Equities

Highlights Analysis on Indonesia is available below. EM financial markets have diverged from the global growth indicators they have historically correlated with. This raises doubts about the sustainability of this rally. In China, broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose sharply in January. The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money growth. This refutes widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots again. Feature The headline news has all been positive for emerging markets over the past two months: The Federal Reserve is going on hold, China is stimulating its economy, the U.S. and China are nearing a trade agreement and risk-on market dynamics are permeating worldwide. Nevertheless, EM stocks have failed to outperform the global equity benchmark (Chart I-1, top panel). Notably, EM relative equity performance rolled over in late December when global share prices bottomed. Chart I-1EM Stocks Have Underperformed DM Ones Since Late December In absolute terms, EM equities have been attempting to break above their 200-day moving average, but have so far failed to do so decisively (Chart I-1, bottom panel). When a market struggles to break out or outperform amid favorable news flows and buoyant investor sentiment, the odds are that it is facing formidable headwinds under the surface, and is at risk of relapsing. We sense EM currently fits this profile. Needless to say, investor consensus is very bullish on EM, and dominated by the above-mentioned narrative, specifically the Fed turning dovish and China stimulating, which is reminiscent of 2016 when EM staged a cyclical rally. Consequently, investors have rushed to pile into EM stocks and fixed-income. Chart I-2 illustrates that asset managers’ net holdings of EM ETF (EEM) futures have doubled since October 2018. Chart I-2Investor Consensus Is Very Bullish On EM As of mid-February, EMs were by far the most overweight region within global equity portfolios, according to the most recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey. The survey states that net 37% of global equity investors - who participated in the survey - were overweight EM. One of our clients that we met with on the road last week summed it up like this: “Investors have ‘recency bias’.” In other words, investors believe that 2019 will resemble 2016, and in turn have no appetite to bet against Chinese stimulus. We are in accord with this interpretation of investor behavior and the EM/China rally. Yet there are some noteworthy differences between today and 2016. First, in 2016, there was massive stimulus for China’s property market. At the time, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) monetized the unsold housing stock in Tier-3 and -4 cities via its Pledged Supplementary Lending facility. At present, there is no stimulus for real estate. Second, by early 2016 EM profits had already contracted substantially. EM profits have yet to shrink in the current downtrend. Our thesis is that EM profits will contract this year for reasons we elaborated on in depth in our previous report, Mind The Time Gap. China’s credit and fiscal impulse leads EM/Chinese profits by about 12 months, and the recent improvement in this indicator, if sustained, suggests that a trough in EM/Chinese corporate earnings will only be reached in late 2019 (Chart I-3). Therefore, as EM profits shrink, investors will likely sell EM risk assets. Chart I-3EM Corporate Earnings Are Beginning To Contract Altogether, these differences with 2016 make us reluctant to chase the current EM rally, and we continue to expect a meaningful reversal in EM risk assets in the months ahead. Monitoring Global Growth We maintain that EM is much more leveraged to global trade and China’s growth than to Fed policy. For a detailed discussion on this matter, please refer to EM: A Replay of 2016 or 2001? report from February 7, 2019. Therefore, the Fed’s dovish turn is not a sufficient reason to buy EM risk assets. To buy EM cyclically, we would need to change our outlook on global trade and Chinese imports. China influences the rest of the world via its imports. A closer look at the indicators that correlate with EM risk assets and commodities do not justify the recent EM rebound. In particular: The import sub-component of China’s NBS manufacturing PMI strongly correlates with EM share prices, excess returns in EM sovereign credit, and industrial metals prices and suggest that investors should fade this rebound (Chart I-4). Chart I-4EM Stocks, EM Credit Markets, As Well As Commodities Prices Are Driven By Chinese Imports The Caixin manufacturing PMI for China was up in February, but the NBS manufacturing PMI fell. In turn, manufacturing PMI indexes in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore are all plunging, with several of them dropping well below the 50 boom-bust mark (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Asian Manufacturing Is Contracting Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean shipments to China were shrinking in January, while their exports to the U.S. were resilient (Chart I-6). This confirms that global trade has been weak due to China, and that there are no signs of its reversal. Chart I-6Asian Exports To China And U.S. Moreover, Korea released its February export data, and its aggregate outbound shipments are contracting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Korean Exports: Deepening Contraction Further, China’s container freight index – the price to ship containers – has rolled over again after picking-up late last year due to front-loading of shipments to the U.S. which were induced by the U.S. import tariffs. This signals ongoing weakness in global demand, and does not justify the latest rebound in EM financial markets in general and currencies in particular (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Trade Is A Risk To EM Currencies Finally, even in the U.S. where manufacturing has been the most resilient globally, the odds point to notable weakness in this sector. Specifically, the continuous underperformance of U.S. high-beta industrial stocks to U.S. overall industrials beckons a further slowdown in American manufacturing (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Manufacturing Is In A Soft Spot Bottom Line: Although financial markets are forward-looking, the recent rally has been too fast and has already gone too far. This has created conditions for a material setback as global/China growth will continue to disappoint in the months ahead.  China: Credit Versus Money Growth We have been receiving questions from clients as to whether investors should heed to the message from China’s money or credit data, given they are presently sending contradictory messages (Chart I-10). Chart I-10China: Narrow, Broad Money, And Aggregate Credit Even though narrow money (M1) has historically been an excellent indicator for China/EM business cycles, the most recent (January) print – M1 annual growth rate registered a record low – was distorted due to technical/seasonal factors, and should be ignored. Specifically, deposits by enterprises plunged in January and household deposits surged as companies paid out bonuses to employees in late January ahead of the Chinese New Year that began on February 5 (Chart I-11). Provided enterprise demand deposits are in M1 but household demand deposits are a part of M2, M1 was artificially depressed in January. It will rebound in February. Chart I-11China: Technical Reasons For M1 Plunge In January Broad money provides a more comprehensive picture of money creation in China. As such, it is more relevant to compare broad money with aggregate credit. To compute aggregate credit, we add outstanding central and local government bonds to Total Social Financing (TSF). Chart I-12 illustrates the latest improvement in aggregate credit is not confirmed by either the PBoC’s broad money measure, M2, or our measure, M3 (M3 = M2 plus other deposits plus banks’ other liabilities excluding bonds). We created this M3 measure of broad money supply because in our opinion, M2 has been underestimating the extent of money creation in China in recent years due to financial engineering. Chart I-12The Recent Uptick In Aggregate Credit Is Not Confirmed By Broad Money As discussed in Box I-1 on pages 12-13, lending or purchasing of securities by banks simultaneously creates money. Therefore, bank broad credit acceleration should be mirrored in a broad money upturn. Does the lack of revival in broad money mean the latest uptick in aggregate credit data has been driven by non-bank credit? Our analysis suggests yes – non-bank credit is responsible for the strong rise in the aggregate credit numbers in January. We deconstructed aggregate credit into broad bank credit and non-bank credit (Diagram I-1). Chart I-13 illustrates that broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose in January. Chart I-13China: Recent Credit Acceleration Is Due To Non-Bank Credit The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money (both M2 and M3) growth (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Broad Bank Credit Is Consistent With Broad Money (As It Should Be) Consequently, this refutes the widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots. Chart I-15demonstrates the annual growth rate of each component of broad bank credit. While mainland banks’ loan growth to enterprises has accelerated, their lending to non-bank financial institutions has continued to shrink.  Chart I-15Broad Bank Credit And Its Components In sum, broad bank credit and broad money have not revived, and their impulses are rolling over, having failed to break above zero (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The improvement in aggregate credit growth in January was due to credit provided/bonds purchased by non-banks rather than by banks. This does not tell us whether the credit growth acceleration is sustainable. For a more detailed discussion on the differences between money and credit, please refer to Box I-1 on page 12-13. Investors prefer simple narratives, and have readily embraced the story that China has opened up the credit faucets. Broad bank credit data and broad money supply data do not corroborate this thesis. It may change in the months ahead, but our point is that for the moment there is not yet a simple narrative about China’s credit cycle. Investment Implications Even though China’s aggregate credit impulse ticked up in January, the 2011-‘12 and 2015-‘16 episodes signify that its bottoming can last many months. Critically, EM financial markets have historically lagged turning points in the aggregate credit impulse. These time lags have been anywhere between three to 18 months over the past 10 years. Furthermore, in 2012 there was only a minor rebound in EM share prices – not a cyclical rally – in response to the significant rise in China’s aggregate credit impulse (Chart I-16, top panel). Chart I-16Beware Of The Time Lag Hence, even if January marked the bottom in the aggregate credit impulse – which is plausible in our opinion – EM risk assets will remain at risk based on historical time lags between the aggregate credit impulse and China-related financial markets.1 BOX 1 Why And When Money Supply Differs From Credit The following elaborates on the key differences between broad money supply and aggregate credit.  1. Why and when do broad money and credit diverge?  When commercial banks provide loans to or buy bonds (or any other asset) from non-banks, they simultaneously create new money supply/deposits. Broad money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system, which is why we use the terms money and deposits interchangeably. When non-bank financial institutions – in China's case financial trust and investment corporations, financial leasing companies, auto-financing companies and loan companies – as well as enterprises and households make loans or buy bonds, they do not create money. Hence, money supply/deposits is mostly equal to net cumulative broad bank credit creation. The difference between aggregate credit and money supply is due to lending activities of non-bank entities (see Diagram I-1 on page 9). Lending, purchasing of bonds, or any other forms of financing by non-bank entities does not change money supply. Thus, aggregate credit is more relevant than money supply to forecast business cycle fluctuations. Apart from the fact that banks still play a very large role in aggregate financing in China, there are a few other reasons why one should not ignore broad money and rely solely on aggregate credit: Banks can extend credit, but might choose not to classify it as loans on their balance sheet for regulatory reasons. Chinese banks did this in the past by booking loans as non-standard credit assets. In any case, when a bank lends to a non-bank it creates new deposits/money, and it is hard to conceal deposits/liabilities. In these cases, broad money supply gives a better signal about the true extent of credit growth than statistics on loans. If under regulatory pressures banks reclassify their non-standard credit assets as loans, the amount of loans will expand, even though no new lending occurs. Yet, money supply/deposits will not change. In this case, loan numbers will give a false signal and money supply will be a better indicator for new credit origination by banks and, thereby, for economic activity. The true measure of Chinese bank loans and credit data were probably disguised over the past several years because banks and non-bank financial institutions were involved in financial engineering. However, in the past two years, the regulatory clampdown forced Chinese commercial banks to unwind some of these structures and properly reclassify items on their balance sheets. Both the masking of credit assets and the ensuing reclassification could have distorted loan and credit data. This is why we use broad money supply as a litmus test to gauge banks’ broad credit origination. Given TSF includes bank loans but does not include banks’ non-standard credit assets, we believe TSF understates the amount of credit in the economy. As a result, we have not been able to calculate an accurate aggregate level of non-bank credit. Only since mid-2017, when under the regulatory clampdown, banks have stopped classifying loans as non-standard credit assets, can the annual growth rate of TSF serve as a meaningful statistic. Hence, we estimate the annual growth rate of non-bank credit only starting in 2018 (please refer to Chart I-13 on page 9). 2. Does the central bank (PBoC) create money by injecting liquidity into the system? Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of quantitative easing (QE) programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits. Central banks create banking system reserves, which are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Money supply/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created solely by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings. 3. Why do we use impulses (second derivatives of money/credit) rather than growth rates? Our goal is to forecast a change in economic activity/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues – i.e., a change in flow variables. Money and credit are stock variables. Therefore, a change (the first derivative) in outstanding money and credit produces flow variables. The latter measures new credit and money origination in a given period. These are comparable with flow variables like spending, income and profits. To gauge changes in flow variables, i.e., the growth rate of spending, one needs to calculate a change in new money and credit origination – i.e., change in their net flow. In brief, to do an apples-to-apples comparison, one needs to use the second derivative (a change in change) in money and credit – i.e., changes in their flows – to predict changes in flow variables such as GDP/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues.   Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed Indonesian stocks have outperformed their emerging market peers significantly in the past few months as the Federal Reserve has turned dovish and U.S. rate expectations have declined. Although U.S. bond yields do strongly and inversely correlate with Indonesian stocks’ relative performance versus the EM equity benchmark (Chart II-1, top panel), we believe there are other factors – such as Chinese growth and commodities prices – that are also important to this market (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesian Stocks: The Fed Versus Commodities In the next several months, slowing Chinese growth, lower commodities prices, and a renewed sell-off in EM markets will take a toll on Indonesian financial markets. Indonesian exports are contracting which will intensify as commodities prices fall and China’s purchases of coal and base metals drop (Chart II-2, top panel). Chart II-2Indonesia: Exports Are Shrinking Indonesia’s current account deficit is already large and will continue widening as the export contraction deepens (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Remarkably, the nation’s commercial banks have been encouraged to keep the credit taps open as the central bank – Bank Indonesia (BI) – has been injecting enormous amounts of liquidity (excess reserves) into the banking system (Chart II-3, top panel). Given these liquidity injections, bank credit and domestic demand growth have remained more resilient than would otherwise have been the case. Chart II-3The Central Bank Is Injecting Liquidity Yet, by injecting such enormous amounts of excess reserves into the system, the central bank has more than negated its previous liquidity tightening, resulting from the sales of its foreign exchange reserves in order to defend the rupiah (Chart II-3, bottom panel). The implications of such policy are that these excess reserves could encourage speculation against the rupiah, especially amid weakening global growth and falling commodities prices. Provided foreigners own large portions of Indonesian stocks and local-currency government bonds, a depreciation in the rupiah will produce a renewed selloff in the nation’s financial markets. A final point on Indonesian commercial banks: their net interest margins have been narrowing sharply (Chart II-4, top panel). Chart II-4Commercial Banks' Profits Will Weaken Moreover, as global growth slows, non-performing loans (NPLs) on the balance sheets of Indonesian banks will rise. In turn, provisioning for bad loans will also increase, and bank earnings will decline (Chart II-4, bottom panel). These dynamics will be bearish for Indonesian commercial banks, which account for 44% of the overall MSCI Indonesia index. Bottom Line: Continue avoiding/underweighting Indonesian stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue shorting the IDR versus the U.S. dollar. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please note that this represents the Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view and is different from BCA’s house view on global risk assets and global growth. The key point of contention is the outlook for China’s growth.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, I am travelling this week so this report is a joint effort juxtaposing two contrasting observations about France. The ‘opulence’ part highlights France as the world’s dominant producer of luxury goods, and makes the case that some of the French luxury goods companies should form a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. The ‘rebellion’ part borrows from a recent Special Report on French politics penned by my colleague Jeremie Peloso. It analyses the recent yellow vest protests in France, and assesses whether they are a cause for concern. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Opulence Made In France Global luxury goods sales amount to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and Europe dominates in the production of these luxury goods. Measured by the number of companies, the leading luxury goods country is Italy. But on the more important metric of share of total global sales, the undisputed world leader is France. In fact, just four French companies produce a quarter of the world’s luxury goods sales. The four are: LVMH, Kering, L’Oreal, and Hermes1 (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Table I-1). France’s luxury goods sector is an excellent diversifier for investors. This is because, compared to other goods and services, luxuries follow very different laws of economics: The demand for luxuries has a positive elasticity to price. Put more simply, the desirability of a luxury increases as its price goes up. This is opposite to the demand for non-luxuries which has a negative elasticity to price: for non-luxury items, the demand declines as the price goes up. By definition, you cannot compete with a luxury item by undercutting its price. Given that a luxury implies fine-craftsmanship rather than mass production, the sector is highly resilient to the existential threats confronting other European industries that emanate from out-sourcing to lower cost economies and from automation. Luxury demand is also relatively insensitive to exchange rate movements. The barrier to entry into the luxuries sector is extremely high. It takes years, or even decades, for a luxury item to acquire its premium status based on consistent high quality in materials and craftsmanship. This high barrier to entry makes it much harder for other economies to challenge the European and French dominance in providing these luxury products. Despite these attractive characteristics the sector does still require a source of structural demand. Our premise, expounded in our Special Report “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, is that the feminisation of consumer spending, particularly in Europe, is providing a strong structural tailwind to the demand for ‘soft’ luxury goods. A recent industry study by Deloitte corroborates this thesis, pointing out that the strongest growth in the luxury sector is to be found in cosmetics, fragrances, bags and accessories. On this premise, the four leading French companies are big beneficiaries.2,3   Are market valuations already aware of, and fully discounting, the thesis of feminisation of consumer spending? We think not, as most investors are surprised by the thesis and unaware of the on-going dynamics behind it. On this basis, three of the four French luxury companies, trading on forward PE multiples in the 20s or below, still appear reasonably valued for their growth prospects (Table I-2). The exception is Hermes which, on a multiple of 40, does seem richly priced. The bottom line is that the three other leading French luxury goods companies – LVMH, Kering, and L’Oreal – do deserve to be a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. Rebellion Made In France The yellow vest protest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. What started on the social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. 77 percent of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the ‘wealth tax’ – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favouring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth on the back of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart I-3). Chart I-3What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered consistently around 70 percent since they started in November 2018 (Chart I-4). However, there are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop as that they should continue (Chart I-5). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.4 Who are the yellow vests? They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the centre (Diagram I-1). How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, the numbers countrywide are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart I-6). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table I-3). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart I-7). We would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. As expected, Macron has not mentioned changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that, despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. There is no strategic reason why Macron would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plough ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. Nevertheless, to ensure that he does not plough into a rock, Macron will adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. In a similar vein, pension reforms will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one having its own rules of calculation. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards, it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Such adjustments to the reform agenda should help reduce the protest movement’s fervour or otherwise its support. The bottom line is that the yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward.5   Dhaval Joshi,  Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the case of L’Oreal this refers to the L’Oreal Luxe division. 2  Please see the European Investment Strategy “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, dated December 6, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Deloitte: Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2018, Shaping the future of the luxury industry 4 According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 5 For the full report, please see the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “France: La March A Suivre?”, dated February 27, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.  

Neutral We have successfully ridden down the S&P 1500 components index on a structural basis over the past four years. But now, factors are falling into place for an end to this multi-year bloodbath. On Monday, we lifted exposure to neutral from underweight, locking in relative gains of 36% since inception. In the U.S., light vehicle sales have been stable over the past five years and the latest Conference Board consumer confidence release showed that consumers’ plans to purchase a car remain upbeat, and could serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent relative value (middle panel). With regard to President Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle, automobile components makers have taken a big hit. But, there are high odds of an end to the U.S./China trade dispute. Tack on a softening greenback courtesy of a more dovish Fed. U.S. auto components producers will likely grab a larger slice of the global auto parts revenue pie (top panel). Still a number of risks keep us from turning outright bullish on this consumer discretionary subsector, including auto loan delinquencies which are increasing rapidly, approaching last cycle’s peak (bottom panel). Bottom Line: The easy money has already been made by shying away from auto component manufacturers and we lifted the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S15AUTC – APTV, BWA, GNTX, GT, DAN, VC, FOXF, DORM, LCII, DJPH, AXL, ADNT, CTB, THRM, GTX, SMP, CPS, MPAA, SUP.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy While equities will likely be higher in the coming 9-12 months, we would refrain from committing fresh capital to the market at this juncture. A better entry point lies ahead. Tactically, this market needs a breather to digest the V-shaped formation since last December’s G20 meeting before it resumes its bull run. Firming leading indicators of global auto sales, upbeat auto components industry operating metrics, a softening U.S. dollar, the looming truce in the U.S./China trade spat and depressed relative technicals and valuations all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P 1500 auto components index. Augment positions to neutral. The global economic soft patch that is exerting downward pressure on real interest rates, a soft U.S. dollar and rising global policy uncertainty, all signal that it still makes sense to hold a global gold mining equity portfolio hedge. Recent Changes Lift the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral and cement gains of 36% today. From a portfolio management perspective, downgrade the S&P semi equipment index to neutral for a gain of 16% since the December 17, 2018 inception. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 hit a trouble spot last week, despite positive news on the U.S./China trade tussle. Clearly, there is an element of “buy the rumor sell the news” in the market as equities have come a long way this year, reversing all of last December’s steep losses. But, the SPX now faces stiff resistance at the most important 2,800 level as we highlighted in recent research.1 Chart 1 shows “The Good”. From a sentiment/technical perspective, fresh all-time highs in the S&P 500 advance/decline line portend ongoing gains in this broad-based equity market advance. The junk bond market sends an equally encouraging signal: The Barclays total return high yield corporate bond index has vaulted to new highs, which bodes well for the SPX (middle panel, Chart 1). Finally, all three of the S&P risk parity total return indexes2 have slingshot into uncharted territory and suggest that the S&P 500 is headed there next. Chart 1The Good… Nevertheless, there are some cracks appearing in the U.S. economy. News of an abysmal retail sales report was quickly discredited by pundits, with some blaming poor data collection due to the government shutdown. Chart 2 shows “The Bad”. Worrisomely, contracting intermodal rail carloads and a nosedive in the “First Data merchant services dollar spend” at retailers likely corroborate the Commerce Department’s weak retail sales data. Moreover, the recent plunge in the Goldman Sachs MAP (Macro-data Assessment Platform) Surprise Index, which is now probing a three year low, suggests that the U.S. economy is in a soft-patch. Chart 2…The Bad… Charts 3 & 4 show “The Ugly”. Our Economic Impulse Indicator (EII) first introduced last October,3 has taken a turn for the worse. Six economic indicators encapsulating the U.S. economy comprise the EII, and there is clear deterioration in economic activity on a second derivative basis. The recent contraction in the overall business (manufacturing, wholesale and retail) sales-to-inventories (SI) ratio also warns of profit trouble in the coming quarters (Chart 4). Keep in mind that this data series only goes to November 2018 and once it gets updated to include December later this week, the SI ratio will likely fall deeper into the contraction zone. Chart 3…And The… Chart 4…Ugly So should investors take some chips off the table given this macro backdrop? Prior to answering the question, as a reminder, BCA’s view remains that the business cycle is alive and well and there is no recession on a cyclical time horizon. Therefore, equities should be higher in the coming 9-12 months. Our end-2019 SPX target remains at 3,000 based on $181 EPS for calendar year 2020 assuming a 16.5 multiple.4 Nevertheless from a shorter-term perspective, we would refrain from committing fresh capital to this market, as we believe a better entry point lies ahead. Tactically, this market now needs a breather to digest the V-shaped formation since last December’s G20 meeting, before it resumes its bull run. In addition, we would book gains on any alpha generating tactical trades; today we crystalize 16% gains in the S&P semi equipment tactical overweight position since the December 17, 2018 inception and downgrade to neutral. This week, we book handsome profits on a long-held underweight in a consumer discretionary subindex that Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and actions have badly wounded. We also update a materials subsector that benefits from the ongoing global reflationary impulse. Auto Components: Aiming For Pole Position? We have successfully ridden down the S&P 1500 components index on a structural basis over the past four years. But now, factors are falling into place for an end to this multi-year bloodbath. We are lifting exposure to neutral from underweight, locking in relative gains of 36% since inception. Global auto sales are the main driver of auto components profits, thus identifying where we stand in the global auto sales cycle is key. Bellwether German automakers have been caught in an emissions-related downdraft with “Dieselgate” weighing heavily on this sector when new emissions-test procedures were implemented last quarter. The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the worst is likely behind this drubbing in German automobile production as new orders have recently gone vertical. Backlogs are also sky-high and suggest that a definitive turn looms in German motor vehicle output. The upshot is that global auto sales may come out of their recent funk. Chart 5Global Auto Sales Are About To Turn The Japanese car industry, the other global heavyweight, also suffered a minor setback last year, but leading indicators of Japanese auto production are also ticking higher. Japanese industrial robot shipments are at fresh cyclical highs and signal that global auto sales will hook up (bottom panel, Chart 5). In the U.S., light vehicle sales have been stable over the past five years, but auto industrial production growth has been roaring, rising 40 percentage points from the manufacturing recession trough (second panel, Chart 6). Chart 6Improving… All of this paints a brightening backdrop for U.S. auto components manufacturers. Indeed, auto components new orders are at all-time highs (middle panel, Chart 7), at a time when inventories remain tame. In fact the new orders-to-inventories ratio sits squarely above one and continues to firm, with unfilled orders also at all-time highs (Chart 8). As a result, selling prices are accelerating at a healthy clip (third panel, Chart 6). The upshot is that industry profits will likely overwhelm. Chart 7…Operating… Chart 8...Auto Component Metrics On the domestic demand front, the latest Conference Board consumer confidence release showed that consumers’ plans to purchase a car remain upbeat, and could serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent relative value (bottom panel, Chart 7). With regard to President Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle, automobile components makers have taken a big hit. But, there are high odds of an end to the U.S./China trade dispute. Tack on a softening greenback courtesy of a more dovish Fed. U.S. auto components producers will likely grab a larger slice of the global auto parts revenue pie (top panel, Chart 7). Despite these tailwinds, investors have relentlessly avoided auto component stocks. Technicals remain washed out and industry valuations are a small fraction of the broad market and below the historical mean as per the relative price-to-sales ratio (Chart 9). Chart 9Cheap And Oversold… Nevertheless, we refrain from turning outright bullish on this consumer discretionary subsector given the following risks: First, auto loan delinquencies are increasing rapidly, approaching last cycle’s peak. Second, car financing interest rates are still rising, which, at the margin, dents demand for new car sales. Third, auto credit growth is decelerating and demand for auto loans is also anemic according to the Fed’s latest Senior Loan Officer survey (Chart 10). This stands in marked contrast to the aforementioned Conference Board’s survey of consumers’ plans to buy a car. Finally, were President Trump to proceed with auto tariffs on European car manufacturers once he strikes a deal with China, U.S. auto parts producers will suffer a setback. Chart 10…But There Are Some Risks Netting it all out, the easy money has already been made by shying away from auto component manufacturers. Firming leading indicators of global auto sales, upbeat auto components industry operating metrics, a softening U.S. dollar, the looming truce in the U.S./China trade spat and depressed relative technicals and valuations all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P 1500 auto components index. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral and crystalize gains of 36% today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S15AUTC – APTV, BWA, GNTX, GT, DAN, VC, FOXF, DORM, LCII, DJPH, AXL, ADNT, CTB, THRM, GTX, SMP, CPS, MPAA, SUP. A Modest Gold Portfolio Hedge Still Makes Sense Within our broad-based U.S. equity sector and subsector coverage, we continue to recommend a modest gold-related hedge via being overweight the global gold mining index (given that the S&P gold index only comprises a single stock) versus the MSCI All-Country World Index, expressed through the long GDX:US/short ACWI:US exchange traded funds. There is compelling evidence that gold bullion is a reliable reflationary gauge. The shiny metal troughed in mid-August, leading even the JP Morgan EM FX index. Since then, it has been in an uninterrupted run rising over $180/oz. or 15% and sniffing out a reflationary impulse. Not only is there a tight inverse correlation with the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, but over the past three years the Chinese renminbi also moves in close lockstep with gold (Chart 11). Now that Chinese policymakers have opened the credit spigots (January credit data revealed the largest ever month-over-month loan increase in the history of the data, please refer to the second panel of Chart 2 in last week’s publication)5 reflating their economy, there are high odds that gold can break out of its past five year trading range in a bullish fashion. Chart 11Gold Is Sniffing Out A Reflationary Impulse Commodity sentiment and positioning data suggest that gold’s run up will prove durable and continue to underpin the relative share price ratio (second & third panels, Chart 12). Chart 12Bullish Bullion Positioning Underpins Global Gold Miners Importantly, the precious metals industry has not stood still. It has embarked on a massive consolidation phase and the recent spike in M&A activity in global gold miners signals that there is more upside for relative share prices (top panel, Chart 12). But the good news does not stop there. Globally there is a slowdown that has infected a number of economies and BCA’s calculated Global ZEW economic sentiment index has lit a fire under gold mining stocks (Global ZEW shown inverted, second panel, Chart 13). The longer the global soft-patch lasts the longer Central Banks will remain on the sidelines or even ease monetary policy in order to rekindle growth. This macro backdrop represents fertile ground for gold and gold related equities (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Rising Uncertainty, Global Growth Softpatch And… Chart 14…Falling Real Rates Are Excellent Gold Mining Supports Keep in mind that gold bullion yields zero and the gold mining equities’ dividend yield trails the broad market by 100bps; thus, there is an opportunity cost to holding gold and gold related equities, especially now that even U.S. cash yields 2.5%. This explains the inverse correlation with real interest rates and the recent 30bps fall in the U.S. 10-year TIPS yield reinforces gold bullion and the relative share price ratio (TIPS yield shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 14). Moreover, the global policy uncertainty index is perking up given the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle (top panel, Chart 13), recent news of a no deal between the U.S. and North Korea and looming Brexit deadline. All of this underpins global gold stocks (top panel, Chart 13). Tack on the recent fear that gripped markets, and skyrocketing equity risk premia, and the ingredients are in place for additional gains in the relative share price ratio (third panel, Chart 13). While some semblance of normality has returned to global bourses year-to-date, fixed income investors do not share the euphoria their equity peers are emitting. Such a dichotomy favors global gold mining stocks. Finally, with regard to relative valuations and technicals, global gold equities remain in undervalued territory, but have recently recovered smartly from deeply oversold conditions (Chart 15). Chart 15Valuations Ready To Shine In sum, gold bullion is sniffing out a reflationary impulse that is bullish for global gold mining equities. The global economic soft patch that is exerting downward pressure on real interest rates, a soft U.S. dollar and rising global policy uncertainty, all signal that it still makes sense to hold a global gold mining equity portfolio hedge. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the global gold miners index (long GDX:US/short ACWI:US), and remove the downgrade alert.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Trader’s Paradise” dated January 28, 2019,available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-risk-parity-indices.pdf?force_download=true 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Icarus Moment” dated October 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Catharsis” dated January 14, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Reflationary Or Recessionary” dated February 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights It was easy to upgrade equities to overweight at the beginning of the year, … : The fourth-quarter selloff had reduced the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter multiple to 13.6 at its trough, and we never shared the market’s fear that the Fed was one false move from triggering a recession. … but what should someone who sat out January’s and February’s moves do?: Is it worth buying stocks now, after they’ve risen 10% since our upgrade, and 18% since the Christmas Eve bottom? Wait, in our opinion, but it’s not an easy answer: We find it hard to believe that the S&P 500 is going to go straight back to its late-September highs, reversing the fourth-quarter swoon in a mirror-image first-quarter blast. Our best guess is that the bull market is not yet over, but we think its upside is limited: It’s hard to see a bear market materializing in the absence of a recession, and the Fed’s pause has likely pushed the next one out to the second half of 2020 at the earliest. The potential gains are not unlimited, however, and an inflation-wary Fed will eventually cut off the bull’s oxygen. Feature Take two dozen opinionated people with backgrounds in markets and economics and scatter them around a boardroom table. Introduce the day’s key global economic data releases, market activity, corporate news, and geopolitical developments as potential discussion topics. Have the moderator remain alert for points of contention and seek to intensify them at every opportunity. Add four or five months of the worst winter weather North America’s got to offer, this side of Winnipeg and International Falls, Minnesota, and stir. If only economists were more telegenic, or Canadians could credibly be as unpleasant as their neighbors to the south, that might be the elevator pitch for a can’t-miss reality show. Instead, it’s the recipe for BCA’s daily morning meetings, and not one of its hard-working participants is likely to be able to use it as a step on the path to celebrity riches. It is a path to getting better at analysis and reasoning, however, and an ideal forum for stress-testing economic or market hypotheses. It can also furnish research ideas, as it did for us last week. “Let’s say you have a client who missed the equity run-up in January and February. What would you recommend s/he do now?” one of our colleagues called out to us late in Tuesday’s session. Someone else jumped in before we could reply, the thread was lost, and the meeting broke up so everyone could get back to their own research priorities. Had we gotten to reply, we would have recommended that the client wait for a better entry point, and this week’s report is devoted to explaining why, in the simplest back-of-the-envelope terms. How Much Can S&P 500 Earnings Grow? When analyzing equities, we like to decompose them into their component parts: forward earnings and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them. In the hall of mirrors as described in Keynes’ newspaper-beauty-contest metaphor,1 what matters for our purposes in projecting S&P 500 earnings is less what will happen, or what our own earnings models might project will happen, than what the analyst consensus thinks will happen. The consensus estimate of calendar 2019 S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS) is currently $168.37, a modest 4% increase over calendar 2018 EPS. This is a conservative estimate, relative to history, given that S&P 500 operating EPS have grown at an average rate of 8% over the last 40 years (Chart 1). Chart 1Outside Of Recessions, Earnings Typically Grow It is also conservative given the pattern earnings estimates have followed across the five bull markets that have occurred in the 40 years since estimates began to be compiled. We have previously observed that equity bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line. On average, they begin by being blasted out of a cannon, sharply cool off in the second quintile, and build back up in the third and fourth quintiles, before retrenching ahead of a latter-stages surge (Chart 2). The earnings estimate pattern is jumpier. Forward estimates stumble out of the first-decile gate before rising at a double-digit rate over the rest of the first half, then slow sharply to the first decile’s pace in preparation for posting their most potent growth in the final decile (Chart 3). Disaggregating the individual bull markets’ performance shows that the overall last-decile performance is not the product of a couple of outlier readings. In all but the December ’87 – July ’90 bull market that ended with flatlining estimates, estimated forward four-quarter earnings growth in the final decile of the bull market comfortably exceeded mean growth across the full bull market (Chart 4). Chart 4Optimistic At The Very End Analysts’ 2019 estimates additionally look low because median corporate revenue growth ought to converge with nominal GDP growth over time. With 40 basis points of fiscal stimulus slated to be deployed in 2019, we expect the U.S. will have no trouble growing above its 2 – 2.25% trend. Assuming GDP growth at the top of that range, no change in profit margins, share buybacks to reduce outstanding share count by 2%, and 2% inflation, the S&P 500 should be able to grow EPS by 6.25%. The 2.25% difference between the consensus estimate and the back-of-the-envelope projection aligns with corporations’ desire to manage analyst expectations. If the S&P 500 can grow earnings at a rate of 6.25% this year, calendar 2019 EPS would come in at $172.13. The default estimate for the following year would be the mean of historical EPS gains, or about 9%. Applying a 2% lower-the-bar haircut, corporate management teams might guide to 7% growth in 2020. Grossing up our estimated calendar 2019 earnings by 7% yields projected calendar 2020 earnings of $184.17 (Table 1). Table 1Estimating Consensus Expectations For Calendar 2020 S&P 500 EPS What Multiple Might Investors Pay? Estimating a plausible forward multiple is more of a challenge than coming up with a reasonable consensus S&P 500 EPS estimate. Multiples, like all market prices, are dictated in large part by emotion, which often defies prediction. We can make some inferences from the 40-year history of forward multiples nonetheless. That history suggests that the current 16.5 multiple is elevated, but not worryingly so, as it is only a little more than half of a standard deviation above the mean (Chart 5). Chart 5Elevated, But Not Stretched Multiple movements have followed a pattern across the last five bull markets, but their moves are much more volatile than moves in forward estimates, which never decline in a bull market. Broadly, multiples explode higher at the start, plateau, and then retrace some of their initial gains (Chart 6). Their growth pattern inflects higher in the second half before peaking near the end of the bull market and rolling over into the finish. The broad pattern applies to all of the bull markets except the October ’02 – October ’07 bull, in which the multiple peaked in the third decile before sinking for much of the rest of the way. Chart 6Multiples Usually Follow A Well-Defined Pattern Aggregating the multiple moves by decile shows the pattern with more clarity (Chart 7). A burst of re-rating in the first decile signals the beginning of the bull market. The multiple goes on to retrench through the fourth decile and then expands at a double-digit annualized rate until it runs out of steam at the beginning of the final decile. The empirical takeaway is that investors shouldn’t look for much in the way of multiple expansion over the rest of the bull market, and we therefore apply a 16.5 multiple to our $184.17 estimate of forward four-quarter earnings a year from now, yielding an S&P 500 target of 3,040. Mapping A Course Using forward four-quarter earnings four quarters out to develop our price target shows that we do not expect the S&P 500 to surpass its late September highs anytime soon. We have marveled at the way the index has moved straight up since its Christmas Eve bottom, and have been waiting for it to reveal the top of a tradeable range. We thought 2,640, which had marked a triple-bottom in October and November’s turbulence, might present some resistance, and then perhaps 2,700, but the S&P went through both levels like a warm knife through butter (Chart 8). This week’s action suggests that 2,800 – which was a significant level throughout much of 2018 – just might mark the top for a little while. Chart 8Trying To Find The Top Of The Range Our recommendation to an investor who spent January and February underweight equities is therefore to wait. It’s also our recommendation to anyone seeking to add more exposure. As for investors seeking to reduce exposure, the action Friday as we were going to press seemed to suggest that the current levels around 2,800 are a good place to lighten up on equity holdings. If we’re wrong, an investor could buy out-of-the-money calls, which are not too onerously expensive now that the VIX is back below 15, though we almost always think the insurance offered by options is cost prohibitive for investors who are judged on a relative-return basis. Closing Thoughts We are devoted followers of long-term-oriented investors with long-term records of success who are willing to share aspects of their approach in print or in public appearances. We avidly read Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this week, and were delighted to discover a transcript of Charlie Munger’s Q-and-A session with shareholders at the privately-held Daily Journal Corporation’s annual meeting. Howard Marks has been a particular favorite of ours over the years, and this exercise provided confirmation of his view that bull markets end when conditions appear to be at their very best. In line with the Buffett view that investors should be fearful when others are greedy, Marks has argued that bull markets are done in by too much optimism. The tendency for earnings estimates to grow at their most rapid pace in the final stages of a bull market supports Marks’ position. It seems improbable on its face that corporate earnings would make their biggest move at the end of the cycle (Chart 3). The fact that the growth in actual operating earnings tends to peak well before the end of the business cycle (Chart 1) suggests that analysts – and the corporate management teams whose guidance provides the starting point for their earnings models – get lulled to complacency by the successes in the rear-view mirror. In that sense, it may be good for equities that expectations are so beaten down now. Perhaps this bull market will not end until managers, analysts and investors get at least a little bit euphoric.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes compared financial markets to a newspaper contest in which every contestant chooses the six most attractive people from a set of one hundred head shots. The winner is the contestant whose choices best align with the most attractive photos as selected by all of the entrants. Sophisticated contestants don’t bother with the faces they consider to be the most attractive, but with the faces that best align with conventional notions of attractiveness. “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects average opinion to be.”

Feature The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of February 28, 2019. The quant model increased allocations to Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany at the expense of the U.S., the Netherlands and Switzerland. As such, now the model underweights the U.S., Japan, the U.K, France, Canada (downgraded from overweight) and Australia, while overweighting Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden (upgraded from underweight), 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 outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 18 bps in February, with a 54 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model offset by a 9 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 148 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 267 bps and Level 1 outperforming by 29 bps. 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 We are happy to reintroduce the GAA Equity Sector Selection model after we suspended it as of October 2018 following the GICS adjustments to global sector composition. As noted in our September 2018 Special Alert and October 2018 Quarterly, the most notable changes occurred in the new Communication Services sector (previously known as Telecommunication Services) and the Information Technology sector, whereas the Consumer Discretionary sector had various yet insubstantial movements in and out of the sector. Having received historical performance of the revised data, we have retested and adjusted various inputs in the model to match the cyclicality of the revised sectors. We were able to backtest the model to only June 2008 as this was the starting point of the revised data. Given the nature of firms that are now included in the global Communication Services sector, we revised our classification of this sector from a defensive to a cyclical. Hence, it will be positively impacted by the model’s growth component. Furthermore, we have introduced Real Estate as its own sector (following its removal from Financials in August 2016). Additionally, we have neutralized the impact of the liquidity component on the Real Estate sector; in other terms, we found no evidence that the Fed cycle affects this sector in any of its four phases. We also revised the valuations component by shortening the confirming signal of our technical indicator from a 12-month to a 6-month moving average. To properly assess the model’s adjusted performance, we have reset the “since going live date” to begin in March 2019. However, the historical backtested performance of the model will still be shown in Chart 4. Additionally, we show the old model’s performance vs. its benchmark (Table 3). Chart 4Overall Model Performance Given the above, and following our Monthly Update that was released yesterday, the model corroborates our slightly cyclical stance by overweighting Industrials and Materials (Table 4). Additionally, the model’s biggest underweight shift from last month was on Consumer Staples as the momentum indicator significantly deteriorated. The model is overweight Utilities due to positive inputs from its momentum and liquidity components. Table 3Old Model’s Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations​​​​​​​ 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   Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Feature Recommendations Two Key Questions For Asset Allocators Stocks have rallied this year – MSCI ACWI is up 17% from its late December low – despite the fact that economic growth outside the U.S. has continued to deteriorate. The PMI in Germany has fallen to 47.6, in Japan to 48.5, and the average in Emerging Markets to 49.5 (Chart 1). Chart 1PMIs Ex-U.S. Still Falling U.S. growth remains robust, though recent data have showed some signs of weakness. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index has fallen sharply, capex indicators have slipped, and December retail sales were terrible (Chart 2). The New York Fed NowCast for Q1 is now pointing at only 1.2% real GDP growth. Most of the slippage, however, was caused by the six-week government shutdown, and should be reversed in Q2. And the retail sales number appears “rogue”, perhaps caused by irregular data-collection methods during the shutdown, since other retail data do not support it (Chart 2, panel 3). The tightening of financial conditions in the last months of 2018 – which has now partly reversed – may have added to the slowdown (Chart 3). BCA’s view is that U.S. GDP growth is likely to come in well above 2% in 2019, slower than last year’s 2.9% but still above trend. Chart 2Should We Worry About U.S. Growth Too? Chart 3Financial Conditions Now Easing Our recommendation, therefore, is to continue to overweight equities (particularly U.S. equities), which should be supported by decent earnings growth (our top-down model points to 12% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year, compared to a bottom-up consensus forecast of only 5%), reasonable valuations, and sentiment that appears still to be damaged by the Q4 sell-off (Chart 4). Chart 4Environment Still Positive For U.S. Equities Two key questions will determine which asset allocation will be optimal this year. First, how long will the Fed stay “patient” and keep rates on hold? The futures market has almost completely priced out the possibility of any rate hikes in 2019, and even assigns a 15% probability of a cut (Chart 5). We still see upside risk to inflation, with core PCE likely to print above the Fed’s target of 2% by mid-year, partly because of the year-on-year base effect (in January 2018, monthly inflation was especially high), but also because underlying inflation pressures remain (Chart 6). Chart 5Is The Fed Really Going To Cut Rates? Chart 6Inflation Pressures Haven't Gone Away The market has misunderstood two of the Fed’s recent messages. Its mooted plan to end balance-sheet reduction by year-end is not intended as part of monetary policy. It is simply that bank excess reserves will have reached USD1-1.2 trillion, the level required to operate monetary policy using current tools, rather than those used before 2007 when reserves were zero (Chart 7). Second, recent discussions about changing the Fed’s inflation target from 2% a year to a price-level target will probably become effective only when the effective lower bound is hit in the next recession and, anyway, no decision will be taken until mid-2020. Chart 7Excess Reserves Will Be At Equilibrium Soon The market has taken this talk as dovish. We read recent comments by Fed Chairman Jay Powell to mean that if, by June, the economy is robust, risk assets are still rebounding, and inflation is ticking up, the Fed will continue to hike, maybe two or three times by year-end. This implies long-term bond yields will rise too. Equities may wobble initially but, as long as the Fed is hiking because growth is solid and not because of an inflation scare, this should not undermine the 12-month case for equity outperformance. The second key question is whether China has now abandoned its focus on deleveraging and switched to a 2016-style liquidity-driven stimulus. Certainly, the January total social financing number pointed in that direction, with new credit creation of almost 5 trillion RMB ($750 billion) and the first signs of an easing of restrictions on shadow banking (Chart 8). But the jury is still out on whether this is the massive reflation the market has been waiting for. Premier Li Keqiang criticized the increase, saying, “the increase in total social financing appears rather large…it may also bring new potential risks”. A PBOC official commented that the big increase was “due to seasonal factors” and emphasized that China was not embarking on “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. The recent more positive noises on the U.S./China trade war may also alleviate the pressure on China to stimulate. Chart 8First Signs Of Chinese Reflation? If and when Chinese growth does rebound, this will have major implications for asset allocation. It would signal a bottoming of the global cycle, which would favor stocks in Emerging Markets, Europe and Japan. It would push up commodity prices, and imply a weaker dollar. For now, we are not positioning ourselves like this, since global growth remains weak. Nonetheless, the first signs of a bottoming are appearing with, for example, the diffusion index of the global Leading Economic Index (which often leads the LEI itself) turning up (Chart 9). We may shift in this direction mid-year, and are now making some minor changes to our recommendations (see below) to hedge against this risk. But for the moment we prefer U.S. equities, expect further USD appreciation, and remain cautious on EM. Chart 9Is The LEI Close To Bottoming? Equities: We prefer U.S. equities given their better growth, reasonable valuations, and depressed sentiment (despite their outperformance year-to-date). But we are watching for an opportunity to increase our weighting in Europe, where growth still looks poor but may rebound in H2 due to fiscal stimulus, improving wage growth, a dovish turn by the ECB, and an eventual recovery in exports to China (Chart 10). We still see problems in EM, since earnings growth expectations need to be revised down further and stock prices have risen prematurely on expectations of a Chinese recovery (Chart 11). But we reduce the size of our underweight bet, to hedge against Chinese credit growth continuing to accelerate. We are also raising our recommendation for the industrials sector (with its large weight in capital goods companies dependent on exports to China) to overweight for the same reason.  We fund this by cutting consumer staples to underweight. We also raise our weighting on the energy sector, given our positive view on oil prices (see below). This gives our sector weightings a slightly more cyclical tilt, in line with our macro view. Chart 10Some Good News In Europe Too Chart 11EM Has Further Downside Fixed Income: It has been a conundrum this year why equities have risen and credit spreads tightened significantly, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains stuck below 2.7%. One explanation is that inflation expectations have been dampened by the crude oil price and if, as we forecast, oil continues to recover, the inflation component of the yield will rise (Chart 12). U.S. yields have also been dragged down by weak growth in other developed markets, where bond yields have therefore fallen. The spread between U.S. and German and Japanese yields reached record high levels in late 2018 (Chart 13). The term premium also is deeply into negative territory because many investors remain highly bearish and have hedged this view by buying Treasuries. If our view of robust U.S. growth, rising inflation, and more Fed hikes is correct, we would see 10-year Treasury yields rising towards 3.5% over the next 12 months. Accordingly, we are underweight global government bonds. We raised credit to neutral last month, but continue to have some qualms about this asset class, and prefer equities as a way of taking exposure to further upside for risk assets. Besides high leverage among U.S. corporates, we are worried about the deterioration in the quality of the credit market, since duration has been extended, covenants weakened, and the average credit rating fallen (Chart 14). Chart 12Inflation Expectations Driven By Oil Chart 13U.S. Yields Pulled Down By Europe And Japan Chart 14Deterioration In Credit Market Fundamentals Currencies: We see some more upside in the U.S. dollar over the next few months, given U.S. growth and monetary policy relative to the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). This may reverse, however, if global cyclical growth rebounds in the second half. The dollar is particularly vulnerable if macro conditions change, since it looks around 10% overvalued relative to other major DM currencies, and speculative positions are predominantly long dollar (Chart 16). Chart 15Relative Rates Support USD Chart 16But Dollar Vulnerable To Macro Shifts Commodities: With demand likely to grow steadily this year, but supply under pressure because of production cuts by OPEC and Canada, lower U.S. shale oil output, and disruptions in Venezuela and elsewhere, our energy strategists see drawdowns in inventories throughout the year (Chart 17). They forecast Brent to average $75 a barrel during 2019 (compared to $66 now), with WTI $5 a barrel lower. Industrial commodities continue to be driven by China which means, given our view expressed above, that we may see further weakness short-term, with a possible rebound in H2 (Chart 18). Chart 17Oil Supply/Demand Is Tight Chart 18When Will Metal Prices Bottom?   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation