Equities

Highlights Since June, 6 structured recommendations achieved their profit targets: short building and construction (XLB) versus healthcare (XLV); long USD/CAD; long USD/HUF; long Nike versus L’Oréal; short corn versus wheat; and short marine transport versus market. Additionally, short AMC Entertainment expired in profit, while short Australian versus Canadian 30-year bonds expired flat. Within the open trades, 3 are in profit. Against this, 2 structured recommendations hit their stop-losses: short Austria versus Chile; and short lead versus platinum. Additionally, short France versus Japan expired in loss. Within the open trades, 6 are in loss. This results in a ‘win ratio’ at a very pleasing 59 percent. Even more commendably, the 9 unstructured recommendations have all anticipated reversals or exhaustions – most notably for the ZAR, BRL, and stocks versus bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekFractal Fragility Correctly Signalled The Exhaustion Of Stocks Versus Bonds A major advance in our understanding of financial markets is that the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is only partly true. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The eponymous Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) teaches us that when the fractal structure becomes extremely fragile, the information and interpretation of longer-term investors is missing from the recent price setting. Meaning that the market has become inefficient. When the longer-term investors do re-enter the price setting process, the question is: will they endorse the most recent trend as a justification of a change in the fundamentals. In which case, the trend will continue. Or will they reject it as an unjustified deviation from a fundamental anchor. In which case, the trend will reverse. In most cases, it is the latter: a rejection and a reversal. As most investors are unaware of the FMH, it gives a competitive advantage to the few investors that use it to signal a potential countertrend reversal. On this basis, we have used it – and continue to use it – to identify countertrend investment opportunities with truly excellent results. Fractal Trade Update This a brief review and update of the 29 short-term trades that we have recommended since our last update on 3rd June 2021, including recommendations that were open on that date. The 29 recommendations have comprised 20 structured trades – which include profit-targets, symmetrical stop-losses, and expiry dates – plus a further 9 recommendations without structured exit points. In summary, 6 structured recommendations achieved their profit targets: short building and construction (XLB) versus healthcare (XLV); long USD/CAD; long USD/HUF; long Nike versus L’Oréal; short corn versus wheat; and short marine transport versus market. Additionally, short AMC Entertainment expired in profit, while short Australian versus Canadian 30-year bonds expired flat. Within the open trades, 3 are in profit. Against this, 2 structured recommendations hit their stop-losses: short Austria versus Chile; and short lead versus platinum. Additionally, short France versus Japan expired in loss. Within the open trades, 6 are in loss. This results in a ‘win ratio’ at a very pleasing 59 percent – counting a win as achieving the profit target, a loss as hitting the (symmetrical) stop-loss, and pro-rata for partial wins and losses. Even more commendably, the 9 unstructured recommendations have all anticipated reversals or exhaustions. The sections below review the structured and unstructured recommendations in chronological order. The 20 Structured Trades 1.  6th May: Short Building and Construction (PKB) vs. Healthcare (XLV) Achieved its profit target of 15 percent. 2.  6th May: Short MSCI France vs. Japan Expired after three months in partial loss but went on to become very profitable – implying that a longer holding period was required (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Short France Versus Japan Became Very Profitable 3.  13th May: Long USD/CAD Achieved its profit target of 3.7 percent and went on to reach a high-water mark of 5.7 percent. 4.  20th May: Long 10-year T-bond vs. TIPS Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 2.7 percent (versus a 3.6 percent target). 5.  3rd June: Short MSCI Austria vs. Chile Hit its stop-loss of 7 percent, albeit after previously reaching a high-water mark of 5.3 percent – implying that the profit target needed to be tighter. 6.  10th June: Short AMC Entertainment Expired at a 4 percent profit, having reached a high-water mark of 65.3 percent (versus a 100 percent target) (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Fractal Analysis Works Very Well For Meme Stocks 7.  10th June: Long USD/HUF Achieved its 3 percent profit target, before continuing to a high-water mark of 7.6 percent (Chart I-4). Chart I-4HUF/USD Corrected By 7.6 Percent 8.  17th June: Long Nike vs. L’Oréal Achieved its 9 percent profit target, before continuing to a high-water mark of 31.3 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5L’Oréal Underperformed Nike By 31 Percent 9.  24th June: Short Corn vs. Wheat  Achieved its 12 percent profit target, before continuing to a high-water mark of 38.7 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Corn Underperformed Wheat By 39 Percent 10.  1st July: Short US REITs vs. Utilities  Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 3 percent (versus a 5 percent target). 11.  8th July: Short Marine Transport vs. Market Achieved its profit target of 16.5 percent. 12.  15th July: Short Lead vs. Platinum Hit its stop loss of 6.4 percent. 13.  15th July: Short Australia vs. Canada 30-year T-Bonds Expired flat. 14.  5th August: Short Tin vs. Platinum Open, in loss, albeit having reached a high-water mark of 9.3 percent (versus a 16.5 percent target). 15.  12th August: Long MSCI Hong Kong vs. MSCI World Open, in loss. 16.  12th August: Long New Zealand vs. Netherlands Open, in loss. 17.  19th August: Short India vs. China Open, in loss (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Outperformance Of India Versus China Is Fractally Fragile 18.  26th August: Short Sugar vs. Soybeans Open, in loss. 19.  2nd September: Short Aluminum vs. Gold Open, in loss (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Outperformance Of Base Metals Versus Precious Metals Is Fractally Fragile 20.  9th September: Short US Medical Equipment vs. Healthcare Services Open, in profit. The 9 Unstructured Trades 1.  10th June: Short ZAR/USD ZAR/USD subsequently corrected by 12 percent. 2.  24th June: Short Copper Copper’s rally subsequently exhausted. 3.  1st July: Short MSCI ACWI vs. 30-year T-bond The rally in stocks versus bonds has subsequently exhausted (Chart of the Week). 4.  8th July: Short BRL/COP BRL/COP subsequently corrected by 4 percent. 5.  8th July: Short Saudi Tadawul All-Share vs. FTSE Malaysia All Share KLCI The rally in Saudi Arabian equities versus Malaysian equities subsequently exhausted. 6.  12th August: Long NOK/GBP        NOK/GBP has subsequently rallied by 3 percent. 7.  26th August: Short Hungary vs. EM Hungary’s outperformance is losing steam. 8.  26th August: Short USD/PLN USD/PLN subsequently corrected by 3 percent. 9.  2nd September: Short Trade Weighted US Dollar Index The dollar rally is meeting near-term resistance.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Mohamed El Shennawy Research Associate Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations 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  

Last week’s PPI release came in strong, beating expectations and posting its eighth consecutive print of a higher-than-forecasted YoY increase. The release confirms that supply chains remain clogged and that businesses are forced to hike prices to offset pricing pressures. Anecdotally, the Suez Canal was briefly blocked once again last week as if foreshadowing more supply-side pain ahead. PPI internals also send the same message with goods inflation outpacing both the headline number and the services inflation (see chart). Given that service-producing industries are less reliant on raw materials, we expect the same divergence between goods and services PPI to hold over the coming several prints. Meanwhile our house view remains that the ongoing inflationary spike will be transitory in nature, and as businesses replenish inventories, inflation data will stabilize at lower levels. Please stay tuned for tomorrow’s Sector Insight report where we will update our Corporate Pricing Power table. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regular weekly report, I will be hosting two webcasts where I will discuss our view on China’s economy and financial markets. I will also address the topics that our clients are most concerned about, including China’s regulatory developments, inflation, and policy direction. The webcasts will be held on Wednesday, September 22 at 10:00 am EDT (English), and Thursday, September 23 at 9:00 am HKT (Mandarin). I look forward to discussing with you during the webcast. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Wednesday, September 29. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights China is facing cyclical inflationary pressures more than disinflationary ones. Prices of mining, raw materials and manufacturing goods have been rising at record rates. Chinese manufacturers are operating at close to full production, which suggests that there is little slack in demand. Despite soft headline readings in consumer prices, the costs of goods and services have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Prices for home durable goods, fuel and utilities have surged to multiyear highs. Measures to boost domestic demand will be limited as long as inflationary pressures continue and manufacturers produce at close to full capacity. Near-term policy support will likely focus on reducing costs for manufacturers and improving wage growth for lower-income households. We are initiating a trade: long industrial stocks/short A-shares.  Feature China’s Producer Price index (PPI) registered a 13-year high in August, at the time when the domestic economy continued to slow. On the other hand, consumer prices (CPI) - both headline and core CPI - have been lackluster. The acceleration in producer inflation and the demand dynamics raise the question whether China is in a stagflation, a situation in which prices climb but wages and demand do not follow. Consequentially, economy policy faces a dilemma between boosting demand and containing inflation. Inflationary pressures have been driven by pandemic-related factors and the supply-side constraints will likely continue into Q1 next year. These inflationary pressures, and more importantly, undercurrents in the inflation prints, will constrain Chinese policymakers’ efforts to reflate the economy. The recent rebound in Chinese infrastructure stocks is overdone. Material stocks are also vulnerable to price setbacks. Global commodity prices will soften, although from very elevated levels. Meanwhile, we are initiating a trade: long Chinese industrial stocks relative to the A-share market. Despite falling profit growth in recent months, China’s leadership is increasing its support, both cyclically and structurally, to the manufacturing sector. Inflation Or Deflation? The details in both the PPI and CPI readings indicate that China is facing more inflationary pressures than disinflationary ones. Producers are raising prices across the board. Although consumer prices will likely remain well below the PBoC's 3% inflation target for the year mainly due to low food prices, prices in some of the key consumer goods segments are rising at an alarming pace. The inflationary pressures will continue for producers, at least through the first quarter of 2022. The strength in August’s PPI was concentrated in mining and raw materials (Chart 1, top panel). Robust global demand and tight supply conditions supported high oil and base metals prices, while pushing up coal prices. Chart 1Chinese Mining And Manufacturing Goods Prices Accelerated To Record Highs Chart 2Commodity Prices Held Up Despite A Slowing China We do not expect China’s infrastructure investment growth to pick up and support industrial metal prices. However, this year’s unsynchronized recovery in global demand and severe supply shortages have delayed the global commodity market’s price reaction to slowing Chinese demand (Chart 2). Moreover, as China’s environmental policy remains stringent during the upcoming winter, supply-side constraints from production cuts will partially offset the slowdown in China’s demand for mining and raw materials (Chart 3A and 3B). Chart 3ASupply-Side Constraints And Chinese Production Cuts Likely To Continue Into Early 2022 Chart 3BSupply-Side Constraints And Chinese Production Cuts Likely To Continue Into Early 2022 Manufacturing goods inflation registered its topmost annual growth since data collection started in 1996 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Moreover, capacity utilization rates in the industrial and manufacturing sectors are at the highest levels since 2007, well above their means (Chart 4). Changes in manufacturing capacity are highly correlated with China’s export growth and tightly linked to PPI (Chart 5). Therefore, manufacturing goods prices will remain lofty as long as external demand stays robust and China’s manufacturers continue to produce near maximum output. Chart 4Chinese Manufacturers Are Producing Near Their Max Capacity Chart 5Robust Exports Have Been Supporting Strong Chinese Manufacturing Output The PPI’s weakest component has been consumer goods, which inched up by a mere 0.3% from a year ago (Chart 6). However, consumer goods only account for 25% of PPI, whereas industrial and manufacturing producer goods are 75%. In addition, the underlying data shows that among the four sub-components in the PPI’s consumer goods, only food prices have remained below their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 7, top panel). Prices in durable goods have rebounded strongly since March last year and clothing and daily sundry articles have recovered to their end-2019 rate of growth (Chart 7, mid and bottom panels).  Chart 6Producer Prices For Consumer Goods Remain Soft... Chart 7...But Food Prices Have Been The Main Drag The PPI’s price forces are consistent with the CPI, in which food has been the main drag. Core CPI, along with prices for consumer goods and services, have returned to pre-pandemic growth rates (Chart 8). Durable goods prices, such as home appliances, increased to a multiyear high in August. Fuel and utilities costs have also risen. This suggests that despite the soft CPI readings, inflation has flowed from producers to Chinese consumers through manufacturing goods. The passthrough will likely intensify into Q4 when domestic COVID-cases have been largely brought under control and the September – October holiday season will boost consumption for both goods and services. Chart 8Prices For Other Consumer Goods Categories Have Recovered Table 1A Look At China’s CPI Basket – Food Dominates We still expect that headline CPI will remain below the PBoC’s 3% inflation target for the year. Consumer durable goods prices are lightly weighted in China’s CPI, therefore, an acceleration in inflation passthroughs in this component is unlikely to significantly push up the CPI aggregates (Table 1). Chart 9Prices For Healthcare And Education Services On A Structural Downshift In addition, there are some structural headwinds that will affect prices in the education and healthcare and medical services components, which together account for about 15% of the CPI. Healthcare prices have been on a policy-driven structural downshift since late 2017 and recent regulatory changes in the education industry will depress pricing power in that sector (Chart 9). Despite sluggish aggregate consumer prices, climbing prices in consumer durable goods, services and particularly, fuel and utilities, will likely force China’s leadership to take action on policy. Bottom Line: Price pressures for Chinese producers remain intense and consumers will feel the heat of escalating prices in durable goods, fuel and utilities. Inflation is threatening domestic demand, which is already slowing from its peak earlier this year. Implications On Policy Response Inflation readings –even though they are lagging economic indicators –bear significant forward-looking market implications because changes in inflation dynamics herald various policy responses. Despite slower economic growth, higher inflation coupled with accommodative monetary and fiscal policies may indicate that the economy is in a “goldilocks” stage and corporate profits can still benefit (Chart 10). Chinese onshore stocks reached record high recently (Chart 11). Chart 10Are Chinese Corporates In A 'Sweet Spot'? Chart 11Accommodative Monetary Conditions Propelled Chinese Stock Prices To Highest Since 2015 However, underlying trends in China’s producer and consumer inflation prints raise the risks that policymakers may not deliver the ingredients needed for a “just right” scenario. Even though China has kept a loose monetary policy that we expect to extend into next year, inflationary pressures may force policymakers to either delay or reduce the magnitude of stimulus. Recent policy moves show that the authorities are focused on reducing input cost burdens and bumping up support for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are highly concentrated in mid- to downstream manufacturing and services sectors. In our view, the recent rhetoric from policymakers further reduces the odds of any broadly based stimulus to boost demand. Our view is based on the following observations: The elevated global input costs and limited price passthroughs to consumers are depressing Chinese manufacturers’ profit margins and incentives to expand production capacity. Despite strong exports and production, manufacturing investment has lagged that in infrastructure and real estate this year (Chart 12). Consumers, particularly lower-income households, are bearing most of the burdens; rising costs and slow wage growth are weakening their propensity to spend (Chart 13). Chart 12Slower Manufacturing Investment Recovery Than Infrastructure And Real Estate So Far This Year Chart 13Slow Wage Growth Limits The Pace Of Consumption Recovery The inflation prints came at the time when China’s top leadership shifted its structural policy goals to reduce income inequality and stabilize manufacturing share in the aggregate economy. The structural goals will likely be reflected in policy responses to the cyclical challenge.  Moreover, this year’s manufacturing production volume was growing twice as fast as producer prices, a reversal from 2017 when price increases outpaced production (Chart 14). Price changes are much more important to corporate profits than volume changes. A strong RMB and sharply escalating shipping costs have also reduced exporters’ pricing power and profits (Chart 15). In contrast, mounting prices across various commodities have allowed the upstream industrial sectors, which are dominated by SOEs, to deliver much stronger profits than the downstream and private sector (Chart 16). Chart 14Growth In Manufacturing Output And Prices Starting To Converge Chart 15Strong RMB And Rising Shipping Costs Have Reduced Chinese Exporters' Profitability   It is unsurprising that authorities are increasing support to the private sector in order to maintain manufacturing share in the economy and keep the export sector competitive (Chart 17). A boost in infrastructure investment, on the other hand, would exacerbate upward pressure on commodity prices and mostly benefit upstream SOEs. Chart 16Upstream Industries Disproportionally Benefited From Surging Commodity Prices Chart 17Private Sector: Lower Profit Margin, Higher Costs Furthermore, stimulating the traditional sectors would not revive household consumption. The subdued recovery in consumption and prices for consumer staple goods is due to slow growth in lower-income household wages and a disrupted recovery in the services sector. Ramping up infrastructure investment can support headline GDP growth, but will do little to provide jobs and wages since China’s private sector provides 80% of all jobs and 90% of annual job creations. Lower-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume. We expect the government to accelerate fiscal support measures to fortify wages among lower-income households. Bottom Line: Ongoing inflationary pressures and the underlying forces will likely thwart policymakers from stepping up their efforts to stimulate the old economy sectors. Investment Conclusions Chart 18Rebound In Infrastructure Stocks Should Be Short-Lived Chinese onshore stocks in the infrastructure, materials, and industrial sectors recently advanced strongly in the expectation that policymakers will ramp up their fiscal support in the old economy sectors, particularly infrastructure. Although we agree that infrastructure investment will improve, we maintain our view that a sizable rebound is highly unlikely this year. Hence, we do not expect that the rally in infrastructure stocks will be long-lasting (Chart 18).  We are probably too late in the cycle to re-initiate our long material/broad market trade in the onshore and offshore equity markets (Chart 19). We closed the trade in December last year when Chinese policymakers started pulling back stimulus, and in expectations that raw material prices would tumble. However, we underestimated the intensity of China’s de-carbonization efforts and protracted global supply-side constraints. Although global commodity prices will remain elevated into 2022, the price rallies from this year are not sustainable on a cyclical (6- to 12-month) basis. Therefore, we do not recommend material stocks as a cyclical play.  Chart 19Price Rally In Materials Stocks Unlikely To Sustain Chart 20Industrial Stocks May Be On A Structural Upcycle Instead, we recommend a long industrial/broad A-share market trade (Chart 20). Even though China is in a late business cycle and the upcoming stimulus will be mediocre at best, we think that the industrial sector will benefit from policy support for investment in the manufacturing sector and a faster pace in the sector’s capacity expansion.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Economy – A partial undoing of 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is in the works as Congress takes up the Biden Administration’s infrastructure agenda: A modest increase in the marginal corporate tax rate to help fund infrastructure investment is being discussed on Capitol Hill. We do not expect the ultimate agreement will meaningfully impact output. Markets – Equities appear to have taken little note of the tax-hike debate, and there are worries that investors are being overly complacent about the potential implications: Earnings estimates do not seem to reflect the impact of higher taxes on companies’ bottom lines. Based on the proposals that are reportedly being discussed, however, we think the impact on S&P 500 earnings will be modest. Strategy – A tax hike alone does not justify broad asset allocation shifts, though adjusting positions within equity portfolios could have promise: The effects from a marginal rate increase will be felt most strongly at the individual stock level, based on differences in effective tax rates. Feature We have shown that bear markets (light red shading) and recessions (gray shading) tend to coincide, while stocks generally march higher during economic expansions (Chart 1). We have also shown that the S&P 500 performs considerably better when monetary policy is easy (the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium) than when it is tight (fed funds exceeds our equilibrium estimate). While an investor could do a lot worse than mechanically tie his/her equity positioning to the state of the business cycle and/or the monetary policy cycle, it is not easy to recognize the onset of a recession in real time or accurately assess the equilibrium fed funds rate. We are confident, however, that a recession will not occur in time to sour the twelve-month outlook unless a vaccine-resistant strain of COVID emerges and that monetary policy is at least a couple years from turning restrictive. Chart 1Bear Markets Coincide With Recessions There is more to asset allocation than monetary policy settings and the state of the business cycle, but they currently call for a default equity overweight in multi-asset portfolios. Per our process, an investor must have a very good reason for overriding that default. A blow to earnings from a corporate tax hike that has not been discounted could provide that reason, especially when valuations are extremely elevated. Although it is difficult to know exactly what markets are discounting at any given moment, it seems clear that equity analysts have not put a great deal of effort into estimating the impact of a tax hike on the earnings of the companies in their coverage universe. The good news is that our base-case scenario suggests that the tax changes most likely to make it through Congress will deal the bull a glancing blow rather than a knockout punch. We estimate that a statutory increase in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25% would clip S&P 500 earnings by about 5%. Against a backdrop of unusually conservative four-quarter earnings expectations, the lagged effects of extraordinarily accommodative monetary and fiscal support, and a paucity of alternatives, the equity bull market appears to be capable of weathering a modest tax hike. The Gap Between Marginal And Effective Tax Rates The byzantine nature of the United States tax code creates myriad opportunities for the spectrum of companies subject to its provisions. Tailored tax advice is a thriving cottage industry that employs hundreds of thousands of well-paid accountants, attorneys and specialists in structuring transactions to minimize clients’ outlays. The upshot of the various incentives embedded in the code is that the marginal tax rate – the tax owed on an additional dollar of earnings – may diverge from the effective tax rate – the share of an entity's aggregate earnings that are paid in taxes. Based on the relative favoritism the code bestows upon a particular activity, or the disparate way it treats domestic and foreign operations, effective tax rates can vary widely at the industry level. Of the 392 S&P 500 constituents that owed income tax in their last full year of operations, 60% had an all-in effective tax rate that fell below the 21% statutory federal rate.1 After allowing for state and local income tax levies, the distribution of effective rates shows that a considerable majority of companies manage to pay less than the marginal rate (Chart 2A). The potential for reducing the effective rate is directly related to a company’s size (presumably because the biggest companies are most likely to have multinational activities): the 30 largest tax-paying constituents, accounting for over one-half of the index's tax-paying market-cap, were even more adept at staying below the all-in marginal rate (Chart 2B). Chart 2AS&P 500 Constituents Pay Less Than The Stated Tax Rate ... Chart 2B... Especially If They're Mega-Caps If every S&P 500 constituent’s effective tax rate equaled the marginal tax rate, an increase to 25% from 21% would result in a 5.1% decrease in S&P 500 earnings, as net income would fall from 79 cents of every dollar of pre-tax income to 75 cents. The income decline would be permanent, assuming no further tax-rate changes, and would merit an equivalent decline in the index. Changes in long-run fundamental prospects are not reflected instantaneously in stock prices, however, and it is uncertain just when the market would account for it. There are additionally some near-term buffers to declines in forward four-quarter estimates that might mask any drag from a tax hike. If A Long-Term Tree Falls, Will It Make A Sound? The future is unknowable, but we have at least a puncher’s chance of anticipating what’s to come over short segments like a quarter or a year. The ecosystem of publicly held companies largely operates within that one-to-four-quarter timeframe: companies report quarterly results, as do asset managers, and nearly everyone professionally involved with public equities is subject to compensation structures with annual performance incentives. A share of stock may entitle its owner to a proportional share of earnings in perpetuity, but the next four quarters loom large in the market’s calculus, even to the point of obscuring nearly everything that may come after them. It follows, then, that surprises affecting the outlook for the next year may muffle the market’s reaction to tax negotiations on Capitol Hill. We repeat that consensus analyst expectations for the coming four quarters are modest relative to history and the current macroeconomic backdrop. Now that the second quarter is in the books, analysts are calling for a slight earnings retrenchment, with earnings falling nearly 7% in the third quarter before rising 4% and 1% in the next two quarters, respectively, to settle in the first quarter of 2022 at a level 2% below the quarter just ended. They are not projected to top last quarter’s high-water mark until the second quarter of 2022 (Table 1). Table 1A Low Bar It is possible that earnings will grow that slowly – the pandemic is not over, corporate profit margins may narrow if companies are unable to raise prices enough to cover their rising input costs, fiscal support for the economy is waning, and financial conditions may tighten as the Fed dials back monetary accommodation at the margin – but it would be unlikely on two counts. First, it would counter the empirical record. Earnings have tended to grow, quarter-on-quarter, during expansions (Chart 3). Chart 3That's Why They're Called Expansions Second, it would fly in the face of the red-hot macroeconomic backdrop. The lagged effects of extraordinarily accommodative monetary and fiscal policy settings have real US GDP poised to grow at a pace well above its long-run potential trend through the end of 2022. The equity market is indifferent to quarterly GDP releases, which come out every 63 trading days with a one-month lag and are subject to two revisions that arrive after 21-session intervals, but trailing four-quarter GDP is highly correlated with trailing four-quarter sales (Chart 4, top) and earnings per share (Chart 4, bottom). We of course prefer forward-looking models to backward-looking data but the persistence of economic cycles, especially as they have lengthened across the postwar era, confers some useful predictive properties on trailing data. Chart 4GDP Growth Influences Revenue And Earnings Growth Earnings are a function of revenues (units times price per unit) and margins (per-unit profitability) and robust GDP growth would seem to be tied only loosely to the latter. Over the last three decades, however, growth in S&P 500 earnings per share has been as correlated with GDP growth as growth in revenue per share. Margins are already elevated (Chart 5) and rising cost pressures threaten to squeeze them unless companies can pass on costs to their customers, but the volume pickup embedded in potent real GDP growth will mitigate some of the downward pressure. Chart 5Elevated For Longer? We will have to wait and see how much pricing power companies have, as it will probably take several months before a clear picture begins to emerge. If they can make price hikes stick, margins will hold up, earnings will keep rising and the S&P 500 should power through the meager year-end 2021 and 2022 targets offered by a panel of buy- and sell-side strategists in last week’s Barron’s. We think it is plausible that households, flush with found money from pandemic fiscal transfers and/or financial and housing market appreciation, may prove to be relatively price-insensitive until they work down their windfalls. Vibrant demand could push companies to increase capacity, boosting hiring and capex, stoking more demand in a self-reinforcing post-pandemic honeymoon. The boom would not go on forever, but such a scenario would yield more upside for financial markets and the economy than the increasingly wary consensus projects. Revisiting Lower Fifth Avenue’s Retail Corridor To landlords’ chagrin, businesses’ real estate costs are a source of margin relief. We returned to lower Fifth Avenue to update our retail rental survey and found that little changed between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Two storefronts that were vacant at the end of May have since been rented by pandemic winners Tonal (interactive home gyms) and Hoka (high-performance running shoes), filling two corner locations in the northern half of the corridor (Figure 1). Four storefronts that were occupied by apparel retailers on our last tour – Gap, Gap Kids and Gap Body, and Rigby & Peller, a specialty purveyor of lingerie and swimwear – are vacant now (Figure 2). The net two-store decline has reduced the retail occupancy rate on Fifth Avenue between 14th Street and 23rd Street to 60% from 63%. Figure 1Fifth Avenue Storefronts, 19th Street To 23rd Street Figure 2Fifth Avenue Storefronts, 14th Street To 19th Street According to the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), average and median asking rents along the corridor have fallen by 3% and 21%, respectively, since Fall 2020. The excess of storefront supply over demand is a modest inflation corrective in an economy in which the partial release of pent-up demand has exceeded the uneven restoration of supply across several categories. REBNY’s semi-annual rental research survey left no doubt that retail tenants have the upper hand in Gotham and we’d suspect that office tenants do as well. The current market offers tenants ample availability and reduced leasing costs. Some firms recently capitalized on the conditions[,] … includ[ing] [upscale British furniture] retailer … Timothy Oulton [which leased over 7,000 square feet of space across three levels at 20th and Broadway, a block east of Fifth Avenue]. Additionally, an array of smaller service-oriented retailers such as dry cleaners, dance studios and barber shops are locking in favorable terms or shifting to better locations.2 Investment Implications The investment implications of the equity market’s seeming nonchalance regarding looming corporate tax hikes will probably be most keenly felt at the sector, sub-industry or individual stock level. Though we do not see meaningful asset allocation consequences, the disparity in effective tax rates at the sector level (Table 2) hints at disparities across sub-industries and individual stocks. With input from equity analysts, it should be possible to assemble baskets of stocks based on their sensitivity to a higher marginal income tax rate. Table 2One Size Does Not Fit All As Barron’s September 6th Fall Investment Outlook feature highlighted, buy-side CIOs and sell-side strategists have adopted a measured tone. Year-end 2021 S&P 500 targets hover around the index’s current level and top-down 2022 projections offer no more than grudging upside. Tightening margins are a leading fundamental concern, along with rising inflation pressures, and elevated valuations contribute to the sense of unease. A chorus of “This won’t end well” intonations suggests that stocks may have a wall of worry to scale before the spoilsport consensus can claim validation. Regarding inflation concerns, asset allocators should bear in mind that stocks are an inflation hedge relative to cash and bonds. They should also recognize that high inflation does not derail equities; tight monetary policy in response to high inflation, which involves higher interest rates as part of a deliberate effort to throttle an overheating economy, derails equities. Investors conditioned to a predictably rapid Fed response may view this as a distinction without a difference. Per our house view that the fed funds liftoff date is over a year away and the sustained series of rate hikes required to tighten policy is well more than another year out, however, TINA's influence may become even more pronounced before this bull market ends. We remain vigilant, but we think it is too early to head for cover.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The term “all-in” recognizes that US corporations uniformly incur tax liabilities at the state level in addition to their federal obligations. The average marginal 2021 state income tax rate is 6.6%. 2  REBNY_Manhattan_Retail_Spring_2021.pdf

Highlights Stocks tend to perform worse when unemployment is low. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has risen at an annualized pace of 12% when the unemployment rate was above its historic average compared to 6% when the unemployment rate was below its average. Three reasons help explain this relationship: 1) The unemployment rate has historically been mean-reverting; 2) Low unemployment often leads to monetary tightening; and 3) Valuations are usually more stretched when unemployment is low. In the spring of 2020, stocks benefited from what turned out to be a very auspicious environment: A steady decline in the unemployment rate from very high levels, assisted by a massive dose of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Today, the situation is less clear-cut. The labor market has improved dramatically, while both monetary and fiscal policy are turning less accommodative. Nevertheless, the Fed is unlikely to hike rates for at least 12 months, and it will take much longer than that for monetary policy to turn restrictive. This suggests that we are still in the middle-to-late stages of a business cycle expansion that began following the Great Recession (and was only briefly interrupted by the pandemic). Historically, cyclical stocks have done well during this phase of the business cycle. To the extent that cyclicals are overrepresented in overseas indices, investors should favor non-US stock markets. Non-US stocks also trade at a substantial valuation discount to their US peers. A Surprising Relationship One of the best pieces of advice I received when I was starting my research career was to get to the punchline as soon as possible. As a strategist, you are not writing a detective novel where the answers are shrouded in mystery until the very end. You are providing conclusions to readers with supporting evidence. Chart 1Stocks Do Best When Unemployment Is High With that in mind, let me answer the question posed in the title of this report: Is low unemployment good or bad for stocks? As Chart 1 shows, the answer is bad. The interesting issues are why it is bad and what this may mean for investors today. There are three key reasons why low unemployment has typically corresponded with paltry equity returns: The unemployment rate has historically been mean-reverting: Low unemployment is often followed by high unemployment. And, when the unemployment rate starts rising, it keeps rising. There has never been a case in the post-war era where the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession occurring (Chart 2). Chart 2When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising Low unemployment often leads to monetary tightening: An economy can only grow at an above-trend pace if there is labor market slack. Once the slack runs out, growth is liable to weaken as supply-side constraints kick in. Worse yet, labor market overheating has historically prompted central banks to raise rates (Chart 3). Higher rates in the context of slowing growth is toxic for stocks. Valuations are usually more stretched when unemployment is low: During the post-war period, the S&P 500 has traded at an average Shiller P/E ratio of 22.5 when the unemployment rate was below its historic average compared to 16.3 when the unemployment rate was above its average. Implications For The Present Day Stocks fare best when unemployment is high but falling. In contrast, stocks fare the worst when unemployment is low and rising (Chart 4). My colleague Doug Peta, BCA’s Chief US Investment Strategist, reached a similar conclusion in his August report entitled Level Or Direction? Chart 3Low Unemployment Often Leads To Monetary Tightening Chart 4Stocks Do Best When Unemployment Is Falling From High Levels   In the spring of 2020, stocks benefited from what turned out to be a very auspicious environment: A steady decline in the unemployment rate from very high levels, assisted by a massive dose of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Controversially at the time, this led us to argue that the pandemic could lead to much higher stock prices. Chart 5There Is Still Slack Today, the situation is less clear-cut. On the one hand, the unemployment rate has fallen dramatically, while monetary and fiscal policy are turning less accommodative. This week, the ECB reduced the pace of net asset purchases under the PEPP. The Fed will start paring back asset purchases by the end of this year. Governments are also withdrawing fiscal policy support. In the US, emergency federal unemployment benefits expired, somewhat ironically, on Labor Day. On the other hand, the unemployment rate in most economies is still above pre-pandemic levels. In the US, the unemployment rate for prime-age workers is 1.7 percentage points higher than in February 2020, while the employment-to-population ratio is 2.4 points lower (Chart 5). The presence of labor market slack ensures that policy support will be withdrawn only gradually.   Granted, core CPI inflation in the US is running above 4%. Standard Taylor Rule equations suggest that the Fed funds rate should be well above zero (Chart 6). That said, these equations use realized inflation, which may be misleading given that both market participants and Fed officials expect inflation to fall rapidly (Chart 7). Indeed, the widely followed 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 8).1 With long-term inflation expectations still subdued, there is no urgency for the Fed to sound more hawkish. Chart 6What Rate Does The Taylor Rule Prescribe? Chart 7Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Muted Cyclical Stocks Usually Do Best In The Latter Innings Of The Business Cycle Expansion Monetary policy is unlikely to become restrictive in any major economy during the next 18 months, which should allow global growth to remain at an above-trend pace. Hence, it is too early to turn bearish on stocks. Nevertheless, given that the unemployment rate in most countries is closer to a trough than to a peak, it is reasonable to conclude that we are somewhere in the middle-to-late stages of a business cycle expansion that began following the Great Recession (and was only briefly interrupted by the pandemic). As Chart 9 shows, cyclical equity sectors, such as industrials, energy, and materials, typically do best in the latter innings of business cycle expansions. Such was the environment that prevailed in 2005-08, and such will be the environment that prevails over the coming quarters as the unemployment rate falls further, capital spending increases, and commodity prices rise further. Chart 9The Business Cycle And Equity Sectors Increased government infrastructure spending should help cyclical sectors. The US Congress is set to pass a 10-year $500 billion package. The EU’s €750 billion Next Generation fund is finally up and running. Chinese local government infrastructure spending is poised to accelerate over the remainder of the year.   Chart 10The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 11Past Another Covid Wave A weaker US dollar should also buoy cyclical stocks (Chart 10). As a countercyclical currency, the greenback usually weakens when global growth is strong. A cresting in the Delta variant wave should help jumpstart global growth over the coming months (Chart 11). Meanwhile, interest rate differentials have moved sharply against the US dollar, while the US trade deficit has widened noticeably (Charts 12A & B).   Chart 12AInterest Rate Differentials Have Moved Against The Dollar Chart 12BThe US Trade Deficit Has Widened Noticeably Cyclical sectors are overrepresented outside the US (Table 1). Although not a classically cyclical sector, financials are also overrepresented in overseas indices. BCA’s global fixed-income strategists recommend a moderately underweight duration stance. As bond yields rise, bank shares should outperform (Chart 13). In contrast, tech stocks often lag in a rising yield environment. Table 1Cyclicals Are Overrepresented Outside The US Chart 13Higher Rates: A Boon For Banks And A Bane For Tech How Expensive Are Stocks? A high Shiller P/E predicts low future returns (Chart 14). Today, the Shiller P/E stands at 37 in the US. This is consistent with an expected 10-year total real return of close to zero for the S&P 500. Thus, the long-term outlook for US stocks is poor. We stress the words “long term.” As the bottom panel of Chart 14 shows, no matter what the starting point of valuations is, the average return over short-term horizons is very low relative to realized volatility. This is another way of saying that valuations provide a great deal of information about the long-term outlook for stocks, but little information about their near-term direction. Over horizons of about 12 months, the business cycle drives the stock market, as a simple comparison between purchasing manager indices and stock returns illustrates (Chart 15).   Chart 14Valuation Is The Single Best Predictor Of Long-Term Equity Returns Chart 15AThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks Chart 15BThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks Outside the US, the Shiller P/E stands at 20. In emerging markets, it is only 16 (Chart 16). This is significantly below US levels, implying that the long-term prospect for equities is much more attractive abroad. Thus, both medium-term cyclical factors and long-term valuation considerations favor non-US stocks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Chart 16US Stocks Are Pricey Footnotes 1  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores