2019. 9. Please see China Investment Strategy, "The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy," dated May 16, 2018. 10. Please see China Investment Strategy, "Messages From BCA’s China Industry Watch," dated August 28, 2019. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The banks got the current earnings season off to a good start, … : Lending growth may be running in place, and net interest margins are under pressure, but positive operating leverage helped the banks beat expectations, and they are returning gobs of cash to their shareholders. … are quite constructive about the economy, … : The big banks’ CFOs and CEOs were uniformly bullish about the U.S. economy based on their perceptions of household and corporate health. … expect stellar credit performance to continue for the foreseeable future, … : Net charge-off and non-performing loan ratios are near all-time lows and the banks don’t see them rising any time soon. … and appear to be willing to extend loans in all categories except commercial real estate: Every bank sees unattractive competition in commercial real estate lending and plans to continue shrinking its CRE loan book. Nothing To See Here Two-fifths of the companies in the S&P 500 have now reported their quarterly earnings, and after this week the share will be two-thirds. At the aggregate level, it appears as if investors’ worst fears will not be realized, just as they weren’t in the first two quarters of the year. 2018’s greater than 20% year-on-year growth, powered by the sharp cut in the top corporate income tax rate, has rolled off, but earnings have yet to contract. They were projected to fall by a little over 3% at the beginning of this reporting season, but repeated practice has allowed corporate managements to hone their underpromise-and-overdeliver skills to a fine point, and we won’t be surprised if they avert an outright contraction. Chart 1Profit Margins Are Being Squeezed, ... Chart 2... But Neither Growing Compensation, ... Earnings growth has been stagnant this year (Chart 1, bottom panel), though revenues have grown a little faster than nominal GDP (Chart 1, top panel), with which they should converge over time. Profit margins have finally come under pressure, though it’s not exactly clear why. Employee compensation is businesses’ biggest expense by far, and while it has risen from its lows, its growth decelerated last quarter (Chart 2). Dollar strength is a headwind for U.S.-based multinationals, but the dollar only really moved last quarter, after ending the first half where it started the year (Chart 3). Dollar gains weigh on revenues just as surely as they do on profits, though we would not be at all surprised if the share of non-dollar expenses is a good bit smaller than the widely quoted 33-40% estimate of S&P 500 constituents’ foreign sales. Chart 3... Nor A Stronger Dollar Is A Clear-Cut Culprit Rate cuts have sparked a wave of mortgage refinancings, shifting wealth from mortgage investors to homeowners, who are more likely to spend it. Easier monetary conditions should help grease the skids for future earnings growth, both in the U.S. and abroad, and we expect the Fed will cut the fed funds rate by another 25 basis points when it meets this week. We have sympathy for the argument that since interest rates were not a meaningful constraint on growth, cutting them is not likely to provide much of a catalyst. Falling rates have provoked a wave of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4), however, so even if they don’t drive a big lending increase, they are already on their way to putting more money in the pockets of homeowners. Lower rates also reduce the risk of default by lowering debt-service costs for adjustable-rate borrowers, and by encouraging investors who need income to venture further out the risk curve, providing ample capital for borrowers seeking to extend their maturing obligations. Chart 4Putting More Money In Homeowners' Pockets Follow The Money Chart 5Bank Stocks Are Probing Resistance For two years, beginning in 2014, we reviewed the biggest banks’ earnings calls every quarter. The goal was to observe the give and take between bank management and sell-side analysts to gain some insight into the lending market and where it might be headed. We specifically sought information about banks’ willingness to lend, consumers’ and businesses’ appetite for credit, borrower performance, and the banks’ bottom-up perspective on the economy. We were also trying to glean insight into mortgage lending and what it might imply for residential investment. Studying the banks is a natural pursuit for a firm that was founded upon the insight that following money flows through the banking system would provide us with a window into the future direction of the economy and financial markets, and we return to it today. Our analysis is not meant to evaluate the banks’ own investment potential, though we note that they are testing resistance once again (Chart 5), and our Global Investment Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy services both recommend overweighting them. This round of calls found bank management teams eager to ramp up their distributions to shareholders and optimistic about their ability to deploy technology to drive further efficiency gains. Big Banks Beige Book As a group, the banks were constructive on the economy. Despite widespread recession concerns, they do not see evidence of a looming slowdown from their interactions with consumers and businesses. Overall loan growth has remained around 5% over the last year and a half (Chart 6), while corporate and industrial (C&I) loan growth has ground to zero over the last thirteen weeks (Chart 7). The CEOs and CFOs do not see the C&I slump as the beginning of a worrisome trend, though, and global corporate bond issuance hit an all-time high in September, led by sizable issues from mega-cap U.S. companies. Businesses seeking credit are having no trouble getting it, though all the banks expressed an intention to continue cutting back their exposure to commercial real estate (CRE) loans. Chart 6Bank Lending Is Supporting Activity Without Risking Overheating Chart 7Lending Momentum Has Slowed, But It's Okay Another commercial real estate issue emerged across the calls: several of the biggest banks are consolidating their branch footprints. Prompted by questioning from one analyst, they touted branch closures as a way to enhance efficiency. We do not know if a reduction in bank demand for branch space would have an observable effect on demand for retail space across the country, but it certainly would in Manhattan. It seems possible that branch closures could pressure some retail lessors’ profitability, and thereby act as a drag on CRE whole-loan and CMBS performance at the margin. The Economy [C]onsumer spend and … confidence continue to be strong. I think business activity continues to be strong. I think it’s moderated somewhat because of … trade policy, but generally, I think the economy is solid. (Dolan, USB CFO) I think it’s fair to say that perhaps marginal investment is being impacted by trade fatigue in terms of the uncertainty, but … [there’s] still growth. … [T]he consumer is incredibly strong, … spending is strong, sentiment is strong, … credit is good. [I]t is true that [the recent ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys] were disappointing[,] so [there are] cautionary signs, but credit remains very good and there is still very healthy business activity. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) In general, our commercial customers continue to see moderate demand and no widespread issues related to trade uncertainty and interest rate changes. … [W]hile our customers are cautious, the most common concern they identify is their ability to hire enough qualified workers. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) Consumer payments up 6% year-to-date … [and 6% year-over-year 3Q growth in both our small business segment and total commercial loans] are tangible examples that the U.S. economy is still in solid shape, despite the worries and concerns about trade wars, capital investment slowdowns or other global macro conditions. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Borrower Performance [W]e’ve had growth in the United States for the better part of 10 years [a]nd … credit is extraordinarily good. … [C]onsumer credit, commercial credit, wholesale is extraordinarily good, it can only get worse if you have a [turn in the] cycle. [Our guidance relates to expected performance across a full cycle.] We’re at the over-earning part of the cycle [beating the through-the-cycle expectation] in credit today, and [at] one point we’ll be at the under-earning part [pulling the full result down to our expectation]. (Dimon, JPM CEO) Our net charge-off rate remains near historic lows at 27 basis points (Chart 8). (Shrewsberry, WFC) Chart 8C&I Charge-Off Rates Are Near Their Historic Lows Credit quality remains stable, and we are not seeing any early indicators in our portfolio that cause us concern. (Cecere, USB CEO) Banks see no broad credit warning signs, but they're perfectly happy to let non-bank lenders take some commercial real estate share at this point of the cycle. We closely monitor our commercial portfolio for signs of weakness and credit quality indicators remain strong. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Lender Willingness [W]e are mindful that at some point, the industry will experience a credit downturn, and we remain disciplined in terms of origination quality and our long-term strategy of remaining within our defined credit box regardless of the competitive environment. (Cecere, USB) [Commercial] real estate banking [declined] as we remain selective, given where we are in the cycle. (Piepszak, JPM) [Commercial real estate lending] is one market where there’s late cycle behavior, there’s lots of non-bank competitors, … more than bank competitors. And so we really have to pick our spots in order to maintain our risk/reward, credit and pricing in loan terms quality. … I wouldn’t look for it to grow meaningfully until the cycle turns and our best customers have really interesting opportunities to put their own capital to work. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [Our declining commercial real estate lending is] really a function of [competition] that we’re not comfortable with. (Cecere, USB) Banks’ Real Estate Demand [C]ustomer behaviors are changing. The amount of transaction activity that’s happening in the branches is significantly less[.] In fact, … roughly 70, 80% of it goes through the digital channel today. So that gives us the opportunity to really reconfigure the branch network, both in terms of size and numbers[.] I think those trends are going to continue … , and … we may accelerate or increase some of [our right-sizing] activity[.] (Dolan, USB) Teller and ATM transactions declined 6% from a year ago, reflecting continued customer migration to digital channels. We’ve consolidated 130 branches in the first nine months of this year, including 52 branches in the third quarter. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [D]o we continue to work on real estate configurations that were down 50 million square feet from the start of 2010[?] [C]an we push [the occupancy rate] up, can we densify the space[?] (Moynihan, BAC) Investment Implications While rereading the April 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy that reviewed the big banks’ 1Q14 earnings calls, we were struck by how similar the picture is today. Back then, we described the central challenge for investors as choosing between mushy fundamentals and generous monetary policy that might be expected to inspire a valuation overshoot. As we do now, we anticipated that activity would soon pick up, providing markets with a fundamental boost, but we also had the sense that “policy settings are such that no much more than the status quo may be required to keep the party going.” We reiterated our equity overweight and our preference for spread product over Treasuries. Between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, and there's no reason to believe that the monetary policy trend is about to change without clear advance notice. Although we are congenitally optimistic about our species and our country, we are not perma-bulls. We simply recognize that, between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, no matter how uncomfortable it may make an investor to leave the portfolio dials alone for a while. As long as the monetary policy backdrop remains extremely accommodative across all of the major developed economies, and central banks are set to add even more accommodation before they start removing it, the bullish trend will remain in place. The prospective real returns of cash and highly-rated sovereign bonds are likely to remain negative for a while against that backdrop, encouraging investors to direct their marginal investment dollar to risk assets as long as a fundamental reversal is not imminent. We think a fundamental inflection is at least two years away, and therefore continue to believe that it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We reiterate our recommendation that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within their fixed-income allocations. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Overweight (Downgrade Alert) Banks got earnings season off to a great start with heavyweight JPM (and the majority of the rest of the industry) reporting solid earnings. One of the key risks to our overweight banks call that we have been highlighting recently is the inverted yield curve infecting net interest margins (NIM), and JPM acknowledged a more “challenging interest rate backdrop” and that the economy had “slowed slightly”. Importantly, the previous drubbing in interest rates is stimulating credit demand and providing a volume offset across the board as highlighted by our in-house calculated aggregate Fed Senior Loan Officer survey indicators (middle & bottom panels). Bottom Line:  Stay overweight the compellingly valued S&P banks index, but keep the index on downgrade watch courtesy of NIM and manufacturing sector related risks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC. ​​​​​​​

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  

Highlights The Chinese economy is still slowing, and there is not yet enough evidence from forward-looking economic data to suggest a turnaround is imminent. Deflation has returned to China’s industrial sector. Even though overall price deceleration has been relatively mild, it is further squeezing already deteriorating industrial profit growth. We do not expect deflation to spiral into a 2015/2016-style episode, which removes at least one risk to our growth outlook. At the same time, a mild deceleration in prices will not provide enough incentive for Chinese policymakers to hit the stimulus button.  The People’s Bank of China’s new interest rate-setting regime, the LPR, will not provide much in the way of stimulus over the next few months. But it has the potential to improve China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism over the coming year, increasing the odds that policymakers will succeed in stabilizing economic activity. Short-term downside risks to growth have not abated, and we remain tactically bearish on Chinese stocks. Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance, on the basis of an eventual reacceleration in economic activity. Feature Chart 1The Chinese Economy Is Still Slowing China’s economy is at a critical juncture: “Half-measured” stimulus so far has been able to keep the domestic economy in better shape than in the 2015-2016 down cycle, but overall economic activity has not bottomed (Chart 1). The Sino-America trade talk has resumed at the moment, but the two sides have yet to make any substantive progress towards a deal. In the meantime, the global economy has also reached a critical point where the degree of economic weakness has the potential to feed on itself, possibly triggering a recession.1  This underscores our tactically bearish stance towards Chinese stocks versus the global equity benchmark. Barring more forceful stimulus or resolution on the trade front, any external shock and/or internal policy missteps could easily tip the Chinese economy into a deeper growth slowdown. Hence, downside risks remain elevated for Chinese stocks over the next 3- to 6-months.    The “D” Word Returns, But Won’t Spur Aggressive Further Easing Chart 2Industrial Price Deflation Returns Economic data over the past two months have provided mixed signals. Readings from both China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) PMI and from the Caixin PMI show an improvement in the manufacturing sector. However, industrial deflation has returned to China: Three years after the country declared victory against a prolonged industrial destocking cycle, producer price inflation (PPI) relapsed into negative territory in July and declined further in August (Chart 2).   While prices are typically lagging indicators and reflect lingering effects from past economic conditions, there is not enough evidence in forward-looking economic data right now to suggest a turnaround in the economy is imminent.2  A deflationary PPI is not a trivial source of concern for Chinese policymakers. Last time growth in China’s PPI turned negative, it took policymakers four and a half years and an annualized 28% of GDP worth of credit expansion to pull the industrial sector out of its deflationary cycle. Chart 3Deflation Threatens Recovery In Industrial Profit Growth For investors, deflation has pernicious effects on profits, and we have received several client inquiries concerning the topic since PPI growth turned negative. The historical relationship suggests profit growth for both the A-share and investable markets is highly linked to fluctuations in producer prices (Chart 3), and China’s industrial sector profit growth has already been rapidly deteriorating over the past 12 months. The good news is that we do not expect the current episode of PPI deflation to become as protracted as it did in 2012-2016, or as severe as in 2015-2016. Two reasons underpin our view: Since early-2018, monetary policy has been much easier than during past deflationary episodes. Monetary policy in the past year and half has been much more accommodative than in the three years leading to the deep industrial deflationary cycle in 2015, particularly on the exchange rate front. The RMB was soft-pegged to a rising U.S. dollar before it was decoupled by the PBoC in August 2015, and was appreciating against its trading partners throughout most of 2012-2015. Bank lending rates were also kept at historically high levels during this period (Chart 4). This time, even though money and credit growth has not returned to the same pace as in 2015-2016, current ultra-loose monetary conditions should spur enough credit growth to keep prices from deflating aggressively. Chart 4Monetary Conditions Easier Than Last Cycle Inventory levels are low, and capacity levels do not appear to be overly excessive. After years of industrial consolidation, China’s industrial capacity does not appear to be particularly excessive compared to the past cycle. This is distinctively different from the prolonged contraction in PPI between 2012 and 2016, when China’s industrial inventories were coming off a five-year-long destocking cycle, and capacity utilization fell markedly (Chart 5). This is not the case today. Moreover, even though final demand has been weak, production has retrenched even more, drawing down inventories to the point where the pace of inventory destocking may have reached a cyclical bottom (Chart 6). A re-stocking of industrial goods should boost producers’ pricing power. Chart 5Capacity Is Not Excessively Underutilized Chart 6Inventory Destocking May Be Bottoming Out But the bad news (for investors), is that contained, or mild producer price deflation will not be reason alone to spur aggressive further easing from policymakers. This means that the re-emergence of price deflation, even mild and short-lived, will weigh on earnings and investor sentiment. Bottom Line: This episode of producer price deflation is unlikely to become as pernicious as occurred in the past, but policymakers are thus unlikely to act aggressively to counter it. While this removes some of the downside risks for Chinese stocks, even mild deflation will weigh on earnings growth (and thus sentiment) which underscores our tactically bearish stance on Chinese stocks. Demystifying China’s New Loan Prime Rate: Not The Stimulus You Are Looking For On August 20th, the PBoC launched a new loan prime rate (LPR) system, a revamped reference regime for setting bank loan interest rates3 (Chart 7). In September, the new LPR rate for one-year bank loans was lowered by five basis points. Since then, the market has been fixated on predicting whether the PBoC will cut the Medium-Lending Facility (MLF) rate next, which would be perceived as a change in China’s monetary stance. Chart 7China's New LPR: A Shadow 'Tax Cut' PBoC will increase its control of the pricing of credit, while tight financial regulations will restrict the size and speed of credit growth. The new LPR reform, in our view, is designed to force state-owned (and better-capitalized) commercial banks to hand out a “tax cut” to struggling small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by lowering bank lending rates. At the same time, it allows the PBoC to take back control of the pricing of credit from commercial banks, “killing two birds with one stone.” There are three main market implications from this approach: The new LPR is likely to gradually narrow the gap between corporate bond yields (i.e. “market rates”) and bank lending rates; A cut in the MLF rate in the near term should be interpreted as a “reward” to commercial banks rather than a stimulus for the economy; Most importantly, the new LPR system does not mean rapid credit expansion is in the cards. Quite the opposite, in the near term, banks may tighten their lending. The wide spread between the 3-month interbank repo rate and average bank lending rate illustrates the reason why the PBoC has introduced the LPR.4 This gap is also evident when comparing the yield of AAA-rated corporate bonds and the average bank lending rate (Chart 8). These gaps exist because Chinese commercial banks have largely manipulated the 1-year bank lending rate set by the PBoC when lending to their “preferred customers,” usually state-owned enterprises and real estate developers, by offering significantly discounted loan rates. Banks then charge substantial “risk premiums” on loans to the private sector, mostly SMEs, to make up for the narrower profit margins on loans to SOEs (Chart 9). Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism Chart 9Evidence Of Asymmetrical Lending Practices The new LPR system is designed to minimize this discrepancy, since the new LPRs are more market based and are quoted based on the price of loans banks charge their prime clients. By design, the new LPR system should force the average bank lending rate closer to the rate companies borrow in the bond market. This means bank lending rates will be guided lower, including lending rates for SMEs. However, the new system will be implemented in phases, and the PBoC is likely to gradually guide LPRs lower to allow banks to readjust their pricing models.  The LPR rate is essentially the MLF rate plus bank profit margins (the added basis points above the MLF rate). The market will guide the top line lending rate, while the PBoC will have control over the floor rate (MLF) through open market operations. The fact that the PBoC is keeping the MLF rate unchanged while allowing the LPR to drop (albeit slightly) sends an explicit message: The PBoC is forcing banks to lower lending rates first before boosting their now-narrowed profit margins by lowering the MLF rate. In contrast to expectations of market participants that the LPR system will ease credit conditions, banks may actually tighten their lending in the coming months. While the PBoC will increase its control of the pricing of bank loans by the rate reform plan, the strengthening in financial regulations that has occurred over the past year will restrict the size and speed of credit growth. This combination has created more room for monetary easing without unleashing “animal spirits.” Borrowing costs to risky institutions have been higher since the Baoshang Bank takeover and are likely to remain elevated even if interest rates are lower (Chart 10). More importantly, mortgage and real estate developer loans together account for nearly 30% of total bank credit. Unless policymakers ease the brakes on lending restrictions to the property sector, bank lending growth is unlikely to pick up meaningfully (Chart 11). In fact, the PBoC has explicitly excluded mortgage and property-related lending from benefitting from the LPR rate cut.5 Barring a significant worsening in economic data, we do not expect the PBoC to lower mortgage lending and real estate-related loan rates in the coming months. Chart 10Tightened Financial Regulations Will Keep Cost Of Risky Lending High Chart 11Mortgage Rate Unlikely To Return To Its 2016 Low Finally, in the next two- to three-quarter mandatory implementation period, banks will be readjusting their pricing and credit risk-assessing models. During the transition, we expect more cautious sentiment among both lenders and borrowers. Hence, in the short term, bank loan growth may actually moderate. Bottom Line: The new LPR system may lower China’s banking sector profits in the short term. But in the next 6- to 12-months, we expect the PBoC to compensate commercial banks by keeping ample liquidity in the interbank system and by eventually lowering the MLF rate. The new LPR system may slow bank credit growth in the next few months, but after its full implementation (by the second quarter of 2020), it will have the potential to make PBoC’s policy more effective. Investment Conclusions We expect two phases of Chinese equity relative performance over the coming year: one phase of flat-to-potentially seriously down performance to last from now until sometime in the first quarter of 2020 when the economy bottoms, and then a phase of outperformance. Our expectation that the economy will bottom in Q1 2020 rests on the existing reflationary response by Chinese policymakers and an improved monetary transmission mechanism. Chart 12We Expect The Chinese Economy To Bottom In Q1 2020 Our expectation that the economy will bottom in the first quarter of 2020 continues to rest on the existing reflationary response by Chinese policymakers (Chart 12), and the fact that China’s new LPR system has the potential to improve what is currently a seriously impaired monetary transmission mechanism beyond the next two or three quarters. But the existing response of policymakers has been considerably more measured when compared to past economic cycles, meaning that equity investors are unlikely to be as forward-looking as they otherwise might be. Weak producer price deflation will weigh on investor sentiment, and it is unlikely to be weak enough to spur aggressive further easing. The potential for further escalation of the U.S.-China trade war also compellingly argues against an overweight stance in the near-term, even if we expect economic growth to subsequently improve. Consequently, we remain tactically bearish and cyclically bullish towards Chinese stocks: medium-term investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets should stay long, whereas investors who have not yet moved to an overweight stance should wait for a better buying opportunity to emerge over the coming few months.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook “Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A “Show Me” Market”, dated October 4, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “China Macro And Market Review”, dated October 2, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3      Announcement of the People’s Bank of China on Improving Loan Prime Rate (LPR) Formation Mechanism, August 19, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3877490/index.html 4      PBC Official Answers Press Questions on Improving Loan Prime Rate (LPR) Formation Mechanism, August 20, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3877865/index.html 5      Announcement of the People’s Bank of China No.16, August 27, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3881177/index.html Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

ハイライト 市場予測 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」相場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」相場 投資ストラテジー: 市場は「実績を見せて（show me）」の段階に入っています。株式が持続的に上昇するためには、より良好な経済指標と貿易交渉における実質的な進展が必要です。当社は両方の前提が実現すると考えています。それまでは、リスク資産が下押し圧力にさらされる可能性があります。 グローバル・アセット・アロケーション: 投資家は12か月の見通しでは株式を債券に対してオーバーウェイトすべきですが、短期的には下方リスクに対するヘッジとして通常より高めの現金ポジションを維持してください。 株式: グロースがボトムアウトした後は、新興市場（EM）および欧州株がアウトパフォームするでしょう。金融を含む景気循環性セクターは、成長サイクルが反転したときにディフェンシブをアウトパフォームし始めます。 債券: 中央銀行はハト派姿勢を維持するでしょうが、世界的な成長の強まりを背景にイールドはそれでも緩やかに上昇する見込みです。国債よりもハイイールドのコーポレート・クレジットを優先してください。 通貨: 逆景気循環的通貨である米ドルは今年後半にピークを迎えると見ています。 コモディティ: 原油および産業用金属の価格は上昇するでしょう。金価格は足踏み状態に入っていますが、インフレがついに顕在化する来年末または2021年に再び注目を集めるはずです。 特集 クライアントの皆様へ、 本レポートに代えて、私は10月7日月曜日の東部夏時間（EDT）午前10時にウェブキャストを開催し、年末以降に想定される主要な投資テーマと見解について説明しました。 敬具, ピーター・ベレジン、チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト   I. グローバル・マクロの見通し 世界経済の試練期 世界経済は重要な岐路に差し掛かっています。成長は2018年初めから減速しており、多くの者が「失速速度（stall speed）」とみなす水準に達しています。これは経済の弱さが自己強化的に作用し始め、景気後退を引き起こす可能性があるポイントです。 成長の減速はさらに悪化するのでしょうか。私たちの見立てではそうはならないと考えます。ここ4か月で世界の金融環境は大幅に緩和しており、その一因は多くの中央銀行によるハト派への転換です。金融環境の緩和は通常、世界成長にとって好材料です（図表1）。当社のグローバル先行指標は上向きになっており、主に新興市場のデータのわずかな改善によるものです（図表2）。 図表1金融環境の緩和は世界成長を押し上げる 金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長を押し上げるだろう。 金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長を押し上げるだろう。 図表2グローバル先行指標は底を抜けた グローバルLEIは安値から反発した グローバルLEIは安値から反発した     重要な問いは、製造業の弱さがより大きなサービス業セクターへ波及するかどうかです。これは起きつつあるという証拠があり、昨日の予想を下回るISM非製造業指数の発表が最新の例です。それでも、サービス業の活動の減速はこれまでのところ限定的です（図表3）。製造業比率の高いドイツでさえ、サービス業PMIは拡張域にあります。これは、製造業とサービス業の活動が足並みをそろえて崩落した2001/02年や2008/09年と大きく異なる点です。 図表3Aサービス業は製造業ほど軟化していない（I） サービス部門の軟化は製造業ほど顕著ではない（I） サービス部門の軟化は製造業ほど顕著ではない（I） 図表3Bサービス業は製造業ほど軟化していない（II） サービス業は製造業ほど弱まっていない（II） サービス業は製造業ほど弱まっていない（II） ドライブバイ的な減速 多くの投資家に製造業の減速の理由を尋ねれば、貿易戦争や中国のデレバレッジ政策を挙げるでしょう。これらは確かに妥当な理由ですが、あまり知られていないもう一つの犯人があります：自動車です。 WardsAutoによれば、世界の自動車販売は年央の上半期に5％超減少し、グレート・リセッション以来最大の落ち込みとなりました（図表4）。生産はさらに大きく落ち込みました。 図表4自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の下落を悪化させた 自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の低迷を一層悪化させた 自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の低迷を一層悪化させた 図表5米国の自動車需要は回復しつつある 米国の自動車需要は回復している 米国の自動車需要は回復している   世界の自動車セクターの弱さは複数の要因を反映しています。新たな厳格な排出基準、税制優遇の期限切れ、厳格化された自動車ローンの貸出基準の遅行効果、貿易緊張などが一因です。加えて、2015/16年のガソリン価格の下落は一部の自動車購入を前倒しさせた可能性があります。これにより、2015/16年の世界的な製造業の落ち込みが現在の落ち込みの種を蒔いた可能性があります。 自動車の生産が販売よりも速く落ちているという事実は、過剰在庫が解消されつつあることを意味するため、歓迎すべき点です。 米国の自動車ローン貸出基準は正常化し始めており、最新のシニアローンオフィサー調査では銀行が自動車ローンの需要増を報告しています（図表5）。 中国では、自動車販売は今年初めに最大14％の落ち込みを示した後に底を打ちました（図表6）。中国の自動車保有率は米国の5分の1、日本の4分の1、韓国の3分の1程度に過ぎません（図表7）。出発点が低いため、中国の自動車販売は中長期的な上昇トレンドを再開する可能性が高いです。 図表6中国の自動車セクターは底を探している 中国の自動車セクターが底を打ち始めている 中国の自動車セクターが底を打ち始めている 図表7中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい 中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい 中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい   貿易戦争：デタントに向かっているのか？ 図表8比較的規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル かなり規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル かなり規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル 製造業サイクルは一般に約3年続きます──成長の減速が18か月、その後成長の上昇が18か月です（図表8）。世界の製造業PMIが2018年上半期にピークをつけたとするなら、現在の下落局面は終盤に差し掛かっているはずです。 もちろん、多くは政策の進展次第です。執筆時点で米中のハイレベルの交渉は再開しています。 これらの協議の結果を予測することは不可能ですが、双方とも対立激化を回避するインセンティブを持っているように見えます。トランプ大統領は経済運営に関しては有権者から他の事柄よりもかなり高い評価を受けており、対中貿易交渉の扱いも含めてそれは当てはまります（図表9）。長期化する貿易戦争は米国の成長と株式市場に悪影響を与え、いずれもトランプ氏の再選可能性を損なうことになります。 図表9トランプは経済運営ではまずまず高評価だが、それ以外は評価が低い 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『ショー・ミー』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『ショー・ミー』マーケット 図表10誰が2020年の民主党指名を勝ち取るか？ 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「ショー・ミー」マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「ショー・ミー」マーケット 中国も成長を下支えしたいと考えています。中国指導部にとってトランプと対処するのは困難だったにせよ、彼が再選された後に貿易合意を取り付けるのはさらに難しくなるでしょう。特にトランプが中国が自身の再選を妨害しようとしたと考えればなおさらです。 たとえトランプが選挙に敗れたとしても、中国が貿易問題で交渉しやすい相手を得られるかは不透明です。賭け市場が現在ジョー・バイデンよりも民主党候補指名獲得の可能性が高いと見ているエリザベス・ウォーレン大統領と環境基準や人権について交渉したいでしょうか（図表10）？ 民主党によるトランプ大統領の弾劾の動きは、貿易解決をやや実現しやすくするでしょう。第一に、それはジョー・バイデン（および彼の息子）のウクライナでの疑わしい取引に注目を集め、中国が支持する米大統領候補に打撃を与えます。第二に、トランプを国内問題に集中させるために中国との争いを早く片付けたいという意向を強めさせる可能性があります。 中国はさらに刺激策を行うか？ 戦略的に見て、中国には経済を刺激して成長を支え、貿易交渉でより大きなレバレッジを得る強いインセンティブがあります。 中国のクレジット・インパルスは2018年後半に底打ちしました。このインパルスは中国の名目製造業生産やその他多くの活動指標に約9か月先行します（図表11）。 これまでのところ、中国の信用・財政緩和の規模は、2015/16年および2008/09年に経済へ投入された刺激策には及んでいません。これは部分的には当局が当時よりも今日の過度な債務水準をより懸念しているためですが、同時に経済の状況が当時より良好であることも理由です。 貿易戦争からのショックはグレート・リセッションほど深刻ではありません──中国の対米輸出は付加価値ベースでGDPのわずか2.7％に過ぎないことを思い出してください。2015/16年に中国が1兆ドル超の外貨準備を失ったのとは異なり、今回の資本流出は限定的にとどまっています（図表12）。 図表11中国の刺激策は世界成長を押し上げるはずだ 中国の景気刺激策は世界経済の成長を押し上げるはずだ 中国の景気刺激策は世界経済の成長を押し上げるはずだ 図表12中国：大きな資本流出はない 中国：大規模な資本流出は見られない 中国：大規模な資本流出は見られない 今週初めに発表された予想を上回る中国の購買担当者指数（PMI）データは一縷の望みを提供しています。それでも、8月の活動指標の失望的な数字を踏まえると、中国は今後数か月で刺激のペースを高める可能性が高いです。 当局はすでに預金準備率を引き下げています。今後数か月で政策金利をさらに引き下げると予想します。また、地方政府債の発行を前倒しすることでインフラ支出を押し上げるでしょう。ヨーロッパの成長は改善するはずだ 世界的な成長の回復は今年後半にヨーロッパを後押しするだろう。貿易依存度の高いドイツが最も恩恵を受けるだろう。 チャート13南欧全域でスプレッドは縮小した 南ヨーロッパ全域でスプレッドが縮小した 南ヨーロッパ全域でスプレッドが縮小した チャート14マネー成長の加速はユーロ圏の国内総生産成長に好材料となる マネー供給の加速はユーロ圏のGDP成長にとって好材料 マネー供給の加速はユーロ圏のGDP成長にとって好材料 ソブリン・スプレッドの低下も南欧を支えるはずだ（チャート13）。イタリアの対独国債の10年スプレッドは8月中旬以来ほぼ1ポイント縮小し、イタリアの10年利回りは0.83％まで低下した。ギリシャの10年債は現在米国債より利回りが低くなっている（ギリシャの製造業購買担当者景気指数は現在世界で最も強い）。 欧州中央銀行が再び市場で国債と社債を買い入れているため、借入金利は低い水準にとどまるはずだ。国内総生産の先行指標であるユーロ圏のマネー成長はすでに加速している（チャート14）。民間向け銀行貸出は引き続き加速するだろう。 適度な財政刺激も助けになるだろう。欧州委員会はユーロ圏の財政的な押し上げが2019年に国内総生産比0.5％増加すると見積もっている（チャート15）。保守的に公共支出乗数を1と仮定すると、これはユーロ圏の成長を0.5ポイント押し上げることになる。財政政策の変更と実体経済への影響の間にはタイムラグがあるため、国内総生産成長への恩恵の大部分は今年の残りと2020年に発生するだろう。 チャート15ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げるだろう ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げる ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げる チャート17ブレグジットの不安：後悔の一例 ブレグジットの不安：ブレモースの事例 ブレグジットの不安：ブレモースの事例 チャート16英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を圧迫している 英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を押し下げている 英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を押し下げている 英国では、ブレグジットの不確実性が引き続き成長を圧迫している。英国の企業投資は特に大きな打撃を受けている（チャート16）。ボリス・ジョンソン首相は10月末に合意の有無にかかわらず英国を欧州連合から離脱させると主張し続けている。我々は彼の虚勢をあまり重視しないつもりだ。最高裁判所はすでに議会を閉鎖しようとする彼の試みを否定している。国民はブレグジットの望ましさについて再考している（チャート17）。ブレグジットの筋書きの正確な展開について我々は確固たる見解を持っているわけではないが、合意なきブレグジットの確率は低いと考えている。これは英国の成長とポンドにとって好材料だ。 日本：オウンゴール 最近の日本のデータは芳しくない。8月の工作機械受注は前年同月比で37％減少した。輸出は8％超縮小し、輸入は12％の減少を記録した。9月の購買担当者景気指数の数値は製造業のさらに悪化を露呈させ、指数は8月の49.3から48.9に低下した。 加えて、鉱工業生産は8月に予想より大きく縮小し、前月比で1％減少、前年同月比では約5％の下落となった。米中貿易交渉をめぐる継続する不確実性や、日本自身と隣国韓国との緊張も日本経済に重荷となっている。 世界的な成長が回復すれば日本の産業活動は今年後半に改善するだろう。しかし、政府は10月1日の消費税引き上げによって成長見通しを助けてはいない。各種の相殺策が税率引き上げの完全な効果を鈍らせるとはいえ、それでも不要な財政引き締めに相当する。 名目国内総生産は1990年代初頭以来ほとんど増加していない。日本に必要なのは名目所得を押し上げる政策だ。そのようなリフレーション政策こそが、経済をデフレのスパイラルに戻すことなく債務対国内総生産比を安定させる唯一の方法かもしれない。1  米国：粘り強く対応 チャート18米国の製造業の割合は他のほとんどの先進国より小さい 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」マーケット 米国経済は最近の世界的な景気減速の中でも比較的良好に推移してきたが、部分的には製造業が多くの他国よりも国内総生産に占める割合が小さいためだ（チャート18）。 アトランタ連銀のGDPNowモデルによれば、実質国内総生産は第3四半期にトレンドに近い1.8％のペースで増加する見込みだ（チャート19）。個人消費は第2四半期の4.6％の成長の後、2.5％増加する見込みだ。消費は賃金上昇に支えられて堅調であり、個人貯蓄率も高水準にとどまっているため、家計は何らかの不利なショックからの緩衝に備えられるはずだ（チャート20）。   チャート19米国の成長は鈍化したが、依然としてトレンドに近い 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実績を示せ』市場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実績を示せ』市場 住宅投資はついに回復局面に入ったように見える。着工件数、建築許可、住宅販売はいずれも回復している。住宅ローン金利と住宅建設の密接な関係を考えれば、建設活動は今後数四半期で加速するはずだ（チャート21）。低い在庫と空室率、世帯形成の増加、そして手頃な価格はいずれも住宅市場にとって好材料だ（チャート22）。 チャート20資産との歴史的関係から判断すると貯蓄率は（大幅に）低下する余地がある 貯蓄率は、資産との歴史的関係から判断すると（かなり）低下する余地がある 貯蓄率は、資産との歴史的関係から判断すると（かなり）低下する余地がある チャート21米国の住宅は回復するだろう 米国の住宅市場は回復する 米国の住宅市場は回復する チャート22米国住宅：堅実な基盤の上にある 米国住宅：堅固な基盤の上にある 米国住宅：堅固な基盤の上にある チャート23米国の設備投資計画は高値から後退したが、景気後退水準にははるかに届いていない 米国の設備投資計画は高値圏から後退したが、景気後退水準にはほど遠い 米国の設備投資計画は高値圏から後退したが、景気後退水準にはほど遠い 住宅投資とは対照的に、企業の設備投資は製造業の不況、強いドル、貿易政策の不確実性に押され続けている。コア耐久財受注は8月に減少した。設備投資意向調査も弱含んでいるが、景気後退水準をはるかに上回っている（チャート23）。 ISM製造業指数は9月に2009年7月以来の低水準に達した。報告の内訳はヘッドラインほど悪くはなかった。ISMを2か月先行する受注対在庫の構成要素は再びプラス圏に戻った。弱いISMの数値は、4月以来最高値に上昇したより楽観的なマーキットの米国製造業購買担当者景気指数と対照をなしている。統計的には、マーキットのPMIはISMよりも米国の製造業生産、工場受注、雇用の公式指標をよりよく追跡する。 総合すれば、世界の製造業リセッションが終息し、強い消費支出と改善する住宅市場が国内需要を支えるにつれて、米国経済は今年後半にやや強い成長を示す可能性が高い。 II. 金融市場 グローバル・アセット・アロケーション 市場は「成果を見せてくれ」段階に入っている。株式が持続的に上昇するためには、より良い経済指標と貿易交渉の実質的な進展が必要だ。そのため、投資家は当面下方リスクに備えるために通常より大きめの現金ポジションを維持すべきだ。 チャート24成長が回復すれば株式は債券をアウトパフォームするだろう 成長が回復すれば株式は債券を上回る 成長が回復すれば株式は債券を上回る 幸いなことに、リスク資産価格の下落は一時的である可能性が高い。貿易緊張が和らぎ、我々が予想するように今年後半に世界成長が回復すれば、株式とスプレッド商品は12か月の期間で国債を大きくアウトパフォームするだろう（チャート24）。 確かに、この楽観的な12か月の推奨を覆す要因は数多くある：世界成長がさらに悪化する可能性；貿易戦争が激化する可能性；供給側のショックで石油価格が再び急騰する可能性；英国が「ハード・ブレグジット」でEUを離脱する可能性；そして最後に、エリザベス・ウォーレンあるいはその他の極左候補が次期米国大統領になる可能性などだ。 今日における投資家の主要な問いは、これらのリスクが金融市場に十分に織り込まれているかどうかだ。我々は織り込まれていると考えている。チャート25は、利益利回りと実質債券利回りの差として計算した我々の世界株式リスクプレミア（ERP）の推定値を示す。我々の計算は、株式は依然として債券に比べてかなり割安に見えることを示唆している。 チャート25A株式リスクプレミアは依然かなり高い（I） 株式リスクプレミアムは依然としてかなり高い（I） 株式リスクプレミアムは依然としてかなり高い（I） チャート25B株式リスクプレミアは依然かなり高い（II） エクイティ・リスクプレミアは依然としてかなり高い（II） エクイティ・リスクプレミアは依然としてかなり高い（II） ERPが高いのは今日の超低水準の債券利回りが非常に低い成長見通しを反映しているからに過ぎないと異議を唱える者もいる。その主張には一理あるが、人々が考えるほどではない。過去10年間で米国のトレンド国内総生産成長率は低下したが、債券利回りはさらに大きく低下した。議会予算局が推計する米国の潜在的な名目国内総生産成長率と10年物米国債利回りの差はほぼ2％で、1979年以来の最大となっている（チャート26）。 チャート26債券利回りはトレンドの名目国内総生産成長率よりも大きく低下した 債券利回りは名目GDPのトレンド成長率よりも大きく下落した 債券利回りは名目GDPのトレンド成長率よりも大きく下落した 世界レベルでは、トレンドの国内総生産成長率は1980年以降ほとんど変わっていない。これは主に、成長の速い新興市場が現在世界経済に占める割合を拡大しているためだ（チャート27）。大手多国籍企業にとっては、国内成長よりもグローバル成長の方が経済の勢いを測る上でより重要な指標である。将来の株式リターンの見通し 高いERPは単に株式が債券に対して相対的に魅力的であることを示しているに過ぎません。株式の今後のリターンを絶対的に評価するには、評価水準の絶対レベルを見るべきです。 チャート27世界の成長トレンドは成長の速い新興国（EM）によって安定を保っている チャート27 世界の成長トレンドは、成長の速い新興国（EM）のおかげで堅調に推移している。 世界の成長トレンドは、成長の速い新興国（EM）のおかげで堅調に推移している。 チャート28S&P 500：マージンの上昇はすべてITセクターで発生している S&P 500：マージンの増加はすべてITセクターで生じている S&P 500：マージンの増加はすべてITセクターで生じている 我々が最近のレポート「TINAに救いを求めるか？」で主張したように、2 アーンニングス・イールドは株式の期待実質トータル・リターンの代用指標として用いることができます。経験的には、このことは裏付けられているようです：1950年以降、米国株式のアーンニングス・イールドは平均で6.7％であり、実質トータル・リターンは7.2％でした。 現在、米国株のトレーリングおよびフォワードのPERはそれぞれ21.1と17.4にあります。将来のリターンの指標として両者の単純平均を用いると、米国株は長期的に実質トータル・リターンで5.2％をもたらすはずです。これは歴史的な平均を下回りますが、それでもかなりまずまずのリターンです。 この計算は、米国のアーンニングス・イールドが異常に高い利益率によって一時的に嵩上げされているため、見込み株式リターンを過大評価していると異議を唱える者もいるでしょう。しかしこの議論の問題点は、S&P 500のマージン上昇のほとんどがたった一つのセクター、すなわちテクノロジーで発生していることです。テックセクターを除けば、S&P 500のマージンは歴史的平均から大きくは離れていません（チャート28）。もし高いITマージンが、強力なネットワーク効果や独占的な価格設定力に恩恵を受ける「勝者総取り」型の企業の台頭のような、グローバル経済における構造的変化を反映しているならば、それらは当面の間高止まりする可能性があります。   地域別およびセクター別の株式配分 アーンニングス・イールドは米国外では概ね2ポイント高く、長期的には非米国株が米国株を上回ることが示唆されています。先進国市場では、ドイツ、スペイン、英国が特に割安に見えます。新興国（EM）では中国、韓国、ロシアが非常に魅力的な水準にあります（チャート29）。セクター水準では、景気循環株がディフェンシブ株よりも魅力的に見えます（チャート30）。 チャート29米国株は同業他国と比べて割高に見える 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実証を求める』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実証を求める』マーケット チャート31経済成長は12か月の期間で株式を動かす 経済成長は12か月の見通しでエクイティを牽引する 経済成長は12か月の見通しでエクイティを牽引する チャート30景気循環株はディフェンシブ株よりも魅力的である 景気循環株はディフェンシブ株より魅力的 景気循環株はディフェンシブ株より魅力的 チャート32世界成長が改善すると新興国（EM）およびユーロ圏株式はたいていアウトパフォームする 世界経済の成長が改善すると、新興国株式（EM）およびユーロ圏株式は通常アウトパフォームする 世界経済の成長が改善すると、新興国株式（EM）およびユーロ圏株式は通常アウトパフォームする バリュエーションは主に長期リターンの指標として有用です。例えば12か月の期間では、景気、金利、為替に何が起こるかといった景気循環要因がより重要になります（チャート31）。 幸いなことに、我々の景気循環に関する見方は概ねバリュエーションの評価と合致しています。より強い世界成長、より弱いドル、そしてコモディティ価格の上昇は、ディフェンシブよりも景気循環株に恩恵をもたらすはずです。新興国（EM）および欧州の株式市場が米国株に比べてより景気循環色の強いセクター構成である程度において、前者は最終的にアウトパフォームすることになるでしょう（チャート32）。 我々は、世界成長が再加速し始めれば年末までに金融セクターをアップグレードするセクターリストに加えたいと考えています。債券利回りの低下は銀行利益を圧迫してきました（チャート33）。利ざや（ネット金利マージン）への逆風は利回りが上昇し始めると緩和されるはずです。現在フォワード予想利益の7.6倍、簿価の0.6倍で取引され、配当利回りが6.3％と高い欧州の銀行は特に好成績を収める可能性があります（チャート34）。 チャート33A金利上昇とイールドカーブの上方化は金融株に有利に働く（I） 債券利回りの上昇とイールドカーブのスティープ化は金融株に恩恵をもたらす（I） 債券利回りの上昇とイールドカーブのスティープ化は金融株に恩恵をもたらす（I） チャート33B金利上昇とイールドカーブの上方化は金融株に有利に働く（II） 債券利回りの上昇と利回り曲線のスティープ化は金融株に有利（II） 債券利回りの上昇と利回り曲線のスティープ化は金融株に有利（II） チャート35が示すように、金融株への投資はバリュー株への投資と似ています。過去12年間でグロースはバリューを圧倒しましたが、今後12～18か月ではバリューにとってひと息つける局面が訪れるでしょう。 チャート34欧州の銀行は魅力的である 欧州の銀行は魅力的だ 欧州の銀行は魅力的だ チャート35バリューは反転の兆しを見せているか？ バリューは転換点にあるか？ バリューは転換点にあるか？   フィクスト・インカム チャート36A成長加速で利回りは上昇するはずである（I） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇するはず（I） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇するはず（I） ハト派的な中央銀行と、当面は依然として抑制されたインフレが、今後12か月にわたり政府債利回りを抑制するのに寄与するでしょう。それでも、利回りはより強い世界成長を背景に現在の低水準から上昇するはずです（チャート36）。     チャート36B成長加速で利回りは上昇するはずである（II） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇する (II) 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇する (II) 債券利回りは、中央銀行が予想より多くあるいは少なく政策金利を調整するかどうかによって上昇したり低下したりする傾向があります（チャート37）。投資家は現在、FRBが今後12か月でさらに80ベーシスポイントの利下げを行うと見込んでいます。我々はFRBが10月30日に25ベーシスポイントの利下げを行うと考えていますが、その後の追加利下げは見込んでいません。この緩和局面での累積75ベーシスポイントの利下げは、1990年代のミッドサイクルの景気減速期（1995/96年および1998年）で行われた緩和に相当します。総じて、米国の10年物金利は2020年中頃までに再び2％台前半に入る可能性が高いです。 チャート37Aより強い経済成長は政府債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） チャート36Bより強い経済成長は政府債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） チャート38米国の政府債利回りは海外の利回りよりも景気循環的である 米国国債の利回りは海外の国債利回りより景気と同方向に動きやすい 米国国債の利回りは海外の国債利回りより景気と同方向に動きやすい 米国株が海外の株に比べて低ベータである傾向があるのとは対照的に、米国債は高ベータを持っています。これは、世界の債券利回りが総じて上昇するときに米国の国債利回りが海外よりも大きく上昇し、世界の債券利回りが総じて低下するときに米国の国債利回りが海外よりも大きく低下することを意味します（チャート38）。  さらに、為替ヘッジコストを考慮に入れると、米国債は現在ほかの債券市場よりも利回りが低くなっています（表1）。今後12～18か月で米国利回りが海外よりも大きく上昇するようなことがあれば、米国債のリターンはさらに損なわれるでしょう。その結果、投資家はグローバルな政府債ポートフォリオの中で米国債のウエイトを低めにすべきです。 世界的な成長の強さはコーポレート・クレジット・スプレッドを抑えるはずです。米国の商業・企業向け貸出の貸し出し基準は緩和方向に戻っており、これは通常コーポレート・クレジットにとって強気材料です（チャート39）。我々の米国債券ストラテジストによれば、ハイイールド社債のスプレッド、そして程度は小さいもののBaa格付けの投資適格スプレッドは、経済ファンダメンタルズから見てまだ広めに残っているとされています（チャート40）。3 一方で、より高格付けの投資適格債は相対的な割安度が小さいです。 表1先進国における債券市場の比較 2019年第4四半期 ストラテジー見通し：証拠を求める市場 2019年第4四半期 ストラテジー見通し：証拠を求める市場 チャート39貸し出し基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットに良い影響を与える 貸出基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットにとって好材料だ 貸出基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットにとって好材料だ チャート40米国コーポレート：Baaとハイイールド債に注目 米国コーポレート債：Baaおよびハイイールド・クレジットに注目 米国コーポレート債：Baaおよびハイイールド・クレジットに注目     今後18か月を超えて見ると、インフレが実質的に上昇し始める確率は高いと考えられます。G7全体の失業率は数十年ぶりの低水準に低下しています（チャート41）。完全雇用に達した先進国の割合は新たなサイクル高水準に達しています（チャート42）。フィリップス曲線は死んだといわれることが多いにもかかわらず、賃金の伸びは労働市場の余裕度となお密接に相関しています（チャート43）。 チャート41失業率は低下トレンドを保っている 失業率は低下傾向が続く 失業率は低下傾向が続く チャート42先進国：完全雇用が新たなサイクル高に達している 先進国市場：完全雇用がサイクルの新高値に達している 先進国市場：完全雇用がサイクルの新高値に達している チャート43フィリップス曲線は健在である フィリップス曲線は健在だ フィリップス曲線は健在だ 賃金が上昇し続けると、物価も上昇し始め、賃金・物価のスパイラルを引き起こす可能性があります。その時点でFRBをはじめとする中央銀行は利上げを始めざるを得なくなります。一度金利が制約的な水準に入ると、株式は下落し、クレジット・スプレッドは拡大するでしょう。2022年には世界的な景気後退が生じる可能性があります。 通貨とコモディティ チャート 44ドルは逆循環通貨である ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨だ ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨だ 米ドルは逆循環通貨であり、世界的な景気循環とは逆の方向に動く傾向がある（チャート 44）。現時点では米ドルの方向性について強い短期見解は持っていないが、世界成長が反発し始めるにつれて年末までに米ドルは弱含み始めると予想している。 EUR/USDは2020年中頃までに約1.13に上昇する見込みだ。GBP/USDは1.29に上昇するだろう。USD/CNYは7に戻る。USD/JPYは横ばいとなる公算が大きく、これは円の防衛的性格と消費税引き上げによる日本の成長への下押しを反映している。 貿易加重ドルは2021年後半まで下落し続け、その後はより積極的な連邦準備制度（Fed）と世界成長の減速により米ドルは再び上昇するだろう。 ドルが弱含む期間中、コモディティ価格は上昇する（チャート 45）。 チャート 45ドル安はコモディティに恩恵をもたらす ドル安はコモディティの追い風 ドル安はコモディティの追い風 BCAのコモディティ・ストラテジストは、12カ月の視野で特に原油に強気である（チャート 46）。彼らは、世界成長の強化と生産抑制により石油在庫水準が低下すると予想しており、ブレント原油価格は年末までに1バレル当たり70ドルに上昇し、2020年は平均で1バレル当たり74ドルになると見ている。OPECの余剰生産能力（カルテルが生産可能な量と実際に生産している量の差）は現在歴史的平均を下回っている（チャート 47）。原油備蓄はOECD内でも低下傾向にある。サウジアラビアの備蓄も2015年のピーク以降40％超減少している（チャート 48）。 チャート 46供給不足は継続する 供給不足は続く 供給不足は続く チャート 47停止を相殺するための余剰能力の利用可能性は限定的 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せてみろ」市場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せてみろ」市場 チャート 48主要戦略石油備蓄 主要な戦略石油備蓄 主要な戦略石油備蓄 原油価格の上昇は、カナダドル、ノルウェー・クローネ、ロシアルーブル、コロンビア・ペソといった通貨に有利に働くはずだ。 最後に金について少し触れる。我々は8月29日に金のロングトレードを決済し、20週間で20.5％の利益を確定した。依然として、金はより高いインフレに対する優れた長期ヘッジと見ている。ただし短期的には、債券利回りの上昇が金の勢いをそぐ可能性があり、仮にドル安が金を部分的に支援するとしてもその効果は限定的である。インフレが上振れし始めた時点で、来年末か2021年に金のロングポジションを再度組む予定だ。   ピーター・ベレジン、 チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート、「高水準の債務はデフレ的か、それともインフレ的か？」2019年2月15日付をご覧ください。 2詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー スペシャル・レポート、「TINAは救いの手となるか？」2019年8月23日付をご覧ください。 3詳細は米国ボンド・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート、「社債投資家は連邦準備制度（Fed）に逆らうべきではない」2019年9月17日付をご覧ください。 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド MacroQuantモデルと現在の主観的スコア 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『見せてみろ』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『見せてみろ』マーケット タクティカル・トレード ストラテジック・レコメンデーション クローズド・トレード

ハイライト 世界の製造業サイクルはまもなくボトムに達する公算が大きく、消費とサービスは依然として堅調です。今後12か月の景気後退リスクは低く、これは株式が債券より引き続きアウトパフォームすることを示唆しています。 しかし、この楽観的なシナリオに対するリスクは高まっています。消費者信頼感の低下や地政学的緊張の悪化はリスク資産に打撃を与える可能性があります。我々はこれをヘッジするためにキャッシュをオーバーウェイトしています。 中国は現時点では積極的な金融緩和の使用に及び腰です。中国が動くまでは、景気循環性が低い米国株式市場がアウトパフォームするはずです。 中国が景気刺激を本格化させ、製造業サイクルが明確にボトムを打ったときに、新興市場（EM）および欧州株へシフトする可能性があります。この上振れリスクをヘッジするために、我々はファイナンシャルズを戦術的にオーバーウェイトとし、またインダストリアルズのオーバーウェイトとオーストラリアのニュートラルを再確認します。 債券利回りはリバウンドを継続するはずです。デュレーションをアンダーウェイトとし、TIPSを優先します。クレジットは景気循環の視点ではアウトパフォームするはずですが、企業の高負債はリスクですのでニュートラルを推奨します。 推奨 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全面的なヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全面的なヘッジ   特集 概要 万全のヘッジ 世界経済にとって特に不確実な時期であり、資産配分担当者にとっては悩ましい局面です。製造業の活動はまもなく底打ちするのか、それともサービス部門や消費を巻き込んで下押しするのか。債券利回りは強いリバウンドを続けるのか。米連邦準備制度理事会（Fed）は利下げを終了したのか。中国は今や積極的に金融刺激を拡大するのか。イランはサウジアラビアとの対立を激化させるのか。トランプ大統領は次に何をツイートするのか。 こうした環境ではポートフォリオ構築の手腕が試されます。我々はこれらすべての問いについて見解を持っていますが、確信度は通常よりやや低めです。投資家が取るべき対応は、最も起こりそうなシナリオすべてにおいてポートフォリオが強靭であるように資産配分を計画することです。 我々は世界の製造業サイクルがまもなくボトムに達すると予想しています。グローバル先行経済指標はすでに回復しており、グローバルPMIも底打ちの兆候を示しています（チャート 1）。最短期の先行指標であるシティグループ経済サプライズ指数は、欧州を除くすべての地域で最近急上昇しました（チャート 2）。（サイクル底のより風変わりな指標については、7ページのクライアントが尋ねていることも参照してください。）底打ちの要因は、この9か月間の金融環境の緩和、 中国成長の安定化、そして単純に時間の経過です。製造業サイクルの下落局面は典型的に18か月続き、このサイクルは2018年上半期にピークをつけました。 チャート 1底打ちの最初の兆候 底打ちの最初の兆し 底打ちの最初の兆し チャート 2予想外に強いサプライズ 驚くほど強いサプライズ 驚くほど強いサプライズ     同時に、国債利回りはさらに上昇余地があるはずです。Fedはあと一度利下げする可能性がありますが、米国経済の堅調さを踏まえるとそれ以上にはならないでしょう。これはフェドファンド先物が織り込んでいる今後12か月の59ベーシスポイントの利下げよりも小さい幅です。最近の経済サプライズの持ち直しは、米10年国債利回りが少なくとも6か月前の水準である2.3～2.4％に戻ることを示唆しています（チャート 3）。ただし、例えば米中貿易協議の破綻のような政治的緊張の高まりがあると、この動きは遅れる可能性があります（チャート 4）。 チャート 3長期金利はさらにリバウンドへ... 長期金利、さらに反発へ... 長期金利、さらに反発へ... チャート 4...しかし地政学的緊張は依然リスク ...しかし地政学的緊張は依然としてリスクである ...しかし地政学的緊張は依然としてリスクである これは、今後数四半期にわたり株式が債券をアウトパフォームし続ける可能性が高いことを意味し、我々は12か月の投資期間でグローバル株式をオーバーウェイト、グローバル債券をアンダーウェイトの立場を維持しています。ただし、この明るいシナリオに対するリスクは増しています。我々は第二次世界大戦以降、ほぼ18か月前にほぼすべての景気後退を的中させてきたイールドカーブの逆イールド化を依然として懸念しています（チャート 5）。3か月/10年のカーブは今年中頃に逆イールド化しました。また、製造業部門の弱さが消費者信頼感を損なうことを懸念しています。これは欧州と日本にいくつかの兆候がありますが、米国ではまだ顕著ではありません（チャート 6）。したがって先月、景気後退に対するヘッジとして我々はキャッシュをオーバーウェイトしました。リスク／リワードの観点から、債券よりもキャッシュをより魅力的なヘッジとみなしています。 チャート 5イールドカーブのメッセージを無視できますか？ イールド・カーブからのメッセージを無視できますか？ イールド・カーブからのメッセージを無視できますか？ チャート 6消費者信頼感の弱さのいくつかの兆候 消費者信頼感の弱まりを示すいくつかの兆候 消費者信頼感の弱まりを示すいくつかの兆候     我々はまた、ベータが低く他地域の株式ほど構造的逆風が少ない米国株式を引き続きオーバーウェイトします。ただし、中国のより大胆な刺激策の恩恵を受けるであろう、より景気循環性の高い株式市場への参入ポイントを引き続き探しています。中国の金融緩和はこれまでの景気刺激局面に比べてなお慎重です。国内活動を安定化させるにはおそらく十分でした（チャート 7）が、2016年のように工業用コモディティ価格や新興市場資産、ユーロ圏株式のラリーを引き起こすほどではありません。グローバルPMIの上昇と中国の信用成長の強まりの兆候は、明らかに新興市場と欧州を助けるでしょう（チャート 8）が、我々が実際にそれらが起きているとより高い確信を持つまではその動きを取ることはしません。その間、欧州株がアウトパフォームし始めた場合に有利になるはずのため、我々は上振れリスクをヘッジする目的でグローバルの金融セクターを戦術的にオーバーウェイトに引き上げています。今年初めには、より積極的な中国刺激による上振れリスクをヘッジするためにインダストリアルズをオーバーウェイト、オーストラリア株式をニュートラルに引き上げました。 チャート 7中国の刺激は成長を単に安定化させただけ 中国の景気刺激策は成長を単に安定させただけに過ぎない 中国の景気刺激策は成長を単に安定させただけに過ぎない チャート 8欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環的な市場 欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環性の高い市場だ 欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環性の高い市場だ     チャート 9原油価格の急騰はしばしば景気後退に先行する 原油価格の急騰は景気後退に先行することが多い。 原油価格の急騰は景気後退に先行することが多い。 我々の楽観的なシナリオに対する最大の地政学的リスクは、サウジの石油精製施設への攻撃後の中東情勢です。過去50年のすべての景気後退は、原油価格の前年同月比100％の急騰に先行されてきました（ただし、この事態が現実となるにはブレントが年末までに現在の61ドルから100ドル超へ上昇する必要があります（チャート 9   チャート 10原油のリスクプレミアムは低すぎるのか？ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位のヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位のヘッジ   ギャリー・エヴァンス、シニア・バイス・プレジデント チーフ・グローバル・アセット・アロケーション・ストラテジスト garry@bcaresearch.com     クライアントが尋ねていること 世界成長の反発のタイミングを図るために投資家はどの先行指標を注視すべきか？ チャート 11世界成長に関するポジティブなシグナル ユーロ圏の製造業は底打ちに近いか？ 世界経済の成長に対するポジティブなシグナル ユーロ圏の製造業は底打ちに近いか？ 世界経済の成長に対するポジティブなシグナル 2019年の世界的な成長鈍化は、債券ラリーとディフェンシブ資産のアウトパフォーマンスの主要因でした。したがって、この下落がいつ反転するかのタイミングを見極めることは極めて重要です。反転はディフェンシブから景気循環性の資産へのリーダーシップの交代ももたらすからです。では、どのようにしてこれを行うか。以下に、過去に世界経済に関する信頼できる先行シグナルを提供してきた我々のお気に入りの指標を三つ挙げます。 キャリートレードのパフォーマンス：非常に高いキャリーを持つ新興国通貨の対円でのパフォーマンスは、世界成長の先行指標となる傾向があります（チャート 11, パネル1）。一般に、キャリートレードは資金が豊富だが利回りが低い国（日本のような）から、貯蓄不足でリスクは高いが見込み収益が高い国へ流動性を分配します。これらの通貨のポジティブなパフォーマンスは、世界的な流動性の改善を示す傾向があり、通常は世界成長を後押しします。 スウェーデンの在庫サイクル：スウェーデンの受注在庫比率は世界の製造業サイクルの先行指標です（パネル2）。なぜか。スウェーデンは小さな開放経済であり、世界成長のダイナミクスに非常に敏感です。さらに、スウェーデンの輸出は中間財に重心が置かれており、これはグローバルなサプライチェーンの早い段階に位置します。これによりスウェーデンの在庫サイクルは世界の製造業サイクルの良い早期のバロメーターとなります。 G3のマネタリートレンド：G3の実質的なマネーサプライ超過（マネーサプライ成長率と貸出成長率の差として測定）は、世界の工業生産の先行指標です（パネル3）。ベースマネーと預金が既存の貸出プールに対して銀行システム内でより豊富になると、商業銀行の流動性ポジションは改善します。これにより銀行はより多くの貸出成長を生み出す燃料を得られ、最終的に経済活動に追い風を提供します。 重要なのは、これらすべての先行指標が世界経済に対してポジティブなシグナルを送っていることです。これは、世界成長が強まるにつれて金利は上昇すべきだという我々の見解を裏付けます。したがって、投資家はポートフォリオで株式をオーバーウェイト、債券をアンダーウェイトのままにしておくべきです。   ユーロ圏の銀行を買う時期か？ 2018年12月のユーロ圏の銀行に関するスペシャルレポートでは、「歴史的に、相対P/Bディスカウントが下限バンドに達し、相対配当利回りが上限バンドに達したとき、相対リターンの反発が期待できる」と指摘しました。1 当時の我々の推奨は「長期投資家はこの地域の銀行を避けるべきだが、より戦術的な権限を持ち、機動的なスタイルの投資家は評価指標を利用して銀行への出入りを短期トレードとして『タイミング』できる」というものでした。 それ以降、銀行は市場全体を10％以上アウトパフォームできずに引き続きアンダーパフォームし、相対的な評価指標をさらに押し下げました。現在、相対P/Bと相対配当利回りはともに、歴史的に少なくとも短期的な反発を予告してきた極端な水準にあります。 ユーロ圏のPMIはまだ50を下回っていますが、ユーロ圏経済が今年後半に持ち直す兆候があり、これは銀行の相対的な収益にとってポジティブになるはずです。すでに、フォワードの1株当たり利益（EPS）成長は幅広い市場に対して安定化しています（チャート 12、パネル4）。 さらに、2018年12月当時の主要な懸念材料の二つはイタリア政府債務と量的緩和（QE）の巻き戻しでした。現在、イタリア債務はもはや危機的な状況にはなく、ECBはQEを再開しています。 したがって、戦術的な権限を持ち機動的に運用できる投資家はユーロ圏の銀行を買う（オーバーウェイト）べきです。長期投資家は構造的な問題が残っているため、依然としてこのような短期トレードは避けるべきです。 チャート 12戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行をアップグレード 戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行を格上げ 戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行を格上げ  金相場の上昇は終わったのか？ スポット金価格は年初来で17%上昇しており、その背景には世界的な成長鈍化、ハト派に傾いた中央銀行、そして高まる政治的緊張がある。投資家は今、金のエクスポージャーを削減すべきだろうか。常識的にはそうすべきだろう。しかし、今回は通常の時期ではない。 短期的には、テクニカル面での買われ過ぎと行き過ぎたポジティブなセンチメントのために一部利益確定が入り、金価格は下押しを受ける可能性がある（チャート13、パネル1）。さらに、今年の金価格の動きは中央銀行の緩和期待の高まりによるところが大きい（パネル2）。今後、市場は利下げが限定的にとどまることに失望する可能性があり、それが金の下落圧力となり得ると予想する。 他方で、現在世界の債務の約27%、すなわち14.9兆ドルがマイナス利回りであるため、投資家は次善の資産である利回りゼロの金へ引き続きシフトしていくだろう（パネル3）。中央銀行と投資家の双方によるここ数年の金保有増加（パネル4・5）からもこれが明らかである。投資家がマイナス利回りを回避し資本保全に重点を置く動きが続く限り、この傾向は持続すると見ている。 年初以来、地政学的緊張は強まっている：米中間の継続するが決定的でない貿易交渉、さらなる関税の実施、ブレグジットの不確実性、そして中東での最近の軍事攻撃（パネル6）。このような環境は金価格を押し上げ続けるはずだ。 我々は引き続き、今後12か月で加速すると見ているインフレに対するヘッジとして、また世界成長や地政学的状況のさらなる悪化に対するヘッジとして金を推奨する。 Chart 13Gold: Sell Or Hold? ゴールド：売却か保有か？ ゴールド：売却か保有か？ 楽観的シナリオへのリスクは高まっている。我々は依然として逆イールド曲線を懸念している。逆イールド曲線は第二次世界大戦以降のすべての景気後退を正確に予測してきた。 金利はどこまで下がり得るか？ ゼロ下限は過去のものだ。先月、デンマーク中央銀行は金利を-0.75%に引き下げ、スイスの10年国債は主要国として歴史的最低水準の-1.12%に達した。次の景気後退において、理論上金利はさらにどこまで下落し得るだろうか？ 個人にとって、紙幣の保管コストが現金金利の下限を制約する可能性がある。紙幣自体は利回りゼロだからだ（政府が現金を禁止する方法や年会費を課す方法を見出さない限り）。銀行の貸金庫は年間約300ドル、また100万ドルを保管するのに十分なプロ用金庫（100ドル札の山で31 x 55 cm、重さ約10kg）は設置費を含め約2,000ドルである。後者を10年で償却すれば、100万ドルの保管コストは年率約0.2%〜0.3%になる。スイスフラン紙幣（最高額面CHF1,000）は保管コストがより低くなるだろう。しかし、現物金の保管コストは年率約2%である。 金利がこれを下回っている場合、他の制約が存在するはずだ。個人が現金を保管することは危険であり、確実に非常に不便である（税金の支払いのために現金を銀行に運ばなければならないことを想像してみてほしい）。また、例えば10億ドル（重さ10トン）を保管する個人や企業のコストははるかに高くなるだろう。低金利国の歴史を踏まえると（チャート14、パネル1）、現金保有者が政府短期債の銀行預金の代替を模索し始める水準は概ね-1%前後だと我々は考えている。 Chart 14How Low Can They Go? どこまで下がるのか？ どこまで下がるのか？ Chart 15Yield Curves When Rates Are At Zero Or Below 金利がゼロ以下のときのイールドカーブ 金利がゼロ以下のときのイールドカーブ   長期側では、短期金利がゼロまたはマイナスのときにイールドカーブが大きく逆転することは通常ない（チャート15）。今年初めにスイスで観測された3か月/10年の最大逆イールドは-0.05%だった。 したがって、どこであれ10年債の絶対的な最低水準は、たとえ厳しい景気後退の只中であっても概ね-1.1%付近であろうという示唆になる。 これは資産配分担当者にとっての懸念材料だ。現在の水準（スイス-0.8%）からスイス国債が取り得る数学的最大上昇幅は3%であり、ドイツ国債（現-0.5%）では5%である。これはあまり有効なヘッジとは言えない。米国だけが相対的に有利に見える：10年物米国債利回りが0%に低下した場合、トータルリターンは18%になる。   世界経済 Chart 16U.S. Growth Remains Solid 米国の成長は堅調を維持 米国の成長は堅調を維持 概観：世界的に産業部門の成長は弱く、多くの国で製造業PMIが50を下回っている。しかし、消費とサービスはほぼすべての地域で持ち堪えており、製造業比重の高いユーロ圏でも例外ではない。製造業の底打ちの兆しが断続的に見られるが、本格的な回復は中国におけるさらなる金融緩和の規模に依存するだろう。中国当局は2016年に行ったほどの大規模な緩和を展開することには慎重な姿勢を崩していないようだ。 米国：米国の製造業は既に世界の他地域に続いて収縮局面に入っており、ISM製造業景況指数は8月に50を下回った（チャート16、パネル2）。しかし、消費とサービスは概ね好調を維持している。雇用は拡大を続けている（ただし昨年よりやや鈍いペースで、求職者不足が一因かもしれない）、解雇の増加は見られず、消費者信頼感は依然として歴史的高水準に近い（9月にわずかに低下した）。住宅は昨年の減速後に回復しており、最近の議会での予算合意により今後12か月は財政政策がやや拡張的になる見込みだ。設備投資（パネル5）のみが、貿易戦争を巡る不確実性のために企業が投資判断を先送りしている影響で鈍化している。コンセンサスは今年の米国実質GDP成長率を2.2%と見込んでおり、多くの潜在成長率の推定を上回っている。 ユーロ圏：製造業の比重が高いため、欧州の成長は米国より弱い。製造業PMIは2月以来50を下回り、8月にはさらに45.6に低下した。鉱工業生産は前年比で2%縮小している。イタリアは2四半期のマイナス成長を経験しており、ドイツも第3四半期にテクニカルリセッションに入る可能性がある（第2四半期はGDPが0.1%縮小した）。しかし、製造業の底打ちの兆候は断続的に見られる：例えば9月のZEW調査は上振れのサプライズとなった。また、米国同様に消費は強い。製造業比重の高いドイツでも雇用は増加を続け、7月の小売売上高は前年同月比で4.4%増だった。一方、英国ではブレグジットを巡る不確実性が企業の投資を損なっているが、雇用は堅調である。2 Chart 17First Signs Of A Rebound In The Rest Of The World? 世界のその他地域で反発の兆候が見え始めたか？ 世界のその他地域で反発の兆候が見え始めたか？ 日本：消費は既に低下しており、10月に予定された消費税率の引き上げ前でさえ落ち込んでいる。7月の小売売上高は前年比で2%減少し、賃金のマイナス成長と消費者センチメントの5年ぶりの低水準への低下が原因である。製造業は中国の減速と強い円（過去12か月で6%上昇）の影響を受け続けており、輸出は6%減、鉱工業生産は過去3か月で前年比2%減少している。消費税率引上げの影響は自動車税の軽減や高校教育の無償化といった政府の措置により緩和される可能性があるし、中国成長の回復が輸出を押し上げるだろう。しかし、活動の底打ちの兆候はまだ乏しい。 新興市場：中国の成長は安定化しているように見え、製造業・非製造業の両PMIが50を上回っている（チャート17、パネル3）。しかし、景況感は脆弱で、小売売上高の伸びは20年ぶりの低水準に鈍化し、自動車販売は8月に7%減少した。これは新排出基準適合車の導入にもかかわらずである。当局は追加の緩和策（9月の預金準備率の追加引き下げを含む）で対応したが、2016年のような本格的な金融刺激を再度実施することには消極的なようだ。他の新興国では、構造的な問題を抱える国で成長が鈍化している（アルゼンチンの最新の前年比実質GDP成長率は-5.7%、トルコは-1.5%、メキシコは-0.8%）が、他方で比較的堅調なのはインド5%、インドネシア5%、ポーランド4.2%、コロンビア3.4%である。 金利：ほぼすべての中央銀行がハト派に転じており、FRBは2回目の利下げを行い、ECBは資産買入れを再開し、日銀は10月に緩和を示唆した。しかし、さらなる金融緩和は市場の期待よりも小幅にとどまる可能性が高い。FRBは今回の利下げを中間的な修正に過ぎないと示し、追加緩和は考えにくいと示唆した。ECBと日銀には利用可能な手段がほとんど残っていない。成長の底打ちの兆しと、中央銀行のハト派転換が終盤に差し掛かっているという市場の理解を踏まえ、既に米国で1.45%から9月に1.72%へと上昇している長期金利はさらに上昇する可能性が高い。投資家はまた、米国のインフレに注意深く注視すべきである。基調の強さを示す兆候があり、コアCPIは8月に前年比2.4%上昇している（過去3か月の年率換算では最大3.4%に達する）。   世界株式 Chart 18Has Earnings Growth Bottomed? 利益の伸びは底を打ったか？ 利益の伸びは底を打ったか？ 依然として慎重だが、上方リスクに対するヘッジを追加：地政学的リスクや弱まる経済指標といったヘッドラインリスクにもかかわらず、グローバル株式は第3四半期に8ベーシスポイントの小幅な損失にとどまった（チャート18）。総じて、我々のディフェンシブな国別配分は第3四半期によく機能した。先進国（DM）株式は新興国（EM）を4.5%上回り、米国はユーロ圏を2.8%上回った。 ただしセクター配分は期待通りにはいかなかった。ユーティリティーと生活必需品のアンダーウェイト、および資本財、エネルギー、ヘルスケアのオーバーウェイトがすべて逆方向に動いたためである。とはいえマテリアルのアンダーウェイトが損失の一部を相殺するのに寄与した。 四半期の間、債券利回りの大きな変動に合わせて、グローバル株式の世界ではセクターおよび国別のローテーションが明確に見られた。9月には先進国／新興国、米国／ユーロ圏、景気循環株／ディフェンシブ株で一部の反転が確認された。 今後について、BCAのハウスビューは世界経済成長がここ数か月のうちに回復し始めるという見方を維持しているが、以前に予想したよりやや遅れると予想している。したがって、我々のディフェンシブな国別配分は依然として適切だ。4月にユーロ圏と新興国株をアップグレード監視リストに入れたが、世界的な回復の遅れはまだその判断を発動する時ではないことを示している。3 我々は債券利回りが底を打ったとの見方を持っているため4、グローバルのセクター配分で1つ調整を行い、金融セクターをニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げする。資金はヘルスケアのダブルオーバーウェイトを半分にしてオーバーウェイトに削減することで賄う（詳細は次ページ参照）。この調整は、1) ユーロ圏が米国をアウトパフォームする場合、2) 今後の米国大統領選でエリザベス・ウォーレンが勝利する場合、という二つの可能性に対するヘッジにもなる。5  グローバル金融株をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げ Chart 19Upgrade Global Financials グローバル・ファイナンシャルズをアップグレード グローバル・ファイナンシャルズをアップグレード グローバルの金融株の総株式市場に対する相対パフォーマンスは、グローバル債券利回りの動きに大きく影響を受けてきた（Chart 19、パネル1）。9月に債券利回りが急反転したのに伴い、金融株の相対パフォーマンスも反転した。ただし、近年にわたり金融株が幅広い市場に対して大きくアンダーパフォームしてきたことから、チャート上ではほとんど見えない。 債券利回りの急反転がどの程度持続するかは明確ではないが、BCAのハウスビューでは今後9～12か月で債券利回りは上昇すると見ている。したがって、以下の追加的な理由により金融株をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げする。 バリュエーションはパネル2に示されているように非常に魅力的である。さらに重要なのは、相対バリュエーションが現在、歴史的に金融株の相対パフォーマンスの反発を予告してきた極端な水準にあることである。 ローンの質が改善している。米国の不良債権（NPL）比率は世界金融危機（GFC）前に達した底に近づいている。スペインやイタリアにおいてもNPL比率は大幅に低下しているが、GFC前の水準よりは依然高いままである（パネル3）。 米国の消費は堅調で、住宅は回復し、ローン需要は強まっている（パネル4）。シティ・エコノミック・サプライズ・インデックスなどのデータと一致しており、経済指標が底入れした可能性を示唆している。 この格上げを資金繰りするため、ヘルスケアのダブル・オーバーウェイトをオーバーウェイトに引き下げた。これは、来年の米大統領選でエリザベス・ウォーレンが勝利し医薬品価格規制を厳格化するリスクへのヘッジである。 国債 デュレーションはややアンダーウェイトを維持。 第3四半期の最初の2か月間、我々のベンチマーク比デュレーション縮小の判断はグローバル債券市場によって大きく試された。米国の10年物国債利回りは9月3日に1.43%を付けたが、これは米国のISM製造業指数が予想を下回ったことを受けたもので、前四半期末の水準より57ベーシスポイント低く、2016年7月6日に記録した歴史的低水準1.32%をわずかに上回る水準だった。ただし、9月5日以降の債券利回りの反発は、米中貿易政策の起伏だけでなく、Chart 20に示される通り経済指標のサプライズがポジティブだったことにも牽引されている。 BCAのグローバル・デュレーション・インジケーターは、当社のグローバル・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジーチームが複数の先行経済指標を用いて構築したもので、今後世界的に利回り上昇を示唆している。投資家は今後9～12か月間、デュレーションをややアンダーウェイトで維持すべきである。 名目債よりインフレ連動債を優先。 グローバルのインフレ期待も、四半期の最初の2か月間に続いた下降トレンドの後に反発している。これは主に8月にコアCPI、コアPCE、平均時給といった実現インフレ指標が加速したことを反映している。加えて、歴史的に原油価格の変化はインフレ期待と良好な相関を持つ傾向がある。サウジアラビアの石油生産施設への攻撃を受けて原油価格は一時20%急騰した。中東の地政学的緊張がどのように進展するかは不透明だが、サウジ側が主張するように失われた生産の70%を復旧できると仮定すると、OPECの余剰生産能力（日量約180万バレル）が市場の均衡を保ち、残る失われた生産をカバーできるはずである。年末まで原油価格が横ばいで推移するという保守的な前提でも、インフレ期待ははるかに高まる方向にあり、これが名目債よりインフレ連動債を支持する根拠となる。日本およびオーストラリアにおいても、それぞれの名目債よりインフレ連動債を好む（Chart 21）。 Chart 20Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom 債券利回りは底を打った 債券利回りは底を打った Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers リンク債を選好 リンク債を選好 より大胆な中国の景気刺激が実現した場合に恩恵を受ける、景気循環性の高い市場への参入機会を引き続き探している。 社債 我々がフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオ内で景気循環的にクレジットをオーバーウェイトに転じて以来、投資適格社債とハイイールド債は、それぞれデュレーションを合わせた国債に対して220および73ベーシスポイントの超過リターンを生み出している。 我々は今後12か月のクレジット見通しに対して引き続き強気である。年末までにグローバル成長が加速すると予想しているからである。歴史的に見ると、グローバル成長の改善はクレジットが国債に対して持続的にアウトパフォームすることをもたらしてきた。さらに、貸出基準が緩和を続けていることを踏まえれば、デフォルト率は今後1年にわたり抑制されると見られる（Chart 22、パネル1）。 どのくらいの期間クレジットをオーバーウェイトにするのか。米国企業債市場における高いレバレッジ水準、利息支払能力（interest coverage ratio）の低下、およびBaa格付け債の比率の高さは、構造的にクレジットをリスクの高い選択肢にしている。しかし、インフレ期待が依然として非常に低いため、FRBは金融政策を緩和的に保つインセンティブが強い。このハト派的な金融政策は金利コストを抑え、クレジットが今後1年でアウトパフォームするのを助けるだろう。 とはいえ、魅力的なクレジットのカテゴリーには差があると我々は考えている。具体的には、Baa格付けとハイイールド証券を優先することを推奨する。これらのクレジット・バケットにはさらなるスプレッド圧縮の余地が残されているためである（パネル2およびパネル3）。一方で、最上位の信用カテゴリーはもはやバリューを提供していないため避けるべきである（パネル4）。 Chart 22Baa-rated And High-Yield Credit Offer The Most Value Baa格付けおよびハイイールド・クレジットは最も高い価値を提供する Baa格付けおよびハイイールド・クレジットは最も高い価値を提供する   コモディティ Chart 23No Supply Shock In The Oil Market 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位でのヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位でのヘッジ エネルギー（オーバーウェイト）：9月のドローン攻撃はサウジの原油施設に対する供給懸念を引き起こし、攻撃直後の数日間で原油価格は最大で約20%上昇したが、その後攻撃前の水準まで下落した。初期の推計では供給障害は日量約570万バレル、つまり世界供給量の約5.5%に相当し、史上最大の原油供給停止となった。ただし、サウジが主張するように失われた生産の70%を復旧できると仮定すれば、OPECの予備能力である日量約180万バレルが市場を均衡させ、残る失われた生産をカバーできるはずである。より長期的には、経済成長の回復に伴う世界的な原油需要の伸びと供給の緊張が原油価格を押し上げる見込みで、ブレントは今年70ドルに達し、2020年は平均74ドルになると予想される（Chart 23、パネル1およびパネル2）。 工業用金属（ニュートラル）：年初来の中国当局による消極的な刺激策と2019年第2四半期・第3四半期の米ドル高が工業用金属のスポット価格を押し下げてきた。しかし、中国政府は9月に追加の刺激策を発表し、インフラ事業の資金調達のためのさらなる債券発行や金融緩和を行うと表明した（パネル3）。これにより、今後6～12か月で工業用金属価格に上振れ余地が出るはずである。 貴金属（ニュートラル）：年初来の力強いパフォーマンスを踏まえつつも、我々は金に対して依然としてポジティブである。金は景気後退、インフレ、地政学リスクに対する優れたヘッジと見なせるからである。金については第9ページのクライアントからの質問セクションで詳述している。銀も短期的には魅力的に見える。過去20年で銀の利用用途の性質は変化し、主に工業用素材としての側面から、安全資産としての貴金属的側面が強まっている。金と銀の価格の相関は世界金融危機前の平均0.5から危機後は0.8へと上昇している（パネル4およびパネル5）。グローバル成長と政治的不確実性が今後数か月で銀価格を支えるだろう。 通貨 米ドル：4月にニュートラルに転じて以来、貿易加重ドルは2.5%上昇している。利回りの急落は金融条件を緩和し、年末の第4四半期に世界成長を下支えする公算が大きい。米ドルは逆景気循環的な通貨であるため、世界的な成長の回復局面は歴史的にドルにとってネガティブであった。 ユーロ：4月に強気に転じて以来、EUR/USDは2.7%の下落となっている。全体として、我々は景気循環的な時間軸においてEUR/USDに対して引き続きポジティブである。ECBが金利を10ベーシスポイント引き下げ、追加の量的緩和を発表した後、ユーロ圏が米国に対してさらに緩和を続ける余地はあまり残っていない（Chart 24、パネル1）。加えて、ユーロ圏の利益成長見通しが米国に比べて改善することが期待されれば、資金フローは欧州へ向かい、それがEUR/USDを押し上げるだろう（パネル2）。 新興国通貨：当面の間、新興国通貨に対しては弱気の見方を維持する。ただし、年末に向けては格上げ監視中である。世界成長が反転しつつある兆候が複数みられ、これは歴史的に記録的に低い債券利回りがもたらす緩和的な金融環境の結果である。さらに、新興国成長の主要エンジンである中国における限界的な消費傾向（M1成長率とM2成長率の差で代理される）は、新興国通貨のさらなる上昇を示唆し続けている（パネル3）。 Chart 24Interest Rate And Profit Expectation Differentials Favor The Euro ユーロはまもなく急騰するかもしれない。金利と利益期待の差がユーロに有利だ。 ユーロはまもなく急騰するかもしれない。金利と利益期待の差がユーロに有利だ。     オルタナティブ Chart 25Favor Hedge Funds Untill Global Growth Bottoms グローバル成長が底打ちするまでヘッジファンドを推奨 グローバル成長が底打ちするまでヘッジファンドを推奨 リターン増強策：過去12か月にわたり、我々は投資家に対してプライベート・エクイティの配分を減らし、ヘッジファンド、特にマクロ・ヘッジファンドへの配分を増やすことを推奨してきた。これは、我々の判断として景気サイクルが後期にあるためである。成長が今後数か月で回復すると期待しているが、現時点のデータではまだ明確ではない（Chart 25、パネル1）。この不確実なマクロ環境は、特にマルチプルの上昇と買収競争の激化という環境下でプライベート・エクイティにとって厳しいものとなるだろう。グローバル・マクロ・ヘッジファンドは次の景気後退に先立つ最良のヘッジであると引き続き見ており、非流動性資産への配分を変更するには時間がかかるため、投資家には今のうちに資金を配分することを勧める。 インフレ・ヘッジ：現状では、TIPSは非流動性のオルタナティブ資産よりも優れたインフレ・ヘッジである可能性が高い。2019年5月のスペシャルレポート8は、インフレが上昇しているが依然として比較的低い（2.3%未満）局面では、TIPSが特に魅力的なリスク調整後リターンを生み出すことを示している。したがって、FRBがハト派を維持し、金利をもう一度引き下げるかもしれない一方でインフレの中程度の加速を容認するという我々の見通しの下では、TIPSは今後数か月の環境で良好に推移するはずである（パネル2）。 ボラティリティ抑制策：ストラクチャード・プロダクツ、主にモーゲージ担保証券（MBS）は、ポートフォリオのボラティリティを低減する点で優れた実績を持っている（パネル3）。それにもかかわらず、現在の評価は必ずしも魅力的ではないため、MBSへの配分はニュートラルを超えて推奨しない。今シーズンは長期金利が100ベーシスポイント以上低下し、借り換え活動が活発化しているにもかかわらず、名目ベースのMBSスプレッドは史上最低水準付近にとどまっている。ただし、国債利回りが底打ちするにつれて借り換えは減速し、スプレッドに下押し圧力がかかると予想している。当社見解に対するリスク 最も起こり得る上方リスクは、FRB（米連邦準備制度理事会）が過度にハト派になり、対応が遅れることである。米国の基調的なインフレ圧力は依然として強い（コア消費者物価指数は過去3か月で年率換算3.4％上昇）。2回の利下げ後、フェデラルファンド金利は現在中立金利を大きく下回っている：実質で0.1％、Laubach‑Williamsのr*は0.8％に対してである（チャート26）。マネー・マーケットのタイトさからFRBは再びバランスシートの拡大を開始している。来年に製造業の成長が加速し、賃金と利益が上昇し始めれば、1999年のような株式市場のメルトアップが起こり得る。しかし最終的には、インフレを抑えるためにFRBは利上げ（場合によっては急激な利上げ）を行う必要があり、それが次の景気後退を招く可能性がある。 下方リスクの範囲はより広い。 本四半期報告全体で論じた通り、景気後退の引き金になり得る要因は様々ある：特に中国が景気刺激に失敗することや、消費者の信頼の喪失などである。一部の景気後退モデルは今後12か月のリスクを最大30％と見積もっている（チャート27）。構造的に見て、最大のリスクはおそらく米国における企業債務の高水準である（チャート28）。昨年12月に短期間観測されたようなジャンク債市場の崩壊は、今後18か月で満期を迎える大量の債務を企業が借り換えできなくなる事態を招く可能性がある。 地政学的リスクも依然として高止まりしており、その性質上予測が困難である。ブレグジットの帰結は依然として非常に不確実であるが、合意なき離脱のリスクは低いと見ている。米中の貿易協議は包括的な合意なく長期化すると予想しており、明確な決裂はネガティブである。トランプ大統領の弾劾はおそらく市場にとって重大な出来事ではないが、市場心理を一時的に悪化させる可能性がある（特にそれがエリザベス・ウォーレンの当選可能性を高める場合）。イランとサウジ間の紛争がエスカレートする可能性もある。これらの脅威を織り込むためにリスクプレミアムは上昇する必要があるかもしれない。 チャート26FRBは過度にハト派になっているのか？ 米FRBはハト派に傾きすぎているのか？ 米FRBはハト派に傾きすぎているのか？ チャート27景気後退のリスクはどの程度か？ 景気後退のリスクは？ 景気後退のリスクは？ チャート28企業債務が最大のリスクか？ 企業債務は最大のリスクか？ 企業債務は最大のリスクか？   脚注 1詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・スペシャル・レポート、「ユーロ圏の銀行：バリュー・プレイかバリュー・トラップか？」2018年12月14日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 2詳細はフォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート、「英国：循環的減速か構造的停滞か？」2019年9月20日付、fes.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 3詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・クォータリー、「クォータリー - 2019年4月」2019年4月1日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 4詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート、「債券利回りは底を打った,」2019年9月6日付、gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 5詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート、「エリザベス・ウォーレンと市場,」2019年9月13日付、gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 6Dmitry Zhdannikov and Alex Lawler “独占：サウジの石油生産、当初予想より速く回復へ－関係筋,” ロイター、2019年9月17日付。 7詳細はジオポリティカル・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート、「サウジの重要インフラへの攻撃は米国の対応に疑問を投げかける」2019年9月16日付、gps.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 8詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・スペシャル・レポート、「インフレ・ヘッジのための投資家ガイド：インフレ上昇時の投資方法」2019年5月22日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 GAA アセット・アロケーション