Sectors

Highlights 2018 YTD Summary: Investment grade corporate debt in the developed economies has performed poorly so far in 2018, led by lagging returns in Financials and some steepening of credit curves. U.S. credit has outperformed European equivalents. These trends are likely to continue over at least the next six months. Our Sector Portfolios: Our investment grade sector model portfolios have underperformed modestly so far in 2018 (-3bps each in the U.S., euro area & U.K.) - primarily due to our overweight stance on Financials which have performed poorly. Looking Ahead: We are maintaining a neutral level of target spread risk (i.e. duration-times-spread equal that of the benchmark index) in our sector model portfolios for the U.S., euro area and U.K. We will look to reduce that spread risk on signs of a deeper global growth slowdown, which we expect will unfold in 2019. Feature Chart of the WeekReversal Of Fortune The performance of investment grade (IG) corporate bonds in the developed markets, as an asset class, has been underwhelming so far in 2018. Using the total return indices from Bloomberg Barclays, IG corporates in the U.S., euro area and U.K. - the regions with the three largest corporate bond markets among the developed economies - have lost -2.0%, -0.3% and -1.1%, respectively. The numbers do not look much better when shown on an excess return basis versus duration-matched government bonds: U.S. IG -0.8%, euro area -1.2% and the U.K. -1.3%. The sluggish performance for IG corporates is a mirror image of the strong showing in 2017 when looking at credit spreads, which reached very tight levels at the end of last year (Chart of the Week). The 2017 rally left global corporates exposed to any negative shocks, of which there have been many so far in 2018 (the February VIX spike, the Q1 global growth slowdown, intensifying U.S.-China trade tensions, ongoing Fed tightening, a strengthening U.S. dollar, less dovish non-U.S. central banks, Italian politics, emerging market turmoil). Given the more challenging environment for overall corporate bond performance, the role of sector selection as a way to generate alpha, by mitigating losses from beta, is critical. In this Weekly Report, we take a brief look at IG sector performance so far this year and update our sector allocations based on our relative value models for IG corporates in the U.S., euro area and U.K. 2018 YTD Global Corporates Performance: A Down Year The major IG sector groupings for the U.S., euro area and U.K. are presented in Table 1, ranked by the 2018 year-to-date excess returns (all are shown in local currency terms). The overall index return for each region is also shown (highlighted in gray) in the table, to highlight how individual sectors have performed relative to the overall IG index. Table 12018 Year-To-Date Investment Grade Sector Returns For The U.S., Euro Area & U.K. As is always the case with IG corporates, the performance of the broad Financials grouping (which includes banks, insurance companies, REITs, etc.) heavily influences the returns of the overall IG index given the large weighting of Financials within the Corporates index across all three regions. In both the euro area and U.K., the sharp underperformance of Financials seen year-to-date (-1.3% and -1.4%, respectively) has created a somewhat odd situation where the majority of sectors have outperformed the overall index. That could only happen given the large weight of Financials in the euro area index (40%) and U.K. index (43%). Financials are also a big part of the U.S. index (32%), but there is more balance in the U.S. IG index which has helped boost the "beta" return from U.S. corporates. Specifically, the weightings of the top three largest U.S. broad sector groupings - Energy (9%), Technology (8%) and Communications (9%) - are a combined 26% of the overall U.S. IG index. Those three sectors are also among upper tier of the 2018 performance table in the euro area and U.K., but only represent a combined 15% and 8%, respectively, of each region's IG index. The conclusion is that index composition has flattered the performance of U.S. IG corporates versus European equivalents, given the latter's heavier weighting in Financials. The poor performance of Financials can be attributed to flattening global government bond yield curves (which is a negative for banks) and poor returns from global credit, especially in emerging markets (which is a negative for insurers that invest in spread product). We do not anticipate either of those trends reversing anytime soon - particularly the ongoing selloff in emerging market assets - thus Financials are likely to remain a drag on corporate bond performance for at least the next 3-6 months. One other factor that has weighed on overall IG corporate performance has been the steepening of credit spread curves. The gaps between credit spreads for Baa- and A-rated corporates have widened since the end of January, most notably in the euro area and the U.K. where growth has been slower than in the fiscal-policy fueled U.S. economy (Chart 2). With Baa-rated debt now representing one-half of the IG index for the U.S., euro area and U.K. (Chart 3) - a function of rising corporate leverage - continued underperformance of lower quality sectors will negatively impact the future overall returns from IG corporates. Chart 2Spread Curves Are##BR##Steepening In Europe Chart 31/2 Of Investment Grade Corporate Indices##BR##Are Now Baa-Rated Looking ahead, credit investors should be wary of the potential for downgrade risk in their portfolios given the high proportion of Baa-rated debt in the IG benchmark indices. This risk will become more acute when the global business cycle runs out of steam (a 2019 story, at the earliest, in our view). Bottom Line: Investment grade corporate debt in the developed economies has performed poorly so far in 2018, led by lagging returns in Financials and some steepening of credit curves. U.S. credit has outperformed European equivalents. These trends are likely to continue over at least the next six months. Our Corporate Sector Valuation Models: Winners & Losers Our recommended IG sector allocations come from our relative value model, which measures the valuation of each individual sector compared to the overall Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index for each region. The methodology takes each sector's individual option-adjusted spread (OAS) and regresses it in a panel regression with all other sectors in each region. The dependent variables in the model are each sector's duration, convexity (duration squared) and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that panel regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. The latest output from the models can be found in the tables and charts in the Appendix starting on Page 13. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot charts in the Appendix show the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. We then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk in our recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. That target portfolio DTS is the first decision in our discretionary allocation process, which is informed by our strategic views on corporate credit in each region. For example, if we were recommending an overweight allocation to U.S. IG corporates, then we would target a portfolio DTS that was greater than the index DTS. If we then became a bit more cautious on U.S. corporates, we could reduce the target DTS (spread risk) of our model sector portfolio while maintaining an overall overweight allocation to U.S. corporates versus U.S. Treasuries. That is exactly what we did one year ago, when we began to target a weighted DTS of all our individual sector tilts that was roughly equal to the overall IG corporate index DTS for each region (U.S. euro area, U.K.) while maintaining an overall overweight stance on global corporate credit versus government debt. More recently, we have downgraded our stance on global spread product to neutral, while continuing to favor the U.S. over Europe, in response to growing tensions from emerging markets and the brewing U.S.-China trade war.1 Chart 4Performance Of Our IG Sector Allocations We last presented a performance update for our global IG corporate sector allocations back on April 12th of this year. Since then, our recommended tilts have modestly underperformed the benchmark index in excess return terms by a combined -3bps (Chart 4). This came entirely from the euro area, with both the U.S. and U.K. sector allocations simply matching the benchmark index. Year-to-date, our IG sector allocations have underperformed the benchmark by a combined -9bps in excess return terms, split equally among the U.S., euro area and U.K. This is a result entirely consistent with our long-standing stance to overweight Financials in all three regions, which continue to appear cheap in our valuation framework. Also, an increasing number of sectors had become expensive within that framework, in all three regions, so some portion of that overweight to global Financials was "by default" given that our model portfolios must be fully invested (finding value has been a persistent problem for credit investors over the past year). The return numbers for our U.S. sector allocations can be found in Table 2. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have all been underweights: Pharmaceuticals (+1.2bps), Electric Utilities (+1.1bps), Retailers (+0.6bps), Health Care (+0.6bps), Diversified Manufacturing (+0.5bps) and Chemicals (+0.4bps). These were fully offset, however, by underperformance from our large overweights to Energy (-4.1bps) and Financials (-2.7bps). Table 2U.S. Investment Grade Performance The return numbers for our euro area sector allocations - shown here hedged into U.S. dollars as is the case when we present all our model portfolio returns - can be found in Table 3. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have been underweights to Transportation (+2.0bps) and Electric Utilities (+0.6bps), with underperformance coming from our underweight to Food/Beverage (-2.4bps) and overweight to Life Insurers (-3.1bps). Table 3Euro Area Investment Grade Performance The return numbers for our U.K. sector allocations (again, hedged into U.S. dollars) can be found in Table 4. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have been our underweight to Utilities (+2.0bps) and Consumer Non-Cyclicals (+0.9bps), but this was nearly fully offset by our large overweight to Financials (-2.6bps). Table 4U.K. Investment Grade Performance Despite the underperformance of our sector portfolios year-to-date, the cumulative alpha from the portfolios since we began tracking the performance of the recommendations remains positive (+2bps in the U.S., +9bps in the euro area, +42bps in the U.K.). Bottom Line: Our investment grade sector model portfolios have underperformed modestly so far in 2018 (-3bps each in the U.S., euro area & U.K.) - primarily due to our overweight stance on Financials which have performed poorly. Changes To Our Sector Model Portfolios As mentioned earlier, the first choice we make when determining the recommended sector allocations within our model portfolios is how much spread risk (DTS) to take. For the U.S., euro area and U.K., we have already been maintaining a portfolio DTS that is close to the index DTS since August 2017. After our recent decision to downgrade global spread product allocations to neutral versus government bonds, we do not feel a need to further reduce our spread risk by targeting a below-index DTS. That would likely be our next decision when we wish to get more defensive on credit, which would await evidence that global leading economic indicators are sharply slowing and/or global monetary policy is becoming restrictive. Within that neutral level of spread risk, we are making the following portfolio changes based on the updated output from our valuation models presented in the Appendix Tables on pages 13-18. The goal is to favor sectors that have a DTS close the index DTS but have positive valuation residuals from our model: U.S.: We downgrade Tobacco and Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Paper to Underweight. Euro Area: We upgrade Transportation, Other Industrials, Natural Gas, Brokerages/Asset Managers and Finance Companies to Overweight; we upgrade Automotive, Retailers and Tobacco to Neutral; we downgrade Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Diversified Manufacturing & Media Entertainment to Underweight. U.K.: We upgrade Health Care, Transportation and Other Industrials to Overweight; we upgrade Integrated Energy to Neutral; we downgrade Technology & Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Metals & Mining and Supermarkets to underweight. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Corporate Bond Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1U.S. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 3U.K. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 3U.K. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 31, 2018. The quant model has further lifted its U.S. allocation to overweight from neutral, and the U.K. underweight has also been reduced by half. On the other hand, Italy is downgraded and the overweight in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands are all significantly reduced, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 32 bps in August, largely driven by Level 2 model which underperformed its benchmark by 75 bps. expected, the model did not catch the "Turkey Effect" which drove deep losses in the Italian and Spanish markets. The Level 1 model slightly unperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 2 bps in August. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 87bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 260 bps offset by the 5 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Dear Client, The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model has been live since July 2016, and has outperformed the benchmark over this period in line with our back-testing. However, GICS will make significant changes to sector compositions at the end of September, most notably creating a new "Communication Services" sector, dominated by internet-related companies, to replace "Telecommunication Services". However, MSCI has not yet made available the final details of membership or historical performance of the revised sectors. Accordingly, after this update we are temporarily suspending publication of this model until full data is available and we have been able to rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors. The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of August 31, 2018. Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model continues to have a negative outlook on global growth and consequently has a net underweight on cyclical sectors. However, the magnitude of this tilt was reduced from 5.8% to 2.8%. The biggest move was a downgrade of consumer staples from a 2.5% overweight to a 1.4% underweight on the back of unfavorable momentum indicators. The only two sectors with favorable momentum are healthcare and technology. Finally, energy stocks also saw a 0.8% boost in its overweight recommendation on the back of attractive valuations. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

  Overweight (High-Conviction) The S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals (THSP) index has been an outstanding performer on our high-conviction list, returning more than 15% relative to the S&P 500 in the less than five months since it was added. Importantly, none of the key themes that drove our addition have finished playing out; the U.S. capex indicator remains persistently elevated, S&P THSP profit margins and the resulting cash flow remain robust and leverage ratios continue to lead the market (second & third panels). However, the breadth of the advance has narrowed as much of the outperformance has been due to Apple and the last two quarters of spectacular earnings beats. This adds a degree of specific risk to the exceptional S&P THSP outperformance. On top of this, risk of an escalating trade war with China continues to climb, to which the S&P THSP index is highly exposed. Accordingly, this morning we suggest that clients institute a stop in this high-conviction call at the 10% relative return mark, in line with our late-January introduced risk management policy. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight status in the S&P THSP index, but recommend a 10% stop. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CMPE - HPQ, WDC, STX, XRX, AAPL, HPE, NTAP.    

  Underweight (Upgrade Alert) Auto components stocks found a rare bit of relief this week on the back of news of a trade deal with Mexico and hopes that a similar deal can be made with Canada. Importantly, the scant details gleaned about Mexico are better than had been feared. Of particular note are the increase in regional value content from 62.5% previously to 75% and a 40-45% auto content made by workers earning at least $16 per hour requirement. Both of these should see a diversion of supply chain from overseas to domestic auto parts companies. This makes us reasonably optimistic on the industry's medium-term growth outlook. However, we caution that the situation is highly fluid and the details of final trade deal may be vastly different from the ones thus far released. Further, industry-operating metrics have been deteriorating; light vehicle sales have flat lined, consumer confidence (at least with respect to making a purchase of a new vehicle) has declined and vehicle pricing has fallen back into deflation. Bottom Line: we remain bearish on the S&P auto components index but are cognizant that NAFTA renegotiations could offer a solid tailwind to a beaten-up sector. Accordingly, we are putting this niche index on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter. This warrants profit-taking in some pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation... ...for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks in just seven months. But do not become aggressively pro-cyclical until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) moves closer to 3... ...and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) also moves closer to 3. Chart Of The WeekThe Cycle Is About To Turn Feature One of the most common questions we get is, when will the cycle turn? And our response is always, which cycle? The cycle that most people focus on is the so-called business cycle, which describes multi-year economic expansions punctuated by recessions. However, the business cycle - to the extent that it is a cycle - is very irregular. Its upswings and downswings vary greatly in length (Chart I-2). This irregularity is one reason why economists are useless at calling the turns. Nevertheless, investors still obsess with calling the business cycle because they think this is the only cycle that drives the financial markets. Chart I-2The Business Cycle Is Very Irregular We disagree. Nature bestows us with a multitude of cycles with different periodicities: the daily tides, the monthly phases of the moon, the annual seasons, and the multi-year climate cycles. So it would be unnatural, and somewhat arrogant, to assume the economy and financial markets possess only one cycle. In fact, just as in nature, the economy and financial markets experience a multitude of cycles with different periodicities. There Is Not One Cycle In The Economy, There Are Many If you plotted yearly changes in temperature, you would get a flat line and you would think there were no seasons! The point being that you cannot see a yearly cycle if you look at yearly changes. To see the cyclicality of the seasons, you must plot 6-month changes in temperature. Likewise, you cannot see the shorter-term cycles in the economy and financial markets using analysis, such as yearly changes, designed to see longer-term cycles. Once you grasp this basic maths, the mini-cycles in the economy and financial markets will stare you in the face (Chart I-3), and a whole new world of investment opportunities will open up. Chart I-3The Mini-Cycle Is Very Regular As we advised on January 4: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging eight months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half, contrary to what the consensus is expecting... Pare back exposure to cyclicals and redeploy to defensives" The advice proved to be very prescient. The global economy did enter a mini-downswing sourced in the emerging markets (Charts I-4 - I-6). Chart I-4The U.S. Mini-Downswing Was Muted... Chart I-5...The Euro Area Mini-Downswing Was Also Muted... Chart I-6...But The China Mini-Downswing Was Severe Nevertheless, the global nature of financial markets meant that the German 10-year bund yield declined by 40 bps, while European healthcare equities outperformed banks by a mouth-watering 35 percent, and materials by 15 percent (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Some of these performances are as large as can be gained in a full business cycle begging the question: Why obsess with the impossible-to-predict business cycle when there are equally rich pickings in the easier-to-predict mini-cycle? Chart I-7Banks Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Chart I-8Materials Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Furthermore, if you get the equity sector calls right, you will get the equity regional and country calls right too. As cyclicals have underperformed, the less cyclically-exposed S&P500 has been the star performer of the major regional indexes. And cyclical-heavy stock markets like Italy's MIB have strongly underperformed defensive-heavy stock markets like Denmark's OMX (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare It follows that the evolution of the global economic mini-cycle is pivotal in every investment decision (Box 1). BOX 1 The Theory Of Economic And Market Mini-Cycles The academic foundation of the global economic mini-cycles is a model called the Cobweb Theorem.1 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a lag. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a lag. The lag occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months. As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of this predictability, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the existence and predictability of these cycles. The Mini-Cycle Will Soon Turn Up The global 6-month credit impulse entered its current mini-downswing in January. Given that mini-downswings tend to last around eight months, we should expect the global economy to exit its mini-downswing in September, the escape valve being the recent decline in bond yields (Chart Of The Week). The caveat is that bond yields were slow to react to the mini-downswing and the decline in 10-year yields, averaging around 40 bps from the peak, has been pretty shallow. It follows that the next mini-upswing could be delayed to October/November, and be somewhat muted. Nevertheless, the surprise could be that global growth will stabilise in the fourth quarter of 2018, contrary to what the consensus is expecting. And this would suggest taking some of the most mouth-watering profits in pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation - for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Banks Have Severely Underperformed Healthcare Would we go a step further and become pro-cyclical? Not yet. One reason is that there is a limit to how far bond yields can rise before destabilising the very rich valuations of all risk-assets. This is captured in our 'rule of 4' which says that when the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and Japanese government bond (JGB) exceeds 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield exceeding 2 percent - it is time to go underweight equities. With the sum now equal to 3.4, yields can rise by only 25-30 bps before hurting risk-assets. Another reason for circumspection is that the investment landscape is still scattered with a large number of landmines, one of which has its own rule of 4. The Other 'Rule Of 4': The Italian 10-Year Bond Yield When Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this basis, the largest Italian banks now have €160 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €30 billion (Chart I-11). It follows that the markets would start to worry about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of around a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4 percent (Chart I-12).2 Chart I-11Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By 30 Bn Euro Chart I-12Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year Yield Breached 4% Today the 10-year BTP yield stands just shy of 3.2 percent, but it is about to enter a testing period. The Italian government must agree its 2019 budget by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. The budget must tread a fine line. Cutting the structural deficit to appease the Commission would diminish the credibility of the populist government. It would also be terrible economics, making it harder for Italy to escape its decade-long stagnation.3 On the other hand, locking horns with Brussels and aggressively increasing the structural deficit might panic the bond market. The optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit broadly where it is now. To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter, warranting some profit-taking in pro-defensive positions. But we do not advise aggressive pro-cyclical sector, regional, and country allocation until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) - and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) - both move closer to 3. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal trading Model* In support of the preceding fundamental analysis, the outperformance of healthcare versus banks is technically extended. Its 130-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound which has reliably signalled previous trend exhaustions. On this basis we would position for a 10% reversal with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long PLN/USD reached the end of its 65-day holding period comfortably in profit, and is now closed. This leaves six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * 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 Fractal Trading Model 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. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

  Underweight Since downgrading the insurance group to underweight nearly two years ago, we have been on the lookout for signs the environment had at least moderated; this has not been the case. Pricing power has recently started to accelerate to the downside which, when combined with flattening demand in the key home & auto markets, bodes especially negatively for insurer profits (second & third panels). Critics of our bearish view on insurers may point out that rising interest rates (a key BCA theme for this year) should reinforce sagging stock prices. While there may be some partial offsetting profit benefit to higher rates, the correlation between the S&P insurance index and the UST yield has clearly broken down this year (bottom panel), indicating the market believes the negatives outweigh the positives; we concur, particularly as we enter the historically volatile hurricane season. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are BLBG: S5INSU - CB, AIG, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, RE, AIZ, BHF.  

Special Report

This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level-three GICs industries. While the latest news on the NAFTA renegotiation with Mexico is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal is an "agreement in principle" and will take time to ratify. Meanwhile, a framework deal with Canada would leave many thorny issues to be resolved. President Trump can still revert to his tough tactics on Canada ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections. If the President does not gain major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base. The probability of Trump triggering Article 2205 and threatening to walk away from the suspended U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is still not trivial, despite the deal with Mexico. By itself, the cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved (especially Autos). We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and input cost exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. While the latest news on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that President Trump could revert to his tough tactics ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections.1 Even if Canada signs on to a framework deal, a lot of thorny details will have to be worked out. A presidential proclamation triggering Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement (as opposed to tweeting that the U.S. will withdraw) would initiate a six-month "exit" period. Trump could use this deadline, and the threat of canceling the underlying U.S.-Canada FTA, to put pressure on Canada (if not Mexico) to concede to U.S. demands, just as he could revoke his exit announcement anytime within the six-month period. While some market volatility would ensue upon any exit announcement, even a total withdrawal at the end of the six months would have a limited macro-economic impact as long as the U.S. continued to respect its WTO commitments and lifted tariffs only to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. Nonetheless, a modest tariff hike is not assured given the Administration's "America First" policy, its looming threat of Section 232 tariffs on auto imports, its warnings against the WTO itself, and the steep tariffs it has already imposed on Canada, including a 20% tariff on softwood lumber and the 300% tariff on Bombardier CSeries jets. Moreover, even a small rise in tariffs to MFN levels would have a significant negative impact on industries that are heavily integrated across borders. Our first report on the evolving U.S. trade situation analyzed the implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the 24 level two U.S. GICs equity sectors. This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level three GICs industries (finer detail is required since NAFTA covers mostly goods industries). We find that there are no "winners" among the U.S. equity sectors because the negative impact would outweigh any positive effects. The hardest hit U.S. industries would be Autos, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles and Apparel, but many others are heavily exposed to a failure of the free trade agreement. Out Of Time President Trump is seeking a new NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November. While this timing may yet prove too ambitious, the U.S. has made progress in recent bilateral negotiations with Mexico, raising the potential that Trump will be able to tout a new NAFTA framework deal by November 6. Yet, investors should be prepared for additional volatility. There are technical issues with the bilateral U.S.-Mexico deal that could delay ratification in Congress until mid-2019. The new Mexican Congress must ratify the deal by December 1 if outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto is to sign off. Otherwise, the incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador may still want to revise any deal he signs, prolonging the process. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if the Canadians signed onto a U.S.-Mexico deal they had no part in negotiating without insisting on any adjustments.2 The important point is that President Trump's economic and legal constraints on withdrawing from NAFTA have fallen even further with the Mexican deal. If Trump does not get major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base, as a gray area of "continuing talks" will not inspire voters. This could mean imposing the threatened auto tariffs or threatening to cancel the existing trade agreements with Canada. Thus, the risk of Trump triggering Article 2205 is still not trivial. A bilateral Mexican trade deal is not the same as NAFTA. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act. Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. The potential saving grace for trade with Canada was that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989, was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA was created, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, Trump may walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation. In that event, WTO rules for preferential trade would require the U.S. and Canada to raise tariffs on trade with each other to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. These tariff levels are shown in Charts II-1A and II-1B. The Charts also show the maximum tariff that could potentially be applied under WTO rules. The latter are much higher than the MFN levels, underscoring that the situation could get really ugly if a full trade war scenario somehow still emerged among these three trading partners. Chart II-1AU.S.: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Chart II-1BMexico & Canada: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Current tariffs are set at zero for virtually all of these GICs industries, which means that the MFN levels also indicate how much tariffs will rise at a minimum if NAFTA is cancelled. Tariffs would rise the most for Automobiles, Textiles & Apparel, and Food Products (especially agricultural products), and Beverages. U.S. tariffs under the WTO are not significantly higher than NAFTA's rates; the average MFN tariff in 2016 was 3½%, which compares to 4.1% for the average Canadian MFN tariff. Would MFN Tariffs Be Painful? An increase in tariff rates of 3-4 percentage points may seem like small potatoes. Nonetheless, even this could have an outsized impact on some industries because tariffs are levied on trade flows, not on production. A substantial amount of trade today is in intermediate goods due to well-integrated supply chains. Charts II-2A and II-2B present a measure of integration. Exports and imports are quite large relative to total production in some industries. The most integrated U.S. GICs sectors include Automobiles & Components, Materials, Capital Goods and Electrical & Optical Equipment. Higher tariffs would slam those intermediate goods that cross the border multiple times at different stages of production. For example, studies of particular automobile models have found that "parts and components may cross the NAFTA countries' borders as many as eight times before being installed in a final assembly in one of the three partner countries."3 Tariffs would apply each time these parts cross the border if NAFTA fails. Chart II-2AU.S./Canada Supply Chain Integration Chart II-2BU.S./Mexico Supply Chain Integration Appendix Tables II-1 to II-4 show bilateral trade by product between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, the U.S. imported almost $300b in goods from Canada, and exported $282b to that country, resulting in a small U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The bilateral deficit with Mexico is larger, with $314b in U.S. imports and $243b in exports. The largest trade categories include motor vehicles, machinery, and petroleum products. Telecom equipment and food products also rank highly. As mentioned above, the impact of rising tariffs is outsized to the extent that a substantial portion of trade in North America is in intermediate goods. Box II-1 reviews the five main channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry. Box II-1 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: (1) The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of import tariffs via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines). NAFTA also eliminated many non-tariff barriers, especially in service industries. Cancelling the agreement could thus see a return of these barriers to trade; (2) Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs. There would also be a loss of economies-of-scale and comparative advantage to the extent that firms are no longer able to use an "optimal" supply network that crosses borders, further raising the cost of doing business; (3) Foreign Direct Investment: Some U.S. imports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries outside the U.S., or by foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. NAFTA eliminated many national barriers to FDI, expanded basic protections for companies' FDI in other member nations, and established a dispute-settlement procedure. The Canadian and Mexican authorities could make life more difficult for those U.S. firms that have undertaken significant FDI in retaliation for NAFTA's cancellation; (4) Macro Effect: The end of NAFTA, especially if it were to lead to a trade war that results in tariffs in excess of the MFN levels, would take a toll on North American trade and reduce GDP growth across the three countries. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. The macro effect would probably not be large to the extent that tariffs only rise to MFN levels; (5) Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given that tariffs would rise for all three countries. Chart II-3 is a scatter chart of GICs industries that compares the average MFN tariff on U.S. imports to the average MFN tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports from the U.S. A U.S. industry may benefit if it garners significant import protection but does not face a higher tariff on its exports to the other two countries. Unfortunately, there are no industries that fall into the north-west portion of the chart. The opposite corner, signifying low import protection but high tariffs on exports, includes Beverages, Household Durables, Household Products, Personal Products and Machinery. Chart II-3Import And Export Tariffs Faced By U.S. GICS Industries Model-Based Approach The C.D. Howe Institute has employed a general equilibrium model to estimate the impact of a NAFTA failure at the industrial level.4 The model is able to capture the impact on trade conducted through foreign affiliates. The study captures the direct implications of higher tariffs, but also includes a negative shock to business investment that would stem from heightened uncertainty about the future of market access for cross-border trade. It also takes into consideration non-tariff barriers affecting services. Table II-1Impact Of NAFTA Cancellation By Industry As with most studies of this type, the Howe report finds that the level of GDP falls by a relatively small amount relative to the baseline in all three countries - i.e. there are no winners if NAFTA goes down. Moreover, the U.S. is not even able to reduce its external deficit. While the trade barriers trim U.S. imports from NAFTA parties by $60b, exports to Canada and Mexico fall by $62b. At the industry level, the model sums the impacts of the NAFTA shock on imports, exports and domestic market share to arrive at the estimated change in total shipments (Table II-1). It is possible that an industry will enjoy a boost to total shipments if a larger domestic market share outweighs the damage to exports. However, the vast majority of U.S. industries would suffer a decline in total shipments according to this study, because the estimated gain in domestic market share is simply not large enough. Beef, Pork & Poultry and Dairy would see a 1-2% drop in total shipments relative to the baseline forecast. Next on the list are textiles & apparel, food products and automotive products. Even some service industries suffer a small decline in business, due to indirect income effects. Foreign-Sourced Revenue And Input Cost Approach Another way to approach this issue is to identify the U.S. industries that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, few companies provide much country detail on where their foreign revenues are derived. Many simply split U.S. and non-U.S. revenues, or North American and non-North American revenues. Table II-2 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the industry by market cap (in some cases the proportion that is generated outside of North America was used as a proxy for foreign- sourced revenues). While this approach is not perfect, it does provide a good indication of how exposed a U.S. industry is to Canada and Mexico. This is because any company that has "gone global" will very likely be doing substantial business in these two countries. Table II-2Foreign Revenue Exposure At the top of the list are the Metals & Mining, Personal Products, and Auto Component industries. Between 62% and 81% of revenues in these three industries is derived from foreign sources. Following that is Household Durables, Leisure Products, Chemicals and Tobacco. Indeed, all of the level three GICs industries we are analyzing are moderately-to-highly globally-oriented, with the sole exception of Construction Materials. Table II-3Import Tariff Exposure U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that boost the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A then sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that would be affected by a rise in tariffs to MFN levels. We then allocated the industries contained in the input/output tables to the 21 GICs level 3 industries we are considering, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P industry space (Table II-3). All 21 industries are significantly vulnerable to rising input costs, which is not surprising given that we are focusing on the manufacturing-based GICs industries and NAFTA focused on trade in goods. The vast majority of the industries could face a cost increase on 50% or more of their intermediate inputs to the production process. The Automobile industry is at the top of the list, with 72% of its intermediate inputs potentially affected by the shift up in tariffs (Automobile Components is down the list, at 56%). Containers & Packaging, Oil & Gas, Aerospace & Defense, Textiles and Food Products are also highly exposed to tariff increases. The automobile industry is a special case because of the safeguards built into NAFTA regarding rules-of-origin and the associated tracing list. The U.S. is seeking significant changes in both in order to tilt the playing field toward U.S. production, but this could severely undermine the intricate supply chain linking the three countries. Box II-2 provides more details. Box II-2 Automotive Production In NAFTA; Update Required We are focused on two key aspects to the renegotiation of the NAFTA rules that could have far reaching implications for automakers and the auto component maker supply base: the tracing list and country of origin rules. Regarding the first of these, the Trump administration has a legitimate gripe when it comes to automotive production. A tracing list was written in the early-1990's to define automotive components such that the rules of origin (ROO) could be easily met; anything not on the list is deemed originating in North America. As anyone who has driven a vehicle of early-1990's vintage and one of late-2010's vintage can attest, high tech components (largely not included on the tracing list) have grown exponentially as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle and, at least with respect to electronic and display components, are sourced mostly from overseas. Updating the tracing list would force auto makers to source a significantly greater amount of components domestically, almost certainly raising the cost of the vehicle and either hurting margins or hurting competitiveness through higher prices. The current NAFTA ROO require that 62.5% of the content of a vehicle must be sourced in North America, with no distinction between any of the member nations. The result of this legislation has been the creation of a highly integrated supply base that sees components move back and forth across borders through each stage of the manufacturing process. Early proposals from the Trump administration for a NAFTA rework included a country of origin provision for as much as 50% U.S. content. Such a provision would certainly cause a massive disruption in the automotive supply chain with components manufacturers forced to relocate or automakers electing to source overseas and pay the 2.5% MFN tariff on exports within North America. Either scenario presents a headwind to the tightly woven auto components base, underscoring BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy's underweight recommendation on the sector. The recently announced bilateral trade deal with Mexico raises the ROO content requirements to 75% from the 62.5% contemplated under NAFTA but, importantly, no country of origin provisions appear in the new deal. Still, given how quickly this is evolving, a final NAFTA deal could be significantly different. Chart II-4 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries in the north-east corner of the diagram are the most exposed to NAFTA failure. The problem is that there are so many in this region that it is difficult to choose the top two or three, although Metals & Mining stands out from the rest. It is easier to identify the industries that face less risk in relative terms: Pharmaceuticals, Construction Materials, Health Care & Supplies, Leisure Products and, perhaps, Machinery. The rest rank highly in terms of both foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. Chart II-4Foreign Revenue And Import Tariff Exposure Conclusions: By itself, a total cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved. The negative impact on GDP growth would likely be worse for Canada (and Mexico if its bilateral somehow fell through), but U.S. exporters would see some loss of business. We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. As we go to press, rapid developments are taking place in the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. and Mexico have completed a bilateral agreement in principle and a Canadian team is looking into whether to sign onto the agreement by a U.S.-imposed August 31 deadline. This deadline would enable the current U.S. Congress to proceed to ratification before turning over its seats in January, though it is not a hard deadline. It is possible that the negotiations will conclude this week and the crisis will be averted. But the lack of constraints on President Trump's trade authority gives reason for pause. If Canada demurs, Trump could move to raise the cost through auto tariffs or announcements that he intends to withdraw from existing U.S.-Canada agreements in advance of November 6. While Mexico has now tentatively secured bilaterals with both countries through the new U.S. deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes Canada), it still stands to suffer if a trilateral agreement is not in place. Moreover it is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral could delay the latter's ratification well into next year. Therefore, we treat Mexico the same as Canada in our analysis, despite the fact that Mexican assets stand to benefit in relative terms from having a floor put under them by the Trump Administration's more constructive posture and this week's framework deal. If Trump does not pursue a hard line with Canada, then it will be an important sign that he is adjusting his trade policy to contain the degree of confrontation with the developed nations and allies and instead focus squarely on China, where we expect trade risks to increase in the coming months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy APPENDIX TABLE II-1 U.S. Imports From Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-2 U.S. Exports To Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-3 U.S. Imports From Mexico (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-4 U.S. Exports To Mexico (2017) 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28, 2018, and Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Working Together: Economic Ties Between the United States and Mexico. Christopher E. Wilson, November 2011. 4 The NAFTA Renegotiation: What if the U.S. Walks Away? The C.D. Howe Institute Working Paper. November 2017.

As the SPX and a slew of other indices have vaulted to fresh all-time highs, a deeper dive into profit margins is in order. While the S&P 500's profit margins are benefiting from the one-time fillip of lower corporate taxes in calendar 2018, it is important to remember that this is not affected by any massaging from CEOs/CFOs of the share count. In other words, given that "per share" cancel out of EPS/SPS, this margin number represents organic profit and revenue growth. The chart shows that SPX margins have recently slingshot to all-time highs. However, excluding tech they remain below the previous cycle's peak hit in mid-2007. While we are not fans of excluding sectors from our analysis, the magnitude and persistence of the tech sector's profit margin expansion is surprising. Tech sector profit margins are twice the SPX's margins, and tech stocks have been pulling SPX margins higher consistently for the past 8 years. The implication is that SPX EPS growth of 10% is likely in 2019, but the tech sector has to continue doing all the heavy lifting given the high profit and market cap weight in the SPX. Bottom Line: We remain neutral the broad tech sector and prefer the S&P software and S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals indexes (both are high-conviction overweights) to the early cyclical tech indexes, S&P semis and S&P semi equipment subgroups (both are underweight). For additional details, please look forward to reading in this coming Tuesday's Weekly Report.

Overweight As trade tensions have eased in recent weeks, we have seen a broad based recovery in trade-oriented stocks. One notable exception is the S&P containers & packaging index which has failed to rally with its peers. This is particularly surprising considering the global trade picture is nearly as good as it gets (second panel). Consumer spending on food & beverage has historically been the industry bellwether and the current message is exceptionally positive. In fact, an exploitable buying opportunity has emerged as the relative valuation of the S&P containers & packaging index and growth in consumer spending on food and beverage (advanced by 6 months), which usually move in lockstep have sharply diverged (bottom panel). Considering the former is at a decade-low, we expect a catch up phase to emerge via a valuation rerating; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, PKG, SEE, AVY.

  Overweight (High Conviction) Our attention in the last several months has been focused on rising trade tensions and the threat they present to our bullish cyclical equity bent. One sector that has seen a particular increase in volatility resulting from the swinging trade sentiment is the S&P air freight index; the most recent iteration of positive news on trade has seen the index recover all of the losses it had suffered earlier this year. On the operating front, demand has been exceptionally strong, particularly from online sales as evidenced by the eye-popping results issued by Walmart and Amazon. This has kept industry pricing power in a solid uptrend, implying margins that can withstand the rising cost of fuel. Still, valuations have trailed earnings growth and the S&P air freight index is close to its cheapest relative value in a decade. We think this is unlikely to persist; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.