Equities

Highlights Since 2008, the 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. Based on the current technology earnings yield of 3.8 percent, and the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, stock markets are on the edge of rationality. But at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch by around 0.5 percent before it eventually snaps back. Hence, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. The labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level. The weakest performing demographic group could set the employment condition for the Fed’s lift-off, making it later than the market is pricing. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. Fractal analysis: NOK/GBP, Hong Kong versus the world, and Netherlands versus New Zealand. Feature Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The 10-Year T-Bond Yield Has Struggled to Exceed the Earnings Yield On Tech (Minus A Constant Of 2.5 Percent) Since 2008, a remarkable financial relationship has held true. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. T-bond yield ≤ technology forward earnings yield – 2.5% (Chart I-1). The upshot is that whenever, as now, the yields on tech and other high-flying growth stocks have become depressed – which is to say highly valued – the upper limit to the bond yield has been established not by the economy, but by the financial markets. On the occasions that the bond yield has attempted to breach its stock market-set upper limit, it has unleashed a self-correcting sequence of events. It has pulled up the tech sector earnings yield, which is to say pulled down the tech sector’s valuation and price. Then, to contain and reverse this sharp sell-off, the bond yield has quickly unwound its short-lived spike. Stock Markets Are On The Edge Of Rationality Earlier this year in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational we highlighted that the T-bond yield was at its stock market-set upper limit. And in the subsequent six months, the markets have behaved exactly as predicted. First, tech stocks declined sharply through February-March. Then, bond yields declined sharply through May-July, allowing tech stocks to claw back their declines and then reach new highs. Indeed, since mid-February, the T-bond yield and tech stocks have moved as a near-perfect mirror image (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The T-Bond Yield And Tech Stocks Have Moved As A Near-Perfect Mirror Image In the long run, a depressed earnings yield relative to the bond yield – which is to say a high valuation – can normalise as earnings go up. But in the short term, the adjustment must come from either the equity price declining or the bond yield declining. Or some combination of the two. With the tech earnings yield now at 3.8 percent – and assuming the post-GFC 2.5 percent minimum gap still holds true – it would set the upper limit of the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, close to where it is trading today. Still, at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch before it eventually snaps back. Over the last thirteen years, the maximum stretch has been around 0.5 percent. This means that, based on the current earnings yield of the tech sector, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. For equity investors, a higher T-bond yield would support the value versus growth trade. But given that it would be a brief trip, the opportunity would not be cyclical (12-month) but merely tactical (3-month), as has been the case over the past ten years. Since 2012, cyclical opportunities to overweight value versus growth have been virtually non-existent, but there have been several good tactical opportunities (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Cyclical Opportunities To Overweight Value Versus Growth Have Been Virtually Non-Existent... Chart I-4...But There Have Been Several Good Tactical Opportunities We await a fractal signal that T-bonds are overbought to initiate this tactical trade. Stay tuned. The Truth About The Jobs Recovery At first glance, last week’s US employment report appeared strong. The unemployment rate continued its plunge from 14.8 percent in April 2020 to 5.4 percent in July 2021, constituting the fastest jobs recovery of all time. But the first glance doesn’t tell the true story.   Unlike in previous recessions, the number of workers put on furlough or ‘temporary layoff’ surged and then plunged as the pandemic let rip and then was brought under control. Hence, to get the true story of the jobs recovery, we must strip out the furloughed workers and focus on the unemployment rate based on those ‘not on temporary layoff’ (Chart I-5). Chart I-5To Get The True Story Of The Jobs Recovery, Focus On Those 'Not On Temporary Layoff' Based on this truer measure of labour market slack, the pace of the current recovery in jobs looks remarkably like the recoveries that followed previous downturns in 1974/75, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, dot com bust, and the GFC. The true story is that the US is little more than a third of the way on the journey to full employment (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pace Of The Current Jobs Recovery Looks Remarkably Like Previous Recoveries This is significant, because unlike in previous recoveries, the Federal Reserve is now explicitly targeting full employment before it lifts the policy interest rate. Furthermore, the employment recovery must be broad and inclusive of minority demographic groups, which adds further conditionality for the Fed. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for the Fed’s lift-off. On this note, the labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level (Chart I-7). This raises an interesting point. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for lift-off, if the Fed stays true to its promise of inclusivity. Which would push back lift-off to later than the market is pricing. Chart I-7The Labour Market Participation Rate For African Americans Dropped Sharply In July Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle According to the recovery in jobs then, we are still ‘early cycle.’ Some people argue that early cycle implies that a recession is a distant prospect, that stocks only underperform in a recession, and therefore that the bull market in stocks has further to run. The investment conclusion is right, but the reasoning is wrong, on two counts. First, nobody can predict the precise timing of recessions or shocks. Second, recessions or shocks do not have a ‘cycle.’ Shocks can come in quickfire succession such as the back-to-back GFC in 2008 and the euro debt crisis which started in 2010, or the back-to-back votes for Brexit and Trump in 2016 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle Yet, while we cannot predict the precise timing of shocks, The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields tells us that we can predict their statistical distribution very accurately. The upshot is that in any 5-year period, the probability of (at least) one shock is an extremely high 81 percent, and in any 10-year period, it is a near-certain 96 percent.  Given the tight feedback from bond yields to stocks and then back to bond yields, we can say with high conviction that the next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low. This will happen directly from a deflationary shock, or indirectly from an initially inflationary shock that drives up bond yields through the upper limit set by stock valuations. The resulting sharp correction in stocks will then cause bond yields to reverse to the ultimate low. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. In turn, the ultimate low in the T-bond yield will mark the ultimate high in the stock market’s valuation, and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until then, long-term investors should own stocks. Fractal Analysis Update This week’s fractal analysis highlights three recent price moves that are at risk of reversal because of fragile fractal structures. First, the recent sell-off in NOK/GBP has become fragile on its 65-day fractal structure implying a likelihood of a countertrend move based on similar recent signals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9NOK/GBP Is Oversold Second, the sell-off following China’s aggressive crackdown on its technology and private education sectors has created fragility in Hong Kong’s relative performance on its composite 65-day/130-day fractal dimension. Assuming the worst of the policy crackdown is over, this would imply a countertrend reversal based on similar signals over the past decade. The recommended trade is long Hong Kong versus developed world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Hong Kong Versus The World Is Oversold Finally, the massive outperformance of tech-heavy Netherlands versus healthcare and utility-heavy New Zealand has reached the limit of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that signalled major turning points in 2011, 2015, 2016, and 2018 (Chart I-11). Hence the recommended trade is short Netherlands versus New Zealand, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. Chart I-11Netherlands Versus New Zealand Is Overbought   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The greatest legislative battle of the Biden presidency will unfold between now and the end of the year.   Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure deal is likely to pass the Senate soon but will have to cross several hurdles before passage in the House of Representatives. We maintain our 80% subjective odds that it will pass one way or another. Assuming the infrastructure bill does not fall apart, we will upgrade the odds that Biden’s budget reconciliation bill will pass this fall from 50% to 65%. The latter comprises a nominal $3.5 trillion in social spending and tax hikes that will be watered down and revised heavily by the time it passes, which may take until Christmas. Uncertainty about passage will cause volatility to rise in financial markets. Democrats left the debt ceiling out of their fiscal 2022 budget resolution, which ostensibly means they cannot raise the debt limit via a simple majority but will need 10 Republican senators to join. A bruising standoff will ensue that will add to volatility. Ultimately Republicans will comply as they cannot afford to be held responsible for a default on the national debt. The party is currently unpopular and tarred with accusations of insurrection. If Biden succeeds in passing both bills, US fiscal policy will be frozen in place through at least 2025, though endogenous disinflationary fears will largely be dispelled. Feature The biggest domestic political battle of the Joe Biden presidency is likely to occur between now and Christmas. With a one-seat de facto majority in the Senate, and a four-seat majority in the House, Biden is barely capable of passing his two outstanding legislative proposals. The first of these is the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure deal, which we have given an 80% subjective chance of passing and which passed the Senate on a 69-30 vote margin as we went to press. The second is the $3.5 trillion partisan reconciliation package, based on the remainder of Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plan, which we have given a 50% chance of passage. We will upgrade these odds to 65% if bipartisan infrastructure does not fall through in the House. Next year will be consumed by campaigning for the 2022 midterms so it will be hard to pass any major legislation with such thin majorities (though bipartisan anti-trust legislation could pass and poses a risk to the equity market). The midterms are likely – though not guaranteed – to result in Republicans taking at least the House. The result will be gridlock in which only the rare bipartisan bill can pass. In other words, after Christmas, Biden’s domestic legislative capability and hence US fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place through 2025. In this report we provide a road map for the budget battle that will define the Biden presidency. Buy The Dip … Unless New Variants Change The Game First, a brief word regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delta variant is ramping up, particularly in states where vaccination rates have lagged and social restrictions are minimal (Chart 1). The new lambda variant is also causing concerns that vaccines may be inadequate. Equity markets could easily suffer more downside in the near term but US-dedicated investors should consider the following: Scientists have created one vaccine for COVID-19 and can create others. There has been a concrete reduction in uncertainty since November 2020. Vaccination rates will never be perfect – many people smoke cigarettes and refuse to wear seat belts! – but greater infection rates and hospitalizations are leading to improvements in vaccination coverage. While new lockdowns are not impossible, the public will only support them as a last resort. Not only is the White House still officially opposed to new lockdowns but also the authority to impose lockdowns rests with governors. If hospital systems are crashing then even Republican governors will endorse new social restrictions. Otherwise, restrictions will not be draconian unless a much more virulent variant emerges (one that is more deadly or that has a worse impact on children). Monetary and fiscal stimulus will ramp up if a new variant is more deadly or the economy otherwise starts to slide back. In the US, additional fiscal stimulus will come faster than in other countries because new short-term measures can easily be tacked onto major bills that are already coming down the pike. Chart 1Stay Constructive Amid Delta Jitters Might the White House leverage a renewed sense of crisis to get its main fiscal bills passed? We can see that. The last thing Biden needs is a sluggish recovery to translate into congressional gridlock in the 2022 midterms – the bane of the Obama administration. Rather, the goal is to harness the sense of crisis to pass stimulus. Biden’s approval rating is falling, as is the norm with modern presidents. However, it is still “above water” (net positive) and still sufficient to get his legislative initiatives across the line. Biden’s forthcoming bills will reinforce economic recovery and sentiment (Chart 2) Chart 2Biden’s Approval Comes Down To Earth What if a variant evades vaccination? Especially if it is more deadly and/or more harmful to children? That would be a game changer and would cause at least a market correction. Still, investors would want to buy the dip given what they know today relative to what they knew in early 2020 (and given that they bought the dip in March 2020 even not knowing what they know today). Bipartisan Structural Reform Our second key view for 2021 – “bipartisan structural reform” – is coming to fruition with the Senate’s 69-30 vote passage of the American Infrastructure and Jobs Act as we go to press. Major bipartisan deals are rare in highly polarized America but we have given an 80% subjective chance of passage to this bill. Passage in the Senate reinforces that view, though the odds of final passage remain the same as there will be hurdles in the House. We include infrastructure as a “structural reform” because of its ability to increase the productivity of an economy. The bill contains funding for traditional infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and ports, as well as non-traditional infrastructure such as subsidies for electric vehicles and high-speed internet (Table 1). Table 1What’s In The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal? Table 2 shows the 19 Republican senators who voted in favor of this bipartisan deal, along with their ideological ranking and state support rates. This tally provides a nine-seat buffer in case the House version of the bill requires another Senate vote. It also provides a measure of the support that might be brought to bear for bipartisan causes later, such as funding the government, suspending the debt ceiling, or passing bills on popular issues (such as regulating Big Tech) in 2022-24. All Democrats voted in unison for the bill. Table 2Republican Senators Who Voted For Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Our high confidence on infrastructure spending stems both from its popular support (Chart 3) and from the fact that even if bipartisanship fails, there remains a partisan option: budget reconciliation. This is still true today. The bipartisan infrastructure bill could still die in the House, given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination to make its passage contingent on the success of the larger reconciliation bill, which is anathema to Republicans. But if it dies, Democrats would take up the key provisions in the reconciliation bill – and the odds of that bill passing would go up, not down, since Democrats would need to close ranks to clinch a legislative victory ahead of the midterms. Chart 3Popular Support For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Thus the real risk is not that infrastructure spending will fail but that its success will reduce the political capital needed to pass the more controversial reconciliation bill, which we discuss below. Over the short and medium term, this bipartisan infrastructure deal emblematizes the sea change in US fiscal policy – the shift against austerity – and thus serves to dispel fears of disinflation. At the same time, the deal epitomizes America’s long-term fiscal predicament. Democrats only want to increase spending while Republicans only want to decrease taxes. The former will not make budget cuts while the latter will not hike taxes. The result, inevitably, is higher budget deficits. This is precisely what occurred with the latest agreement: tax measures to pay for new infrastructure spending are mostly chimerical – the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only $200 billion of the new spending will be offset with new revenue. The other $350 billion will add directly to deficits and debt. The difference is small but the political signal is notable. Chart 4 highlights the increase in the deficit likely to occur, with the CBO’s more realistic assessment delineated from the nominal bill. From a macro point of view, the takeaway is that the US economy faces a stark withdrawal of government support in 2022 but this bill slightly cushions the blow. Continued recovery will depend on consumers and businesses (which look to be in good shape). Beginning in 2025 deficits will start to rise again and hence the overall picture is one in which US government support for the economy has taken a step up for the decade. Chart 4Bipartisan Deal Not Paid For = Fiscal Stimulus Side note: Chart 4 is worrisome for President Biden if his reconciliation bill fails, as it points to fiscal drag through 2024, the election year. Bottom Line: We still see an 80% chance that Biden’s infrastructure proposals will pass, as the Democrats have a backup plan if the bipartisan deal somehow collapses in the House. Biden’s Greatest Legislative Battle Up till now we have assigned 50% odds of passage to the subsequent part of the Biden agenda, the American Families Plan, which covers social spending and tax hikes (corporate and individual). If bipartisan infrastructure passes promptly, we would upgrade the reconciliation bill’s odds of passing to 65%. The reason is twofold: first, reconciliation only requires a simple majority consisting of all 50 Senate Democrats plus the vice president; second, hesitant moderate senators ultimately will be forced to recognize that sinking the bill would render the Biden presidency defunct and fan the flames of populist rebellion on both sides of the political spectrum. And yet, since Biden cannot spare a single vote, conviction levels cannot be high. Therefore 65% seems appropriate. On August 9 Senate Democrats presented a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will form the basis of the reconciliation bill this fall. The bill contains a wish list of spending priorities, as outlined in Table 3. Most of these are familiar from last month when the Senate Budget Committee first put forward its framework. The hang-up stems from House Speaker Pelosi. Knowing that infrastructure’s passage will suck away political capital from social spending, Pelosi is attempting to link the two bills. If the Senate fails to pass the reconciliation bill, the House will not pass the infrastructure bill. This gambit will create a big increase in uncertainty this fall as the legislative battle heats up. Republicans cannot support the infrastructure bill if it is directly tied to the Democrats’ “Nanny State” debt blowout, which will be the basis for their campaign against Democrats in future. They need plausible deniability. If Pelosi insists on linking the two bills, Republican support will evaporate. True, Democrats would then proceed to partisan reconciliation – but they would need to sacrifice other agenda items, such as subsidies for green tech, college, health care, and manufacturing (see Table 3 above). Table 3Senate Democratic FY22 Budget Resolution (July 2021) Biden and the Senate are now united on the infrastructure bill. Biden and Democrats in marginal seats need a legislative victory ahead of the midterms – and a bipartisan victory on a popular policy like infrastructure is critical. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, Pelosi will probably have to concede, after gaining assurances from moderate Senate Democrats that they will not sink reconciliation. Moderate Democrats, in turn, will need to see the reconciliation bill watered down, both on spending and taxes. Table 4 shows both bills together, as Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, with a baseline net deficit impact. Budget deficit scenarios are then updated in Chart 5. Once again what stands out is the large fiscal drag in 2022, the fiscal thrust for the remainder of the decade, and (in this case) minimal fiscal drag for 2024. Table 4Face Value Impact Of Biden’s Spending Proposals Before Congress (Baseline) Chart 5Deficit Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And Reconciliation Bill This is true even if tax hikes fail to make it into the final reconciliation bill. We still maintain that the corporate tax rate will rise above Senator Joe Manchin’s ideal 25% rate (if not all the way to Biden’s 28%) while individual tax rates will return to pre-Trump levels. It is not clear if capital gains tax hikes will make the final cut. Most likely some tax hikes will occur but they will fall short of Biden’s plan, producing, at most, a one percentage point increase in the budget deficit relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline estimate (Chart 6). Chart 6What Happens If Tax Hikes Fail To Pass Congress? In Table 5 we update our various legislative scenarios, each consisting of different mixes of spending and tax hikes. We assume that the size of the bipartisan infrastructure deal will not be reduced in the House; that the revenue offsets of that deal will be $200 billion maximum; that moderate Senate Democrats will have greater success in watering down tax hikes than spending programs; and that the government overestimates its ability to collect revenue through tougher tax enforcement. Finally we assume that Senate Democrats’ spending proposals will not be cut – an extremely generous assumption that will not hold up in practice. Table 5Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill Each legislative scenario’s impact on the deficit is shown in Table 6. The result is a wide range of deficit impacts, from the baseline of $588 billion to Scenario 6, with $2.59 trillion (zero tax offsets). The more realistic range is from $1 trillion to $2.3 trillion (i.e. all scenarios except the baseline and Scenario 5). Within this range the result depends on the moderate senators’ negotiation skills. Conservatively, the impact will range from $1-$1.5 trillion (Scenarios 1, 2, 4), with moderate senators preventing a $2 trillion price tag as politically impracticable (e.g. Scenario 3). Table 6Scoring Of Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill There are two other aspects of Biden’s massive legislative battle this fall: regular government budget appropriations and the debt ceiling. Government appropriations are supposed to be passed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, but often run over and likely will this time. Republicans will not support regular spending increases given that Democrats will ram through a partisan spending blowout. Therefore Congress will have to settle for a continuing resolution (a stop-gap measure) that keeps spending levels the same. Otherwise a government shutdown will occur. A shutdown is possible but would weigh heavily on Republicans’ public image, which is already at a low point in recent memory following the scandals of the Trump presidency. That is not all – there is also the debt ceiling (limit on national debt). Democrats made a major gambit by not including a suspension or increase of the debt ceiling in their fiscal 2022 budget resolution. If they had included it, then they could have raised the debt ceiling on their own with a simple majority when they passed their reconciliation bill. Instead they are attempting to make Republicans share the blame. Republicans, however, will mount an aggressive resistance, as they do not want to be seen as authorizing the debt increase necessary to accommodate the Democrats’ “socialist” spending spree. The “X date,” when the Treasury Department runs out of the ability to use extraordinary measures to make payments due on US debt, is expected sometime in October or November, though Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns it could come sooner and will try to pressure lawmakers. After this date the US would technically default on national debt obligations, triggering financial turmoil and potentially a global crisis. A debt ceiling showdown is virtually inevitable and volatility will rise – but ultimately a default will be averted, as we outlined in a recent report. First, Democrats still have the ability to revise the budget resolution so as to include a debt ceiling suspension in their final reconciliation bill. While Republicans could arguably block this attempt via a filibuster in the Budget Committee, they would have no interest in doing so (they could abstain and thus keep their hands clean of any debt ceiling increase). Second, Republicans can be forced to agree to a suspension of the debt ceiling when they fund the government, since it is necessary to do so anyway to fund their own infrastructure deal. Suspending the debt ceiling is not the same as raising it. New battles would be set up for later, in 2022 and beyond. But Republicans do not have the political ability to force a default on the public debt of the United States in the same year that Democrats accuse them of raising an insurrection against its Congress. Bottom Line: This fall will see the great legislative battle of the Biden presidency. Infrastructure spending has an 80% chance of passing. Pelosi will not be able to withstand Biden and the Senate in passing this deal separately from the more partisan reconciliation bill. If it passes, then Biden’s reconciliation bill will rise from 50% to 65% odds of passage. The latter will be watered down to a net deficit impact of $1-$1.5 trillion to secure the votes of moderate Senate Democrats, who ultimately will not betray their party to neuter Biden’s presidency. Thin margins in the House and Senate do not permit higher odds of passage or a high level of confidence. Investment Takeaways Political polarization has fallen sharply (Chart 7). This is connected to our view that the Republican Party is split, while Biden’s key initiative (infrastructure) has bipartisan support. However, Biden’s bipartisanship has resulted in a larger loss of Democratic support than a gain of Republican support (Chart 7, bottom panel). And the upcoming reconciliation bill will reignite Republican opposition. Moreover, polarization will remain at historically elevated levels, even to the point of generating domestic terrorist attacks, as we have argued. Biden’s approval rating has fallen but not enough to sink his legislative proposals. The overall economy is strong judging by both consumer confidence (Chart 8) and capital spending (Chart 9). Any soft patch in the economy in the near term will assist Biden in his legislative battles. Passage of either or both major bills will boost his approval rating, potentially ameliorating the Democrats’ challenging situation in the 2022 midterms. Chart 7Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Chart 8US Consumer Confidence Soars Chart 9US Capital Spending At Peak Levels Still, we expect investors to “buy the rumor and sell the news” of Biden’s upcoming stimulus bills. After the Senate passes the reconciliation measure, investors will have to look forward to the combined impact of tax hikes, the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and eventual rate hikes, and the various troubles with global growth and geopolitical risk. Until that time, investors must weigh the risks of the COVID-19 variants against actions by both American and Chinese policymakers to dispel deflationary tail risks. Thus for now we are sticking with our key trades of the year: value stocks, materials, and infrastructure plays (Chart 10). After Biden wins his big legislative battles, we will reassess.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes    

In this Sector Insight report, we come back to the issue of “how much inflation is too much” for equities. The short answer is – equities don’t mind inflation as long as the Fed does not mind it either. Chart 1 shows historical analysis of forward SPX returns (both real and nominal) using different inflation ranges as a starting point.  Empirically, CPI prints of below 3% do not weigh on market performance.  However, once inflation rises above the 3-4% range, it causes a notable slowdown in returns, and above the 4% mark, it results into negative expected forward returns. Chart 2 is a scatterplot of trailing PE multiples vs core CPI prints.  This chart confirms our initial conclusion that an inflation sweet spot for the equity market is around 2-3% core CPI range: this is the range where equity multiples expand the most. It is also clear from the chart that any higher core CPI values become a headwind for equities. The implication is that the negative forward expected return that we showed on Chart 1 comes from the multiple contraction. Chart 1Moderate Inflation Does Not Have An Adverse Effect On The Performance Of Equities Chart 2High Levels Of Inflation Are Associated With Multiple Contraction Equities are a real asset, and rising inflation does not have a negative effect on the earnings, as most companies are able to pass cost increases to their customers, and strong earnings growth translates into robust equity returns. Inflation is a concern for equity investors only from one angle: higher inflation may provoke the Fed to raise rates, and higher rates do have an adverse effect on the performance of equities. Bottom Line: Our view remains that inflation surge was transitory, but we do believe that the inflation will stay elevated for a while. Yet, if it does not exceed the 3% mark, there will be no negative repercussions for equities if the Fed stays patient.

Dear client,  In addition to this abridged Strategy Report, we are sending a report written by Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Strategist of BCA’s Emerging Market Investment service. Arthur shares his thoughts on the future of Chinese TMT stocks, a subject we trust you will find insightful and beneficial. Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights Wealth and income inequality may be the most important contributors to rising populism in the past three decades. China has its share of increasing populism; reducing income inequality and improving social welfare are core principles of President Xi’s reform agenda. July’s economic data continues to indicate a softening in China’s economy. However, the magnitude of the slowdown is within policymakers’ pain threshold while the economy remains supported by strong external demand. For now, stay underweight in Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio.  Policy stance has yet to turn reflationary. Feature Populism Takes Root BCA's China Investment Strategy has argued that China is accelerating the pace of its structural reforms; addressing income inequality is at the core of the current administration’s reform agenda. Wealth and income inequality may be the most important structural cause of rising global populism and political polarization (Chart 1). The severity of income inequality in China is illustrated in Chart 2. It is noteworthy that China, whose political and economic ideology is based on creating a classless society, has found itself not far behind the US in terms of a widening wealth and income gap. Chart 1Populism Has Been On The Rise Globally For The Past 30 Years Chart 2The Great Gatsby Curve Paints A Not-So-Great Equality Picture Of China The relationship between inequality and intergenerational income mobility is captured in the "Great Gatsby Curve" – a concept based on a research paper by economist Miles Corak and later introduced by Alan Krueger, the late professor and Chairman of the Council Economic Advisers, during his speech at the Center for American Progress in 2012.1 The US has experienced a sharp rise in wealth and income inequality since the 1980s. On the eve of the Global Financial Crisis, income inequality in the US was as sharp as it had been since the time of "The Great Gatsby” novel set in the 1920s. After three decades of rapid industrialization and economic expansion, China also faces the challenge of escalating income inequality and discontent among middle-class households. Populism, defined as political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people", often benefits middle-class households, but not big business or corporate earnings (“the elite”). An increase in populist governments is usually positively correlated with rising number of antitrust investigations, since populist leaders tend to pander to popular outcries against big corporations by limiting or breaking up the corporations. In the US, the rise of Reaganism/neoliberalism in the 1980s led to a big drop in antitrust cases – a trend that was sustained for nearly three decades as the free-market Washington Consensus pushed against antitrust and other populist stances (Chart 3). However, the tide turned in 2016 when the US elected a populist president for first time, and antitrust threats started reemerging (Chart 4). Chart 3Antitrust Reinforcement In The US Has Been On A Secular Decline In The Past Two Decades… Chart 4...But Antitrust Noise Is Getting Louder In The US (And Lately In China) Both China and the US have transitioned towards larger government involvement in the economy.  More restrictions on private enterprise and a greater redistribution of wealth will be forthcoming. In the US, there has been a shift towards a larger share of labor compensation versus capital in the country’s national income (Chart 5). In China, the “dual circulation” economic goal set by the 14th Five Year Plan, coupled with an economic divorce between the Middle Kingdom and the US, requires that China expands its domestic market. However, that expansion is constrained by its relatively low labor share (Chart 6). The external and internal challenges are fertile ground for rising and sustaining populism. Thus, reforms that promote the bargaining power of workers at the expense of corporate earnings will likely become a secular trend in China. Chart 5Labor Makes A Comeback Versus Capital In The US... Chart 6...And In China Too Checking In On The Data China’s economic data continues to soften as evidenced by a slew of new numbers published last weekend. On the growth front, the contraction in the volume of imports in the past two months reflects the sagging domestic economy, despite elevated commodity prices supporting the value of total imports (Chart 7). Global demand for Chinese goods, on the other hand, remains strong compared with the historical norm, and continues to offset weaknesses in China’s old economy sectors. Meanwhile, Chinese producers face persistent inflationary pressures stemming from elevated global commodity prices and a broken price transmission to pass on inflation to domestic consumers (Chart 8). Instead of stimulating demand in the near term, Chinese policymakers will likely address supply-side issues by releasing strategic reserves and curbing raw material exports, and relaxing domestic production restrictions. Chart 7Strong External Demand Continues To Offset Domestic Economic Weaknesses Chart 8Inflationary Pressures On Producers Remains Elevated We expect that Beijing will need greater economic pain before it decides to stimulate the economy more substantially. Monetary conditions have eased since earlier this year on the back of rising inflation, falling real interest rates and recently a breather in the RMB’s ascent (Chart 9). Nonetheless, as we noted in a previous report, a decisive rebound in the rate of credit expansion requires clear easing signals from China’s top leadership for local governments and corporates to ramp up leverage again. The July Politburo meeting pledged more fiscal support for the economy this year. Meanwhile, policymakers have intensified their tough regulatory stances on private-sector businesses and oversight on the public-sector’s balance sheet. Hence, the current policy backdrop does not suggest any imminent or meaningful reflationary measures. Chart 9A Meaningful Rebound In Credit Growth Requires More Than Monetary Easing Chart 10War Against Delta-Variant Remains A Risk The COVID-19 Delta-variant remains the biggest risk to our view. The mutated virus has spread to 14 provinces in China and triggered the strictest pandemic-control measures since Q1 last year. The drag on the service sector’s activities and employment will be substantial if measures are maintained for more than a month (Chart 10). In this case, the leadership may need to step in with policy supports to stabilize the economy and sentiment. For now, the pullback of stimulus and ongoing regulatory tightening since Q4 last year continue to dominate China’s financial assets. Thus, investors should maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Krueger, Alan (12 January 2012). "The Rise and Consequences of Inequality in the United States" (PDF).  Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Special Report

Highlights Chinese authorities’ regulatory crackdown on new economy companies reflects new socio-political and economic shifts in China. Hence, this regulatory crackdown is not transitory. Investors in Chinese TMT/new economy stocks are facing uncertainty on multiple fronts which warrants lower valuation multiples. These companies will experience weaker profit growth and lower profitability relative to the past due to disruptions to their business models. Elsewhere, widening credit spreads among Chinese property developers reflects the property market’s poor outlook. In turn, shrinking Chinese construction heralds weaker demand for commodities and manufacturing goods. This poses a material risk to raw material prices and, consequently, EM in general. Feature Chart 1Chinese Growth/TMT Share Prices And P/E Ratio The Chinese MSCI Investable Growth stock index is down by 35% from its February peak (Chart 1, top panel). Such a drawdown in the previous market leaders has produced a temptation to buy. The enticement is especially strong given that US FAANGM stocks are hitting new all-time highs. Is the latest crash in Chinese new economy/growth/TMT stocks a bad dream that will soon end, or does it mark a new reality for these companies? In our opinion, Chinese authorities’ regulatory crackdown on new economy companies reflects new socio-political and economic shifts in China. Hence, this regulatory crackdown is not transitory but is a part of China’s ongoing transformation. In brief, these companies are facing a new reality. What’s more, their outlook is very uncertain and equity valuations are not low enough to offset potential risks related to owning these stocks. Overall, investors should not start bottom fishing in Chinese stocks in general and Chinese TMT stocks in particular. Uncertainty = Lower Equity Multiples Immense uncertainty surrounds the outlook for Chinese TMT share prices. Even though China’s growth stocks have been de-rated, their trailing P/E ratio remains at 36.5 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1A Snapshot Of Drawdown And Valuations Table 1 shows the drawdowns and trailing P/E ratios for TMT/new economy/growth indexes as well as their largest constituencies: Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan. These equity multiples are still high given the uncertainty these companies are facing. By extension, investors in Chinese TMT/new economy stocks are also facing uncertainty on multiple fronts: Regulatory crackdowns mean that the business models of many of these companies will have to undergo substantial changes. Corporations may need to overhaul their product lines or abandon existing products/markets and find new niches and introduce new offerings. It is impossible to know what the long-term revenue and profit growth rates of these companies will be so that they can be properly valued. Such heightened uncertainty about the long-term outlook warrants a higher equity risk premium and, hence, lower equity multiples. President Xi Jinping’s long-term objective is to reduce income equality and achieve more equal wealth distribution. There will therefore be little tolerance for excessive profitability of individual companies. Chart 2 illustrates the large income gap between the top 10% and bottom 50% of the population. In turn, the mean-to-median wealth ratio points to a large and rising wealth gap – a higher ratio reflects greater wealth concentration among rich households (Chart 3). Chart 2China: Income Disparity Has Not Been Narrowing Chart 3Wealth Concentration Remains High In China   President Xi’s goal is to appease the broader population, not shareholders or businesses. Top authorities have been using phrases such as “disorderly expansion of capital” since last fall. This language marked a major shift in government policies regarding market power and dominance of private companies. Investors should take note that they are now dealing with a new investment regime in China. For some time, we have argued that China’s regulatory tightening on private platform companies would aim to limit their monopolistic or oligopolistic power and ration their profitability. As a result, we alleged that these new economy companies would end up being regulated like utilities or become quasi-government entities. Consequently, their profitability would decline to close to that of utilities or SOEs. Yet, utility stocks or SOEs in China command much lower equity multiples than those at which platform companies’ stocks have been trading. Even as of today, the trailing P/E ratio on the China MSCI Growth Investable index is 36.5. Meanwhile, global utility stocks command a trailing P/E ratio of 19. It is hard to know where the P/E ratios of these Chinese TMT stocks will settle, but our hunch is that their multiple compression is not over yet. Regulatory clampdowns will not only curtail their revenues and pricing power but also increase their costs. These companies will need to spend money to comply with the new regulatory regime. They will, for instance, be expected to take on more in the way of social responsibilities, as SOEs in China have been doing. This and other measures will eat into their profit margins and will lower the return on capital. Finally, many Chinese TMT companies that have their ADRs listed in the US have been caught in the crossfire of the “big data war” between the US and China. On the one hand, US authorities want to oblige these Chinese issuers to comply with US regulations in terms of information and risks disclosure. On the other hand, Chinese authorities are reluctant to allow more data/information disclosure by their dominant platform companies to foreign investors. Given that the US-China confrontation is likely to escalate on many fronts going forward, odds are low that there will be a lasting solution to this conflict around US-traded Chinese equities. Authorities in the Middle Kingdom are not very sensitive to the fact that foreign shareholders are losing money in Chinese offshore trading stocks. Unless the crash in offshore stocks spills into the domestic financial markets and the economy, their willingness to compromise will be limited. In turn, the US will not “encourage” American investors to invest more in Chinese stocks where its regulatory authority and influence is weak. Overall, such high uncertainty regarding offshore Chinese stocks in general and the ones trading in the US in particular warrants a higher equity risk premium and lower equity multiples. Despite these negatives, there is a silver lining: China’s new economy segments have been and will continue expanding at a rapid pace. Chinese authorities are genuinely interested in supporting new economy sectors which could help boost productivity and be growth engines as the growth contribution from construction/infrastructure/manufacturing diminishes. The challenge for investors is to find companies that benefit from the continued expansion of new economy sectors, and acquire their stocks at reasonable multiples to secure limited drawdowns during market selloffs. Bottom Line: Chinese growth stocks/TMT share prices – on the index level – remain at risk of further de-rating/multiple compression. These companies also face potentially weaker profit growth and lower profitability compared to the past due to disruptions to their business models and/or higher costs of doing business. A Breakdown In Chinese Property Stocks And Bonds Is Flying Under The Radar Chart 4Property Stocks And Bond Prices Have Crashed While Chinese TMT stocks are at the center of the global investment community’s interest, there has been a breakdown in mainland real estate share prices and a spike in property companies’ offshore credit spreads (Chart 4). The rising cost of capital imply that real estate developers will curtail their new property launches and construction. In addition, authorities will not ease regulatory tightening in the property market in general and property companies in particular. The objective is to halt the rise in property prices so that the continuous increase in personal income brings down the household income-to-property price ratio. The latter is extremely high in China making housing unaffordable for average Chinese. Authorities are very sensitive to the issue of housing unaffordability. Not only are property developers under pressure from tightening but also authorities are curbing demand for housing. In particular, two weeks ago the PBoC ordered banks in Shanghai to raise the rate of mortgage loans for first-time homebuyers to 5% from 4.65% and for people who are buying second homes to 5.7% from 5.25%. This measure might be extended to other tier-1 cities if house prices do not stop rising. As a result of the clampdown on property developers and move to restrain investment/speculative demand for housing, construction activity will shrink. The top panel of Chart 5 illustrates that the level of aggregate building construction starts has turned down. Residential property sales are decelerating and starts are contracting (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Property construction in China will start shrinking in the coming months. This will spill into other industrial/manufacturing sectors that supply construction and produce durable consumer goods. Chinese industrial output is set to decelerate materially as is predicted by a relapse in the nation’s manufacturing PMI’s new and backlog orders (Chart 6). This poses a material risk to raw material prices and, consequently, to EM in general. Chart 5Chinese Property Construction Is Set To Contract Chart 6China's Manufacturing To Decelerate   Investment Conclusions From a short-term perspective, Chinese growth stocks are oversold, however this is not true from a long-term perspective. As shown in the top panel of Chart 1 above, the Chinese MSCI Investable Growth Stock Index is only back to its June 2020 levels. In fact, the parabolic rise in Chinese TMT stocks in late 2020 and early 2021 reflected investor euphoria that typically occurs at the end of a major bull market. Hence, the February peak in these equities could mark a major top. If so, these stocks are unlikely to embark on a sustainable bull market any time soon. For now, investors should fade rebounds in Chinese TMT stocks. We have been overweight Chinese stocks within an EM equity portfolio but this has been a bad call. However, among Chinese stocks we have recommended the following strategy since March 4th of this year: long A shares/short Investable stocks. The basis has been that we foresaw more downside risks in TMT stocks than onshore equities indexes (Chart 7). This recommendation is up by 15.5% since then and investors should maintain this strategy. Chart 7Stay Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Offshore Trading Stocks Chinese equities are oversold relative to the EM index, and we are reluctant to downgrade them now. We are also waiting for our view of the continued US dollar rebound and lower commodities prices to play out before we downgrade Chinese equities. Other EM bourses typically underperform when the US dollar rallies and commodities sell off markedly. As we argued in last week’s report, the weakness in EM equities has not been limited to Chinese TMT stocks. EM ex-TMT share prices have also rolled over, which is consistent with rising EM corporate bond yields (Chart 8). Chart 8Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Herald Lower EM ex-TMT Share Prices Although most of the rise in EM corporate bond yields/spreads can be attributed to Chinese property companies, their widening credit spreads reflect the mainland property market’s poor outlook. In turn, shrinking Chinese construction heralds weaker demand for commodities and manufacturing goods. Notably, Chart 9 reveals that there has been a widening gap between a declining Chinese manufacturing PMI and resilient industrial metals prices. Odds are that commodity prices will recouple with China’s manufacturing PMI to the downside. Chart 9An Unsustainable Divergence: Beware Of Risks To Commodity Prices We continue to recommend underweighting EM versus DM for global equity and credit portfolios, a strategy we initiated on March 25, 2021. We also recommend shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar and maintaining a cautious stance on commodity prices. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, fixed-income and currency investors is available at the end of this report. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com  

Foreword Today we are publishing a charts-only report focused on the S&P 500 and its sectors. Many of the charts are self-explanatory; to some we have added a short commentary.  As with the styles Chart Pack, published a month ago, the sector charts cover macro, valuations, fundamentals, technicals, and the uses of cash.  Our goal is to equip you with all the data you need to underpin sector allocation decisions.  We also include performance, valuations, and earnings growth expectations tables for all the styles, sectors, industry groups, and industries (GICS 1, 2 and 3). We hope you will find this publication useful. We plan to update it monthly, alternating sector and style coverage. Overarching Investment Themes Macro Economic surprise index is flagging while Q2-21 earnings surprises are unprecedented.  Much of the good economic news has been priced in and the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index is hovering around zero (Chart 1A).  Most of the economic indicators have turned, confirming that the surge in growth has run its course and the macroeconomic environment is normalizing. Covid-19 fears are resurfacing:  The spread of the Delta variant is unlikely to trigger another lockdown, but consumers may curtail their activities out of fear of infection, adversely affecting demand for goods and services.  However, for now, we are sanguine about this risk. Investors expect inflation to roll over: Investors’ inflation fears are dissipating, attested by the falling 5Y/5Y inflation breakevens (Chart 1B).  Indeed, it appears that the debate on the persistence of inflation has been won by the “inflation is transitory” camp.  Yet, we won’t be surprised if inflation surprises on the upside (no pun intended).  Chart 1AGood Economic News Has Been Priced In Chart 1BMost Investors Are Now Convinced That Inflation Will Be Transitory Labor shortages are starting to dissipate: On the labor front, companies are still struggling to fill job openings.  However, there are signs that the labor market is healing, with more and more workers interested in returning to the labor force  (Chart 2). Inventories will be replenished, spurring investment: Post-pandemic economic recovery is still plagued by the mismatch between supply and demand. Supply-chain disruptions and shortages fail to meet pent-up demand of consumers eager to spend “helicopter drop cash” and accumulated savings.  As a result, inventories have been drawn down, chipping away 1.1% from GDP growth. In fact, they are at all-time lows: Non-farm inventories to final sales have dropped lower than they were during the GFC (Chart 3).  Low inventories will have to be replenished, resulting in further gains in investment and providing a boost to industrial activity going forward. Chart 2More Workers Are Interested In Returning To The Labor Force Demand for services will continue to exceed demand for goods: Last, but not least, consumers have money to spend but are shifting away from goods and toward services and experiences.  Consumer expenditure on goods is above trend and has recently turned down, while spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, and rebound is still running its course (Chart 4). Chart 3Inventories Are At All Time Low Chart 4Real Spending On Services Is At PrePandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Valuations And Profitability The US stock market remains expensive: The S&P 500 is trading more than two standard deviations above the long-term average.  However, there are pockets of reasonably priced, albeit unloved, stocks within the S&P 500: Telecom (11x forward earnings), Health Care (17x), Energy (14x), and Financials (14x).  Earnings continue to crush expectations: While equities are expensive, they are redeemed by the strong showing of earnings and sales growth reported for Q2-2021.  The scale of earnings beats relative to analyst expectations is spectacular: Running at nearly 20%, or more than two standard deviations above the historical average (Chart 5). Chart 5Earnings Surprises Are Unprecedented Earnings growth is normalizing: Earnings have increased 90% over the lackluster Q2, 2020.  Compared to Q2-2019 as a baseline quarter, earnings are up 22%, pointing to normalization going forward.  Earnings growth will become a tailwind for the outperformance of equities into the balance of the year and will help the S&P 500 to grow into its big valuation “shoes”. Margins are expanding despite inflation:  Many sectors are able to grow earnings and recover margins despite increases in costs of raw materials and labor, thanks to their strong pricing power, i.e., ability to pass on higher input costs to their customers (Chart 6A).  Sectors with the highest pricing power are: Communications Services, Consumer Discretionary, Industrials, Energy and Materials.  They are the best inflation hedges. Chart 6ACompanies' Profitability Is Improving To Pre-Pandemic Levels Uses Of Cash Cash to be disbursed to shareholders: Share buybacks and other shareholder-friendly activities are on the rise again and are expected to gain steam this year and next.  This is supported both by strong earnings growth, healthy balance sheets, and regulatory headwinds to any potential M&A activity due to the anti-trust stance of the current administration Capex is about to make a comeback: Capex is still lagging across most sectors.  A pickup in capex will signal that the post-pandemic recovery is firmly on track, and companies are comfortable investing in future growth.  However, there are early signs that that is about to change.  Philly Fed survey shows that over 40% of respondents are planning to increase their capex expenditure  (Chart 6B). Chart 6BCapex Increases Are On The Way Investment Implications Overweight sectors and industry groups exposed to consumer services spending (airlines, hotels, leisure) and be selective about consumer goods and retailing industry groups: Real PCE for goods has turned down toward the trend line.  Exceptions are areas of the market with well-publicized shortages such as Autos and Parts. Overweight Industrials – US manufacturing has limited capacity, onshoring is a new trend, inventories need to be replenished, and capex intentions are on the rise. Overweight Health Care – growth slowdown favors this defensive sector, which also benefits from a backlog of demand for medical procedures and services. Reflation trade is out of the picture, now that inflation fears have abated and the Delta variant preoccupies investors.  For that, we still favor Growth over Value.  Yet, we watch this allocation closely, to time rotation once Covid-19 fears dissipate, rates pick up and inflation surprises on the upside. With valuations high, and forward returns expectations lackluster, we favor sectors likely to delivery healthy cash yield: Financials, Health Care, Energy, and Technology.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   S&P 500 Chart 7Macroeconomic Backdrop And Earnings Surprise Chart 8Profitability Chart 9Valuations And Technicals Chart 10Uses Of Cash Communication Services Chart 11Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 12Profitability Chart 13Valuations And Technicals Chart 14Uses Of Cash Consumer Discretionary Chart 15Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 16Profitability Chart 17Valuations And Technicals Chart 18Uses Of Cash Consumer Staples Chart 19Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 20Profitability Chart 21Valuations And Technicals Chart 22Uses Of Cash Energy Chart 23Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 24Profitability Chart 25Valuations And Technicals Chart 26Uses Of Cash Financials Chart 27Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 28Profitability Chart 29Valuations And Technicals Chart 30Uses Of Cash Health Care Chart 31Health Care: Sector vs Industry Groups Chart 32Profitability Chart 33Valuations And Technicals Chart 34Uses Of Cash Industrials Chart 35Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 36Profitability Chart 37Valuations And Technicals Chart 38Uses Of Cash Information Technology Chart 39Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 40Profitability Chart 41Valuations And Technicals Chart 42Uses Of Cash Materials Chart 43Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 44Profitability Chart 45Valuations And Technicals Chart 46Uses Of Cash Real Estate Chart 47Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 48Profitability Chart 49Valuations And Technicals Chart 50Uses Of Cash Utilities Chart 51Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 52Profitability Chart 53Valuations And Technicals Chart 54Uses Of Cash  Table 1Performance Table 2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth Recommended Allocation   Footnotes