Sectors

Special Report

One of BCA's long-standing clients, Ms. Mea, recently paid us a visit at our Montreal office. Ms. Mea is an experienced and successful investor who has been reading different BCA products for many years. She noted that over the years she has both agreed and disagreed with our market views, but that she appreciates our thematic approach including themes, analysis and views, as they are important to her investment process. Like many of our clients, Ms. Mea has been disappointed by the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team's EM/China call, which has not been correct over the past 18 months. My team and I spent a few hours with Ms. Mea detailing our views and methodology. Despite some tough discussions, she said she found the dialogue valuable. Reflecting on our meeting, I thought it would be beneficial to share the key points with all of EMS clients. This report is a summary of that. Ms. Mea and I agreed to continue the debate as the story plays out, so I will be meeting with her occasionally in Europe when I travel there. Ms. Mea: Clearly your recommended strategy has been wrong for some time. I am aware that your negative view on EM/China and strategy was right and profitable from 2011 until early 2016. Nevertheless, since early last year EM risk assets have rallied considerably, and not participating in this rally has been painful - not to mention being short EM risk assets. For our global equity funds, underweighting EM within the global universe did not hurt performance in 2016. However, this year the EM equity benchmark has considerably outperformed the global averages (Chart I-1). So, what has gone wrong, and why haven't you changed your view already? Chart I-1EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices Answer: My objective today is not to dispute your comments - my view and investment strategy have clearly gone wrong. Rather, I would like to highlight what has gone wrong as well as elaborate on my methodology and thought process. Let me be clear, if I thought in 2016 or early 2017 that the market would rally for more than six months and - in the case of EM equities - by more than 20%, I would have recommended clients to play this rally regardless of my big picture themes and views. The same is true today. My general view has been based on two pillars: Chinese growth and Federal Reserve policy/the U.S. dollar. 1. The first pillar of my argument has been that China's growth improvement would prove unsustainable due to lingering credit imbalances/excesses. In the April 13, 2016 report,1 I laid out the case that China's 2015-16 fiscal stimulus of RMB 850 billion would be offset by a potential slowdown in credit growth from an annual growth rate of 11.5% to 9-9.5%. Chart I-2China: Borrowing Costs Have Been Rising This thesis of credit growth deceleration was based on the natural tendency of credit growth to gravitate toward nominal GDP growth, especially since the credit-to-GDP ratio had massively overshot in the preceding seven years. Besides, since 2013 high-profile policymakers in China had been talking about the need for deleveraging, containing financial excesses, and not repeating the mistakes of 2009-2010, when money and credit was allowed to run at an extremely strong pace. In first half of 2016, I downplayed the recovery in money and credit aggregates arguing that they are temporary and unsustainable. When a country has a lingering credit bubble - which has been the case in China, I am biased to downplay upticks in money and credit growth and easing in monetary policy. At the same time, I put a greater emphasis on both monetary tightening and slowdown in money/credit when the economy suffers from credit excesses. The opposite is also true in cases where there are no excesses/imbalances. Since November 2016, the People Bank of China (PBoC) has been tightening liquidity and pushing money market rates and corporate bond yields higher (Chart I-2). This has been taking place in addition to regulatory tightening on both bank and shadow banking activities. As a result, I have been predicting that regulatory and liquidity tightening amid lingering credit and speculative excesses would weigh on money, credit and capital spending. Importantly, I reckoned that financial markets would be forward-looking and would reverse their rally in anticipation of weaker growth down the road instead of reacting to robust - yet backward looking - growth data. Indeed, money and credit growth have already slowed to all-time lows (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, broad economic growth has not slowed (Chart I-4). This has also been true for China's impact on the rest of the world - the mainland's imports have remained robust (Chart I-5). Chart I-3China: Money And Credit Aggregates Chart I-4China: Business Cycle Perspective Chart I-5China: Money Impulses And Imports Not only have I been surprised by the mainland economy's ability to withstand the slowdown in money/credit so far, but I have also been caught off guard by how financial markets have shrugged off the rise in onshore interest rates and the deceleration in money/credit. That said, liquidity tightening works with a time lag. The fact that it has not yet had an impact on the real economy does not mean it won't going forward. 2. The second pillar of my view has been that the Fed's dovish stance would prove transitory. The global market rally began in February 2016 when the Fed sounded dovish in the face of a surging U.S. dollar, collapsing commodities prices, very weak global trade and plunging global risk assets. Remarkably, global growth and corporate profits have recovered very strongly, the U.S. dollar has weakened considerably and commodities and global tradable goods prices have rebounded. As such, I expected that U.S. interest rate expectations would move higher, dampening the carry trade. Unfortunately, markets' reactionary functions does not always follow a symmetrical logic. The decline in U.S. inflation rate amid a weak dollar, rising import prices and robust U.S. growth - especially the tight labor market and some wages pressures (Chart I-6) - has puzzled me. Ms. Mea: Why have you disregarded the clear improvements in EM profits and global trade in 2017? Answer: I have been aware of improving economic data and corporate profits. Yet, these types of data are backward looking and are not a guarantee of future trends. Even though the released economic data and corporate profits have been strong, our forward-looking indicators for both EM and China have been heralding and continue to point to a major downtrend in EM profits (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Chart I-7EM Profits Are At Risk Importantly, I presume stock prices lead profits. Hence, it is dangerous to turn bullish when forward-looking indicators that lead profits are already flashing red. These are empirical indicators and have a great track record. As such, I have placed substantial weight on them rather than on backward-looking economic and profit data. Since early 2017, I have been facing the following dilemma: Should I change my view based on strong, yet backward-looking, profit data, or remain cautious based on forward-looking growth indicators as well as our big-picture themes. I chose the latter, which in retrospect was wrong. Looking back, the biggest mistake I made was putting little weight on how markets have been trading. EM and global stocks continue to trade as they would in a genuine bull market: they have looked past negative news and rallied a lot in response to positives. Ms. Mea: You mentioned big-picture themes. Can you elaborate on your framework and methodology? Answer: At the core of my analytical framework lies investment themes. I formulate these themes based on a series of in-depth research reports. These themes have multi-year relevance - I expect them to have staying power beyond one year. These themes represent an anchor to my view and strategy. Without anchor themes, I would tend to change my views back and forth based on fluctuations in economic data or swings in financial markets. Having established themes, my team and I monitor cyclical data, market dynamics/signposts and any type of evidence to prove or refute those established themes. Clients have recently been asking why I only show charts/evidence that confirm my view, and rarely entertain the alternative scenario. Indeed, there are always contradictory signals, signposts and data that I identify every week. Yet, I still choose to show those that support my ongoing themes and views. Why? Because I opt to convey a well-argued coherent message to my clients. In this context, I use the limited client-time allocated to reading our reports to highlight the reasons supporting my current themes and high-conviction views. It would also be unhelpful for readers if I demonstrate several charts that herald a bullish stance, and then conclude the opposite. If I were to utilize the alternative approach, i.e., present data and evidence on both sides of the debate, the report would be ambiguous. As a result, readers would gain little conviction and would likely be left confused. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages: when the view plays out, investors see the correct angle and, thereby, develop a strong conviction on the strategy, and hopefully act upon it. Conversely, when the view goes wrong, investors typically wish they had seen the opposite side as well. Chart I-8China: No Deleveraging So Far In short, my goal is to leave clients with a clear and well-argued message when I have high conviction. As to conviction level, like all investors, I am dealing with a black box when gauging the outlook for financial markets. I am never 100% certain; I make investment recommendations only when my conviction level is somewhere around 65-75%. Generally, I do not discuss the areas where my conviction level is less than 60%. Less than 60% means "I do not know". An example of this is whether the current tech rally will persist. Importantly, I try to bring to clients' attention data and evidence that they may not be aware of and analytical points that differ from commonly known market narratives. Investors are aware of overall global financial market dynamics and ongoing narratives. My goal is to add value to their knowledge with the framework of thematic investment research, and to highlight new and potentially market moving charts, data and evidence. My major theme on China in the past several years has been the following: Chinese banks have originated too much money, and the corporate sector has taken on a large amount of leverage. This, in tandem with speculative excesses in the shadow banking and property markets, pose considerable downside risks to capital spending growth in the mainland. This is especially the case given that both liquidity and regulatory tightening of banks and non-banks already begun in late 2016. While financial markets, economic data and corporate profits have gone against this theme, this does not mean credit/money excesses in China have disappeared or do not exist. On the contrary, they have gotten even bigger now (Chart I-8, top panel). The Chinese economy has recovered and benefited commodities prices and the rest of EM due to another round of substantial money/credit injection. Broad money and broad credit have surged by about RMB 45-50 trillion since the middle of 2015 - depending on which measure one uses (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In the context of mushrooming leverage, ongoing policy tightening entails a poor risk-reward profile for bullish bets on mainland growth. This is why I am reluctant to abandon this theme and the bearish view. Ms. Mea: What would it take to change your big picture theme on China? To fundamentally reverse my view on China and commodities on a multi-year time line, I would need to reject my theme that China has meaningful credit excesses and imbalances, or buy into the view that these imbalances are a natural outcome of China's excess savings and will never correct. I have strong conviction in my big picture theme and I have not seen convincing arguments to change it. That said, if I come to the conclusion that EM risk assets and China-related plays will rally for six months or longer, I will change the investment strategy and recommend playing that rally. In this case my market strategy will change even though the big picture theme remains intact. As to the relationship between national and household savings, credit, and money, I have elaborated at great length that money creation and credit excesses do not originate from excess savings.2 Hence, it is simply not natural for a country with excess savings to experience and sustain credit bubbles. Importantly, adjustments in terms of credit excesses/deleveraging in China have not even started (Chart 8, top panel). This does not imply that investors should wait until deleveraging ends before turning positive on mainland growth. Markets are forward looking and will bottom when they see the light at the end of tunnel. But it is very dangerous to be positive when the adjustment has not yet began. It appears China's capital spending in general and construction in particular - the most vulnerable and credit-dependent segments - have in recent years been fluctuating in mini-cycles, similar to what played out in Japan during the 1990s and 2000s. I am not suggesting that China resembles Japan entirely, but comparing their mini cycles is a worthwhile exercise. Chart I-9 shows that the Japanese economy, money, credit and share prices were on a rollercoaster ride in the 1990s and 2000s. Notably, the profile of Chinese H shares fits the profile of Japan's stock market during that period (Chart I-10). On average, the recovery phase of these mini-cycles/equity rallies lasted about 20-24 months. Chart I-9Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Chart I-10Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s My judgment is that the recovery in the Chinese economy and related financial markets over the past 18 months resembles the mini cycles Japan experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. If so, after the rally in the past 18 months, forward-looking investment strategy should be focused on identifying signposts of a reversal. Consistently, given my bias stemming from our core themes and the fact that financial markets are forward looking and have already rallied a lot, I have been looking for signs of a top in China's business cycle and Asia's trade flows. It is pointless for me to change the view if my bias is that markets will reverse their trend in the next couple of months. Investors who are bullish and long but are somewhat concerned about China's growth sustainability still may want to monitor and be aware when the business cycle and markets will reverse. This is where I believe our research is helpful and relevant to investors with a bullish bias. It is hard to forecast what would be an inflection point to overturn the current financial market trend. It could be an unambiguous message from China's Communist Party Congress in the coming days that containing financial risks - a code word for deleveraging - is a major policy priority, or it could be weak economic data in China, or lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies, being the flipside of a stronger dollar. Chart I-11China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Ms. Mea: It seems there is no silver lining in your view. Does this mean Chinese policymakers cannot do much to generate a positive outcome for the economy and financial markets? Answer: Chinese policymakers are in a very tough position. Yet it does not mean there is no silver lining. I assign a 20-25% probability that policymakers can stabilize leverage in the economy and financial system without a meaningful growth slump. If this scenario transpires, my negative view on EM and China-related plays will continue to be wrong. There is a 40-45% probability that growth will slump as the authorities focus on deleveraging and structural reforms (allowing markets to play a greater role in resource/capital allocation), and that policy tightening will begin biting. This heralds a deflationary outcome from a cyclical perspective, but it also represents a necessary adjustment to ensure efficiency gains and productivity-led growth over the long run. In fact, this would make me structurally bullish on China's growth again. There is also a 30-35% probability that policymakers - having no tolerance for any kind of growth slump - will continue to stimulate via money/credit and fiscal deficits. The outcome of this scenario will be an inflation outbreak Notably, as I argued in the October 4th 2017 report,3 underlying inflationary pressures are rising, as shown in Chart I-11. Unless growth decelerates meaningfully, inflation will need to be tackled. If not, capital outflows from residents will escalate again, and the currency will come under depreciation pressure given that the deposit rate is at a very low 1.5%. Rising inflation limits policymakers' maneuvering room: they have to tighten and cannot stimulate rapidly and considerably when growth slows. In short, a silver-lining scenario - which would include the authorities curbing out excesses while preserving overall growth, and especially capital spending growth - is always there and is a well-known narrative in the investment community. I do not write about it because I assign a 20-25% probability of it actually panning out. Why not more? Because the imbalances and excesses are currently so large that it will be difficult to contain them without jeopardizing growth. Finally, my view on China does not spread to the entire economy - our focal point has been and remains capital expenditures in general and construction in particular. These areas are being financed by credit, and consume a lot of raw materials and capital goods. Mainland imports - which are heavy in commodities and capital goods (the two account for 95% of total imports) - are the link between mainland investment expenditures and the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. The latter will suffer if Chinese imports contract. Ms. Mea: It seems your big-picture themes have considerable influence on your views and strategy. How have your big-picture investment themes evolved over time? Last decade, my overreaching theme was that EM and China were structurally sound and that EM/China/commodities were in a bull market. So, I went from being a staunch bull to a resolute bear. I took over the EMS strategy service in 2005, and was bullish on EM, China and commodities up until 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). In 2005, I published an in-depth report arguing that commodities were in secular bull market due to demand from China.4 In April 2006, I pioneered a new theme that in the case of a U.S./DM recession, EM could stimulate and boost domestic demand - an out-of-consensus thesis5 at the time. Having these themes in mind, I recommended upgrading/accumulating Chinese stocks amid the Lehman crisis in the fall of 2008.6 The message was that Chinese policymakers could and would stimulate, and that such stimulus would succeed in lifting Chinese growth, corporate profits, commodities prices and EM risk assets. That was a non-consensus trade at the time, and the exact opposite of my current view. Following the credit boom in EM/China in 2009-10, excesses and imbalances emerged, and I shifted to a negative stance on EM/China in 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). Furthermore, in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled, 'How to Play EM This Decade,' I made a call on a major top and forthcoming bear market in commodities arguing that the 2010-decade leaders in terms of growth and share price performance would be the healthcare and technology sectors. I speculated that during the current decade mania will unfold either in the technology or heath care sectors or some combination of both. Since 2010, the technology and healthcare equity sectors have been the best equity sectors, while commodities have been the worst performing ones within both the global and EM equity space. Consistent with this theme, I have been overweighing EM technology stocks and bourses where tech has a large weight, such as Taiwan, China and Korea. Besides, since 2010 I have maintained a pair strategy recommendation of being long tech and short materials. Ms. Mea: It seems you have been changing the goalposts lately, using new data on Chinese money and credit instead of relying on traditional ones. Our research is an ongoing effort to understand the macro landscape better. Our objective is always to find new variables and indicators that better lead business cycles and corporate profits while continuing to track the existing ones. Thus, it is not about changing goalposts but refining existing indicators or examining alternative ones that have a better track record. The following aspects have led usintroduce new broad money measures in China: Over the past two years, official M2 has been much weaker than various credit and money measures, as illustrated in the top panel of Chart I-8 on page 8. Broad money, and hence new purchasing power, is created when banks originate credit - by lending to or buying claims on non-bank entities. Therefore, properly measuring broad money is vital to assessing the new purchasing power that is created in the economy. In brief, in 2016 and early this year I relied on China's official broad money M2 measure, but it has underestimated the amount of new purchasing power created in the past two years. This was one of the reasons we misjudged the duration and magnitude of this equity rally. In addition, the regulatory clampdown on banks and non-banks may have prompted them to shift credit assets from off balance sheet to on balance sheet, or vice versa. Banks and shadow bank entities can obscure or hide credit by classifying it differently, but the banking system cannot conceal the amount of money in the system. Therefore, by tracing broad money creation, one can trail new purchasing power originated by banks. For these reasons, we have begun calculating new broad money aggregates for China - we produced our measure of M3 (M2 plus some other banks liabilities that are not included in M2) and credit-money (broad money calculated using the asset side of commercial banks' balance sheets). Chart I-3 on page 3 illustrates that all measures of money and credit have slowed in late 2016 and this year. On balance, having examined various measures of money and credit, including official M2, we have concluded that in the past 12 months money/credit creation has been slowing in China, irrespective of which aggregate we focus on (please refer to Chart I-3 on page 3). Ms. Mea: How do you explain strong September money and credit numbers out of China? Money, credit and business activity data for September were indeed strong, but they should be adjusted for working days. In China, the annual Mid-Autumn Festival fell in October this year versus September over the past several years. During this festival, business activity grinds to a halt for several days. I conjecture that money, credit and growth data out of China and Asia in general was strong in September partially due to the increase in the number of business days in September this year versus September a year ago. We need to wait for October data and average the two months to get a better picture of the trajectory of the business cycle in Asia. Chart I-12China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining Ms. Mea: Your view on China, commodities and EM is largely contingent on very weak money growth. Is it possible that the correlation between money and economic growth has diminished or completely broken down in China? The only reason why broad money growth could deviate from nominal GDP growth is due to the rising velocity of money. Let's remind ourselves: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money. For nominal GDP growth to rise, a considerable decelaration in money supply growth needs to be offset by an even larger acceleration in the velocity of money. It is extremely difficult to forecast velocity of money. I assume money velocity will be steady (constant) and, consequently, nominal GDP growth to be affected primarily by changes in broad money growth. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the velocity of money in China has been declining over the past eight years. So, it would be odd for the velocity of money to suddenly rise going forward, in turn making money growth a less reliable indicator for nominal GDP growth. Overall, while it is always possible that the correlation between money growth and economic activity can break down, it is not something that one can forecast or bet on with high conviction. Chart I-13EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak Ms. Mea: What about other emerging markets? How dependent are they on China? Where are they in the business cycle? The link from China to other emerging markets is via commodities and EM countries' other exports to the mainland. Even non-commodity countries like Korea and Taiwan sell a lot to China. If Chinese growth decelerates, commodities prices relapse, the U.S. dollar rallies or the RMB comes under selling pressure, the outlook for other EM countries and their risk assets will be dim. I argued that EM currencies, credit, and stocks on aggregate levels are not cheap.7 Segments that appear attractively valued are cheap for a reason, while healthy segments (countries/sectors/companies) are rather expensive. Money and bank loan growth also remain lackluster in the majority of EM, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). The reason is that the banking systems in many of these developing countries have not been restructured and remain sick following years of overextended credit and rising non-performing loans. Therefore, even though EM exports to China and the rest of the world have picked up, there has been little recovery in their domestic demand. If external conditions - exports, exchange rates and borrowing costs - deteriorate anew, EM domestic demand recovery will be derailed. Investors often refer to Russia and Brazil when they cite macro adjustments in developing economies. It is true that Russia and Brazil have already gone through a lot of pain and adjustment, including provisioning for NPLs in their respective banking systems. Nevertheless, financial markets in both countries remain dependent on commodities prices and the U.S. dollar outlook. Barring external shocks, both economies will continue to revive. That said, my big-picture view entails a negative shock to EM sentiment due to China and a rally in the greenback so I cannot turn bullish on them yet. In addition, Brazil's public debt is rising in an unsustailable manner, and political risks remain significant, particularly ahead of next year's elections. It will be hard to boost nominal growth and contain the explosion of public debt without meaningful currency depreciation that reflates the economy. That cannot not bode well for foreign investors in Brazilian markets. Credit excesses continue to linger in some other EM economies, and there has been little adjustments in their leverage even when we remove China, Korea and Taiwan from the aggregate (Chart I-14). All in all, while some EM economies have undergone necessary macro adjustments, the largest economy - China - has not. When China begins its own macro adjustments, shockwaves will likely hit Asian economies and commodities producers. There are not many large developing countries outside Asia that are not raw materials exporters. Ms. Mea: What about the technology sector? It alone has been responsible for a substantial portion of price gains in the EM equity benchmark in this rally. Does your view on China's credit cycle also influence your outlook for technology stocks? Indeed, EM tech stocks have exploded in recent years, accounting for a significant portion of EM share price appreciation. Excluding tech stocks, EM equities have not rallied nearly as much (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Leverage Has Not Diminished Chart I-15EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech Also, Table I-1 reveals that eight out of 11 equity sectors have underperformed the benchmark. Meanwhile, a large share of tech gains has been produced by five or so companies. Table I-1EM Sectors: Only Three Out Of 11 Sectors ##br##Outperformed The Benchmark I have no strong view on the technology sector's absolute performance following the exponential price gains of past years. Overweighting the technology sector has been my recommendation since 2010, as we discussed above, and it has panned out quite well. I still maintain this overweight call, but within the technology sector we prefer semis to internet and social-media stocks. On the second part of your question, my negative view on China's credit cycle does not have direct ramifications for technology stocks, including Chinese ones. Critically, the call on internet- and social media-related companies is a bottom-up call. On the macro level, I can only state the following: It is essential to realize that in the past nine years a lot of new purchasing power in China has been created because of explosive money origination by banks. If money/credit growth structurally downshifts in China in the years ahead, nominal income growth for both households and companies will slow and the growth in their spending power will also moderate. That said, I am not in a position to assess and comment on business model viability and equity valuation levels of internet and social media-related companies like Alibaba, Tencent or Baidu. As to the other two tech heavyweights - Samsung Electronics and TSMC - I continue to recommend an overweight position in semis and other tech stocks that stand to benefit from DM growth. However, I am less certain about their absolute performance given their exponential rally. Chart I-16EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio ##br##Performance Versus The Benchmark Finally, regardless of my view on EM absolute performance, we always add value to dedicated EM equity and fixed-income investors by selecting countries to overweight and underweight relative to their respective benchmarks. Our country equity allocation strategy has been very successful. Chart I-16 illustrates our country fully-invested equity portfolio performance versus the EM benchmark. The portfolio is built based on our overweight and underweight recommendations on individual bourses, and is assumed to be fully invested. Our country calls have done quite well in the past nine years, producing 58% outperformance versus the benchmark with extremely low volatility. This translates into 520 basis points of annual compound outperformance for nine years. Our recommended country allocation and other equity positions as well as fixed income and currency recommendations are published at the end of each week's report. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, " China: Deflation Or Inflation?," dated October 4, 2017; link available on page 21. 4 Please refer to the International Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled, "Commodities: Buy On Dips," dated April 2005. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Global Monetary Tightening And Emerging Markets: Is It Different This Time?"dated April 19, 2006. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Upgrade/Accumulate Chinese Stocks,"dated September 29, 2008. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Earlier this week, CSX led off railroad Q3 earnings, managing to beat expectations while overcoming hurricanes and derailments. Of particular note was solid pricing gains despite somewhat lagging domestic inflation and CSX-specific service issues. Even modest growth bodes exceptionally well for the industry as pricing moves have historically been good indicators of margin gains (second panel). Further, firming in intermodal shipping specifically portends ongoing EPS improvements. Intermodal is broadly a reflection of global production & trade, which is tightly correlated with profit growth (third panel). Our rails EPS model captures all this, and it continues to indicate a surge in profit growth relative to the S&P 500 (bottom panel). We reiterate our overweight position. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU.

In this week's Weekly Report, we are highlighting what we expect to be the key macro theme we see dominating markets in 2018: the nascent recovery in capital outlays transforming into a full blown capex upcycle. The second panel shows that the recent V-shaped recovery in operating EPS should morph into a sizable capex upcycle. Vibrant capex then feeds back into profits, leading to a virtuous cycle. Empirical evidence suggests that a lagged relationship exists between these two variables: since the early 1980s capex growth has typically trailed profit growth by one year. Intuitively, as earnings recover, CEOs have more confidence in the outlook for final demand and choose to deploy longer-term oriented capital. National accounts data also confirm the positive correlation between capex1 and corporate non-financial operating earnings2 growth, albeit with a shorter lag. Our chart shows that since the 1980s recession, all four recessions were preceded by stock market reported capex soaring to roughly a 20% annual growth rate. At the current juncture, capex is merely on the cusp of entering expansion territory and, if history at least rhymes, a significant capex upcycle is looming and higher beta/higher operating leverage deep cyclicals sectors are going to be in the driver's seat. Please see Monday's Weekly and Special Reports for more details. 1 Source: National Income and Product Accounts 2 Source: Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1

We have been shifting our portfolio toward a cyclical over defensive tilt recently and in this week's Special Report, we are highlighting five compelling reasons to buy cyclicals at the expense of defensives. Capital expenditures upcycle. The capex upcycle will disproportionately benefit capital goods producers versus their defensive brethren. Leading indicators of capital outlays have taken off (top panel), suggesting both capex and the relative share price ratio will surge higher. Synchronized global growth in general and emerging markets (EM) growth in particular. Synchronized global growth typically boosts global final demand and is also conducive to a coordinated global capex upcycle. The resurgent global manufacturing PMI suggests that cyclicals have the upper hand (second panel). U.S. dollar softness. The U.S. dollar has a critical influence on the relative share price ratio. The currency remains in the red year-to-date, on a trade-weighted basis, representing a bullish backdrop for cyclical compared with defensive EPS prospects as a lagged currency effect should boost relative profitability (third panel). Bottom Line: Shift to a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. Please see yesterday's Special Report for more details and our other reasons for the portfolio shift.

Highlights Revisiting the shadow banking system 10 years later. The September CPI data is unlikely to resolve the inflation debate at the Fed. How to invest in a late cycle environment. Wage Inflation was on the rise even before the hurricanes. Feature Chart 1September CPI And Retail Sales Keep##BR##The Fed On Track To Tighten The state of the U.S. business cycle, and what could end it, were key topics of conversation at BCA's semi-annual Research Advisory Board meeting in early October. Most participants agreed with the BCA view that the economy is in the late stages of the economic cycle, and a few suggested that another bubble in the shadow banking sector may end the expansion. With those discussions in mind, we review the state of the shadow banking in the first section of this report and then examine how key aspects of the economy and U.S. asset classes behave while the U.S. economy is in the final stages of an expansion. In the final section, we take another look at wage inflation signals from the hurricane impacted September jobs report, and conclude that wage growth has accelerated even excluding the effect of the storms. The September CPI and retail sales data were also impacted by the storm, but the message is that the underlying economy is strong enough to generate some inflation (Chart 1), although the September CPI is unlikely to resolve the inflation debate at the Fed. The minutes of last month's FOMC meeting (released last week) indicate that the upcoming inflation data could be pivotal to whether the Fed delivers another rate hike in December. There are two more CPI reports ahead of the December FOMC meeting (with the second release coming on the day of the policy announcement). While the September CPI data was hard to interpret due to the storms, the next few data prints need to affirm the Fed's forecast that core inflation is indeed recovering from the "transitory weakness" seen earlier this year. BCA's U.S. bond strategists believe that inflation will be strong enough for the Fed to justify a hike in December and recommend below-benchmark duration for fixed income portfolios. Shadow Banking Update At current levels, shadow banking activity in the U.S. is not a threat to the economic expansion. The ratio of financial sector debt to non-financial sector debt is a rough proxy of how the system can leverage existing debt into new securities and boost credit creation (Chart 2). As financial innovation and deregulation boosted system liquidity, outstanding financial debt as a percentage of non-financial debt climbed from 10% in the mid-1970s to over 50% in 2008. In Q2 2017, the shadow banking proxy stands at only 33%, because the global financial crisis and subsequent reregulation of the financial sector have reigned in excesses. The last time that the ratio was this low was in the late 1990s. Bank lending standards highlight key differences between the backdrop in the mid-2000s and today (Chart 3). In the mid-2000s, even as the Fed had boosted rates by 425 basis points, lending standards were easy and loosening. In contrast, the 100 bps increase in the Fed funds rate since late 2015 was accompanied by a tightening of lending requirements. Moreover, lending criteria were already tight when the Fed began its latest rate hikes. Chart 2The Shrinking Shadow##BR##Banking Sector Chart 3Bank Lending Standards Tighter##BR##Today Than In Mid '00s The Fed and other regulators are more attuned to financial excesses than they were a decade ago. The central bank under Yellen has raised the profile of financial stability.1 BCA views "financial stability" as a third mandate for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. That said, the Fed did not assess financial stability at the September FOMC meeting and the topic was only briefly mentioned by Fed staff and FOMC participants. At the July 2017 meeting, the central bank's staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance. BCA expects that the Fed will return to the topic at either one or both remaining FOMC meetings in 2017. The October 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report2 provided a checklist of liquidity measures to watch as the U.S. economy enters the end of an elongated expansion. In view of these indicators, we would describe liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as prior to the Lehman event in 2008. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the global financial crisis, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years (as per indicators such as bank leverage). The Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity created by its quantitative easing program. This has the potential to undermine other types of liquidity in the financial system, leading to a correction in risk assets. However, the BCA Special Report argues that the reaction of the bond market is more important for risk assets than the balance sheet adjustment itself. If inflation only edges higher and market expectations for the upward path of the Fed funds rate remain gentle, then risk assets should take the balance sheet unwind in stride. An abrupt upward shift in inflation would be an altogether different story. Bottom Line: The U.S. expansion entered a late-cycle environment near the close of 2016 as the unemployment rate dipped below NAIRU. Nonetheless, none of our recession-timing indicators warns that a downtown is imminent3 and the financial excesses in the end stage of the 2001-2007 economic expansion are not present today. If the next recession begins in the second half of 2019, then global equities will probably peak earlier that year or in late 2018. Given the starting point for valuations, U.S. equities may decline by 20% to 30% peak-to-trough. Stay overweight equities for now. The time to trim exposure could come in mid-2018. Late-Cycle Playbook Chart 4Easier Financial Conditions##BR##Will Boost U.S. Growth Easing financial conditions will lead to faster U.S. GDP growth in the next few quarters. Financial conditions have eased sharply this year due to a strengthening stock market, narrower credit spreads and a weaker dollar. Changes in financial conditions lead growth by about 6 to 9 months, implying that U.S. growth could reach 3% early next year (Chart 4). This could drop the unemployment rate to 3.5% by end-2018, more than one point below the Fed's estimate of full employment and even lower than the 2008 low of 3.8%. Rising inflation will compel the Fed to lift rates aggressively next year to cool the economy and push the unemployment rate back above NAIRU. The U.S. has never averted a recession in the post-war era when the unemployment rate has increased by more than one-third of a percentage point. BCA's stance is that the U.S. economy enters the expansion's final stage when the unemployment rate dips below NAIRU. Chart 5 shows that the unemployment rate moved below NAIRU in November 2016. In the past 45 years, the economy has spent an average of 33 months in late-cycle mode ahead of 5 recessions. The exception was 1981-82 when the unemployment rate did not dip below NAIRU ahead of the recession; we treated the separate 1980 and 1981-82 recessions as one episode. Note that several of these late-cycle intervals overlap with recessions (vertical lines on Charts 5, 6 and 7 indicate the start of recessions). Chart 5Late Cycle Performance Of Stocks, Bonds, & Commodities The late-cycle environment favors equities over Treasuries, gold and oil, but other risk assets (small caps, investment-grade and high-yield corporates) underperform (Table 1). The dollar drops by an average of 5% in late cycles and it moved lower in 4 of the 5 previous episodes. Oil is a consistent late-cycle performer, climbing in all the stages in our analysis. The average returns across all assets classes are similar, even excluding the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and the 1987 stock market crash. Nonetheless, asset class returns in the current environment have mostly run counter to history. Table 1Late Cycle Performance Of Stocks, Bonds, & Commodities In typical late-cycle performance, U.S. stocks have outperformed Treasuries since November 2016, the dollar has weakened and oil is up, though by far less than in an average late cycle. However, both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outpaced Treasuries, and small caps have beaten large caps. Moreover, gold prices have dropped. However, the current late-cycle period has been in place for only 10 months, which is more than two years short of the 33-month average of late cycles since 1972 (Table 1). Furthermore, the level of S&P 500 earnings, both trailing and forward, also rise uniformly in late cycles. That said, earnings growth tends to peak about halfway through each cycle, but we note that we have only forward EPS data for three of the five episodes in our analysis. Profit margins take the same course as earnings and earnings growth (Chart 6). The late-cycle climb in wages and labor compensation impacts margins. Additionally, inflation tends to escalate during late cycles (Chart 7). Chart 6S&P 500 Earnings And Margins In Late Cycle Chart 7Inflation And Interest Rates During Late Cycles Bottom Line: The late-cycle environment may persist for another two years or so, favoring stocks over bonds, a weaker dollar and higher oil prices. Although we are overweight both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, these two asset classes tend to underperform Treasuries as the business cycle fades. We also expect wages and inflation to continue to mount, suggesting that duration should be kept short. The late-cycle pattern is at odds with BCA's view that the dollar will appreciate modestly in the next 12 months. However, the dollar's trajectory depends both on Fed policy and the direction of rates in the economies of the major U.S. trading partners. The Bank of Canada will be lifting rates in the coming quarters, but policy rates will be flat for some time in the Eurozone and Japan, such that interest rate differentials will shift in favor of the dollar on a multi-lateral basis. Another Look At Wage Inflation In last week's report4 we indicated that the September jobs report was difficult to interpret due to the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Specifically, we stated that the unexpected 0.5% month-over-month gain in average hourly earnings should be discounted. Employment in the low-paying leisure and hospitality sector fell by 111,000 in September, helping to boost the aggregate average hourly wage. These wages will correct lower as these workers return to their jobs post-hurricane recovery. A closer look at the wage data, however, suggests that the acceleration in wage growth in September 2017 to 2.9% from 2.7% in August and a recent low of 1.9% in 2014, has been in place for some time. Admittedly, the 2.9% year-over-year reading on wage inflation, may have overstated labor costs in September. That said, at 56% in August, the percentage of U.S. states where the year-over-year percentage change in average hourly earnings is rising has been on the upswing since mid-2014. The August reading was the highest since 2012 (Chart 8). In Chart 9, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. Chart 10 updates research by the Kansas City Fed5 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector) account for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have increased faster than in the goods-producing sector. Chart 856% Of States Have Seen##BR##Higher Wage Inflation Chart 9Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Wage Weakness Chart 10Acceleration In Hours Worked##BR##Should Lead To Faster Wage Growth Moreover, the August JOLTS data also provides evidence that the labor market began to tighten before the effects of Harvey and Irma. The quit rate matched a 15-year high in August, and job openings were at an all-time high. Job openings in the leisure and hospitality sector were at all-time highs in August, and the quit rate in that storm-impacted industry stood at 4.2% (Chart 11). Even excluding the leisure and hospitality industry from the average hourly earnings data, wage growth has unambiguously climbed in the past 1- and 3- months (Chart 12). Chart 11Overall Job Openings And Quit Rates##BR##Vs. Leisure And Hospitality Chart 12Wage Acceleration Evident Even##BR##Excluding Leisure And Hospitality Bottom Line: Wage inflation was on the upswing even before the hurricanes hit in late August and September. Persistent wage inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates again in December and three or four times next year. This supports BCA's underweight stance on duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," October 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," October 4, 2017. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Small Cap Surge," October 9, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 "Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings," Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.

Overweight - High-Conviction The S&P asset management and custody banks (AMCB) index has outperformed both the S&P 500 and the broad financials index since we lifted it to a high-conviction overweight in mid-February. The tight correlation between Treasury yields and relative share prices explain a large part of the outperformance (top panel). Given BCA's underweight duration bond view, we still think the outperformance phase is in early days. Historically, the index has also been positively correlated with both the stock-to-bond ratio and the equity risk premium, but has deviated significantly from both in the last four years (second and third panels). The index has also diverged negatively from its own earnings profile, creating a persistent state of undervaluation since 2015. Even modest mean reversion in any of these measures implies substantial outperformance as animal spirits remain upbeat. Bottom Line: The undervalued S&P AMCB index has significant catch-up potential with earnings momentum pointing in the right direction. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P asset manager & custody banks index are: BLBG: S5AMGT-BK, BLK, STT, AMP, NTRS, TROW, BEN, IVZ, AMG.

The latest quarter has been positive for small caps which started regaining ground against their large cap peers. This size bias has been adding alpha to our portfolio since the mid-August 2016 inception (top panel). The NFIB small business survey, despite falling in the most recent release, remains very close to its decade-high and should continue to underpin small caps (second panel). Still, small business owner optimism stands in contrast to small business profitability which has lagged larger peers since the GFC (third panel). The growth in unfilled jobs and coincident rise in compensation is a likely culprit (fourth panel). The latest NFIB survey gives us cause to think margins may be set to turn up as planned price hikes relative to planned compensation increases have risen to a two-year high (bottom panel). Historically, this margin proxy has been positively correlated with small cap margins suggesting that the margin gap between small and large caps may soon narrow. Overall, normalizing profitability, combined with tax reform that should disproportionally benefit small firms, keeps us on the side of small versus large caps.

Highlights Tipping points tend to occur when too many long-term value investors are uncharacteristically behaving like short-term momentum traders. Long IBEX35 versus Eurostoxx50 constitutes a good tactical trade. The underperformance of Spanish equities appears excessively pessimistic. Euro/dollar is technically extended by about 4 cents. The near term event risk is the ECB meeting on October 26, when a taper of asset purchases which extends well beyond 12 months might be regarded as dovish. But in the medium term, euro/dollar will head well north of 1.30. Underweight Basic Materials equities relative to the market as a tactical trade. Feature Spain: Red Herring Or Red Flag? Long Spanish equities is an excellent tactical trade provided that the imbroglio in Catalonia turns out to be a red herring. The IBEX35 index is at a classic tipping point of excessive short-term (negative) groupthink and herding (Chart of the Week). Chart Of The WeekThe Underperformance Of Spanish Equities Seems Excessive But is the imbroglio in Catalonia a red herring? Most likely, yes. As my colleague Marko Papic, BCA Chief Geopolitical Strategist points out, any unilateral declaration of independence from Catalonia would be vacuous if it lacked international legitimacy, or the ability to enforce it with arms. German sociologist Max Weber famously defined a nation's sovereignty as a "monopoly over the use of legitimate force." Unlike the Basque separatists, Catalan separatists have never resorted to force. A descent into violence remains unlikely because the Catalan independence movement is mainly a bourgeois, middle and upper class intellectual vision. The majority of Catalonia's working class are neither Catalan, nor support independence. Any unilateral declaration of independence would also lack political credibility because the opponents of independence largely boycotted the recent referendum to avoid giving it legitimacy. The vote for independence comprised only 37% of the electorate, meaning that popular support for independence remains questionable. The real (and unspoken) reason for the independence referendum was that it was the only glue holding together the Junts Pel Si (Together For Yes) four party coalition forming Catalonia's regional government. Without this glue, the two nationalist parties from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum would not be in bed with each other. And it is unclear whether this unholy alliance can stay entwined. To sum up, Catalan independence is an intellectual vision which at the moment lacks political and implementation credibility. For the imbroglio to become a full-blown crisis, the Catalan government, or militant groups, or the Spanish government would have to escalate tensions with the use of force. We do not expect this to happen. So the underperformance of Spanish equities appears excessively pessimistic, and long IBEX35 versus Eurostoxx50 constitutes a good 3-month trade (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2The IBEX 35 And Euro Stoxx 50 Have Parted Company Chart I-3The IBEX 35 Has Catch-Up Potential Identifying Tipping Points Of Price Trends Let's take this opportunity to review how we identify such tipping points of excessive groupthink and herding. Tipping points tend to occur when too many long-term value investors are uncharacteristically behaving like short-term momentum traders. Instead of dispassionately investing on the basis of value, long-term investors get sucked into chasing a price trend, and thereby amplify it. These price trends reach exhaustion when there are no more value investors left to suck in, and at the margin, someone wants to get out. The following analysis describes the tipping point of a price uptrend, but exactly the same analysis applies in reverse to the tipping point of a price downtrend. When a financial asset price starts to rise, the momentum trader's natural inclination is to chase the price rise, and buy. Conversely, the long-term value investor's natural inclination, ordinarily, is to lean against the price rise, and sell. The two investors interpret the same information in polar opposite ways because they have very different time horizons. Importantly, their different interpretations of the same information - stemming from their different time horizons - allow the momentum trader and the value investor to trade with one another in very large volume at the current price. This is what creates a healthy market with plentiful liquidity. Now consider what happens when a long-term value investor flips out of character and acts like a momentum trader. With the numerical balance shifting to the momentum traders, the price has to move up to balance buy and sell orders. As more and more value investors defect to momentum trading, the price uptrend gathers steam. This uptrend is exhausted when the long-term value investors have all joined the trend. Regular readers know that we identify these tipping points by comparing the behaviour of investors with 'short-term' 1-day horizons and investors with 'long-term' 65-day horizons. For any financial asset, a near term price reversal is likely to occur when its 65-day fractal dimension hits a lower limit of 1.25 (Chart I-4), which we have found to be the 'universal constant of finance'.1 Chart I-4When The Valuation Framework Changes, It Is More Difficult To Assess Tipping Points At this remarkably consistent limit, the long-term investor reverts back to character, realises the stock is now overvalued and wants to sell. The trouble is that everybody has already joined the trend. To sell, there needs to be a buyer. But who will buy at the current price? Usually, the answer is nobody. The marginal buyer will be a new category of investor: an 'ultra-long term' value investor - let's say, with a 130-day horizon - who stayed true to character and refused to join the uptrend. As this investor knows that the stock is overvalued at the current price, he will only provide liquidity at the 'correct' lower price. So this is the tipping point at which the price trend reverses. Occasionally, there is another possibility. The ultra-long term value investor could also join the trend at the current price. This might happen when the valuation framework for an investment is especially uncertain, leaving long-term value investors extremely disoriented and unable to assess the 'correct' price. An important conclusion is that when the valuation framework for an investment is undergoing a major change, it is much more difficult to assess the tipping point of a price trend. Which brings us to the euro. Is The Euro Overbought? Through the second half of 2014 and early 2015, the euro was in a major downtrend as the ECB first signalled and then implemented its QE program. On several occasions, the 65-day downtrend seemed technically exhausted but after only minor reversals, the downtrend continued (see Chart I-4 again). Even after the 130-day downtrend seemed exhausted at the start of 2015, it persisted into the spring (Chart I-5). The reason was that as the ECB moved into the uncharted territory of QE, ZIRP and NIRP, the valuation framework for the euro also moved into uncharted territory. Without a reliable valuation anchor, longer and longer term investors jumped on the euro bear bandwagon. Chart I-5The Euro Is Overbought, But The Reversal Might Be Minor Today, we face the mirror-image situation. The euro has been in a major uptrend for most of 2017 as the ECB has signalled a recalibration of its extraordinary monetary easing. But though the 65-day uptrend seemed exhausted in the early summer, the uptrend continued as longer term investors joined the trend. Just as in 2014-15, the question today is: at a major turning point in ECB policy, what is the most reliable valuation anchor? For us, the best explanatory model for euro/dollar is the expected difference in ECB versus Fed policy rates 5 years ahead. As this differential compressed from -230 bps to -160 bps, euro/dollar rallied in perfect lockstep from 1.03 to 1.15. However, the subsequent rally has deviated from the expected policy rate differential, suggesting that the euro's uptrend is indeed overdone by about 4 cents. But in the medium term, the much bigger question is: what will happen to the expected policy rate differential? As we explained in Positioning For A Sea-Change2 the differential must eventually compress to around -40 bps, because this is the mid-point of a very well established multi-decade cycle (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). In which case, euro/dollar must eventually head well north of 1.30 (Chart I-8). Chart I-6The Euro Area - U.S. Average ##br##Interest Rate Differntial = -40 bps... Chart I-7...Because The Euro Area-U.S. ##br##Inflation Differential = -40 bps Chart I-8An Expected Interest Differential ##br##Of -40 bps Means EUR/USD Goes North Of 1.30 To be clear, north of 1.30 is the medium term direction of travel, and the journey will not be a straight line. The near term event risk is the ECB meeting on October 26, when the central bank will very likely announce a recalibration of its monetary policy. A taper of asset purchases which extends well beyond 12 months might be regarded as dovish, as it would delay the timing of policy rate normalisation. In which case, euro/dollar could retest 1.15. Finally, and very briefly, Chart I-9 shows the major equity sector most at risk of a price trend reversal is Basic Materials. Although global growth seems healthy and synchronized, materials equities seem to have run much too far ahead, especially relative to other cyclical equity sectors. We recommend tactically underweighting Basic Materials relative to the market. Chart I-9Tactically Underweight Basic Materials Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Universal Constant Of Finance," September 25 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Published on September 7 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* As decribed in the main body of this report, this week’s new trade recommendation is to go long Spain’s IBEX35 versus the Eurostoxx50 with a profit target/stop loss of 2.5%. 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-10 * 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 While we have turned positive on the broad industrials complex and remain constructive on most transports, we continue to recommend investors avoid the S&P airlines index. A costly price war between the low cost carriers and the largely-restructured legacy airlines means airfares are stuck in deflation. The industry has been here before, and recently too. 2015 was a tumultuous year that saw pricing collapse as the ultra-low cost carriers entered the traditional hubs, triggering a scramble for market share. As a result, airlines have not been able to make price increases stick, even in the face of soaring jet fuel costs that eat into profits (second panel). At the same time as cash generation appears most threatened, the industry is in the midst of an expensive fleet renewal. The result is predictable; the hard deleveraging work the industry put in over the course of this decade is being unwound (third panel). This should, in turn, raise risk premiums and reverse the recent upturn in valuation multiples (bottom panel). Bottom Line: With no end in sight to the price war and outsized capacity additions likely to throw fuel on the fire, we think investors should stay away from the S&P airlines index. Accordingly, we reiterate our underweight recommendation; please see Monday's Weekly Report for additional details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.

In the past few weeks, we have tweaked our cyclical portfolio exposure by downgrading early-cyclical consumer discretionary stocks to a benchmark allocation and lifting the late cyclical industrials complex to overweight. We recommend a new long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade to exploit the growing performance gap between the two. Four key drivers underpin our warming up to this late over early cyclical pair trade: interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative export backdrop. Higher interest rates represent a sizable hindrance to consumer spending (top panel) as rates on consumer credit rise in lockstep with fed hikes. While C&I loan pricing also suffers a setback, capital goods producers can bypass banks and raise debt in the bond markets. Relative sentiment readings also suggest that industrials manufacturers have the upper hand as the overall ISM manufacturing survey (second panel) is easily outpacing consumer confidence readings. These readings are echoed in relative demand in the form of a sustained capital expenditure upcycle, at a time when PCE growth is anemic at best (third and fourth panels). Finally, with foreign revenue exposure at 38% of revenues for industrials versus 24% for the consumer discretionary sector, the year-to-date breakdown in the greenback gives the edge to industrials. Adding up, all four key macro variables signal that the time is ripe for a new industrials versus discretionary pair trade; initiate a long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade, and please see yesterday’s Weekly Report for additional details.