Equities

Neutral The battle of the titans of the U.S. media sector for control of Sky PLC was resolved over the weekend, with Comcast emerging victorious, besting 21st Century Fox's bid for the pay-TV firm. While increasing global diversification and a larger distribution channel are good things, we are somewhat skeptical of the victory for two reasons. First, the battle was settled in a blind auction and Comcast's £17.28 offer beat Fox's £15.67 effort by 10% and their own previous £12.50, made in February, by 38%. This could imply some vastly greater synergies identified over the past 7 months and more than Fox, which already owned 39% of Sky. However, it more likely is an extremely expensive tactic to block Disney, who has already pledged to buy Fox's existing stake, which doesn't bode well for the durability of the goodwill acquired. Our second hesitation with this deal is related to its composition, namely all-cash. We estimate an incremental U.S. $47 billion of net debt added to Comcast's balance sheet but analysts estimate Sky will generate only U.S. $3.8 billion of EBITDA next year, suggesting the index's deleveraging is reversing course. This increased risk has clearly been reflected by Comcast investors, who have wiped 6.5% off the stock's market cap. Bottom Line: We think this deal may be the strategic best case for Comcast but is tremendously expensive. Given that it has already been reflected in the stocks, our neutral recommendation remains unchanged.

  Neutral As we highlighted in yesterday’s Daily Insight, we are firmly housing market bulls. However, we are concerned that too much euphoria is priced into home improvement retail (HIR) equities. Three reasons underlie our softening EPS stance for home improvement retailers. First, our HIR model has plunged on the back of the wholesale liquidation in lumber prices and rising interest rates (second panel). Second, household appliance and furniture & durable selling prices have tentatively crested, and represent another source of profit headaches for HIR (third panel). Finally, select industry operating metrics suggest that the easy profits are behind HIR. An inventory surge has sunk the HIR sales-to-inventories ratio into the contraction zone and is already having an impact on earnings estimates. (bottom panel). Netting it out, is it prudent to lock in gains in the S&P HIR index as profit drivers have downshifted at the margin; please see our Weekly Report for more details. Bottom Line: We downgraded exposure to neutral on Monday and crystalized gains of 13.3% in the S&P HIR index since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.  

Special Report

Highlights Investors have piled into private equity (PE) in recent years, pushing assets under management (AUM) up to an all-time high of $3 trillion. However, there are increasing concerns about the outlook for the asset class over the next few years. In this report, we look at the fundraising and deal environment for PE, analyze historical risk-adjusted returns in comparison to traditional assets, and suggest how investors can optimize their PE allocation. Private equity and its two major sub-categories, buyouts and growth capital, have generated annualized returns of 13.4%, 13.7%, and 15.0% respectively over the past 32 years, significantly beating the returns from global equities and small-cap stocks of 8.4% and 9.1%. But the current environment is tougher. Dry powder (funds raised but not yet invested) exceeds $1 trillion. PE managers face increased competition from other investors and from companies with large cash balances looking to make acquisitions. Funds raised at the peak of bull markets have a higher probability of underperforming. The next two vintage years (2018 and 2019) face headwinds to making good returns, because of high entry valuations and a rising cost of borrowing. Manager selection is critical for a successful private-equity program. Top-quartile PE funds have outperformed second-quartile funds by as much as 8% a year over the past two decades. Feature Introduction The private equity (PE) market has grown more than five-fold since 2000, lifting assets under management from $577 billion to $2.97 trillion. However, its share of the private investment market has declined from 82% to 58% (Chart 1). Private equity and venture capital investing is said to date back to 1901 when J.P. Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel Co from Andrew Carnegie and Henry Philips for $480 million. The industry has evolved significantly over the years, and now encompasses a wide range of sub-strategies, offering investors a spectrum of exposures with very different risk/return profiles. Chart 1Private Equity Is A $3 Trillion Market Compared to public equity, private equity investing is harder because of: 1) long-term illiquidity, whereas public equities can be bought and sold quickly, 2) limited information on target companies, 3) the lack of a clear price discovery function, meaning that pricing in private markets depends heavily on negotiations, 4) less separation between ownership and control - finance providers in PE tend to be managers too. The PE space has matured over the years, and this is clearly seen in the compression of returns. However, many investors remain bullish on this asset class because of its historically attractive risk-adjusted return, and ability to diversify traditional portfolios. As of mid-2017, the median net return of the PE holdings of public pensions globally over the previous 10 years was 8.5% compared to 4.2% for public equities, 4.5% for real estate, and 5.2% for fixed income.1 In this report, we analyze in detail the PE market, with an overview of the fundraising cycle, deal environment, and exit channels. We include in-depth analysis of historical returns from the private equity market in aggregate, and from its two largest sub-categories, buyouts and growth capital. We end by listing the key risks for limited partners (LPs - the investors in PE funds), and include a brief note on private-equity secondary investing. Our key conclusions are: Private equity, including buyouts and growth capital, has had exceptionally good returns over the past three decades, but has been on a structural downtrend as competition has increased. Buyout funds generate a negative skew and moderate kurtosis, whereas growth capital tends to have a larger kurtosis and positive skew. Funds raised at the peak of bull markets have a greater probability of underperforming given their higher entry valuations. This is likely to be the case for funds raised over the next 18 months. The current economic cycle has produced fewer home-run deals - in 2002-2005, 35% of deals produced returns of 3x invested capital, but this fell to 20% in the 2010-2013 period. Megacap buyout funds produce the best returns, but this comes with significantly higher volatility pushing down the risk-adjusted return. These larger funds experience larger negative skew and kurtosis driven by greater use of leverage. Entry valuations of investments made by PE funds have been steadily rising, and so has leverage: the median debt/EBITDA has reached 5.5x. As multiples keep rising, general partners (GPs - the fund managers) have to make up the difference with equity infusion. Top-quartile managers have significantly outperformed. Third-quartile managers struggled even to outperform global equities, and fourth quartile managers failed to preserve their initial capital. The secondary PE market is growing. It provides access to mature portfolio assets deeper into their distributions phase, which reduces the duration of the LP's investment. Fundraising, Deals, And Exits Private equity investing consists of many different sub-categories (Chart 2) that differ in value creation techniques and the maturity of target companies. Buyouts and growth capital are over 90% of the total. Buyouts2 invest in established companies, usually with the intention of improving operations and financials. There is usually substantial use of leverage. Growth capital3 takes significant minority positions in profitable yet still maturing companies mostly without the use of leverage. Secondary funds acquire stakes in PE funds from other LPs. Co-investment funds make minority investments alongside a buyout, recapitalization, or any other non-controlling investment. Turnaround funds aim to revitalize companies that face operational difficulties. Chart 2Buyouts & Growth Capital Are 90% Of PE Private-equity firms raised $701 billion in 2017, making the past five years the strongest period for fundraising in history, with a total of $3.2 trillion (Chart 3). Additionally, more than two-thirds of the funds which closed in 2017 met or exceeded their target amounts, and 39% took less than a year to close. The last time fundraising peaked was in 2008, right in the middle of the last recession. However, since 2009, fundraising for buyouts has dropped from 85% to 70% of the aggregate for private equity, with growth capital picking up the slack, rising from 8% to 21%. As fundraising has gotten stronger, PE firms have been raising larger funds.4 These megafunds (with AUM greater than $5 billion) raised $174 billion in 2017, or 58% of that year's total buyout volume, a steep increase from $90 billion in 2016. For investment institutions with large amounts of capital to deploy, megafunds are an attractive and efficient outlet. Another reason for the very strong fundraising environment has been quick follow-up funds, where GPs race to launch new funds before predecessor funds have matured. Historically GPs have waited an average of 62 months between closing one fund and starting the next, but this has come down to 40 months in the past five years. With fundraising so strong, GPs are under pressure to deploy this capital wisely. Global PE deal volume increased by 14% in 2017, surpassing $1.2 trillion (Chart 4). But global deal count has been on the decline since 2015. Along with larger funds being raised, the average deal size in the private market has been rising steadily since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Despite increasing deal activity, the sheer volume of fundraising in recent years has led to massive accumulation of dry powder,5 which currently stands at $1.03 trillion. After 2008, dry powder as a percentage of AUM (Chart 5) was on a downward trend because of increased acquisition activity due to attractive valuations following the GFC. But this bottomed in 2012 at 29% and had risen to 35% at the end of 2017. If this level of dry powder accumulation continues, GPs will be forced to reduce hurdle rates and deploy capital into less attractive deals. Chart 3$3.2 Trillion Raised in 5 Years Chart 4Rising Deal Size Chart 5Harder To Find Attractive Deals Another reason for dry powder accumulation is increasing competition for deals both within the private equity market, and from external sources. The number of private equity funds is at an all-time high of 7,775.6 The external competition comes largely from corporate buyers with large cash balances looking for inorganic growth. Corporations have two advantages over PE firms: 1) potential built-in synergies when it comes to integrating the target, giving them the ability to pay a higher price, and 2) a lower cost of capital. An increasing number of corporations have been setting up corporate venture-capital units (Chart 6) to focus on acquisition-led growth. In 2017, there were 38,479 companies bought and sold globally for a total value of $3.3 trillion. But, private equity's share of this market was just 13% by deal value and 8% by deal count (Chart 7). Looking forward, PE funds are likely to act more aggressively and take a larger share of the market, as they did in 2006-2007. In order to increase their share of global deal activity, private-equity funds need to look at more strategic ways to pick up assets: Chart 6Corporations Setting Up VCs Chart 7Buyouts Only A Tiny Player In Global M&A Zombie Assets: Assets (portfolio companies) belonging to funds that last raised initial capital between 2003 and 2008 but have not executed a deal since 2015. Currently there are over 100 such companies that are possible targets for takeover in 2018-2019. Carve-Outs: Over the past few years, one in five deals in the U.S. has come from corporations disposing of non-core assets.7 This provides a steady deal flow for buyout and turnaround funds. Public To Private: As multiples in private markets converge with those in public markets, more and more publicly listed companies are being taken private, and this market has doubled since 2016 (Chart 8). Additionally, lenders have become more comfortable about financing these high-value transactions. Buy & Build/Add-Ons: Purchasing cheaper small assets and adding them to existing large established platform companies. This in turn transforms a group of smaller companies at lesser multiples into a larger corporation with a premium valuation. Add-ons made up one-third of deals a decade ago, but that has now reached 50%. But, since such deals are smaller in terms of dollar value, they make up less than 25% of the total deal volume. Finally, PE firms have also been increasing the holding period of the assets in their portfolio. The median holding period before the GFC was four years, and this has now increased to over five years (Chart 9). Additionally, private equity firms exited 40% of all deals in fewer than three years, but now these quick-flips have fallen to only 20%. This is partly a response to increased competition: GPs are skeptical about finding new attractive deals, and this forces them to hold onto assets for as long as possible. Additionally, the new U.S. tax code has increased from one to three years the threshold period for carry to be treated as capital gain with a lower tax rate, rather than taxed as ordinary income. With fundraising on fire but deal activity struggling to keep pace, the final pillar for a successful private equity program is the exit environment. Global PE-backed exits have been flat for the past two years at around $500 billion, with the deal count between 2,500 and 3,000 (Chart 10). The rise in exit activity in 2015 was fuelled by PE firms looking to exit portfolio companies acquired before the financial crisis. By 2017, the dynamic had changed since more than 80% of exits that year were companies acquired in 2009 or later. Finally, dividend recapitalizations8 reached $42 billion in 2017, but these are heavily dependent on an accommodative debt market and positive environment for high-yield bonds. With rising rates, dividend recapitalization, and other forms of special dividends or distributions that require borrowing, become harder to execute. Chart 8Public-To-Private Activity Chart 9Longer Holding Periods Chart 10Global PE Exits Are Healthy Historical Returns Before we look at the past risk-return profile of investing in this asset class, a note on the data used in this report. All return data are based on the Cambridge Associates Private Investment Benchmarks.9 We are satisfied with the methodology used and the format in which the returns are presented. The provider has taken sufficient steps to minimize survivorship bias. For more details on the data methodology, please see the Appendix. What can investors expect in terms of risk-return exposure from this asset class? Looking at Table 1, private equity and its sub-strategies have comfortably outperformed global equities, with lower volatility, over the past 32 years. Even after statistically adjusting returns for stale pricing,10 volatility for aggregate private equity and buyouts remains lower than for global equities and small-cap stocks. On the other hand, growth capital has had realized volatility greater than that of global equities, but with a significantly higher return; it is still the more attractive investment on a risk-adjusted basis. However, the significantly lower realized volatility of PE in aggregate, and buyout funds in particular, compared to growth capital makes them more attractive investments. Additionally, venture capital experienced volatility of close to 42%, more than double that of small-cap stocks, making it very unattractive from a risk-adjusted perspective. Table 1Risk-Return Spectrum However, comparing the performance of PE with that of publicly traded assets could be misleading given the uncertain timing of cash inflows and outflows from private equity programs. Therefore, we also show the Public Market Equivalent11 (PME) to adjust public-market indices for uncertain cash flow streams. Looking at Tables 2-4, we can see that private equity still outperforms equity indices on a PME basis over different time frames. Table 2Private Equity PME Analysis Table 3Buyout PME Analysis Table 4Growth Capital PME Analysis Another unique characteristic of private-market returns is the J-curve effect where investments in private markets take time to bear fruit, and fees are initially based on committed capital rather than invested capital. In addition, the biggest cash flows will be received towards the end, so the returns for the first few years can be misleading. IRR will remain negative until the point when distributions at least match contributions (the payback point). Given the non-linear return distribution of alternative assets such as PE and venture capital, risk analysis is not complete without skewness and kurtosis. Investing in buyout funds generates a negative skew and a moderate level of kurtosis, which means that investors can expect more stable, predictable returns, closer to a normal distribution. However, growth capital tends to have larger kurtosis and positive skew, thereby a higher probability of large upside gains. Since buyout capital structures tend to be more heavily geared, there is a higher skew towards negative returns driven by the leverage effect. Venture capital exhibits a return distribution similar to growth capital, where a few portfolio companies produce large positive returns given the start-up nature of its targets. PE returns remain attractive but, as with other alternative asset classes, performance has been on a downward trend (Chart 11) driven by increased competition. In the 1980s and 1990s, buyout firms exploited the poor performance of large U.S. conglomerates by acquiring underperforming divisions and using leverage. In the early 2000s, funds took advantage of the stock market rise, fuelled by low rates and levered returns. Within the structural downtrend in returns, PE has had a cyclical profile just like public equities. During bull markets there are more exits at higher valuations, and larger distributions to LPs. However, funds raised in bull markets have a higher probability of underperforming given their higher entry valuations. Looking forward, funds from recent vintages that are halfway through their life are likely to be able to take advantage of current tailwinds to build value and exit at the top. However, funds raised in the next two years will have to deal with high entry valuations and a possible increase in the cost of borrowing. There have been fewer write-offs and deals with capital impairments in the post-2009 period than in the years after the 2001 recession. However, the current economic cycle has produced fewer of the home-run deals that really drive PE performance. For example, in 2002-2005, 35% of deals produced returns of 3x invested capital or better, and more than 50% generated multiples of 2x or better. For the period 2010-2013, the equivalent percentages were 20% and 42% respectively. Looking at Chart 12, we can see that PE, buyout, and growth capital funds outperformed global equities and small-cap equities during recessions and equity bear markets. Chart 11Private Vs. Public Equity Chart 12Recession & Bear Markets Return persistence is the ability of top-performing manager to repeat the strong performance in their follow-up funds. In the PE industry, some large firms have proved able to repeat top-ranked performance time after time across multiple funds. We believe this is likely a function of their network of contacts that gives them access to proprietary deal flows. However, there are three factors that may be creating a spurious correlation here: 1) GPs tend to raise new funds 2-5 years into the life of an existing fund, thus creating overlapping structures of successive funds that are exposed to similar market environments, 2) investments in some portfolio companies are split between successive funds which induces a spurious patterns of performance persistence, 3) much of the top-quartile performance persistence came during periods of low competition. There is also a relationship between holding period and performance, whereby funds that hold onto portfolio companies for longer have lower performance, while quick-flips perform better. Funds have an incentive to exit successful investments earlier to show a good track record, and to extend the holding period of unsuccessful ones hoping for a better outcome. There is an intrinsic cyclicality in this relationship: in bear markets when valuations are low, funds will hold off from selling their assets in the hope of a better time to sell. Table 5 show the average returns LPs can expect from investing in companies with a specific sector focus. But, this comes with a large amount of idiosyncratic firm- and sector-specific risk; this tends to have a larger impact on buyouts than on venture capital which is already very industry focused. Geographic diversification gives investors access to different economic cycles and levels of market maturity across the globe. In the last recession, PE performance was very poor in some regions, while not that bad in others. There has been a clear cyclical pattern for U.S. versus ex-U.S. performance over the past 30 years, closely linked to the relative growth rates in the underlying economies (Chart 13). Table 5Returns By Sector Exposure Chart 14 shows that from Q3 1998 to Q4 2000 relative performance between buyout and growth capital funds tended to move along with the interest-rate trajectory - the former benefits from falling rates which lower the cost of borrowing. Additionally, looking at median net IRR for funds by vintage year, we see that buyouts outperformed growth capital in 17 out of the 21 years (Chart 15). This was driven by stronger distributions to buyout fund LPs. Additionally; it was achieved with a fairly similar standard deviation of fund performance across vintage years. Within the buyout space, the median U.S.-focused buyout fund outperformed its ex-U.S. counterpart only in 2004-2012. Chart 13U.S. Vs. Rest Of The World Chart 14Impact Of Rising Rates Chart 15Buyouts Vs Growth Capital Finally, when allocating to private-equity and especially buyout funds, investors have a choice between different deal sizes (small to megacap). Looking at Table 6, it is clear that megacap buyout funds have been able to produce the best returns, but this came with significantly higher volatility, pushing down risk-adjusted returns. Additionally, these megacap deals have a larger negative skew and kurtosis - investors should expect a higher probability of large negative returns. Looking at performance in recessions, one can find a relationship between the nature of the downturn and the performance of different buyout deal sizes. For example, during the 2001 recession, the smallest deal sizes produced the worst performance because smaller-cap tech stocks suffered in the aftermath of the dotcom bust. During the 2007-2009 recession, the worst hit were larger buyout deals because of the damage done to the credit market. An analysis of PE would not be complete without a discussion of valuations. The average deal size has risen by 25% since 2009: two-thirds of this increase is due to rising multiples, and the remaining one-third is organic (Chart 16). Median EV/EBITDA has risen from 5.6x in 2009 to 10.7x in 2017. Leverage levels have been rising alongside multiples, and so lenders will be more hesitant to offer debt financing for deals. GPs will have to to make up the funding shortage with equity infusion, and this leads to a decrease in IRR. Additionally, covenant-lite loans have been increasing since 2012 and are now 75% of overall loan volume in the U.S. The percentage of listed companies globally valued at more than 11x EV/EBITDA rose from 20% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Table 6Size Matters Chart 16Private Equity Is Expensive Lastly, return dispersion is much larger for private-market investments compared to public markets, because of the more active nature of the investment process. If an LP had consistently picked only top-quartile managers from 2000, they would have outperformed second-quartile managers by an impressive 7.7% (Chart 17) a year. Top-quartile managers generated these higher returns with only a trivial increase in volatility, thereby producing far superior risk-adjusted returns. Additionally, skewness and kurtosis measures show no significant deterioration (Table 7). Third-quartile managers struggled even to outperform global equities, and fourth-quartile managers failed even to preserve initial capital. Therefore, manager selection is critical to building a successful private-equity program. Over the past decade, there has been clear compression in fees charged by private equity firms (Chart 18). Management fees tend to differ significantly between the smallest and largest funds; but they are fairly consistent at about 1.975% for funds with AUM between $100 million and $1.9 billion. Chart 17Manager Selection Is Critical Table 7Large Dispersion Chart 18Fee Compression? Risks In Private Equity Chart 19Strong Distributions The long-term investment horizon, illiquid nature, and unique structure of PE bring logistical challenges and unique risks. Given the erratic nature of capital draw-downs by GPs, some LPs might be unable to service capital calls which leads to their defaulting on their obligations. In this case, investors are exposed to funding risk and could lose their entire investment in the fund and all the capital already paid in. LPs tend to use distributions from a mature fund to finance capital calls of younger funds. But this may not be feasible in a slowdown when exits dry up and distributions slow, forcing LPs to raise additional capital from external sources12 for commitments. Many investors run an over-commitment strategy to avoid being under-exposed to their strategic allocation. The strong equity bull market has increased overall portfolio values, meaning that LPs have received large distributions, which have been double contributions since 2013 (Chart 19). Therefore, the net asset value (NAV) of PE holdings has not grown, and allocations even contracted in 2017, forcing LPs to keep plowing gains back into their programs to maintain the target allocation. Investors also face significant liquidity risk. GPs could be forced to sell portfolio companies in the secondary market at a discount to NAV, given the illiquid nature of the market. The secondary market tends to be very cyclical and is likely to experience a deal drought, as seen during the last financial crisis. Market risk is the impact of volatile markets on the quarterly changes in NAV of the portfolio. Capital risk relates to the realization value of the private-equity investments. There is a risk of a private-equity investment going bust and losing all its value. Holding a portfolio of funds exposed to many different companies can reduce this risk and generate a statistical distribution skewed towards positive returns. Additionally, diversification over multiple vintage years should create a right-skewed distribution that minimizes long-term capital risk. A Note On Private Equity Secondaries Chart 20Secondaries: Faster Return But Smaller Upside The secondary market for LPs' private-equity investments is growing. Direct secondaries are the sale of an interest in a direct PE investment or portfolio of direct PE investments to a new third-party investor. A secondaries fund is a PE fund raised by a fund-of-funds manager to acquire limited partnership interests in private equity from the original LPs. Secondary investing is no longer looked at as a source of liquidity for distressed investors, but as a differentiated investment strategy and a regular portfolio management tool to rebalance fund exposures and lock in realized gains. The secondary penetration rate (the percentage of total NAV across all PE strategies that trades in the secondary market) is still less than 2%13 but, as the secondary market continues to expand, investors may see a broader spectrum of assets on sale. Many investors look at the secondary market solely for opportunistic investments, making commitments only during or immediately following periods of market distress. Intuitively this makes sense, as secondary buyers should be able to negotiate steeper discounts during periods of elevated uncertainty and tight liquidity. However, there are many reasons to have a dedicated allocation: It Mitigates The J-Curve: Mature secondary investments cut off several years from the typical term of a PE fund because a good portion of the investment period is already completed. This generates immediate returns from the mature private-equity program. Many fund-of-funds managers will combine secondary interests with their primary portfolios to mitigate the J-curve. Less Blind Pool Risk: In private equity, LPs commit capital to a portfolio that is yet to be built. Secondary investing significantly reduces this risk because portfolios acquired are generally more than 50% invested and have less unfunded commitments. This provides investors with an actual portfolio of companies to evaluate. It Diversifies A Private-Equity Program: An allocation to secondaries can provide instant exposure to a highly diversified portfolio of mature private-equity interests. Lower Probability Of Poor Performance: The potential upside for secondary funds is not as high as that of primary funds, but the former produce poor returns much less frequently (Chart 20). Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: Bain Global Private Equity Report 2018. 2 Buyouts refers to deals in which a PE fund borrows a significant amount to acquire a target company or companies, which tend to be larger-cap private or publicly listed corporations. 3 Investments in mature companies with proven business models that are looking for capital to expand or restructure operations, enter new markets, or finance a major acquisition. 4 Apollo Investment Fund IX with an AUM of $24.7 billion raised in 2016-2017 is the largest buyout fund raised in history. 5 The amount of capital that has been committed to a private equity fund, but not yet deployed. 6 Source: Pitchbook. 7 The largest global buyout was the $17.9 billion carve-out of Toshiba Memory Corp in 2018. 8 Whereby a company owned by a private-equity fund issues debt in order to pay a dividend to the fund. 9https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/private-investment-benchmarks/ 10 To de-smooth returns, we used a first-order autoregressive model as shown by Rt = A0 + At Rt-1 + e, where At is the auto-regressive coefficient, and A0 is the intercept term. However, statistical methods do not always satisfactorily solve the problem of underestimated volatility for appraised asset values. 11 PME replicates the timing and size of private equity cash flows (purchases and sales) as if they had been invested in public equities. It is the dollar-weighted return that could have been achieved if funds had been invested in the index whenever a capital contribution was made and divested when the GP paid out a distribution. 12 In the Global Financial Crisis, Harvard Management Co issued a bond of more than $1 billion and considered selling a private equity stake of $1.5 billion at a 40%-50% discount to fund its capital calls. 13 Source: Preqin Ltd. Appendix: A Note On Data Sources And Definitions The performance indices all use quarterly unaudited, and annual audited fund financial statements produced by the GPs for their LPs. Partnership financial statements and narratives are the primary source of information concerning cash flows and ending residual/net asset values for both partnerships and portfolio company investments. The data providers' goal is to have a complete record of the quarterly cash flows and NAVs for all funds in the benchmark. All performance is calculated net of fees, expenses, and carried interest. Cambridge Associates (CA) uses two types of return calculation in its indices: Since Inception IRR: This calculates a discount rate which makes the NPV of an investment equal to zero. It is based on cash-on-cash returns over equal periods modified for the residual value of the partnership's equity or portfolio company's NAV. The residual value attributed to each respective group being measured is incorporated as its ending value. Transactions are accounted for on a quarterly basis, and annualized values are used for reporting purposes. End-To-End/Horizon IRR: A money-weighted return similar to the Since Inception IRR, except that it measures performance between two points in time. The calculation incorporates the beginning NAV, interim cash flows, and the ending NAV. All interim cash flows are recorded on the mid-period date of the quarter. With regards to avoiding survivorship bias, CA requires the complete set of financial statements from the fund's inception to the most current reporting date. When an active fund stops providing financial statements, CA reaches out to the manager to encourage them to continue to submit data. CA may, during this communication period, roll forward the fund's last reported quarter's NAV for several quarters. When CA is convinced that the manager will not resume reporting, the fund's entire performance history is removed from the database. Survivorship bias can affect all investment manager databases, including those of public asset managers. But the illiquid nature of private investments can actually help limit this impact, since the private investment partnerships owning illiquid assets will continue to exist and be legally required to report to the LPs even after the original manager ceases to exit. Over the past nine years the number of fund managers that stopped reporting to the database before liquidation averaged per year 0.7% of the total number of funds, and 0.6% of total NAV in the database. During that period the overall number of funds in the database increased by an average of 8% per year. Public Market Equivalent (PME): A private-to-public comparison that seeks to replicate private-investment performance under public-market conditions. The public index is recalculated as if shares were purchased and sold according to the private fund's cash flow schedule, with distributions calculated in the same proportion as the private fund. The PME NAV is a function of PME cash flows and public index returns. The PME attempts to evaluate the return that would have been earned had the dollars been deployed in the public markets instead of in private investments.

Special Report

Highlights The upcoming changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard will substantially alter the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index, by hollowing out the information technology sector (to the benefit of consumer discretionary and the new communication services sector). The new communication services sector will become a market-neutral (but barbelled) sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. The inclusion of Alibaba in the consumer discretionary sector warrants the closure of our most successful trade over the past year: long consumer staples / short discretionary. Feature S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. will be implementing major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), effective after the market close on September 28, 2018. The changes are among the most significant since the GICS was launched in 1999, and there are meaningful implications for investors. In this brief special report, we summarize the key changes as they pertain to the Chinese investable equity benchmark, and provide a counterfactual simulation of historical performance had the upcoming changes been in effect over the past three years.1 For the MSCI China index, the main investable equity benchmark, the changes to the GICS structure will largely impact three sectors: information technology, consumer discretionary, and telecommunication services: The telecommunication services sector will be renamed to "communication services", and this new level 1 sector will be much broader in scope. Communication services will include companies that facilitate transformation in the way of communication, entertainment, and information seeking. In addition to the companies currently classified within telecommunication services, communication services will include media stocks formerly in the consumer discretionary sector, including advertising, broadcasting, cable & satellite, publishing, movies & entertainment sub-sectors. In addition, home entertainment software and some internet software & services companies, currently classified under the information technology sector, will also move to communication services. These include prominent stocks like Baidu, Tencent, Sina, and Sohu. The consumer discretionary sector will include online retailers, such as Alibaba, from information technology sector under its internet & direct marketing retail sub-sector. Chart 1 shows that these changes will have a very substantial impact on the sector composition of the MSCI China index. The weight of the information technology sector will drop dramatically from 37% to 3% after the GICS changes occur, because all three of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) will move to other sectors. The weight of consumer discretionary is set to rise from 8% to 20%, as the inclusion of Alibaba offsets the removal of media (Alibaba alone will account for 60% of the consumer discretionary sector after the GICS changes). Relative to the current weight of telecommunication services, the new communication services sector weight will be substantially higher, at 27% (versus its 5% current weight). Chart 2 provides both factual and counterfactual perspectives on what relative performance for these three sectors would have looked like since 2016, had the upcoming changes been in effect. The chart shows that the relative performance of consumer discretionary and communication services sector would have been considerably stronger, while the tech sector would have underperformed (in sharp contrast to what has actually occurred). Chart 3 provides some perspective on the cyclicality of China's new communication services sector. The telecommunication services sector is clearly a defensive sector, and has exhibited a beta less than 0.5 over the past year. However, the chart shows that communication services (had it existed), would have basically been a market-neutral sector in terms of market beta because of the offsetting impact of both including high-beta internet software & services companies and low-beta telecommunication services. In effect, the new communication services will become a barbelled sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. Chart 1A Hollowing Out Of The Information Technology Sector Chart 2CD And Comm Services Would Have Outperformed Over The Past Three Years Chart 3Comm Services: A Market-Neutral, Barbelled Sector Finally, the beta of consumer discretionary sector would have been higher over the past two years in our counterfactual scenario, thanks to the inclusion of Alibaba. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared poorly in response to a trade war with the U.S., but the imminent inclusion of Alibaba in the discretionary sector will substantially alter the character of its future performance. As such, we have decided to close our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade at a fantastic return of 47.6%. Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com 1 For China, we proxy the upcoming changes to the GICS structure using a simple set of rules that aims to capture an overwhelming majority (but not all) of the upcoming changes. As such, investors should view our methodology as an approximation, rather than an exact application of the firm-by-firm changes that MSCI will make. Clients who are interested in a similar exercise for the global IMI benchmark should refer to Neeraj Dabake, Craig Feldman. (September, 2018) The New GICS Communication Services Sector. MSCI Research Paper, Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/www/research-paper/the-new-gics-communication/01107886967. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Overweight While housing-related data releases have been slightly weaker than anticipated lately, we deem that this softness is transitory as housing market fundamentals rest on solid foundations. True, affordability has taken a hit both as a result of rising home price inflation and mortgage rates but as long as job certainty remains intact and wage growth picks up steam as we expect, we doubt that the U.S. housing market will suffer a relapse. In that light, we recommend augmenting exposure to overweight in the S&P homebuilding index. While galloping lumber prices were previously a key reason for putting the S&P homebuilding index on our high-conviction underweight list, the recent liquidation, down $300/thousand board feet since the mid-May peak, in lumber prices represents a massive input cost relief for homebuilders (second panel). In addition, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey showed that demand for residential real estate loans ticked higher, while simultaneously bankers remain willing extenders of mortgage credit. The implication is that new home sales will likely reaccelerate in the coming months (third & bottom panels). Bottom Line: A playable opportunity has surfaced to ride the S&P homebuilding index higher. Lift exposure to overweight and see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The firming long-term housing demand backdrop, lumber price cost relief, steady new home prices and favorable new home sales expectations, all signal that it is time to buy homebuilders. On the flip side, we do not want to overstay our welcome in the S&P home improvement retail index as a number of leading industry profit indicators have started to wave a yellow flag. Recent Changes Boost the S&P Homebuilding index to overweight today. Trim the S&P Home Improvement Retail index to neutral and lock in gains of 13.3% today. Table 1 Feature Another week, another SPX all-time high. Investors have refocused their attention on the important macro drivers: solid profits, easing fiscal policy, and still-benign monetary policy with the real fed funds rate barely probing 0%. Trade-related rhetoric has taken the back seat as it has now become obvious that the rest of the world will bear the brunt of President Trump's trade escalation. Our EPS growth models are sniffing this out, with the SPX ticking higher, while our global profit model sinking close to nil (Chart 1). Chart 1Ex-U.S. EPS Will Bear The Brunt Of Trade Wars Importantly, we are impressed by how thick-skinned the market has become to negative trade-related news. Putting the looming Chinese tariffs into proper perspective is instructive. Assuming a 25% tariff rate on $250bn worth of Chinese manufactured goods and no relief from the renminbi's steep depreciation since April, results in a "tax" of $63bn. The net new "tax" is actually $53bn as an average 3.8%1 import tariff rate already exists on manufactured goods. The consumer and corporations will bear the brunt of this "tax", so it is worth examining the data on household net worth, consumer incomes, and corporate sales. Federal Reserve data show that household net worth increased by $8.1tn in the past year. BEA data reveal that total wage & salary disbursements increased by $400bn, and BCA's projections call for $600bn increase in SPX sales for 2019 (using IBES data for calendar 2019, Chart 2). In other words, it becomes clear that $53bn in a new tariff "tax" will barely eat into net worth, consumer incomes or corporate revenue flows. In addition, according to the IMF, fiscal easing in 2019 will surpass even this year's fiscal expansion in the U.S. The upshot is that over 1% of GDP in fiscal thrust in 2019 thwarts the specter of tariffs, before the fiscal impulse turns negative starting in 2020 (bottom panel, Chart 2). Meanwhile, following up from last week's report when we posited that the current macro backdrop resembles more the mid-2000s than the late-1990s, we are challenging ourselves and asking what if we are wrong in our assessment. Could we actually be replaying a late-1990s episode instead? Revisiting the late-1990s in more detail is in order, refreshing our memory on the sequence of events that led to the climactic LTCM bailout, and highlighting potential signposts that can be helpful in navigating today's macro and equity market maps. In March 1997 the Fed raised rates and pushed the fed funds rate to 5.5%. In hindsight that was a mistake as the Fed then paused the tightening cycle and watched as the Thai baht began to tumble in late-June 1997, eventually gripping all of the emerging world. True, the U.S. stock market modestly pulled back in October 1997 and the VIX spiked to 38. Then, as equities recovered in Q1/1998 and jumped to fresh all-time highs, suddenly the yield curve inverted in May 1998. Undeterred, the S&P 500 hit another peak in July of 1998 before falling roughly 20% in the subsequent month. Finally, once Russia defaulted and the Fed had to bail out the banks due to the LTCM fiasco, the FOMC, late in the game in September 1998, started to ease monetary policy, and engineered a steepening of the yield curve (Chart 3). Chart 2Trade "Tax" A Drop In The Bucket Chart 3Sequence Of Macro Events Matters The most important signpost from this trip down memory lane is the yield curve. In other words, heed the signal from the bond market: the yield curve inversion correctly predicted a reversal of Fed policy and naturally led the temporary peak in the stock market. Importantly, despite the peak-to-trough near-20% decline in the SPX between July and late-August 1998, if someone had bought the index on Jan 2, 1998 and held through the cathartic LTCM bailout, they remained in the black (bottom panel, Chart 3), and a buy the dip strategy was a winning one. As a last reminder, the SPX jumped another 65% from the August 1998 trough until the March 2000 peak that was preceded, once again, by another yield curve inversion. At the current juncture, were the yield curve to invert we would become overly cautious on the broad equity market as we highlighted in late-June2, and would begin to transition the portfolio away from cyclicals and toward defensives. But, we are not there yet. Thus, we sustain our sanguine broad equity market outlook on a 9-12 month horizon and our SPX target remains 10% higher with EPS doing all the heavy lifting as the multiple moves sideways (for more details, please refer to our April 30th, 2018 Weekly Report titled "Lifting SPX Target"). This week we are taking a deeper dive in housing and housing-related equities and making a subsurface portfolio shift. Look Through The Housing Soft Patch, And... While housing-related data releases have been slightly weaker than anticipated lately, we deem that this softness is transitory as housing market fundamentals rest on solid foundations. On the demand side, first-time home buyers still make only a third of total home sales and the homeownership rate is near generational lows, underscoring that pent up housing demand exists. In fact, the percentage of 18-34 year-olds that live with their parents remains close to 32% a multi-decade high and also represents another source of housing demand that has been dormant because of the Great Recession (Chart 4). Importantly, household formation is still running at a higher clip than housing starts and permits, signaling that the risk of a significant supply/demand imbalance is rising. Historically, this gets resolved via higher prices. Further on the supply side, inventories of existing and new homes for sale remain low and point toward a tight residential housing market (Chart 5). The 98.5% homeowner occupancy rate corroborates the apparent residential real estate market tightness. Chart 4Homeownership Still Well Within Reach Chart 5Positive Housing Demand/Supply Dynamics True, affordability has taken a hit both as a result of rising home price inflation and mortgage rates. But, putting affordability in historical context reveals that homeownership is still well within reach. Were we to exclude that aberration of the post 2007 surge in affordability owing to the collapse in house prices and all-time lows in mortgage rates, affordability is higher than the 1992-2007 range and only lower than the early 1970s. The reason is largely because of still generationally-low interest rates (Chart 5). While a rising interest rate backdrop and sustained house price inflation will continue to dent affordability, as long as job certainty remains intact and wage growth picks up steam as we expect (please see Chart 4 from last week's publication), we doubt that the U.S. housing market will suffer a relapse. ...Boost Homebuilders To Overweight, But... In that light, we recommend augmenting exposure to overweight in the S&P homebuilding index. With the labor market at full employment and unemployment insurance claims on the verge of breaking below the 200K mark, housing starts should regain their footing (Chart 6) and propel homebuilding profits. In addition, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey showed that demand for residential real estate loans ticked higher, while simultaneously bankers remain willing extenders of mortgage credit. The implication is that new home sales will likely reaccelerate in the coming months (third & bottom panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Homebuilders Rest On Solid Foundations Chart 7Lumber Input Cost Relief While galloping lumber prices were previously a key reason for putting the S&P homebuilding index on our high-conviction underweight list, the recent liquidation, down $300/thousand board feet since the mid-May peak, in lumber prices represents a massive input cost relief for homebuilders (second panel, Chart 7). With regard to the relative pricing power front, previous price concessions (new home prices compared with existing home prices) are paying off as new home sales are steadily gaining a larger slice of the overall home sales pie (second & third panels, Chart 8). As input cost relief is slated to kick in during the next few months, especially on the framing lumber front, at a time when new home prices have stabilized, homebuilding sales and profits will likely overwhelm (bottom panel, Chart 8). While the latest NAHB/Wells Fargo National Home Market survey showed some softness on the overall housing market index (HMI), keep in mind that both the HMI and the sales expectations subcomponents of the survey are squarely above the 50 boom/bust line and only slightly below the recent cyclical highs (top and second panels, Chart 9). This healthy housing backdrop is also evident in plentiful construction job openings and expanding national house prices (third & bottom panels, Chart 9). Nevertheless, there are two risks to our upbeat S&P homebuilding view. First, interest rates. At the margin, rising mortgage rates can be a source of deficient housing demand especially for first-time home buyers. However, as mentioned earlier, interest rates are generationally low (middle panel, Chart 10) and the job market remains vibrant which should continue to entice first-time home buyers to make one of the largest purchase decisions of their lifetime. Chart 8Price Hikes Should Stick Chart 9Big Gaps Set To Narrow Chart 10Two Risks: Interest Rates & Wages Second, industry wage inflation. Construction sector wages are climbing rapidly, as much as 150bps faster than overall average hourly earnings (bottom panel, Chart 10). This is another key input cost for homebuilders that could eat into profit margins, especially if new home price inflation does not stick. In sum, a firming long-term housing demand backdrop, lumber price cost relief, steady new home prices and favorable leading indicators of new home sales will more than offset rising interest rates and industry wage inflation. Bottom Line: A playable opportunity has surfaced to ride the S&P homebuilding index higher. Lift exposure to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM. ...Don't Over Stay Your Welcome In Home Improvement Retailers Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome on the other residential real estate-levered consumer discretionary subgroup, the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index. We recommend a downgrade to a benchmark allocation for a relative gain of 13.3% since the July 5, 2016 inception. Such a move does not reflect a worsening overall housing view; as we made clear in our analysis above, we remain housing market bulls. Instead, we are concerned that too much euphoria is already priced in HIR equities. Chart 11 shows that fixed residential investment as a percentage of GDP is up 50% from trough to the recent peak (similar to the advance in existing home sales), whereas relative HIR performance is up 170% in the same time frame. Our worry is that optimistic sell side analysts' relative profit forecasts will be hard to attain, let alone surpass (bottom panel, Chart 11). Three main reasons are behind our softening EPS backdrop for home improvement retailers. First, our HIR model has plunged on the back of the wholesale liquidation in lumber prices and rising interest rates (Chart 12). Lumber deflation in particular will prove a profit headwind as building supply Big Box retailers make a set margin on wood products. Chart 11Too Much Euphoria Chart 12Timberrrr! Second, household appliance and furniture & durable selling prices have tentatively crested, and represent another source of profit headaches for HIR (bottom panel, Chart 13). Finally, select industry operating metrics suggest that the easy profits are behind HIR. Not only is our productivity growth proxy (sales per employee) on the verge of deflating, but also an inventory surge has sunk the HIR sales-to-inventories ratio into the contraction zone (second & third panels, Chart 13). But there are still some pockets of strength in the home improvement retailing industry that prevent us from turning outright bearish on the S&P HIR index. Despite the aforementioned easing in appliance and furniture wholesale prices, our HIR implicit price deflator has spiked on a short-term rate of change basis, likely owing to firm demand for remodeling activity. Indeed, the latest NAHB remodeling survey remains perched near record highs. The implication is that the recent lull in industry sales growth may reverse (middle and bottom panels, Chart 14). Importantly, a large driver of the previous cycle's remodeling activity was the availability of HELOCs and the stratospheric rise in Mortgage Equity Withdrawal (popularized by Fed economist Dr. James Kennedy). Now that home equity has nearly doubled to near 60% from the depths of the GFC, there are rising odds that homeowners may begin to tap their rebuilt equity and embark upon more renovations (top & middle panels, Chart 15). Tack on rising disposable incomes (bottom panel, Chart 15) and a buoyant labor market and the outlook for remodeling activity brightens further. Chart 13Operational Trouble Brewing... Chart 14...But Offsets... Chart 15...Exist Netting it out, is it prudent to lock in gains in the S&P HIR index as profit drivers have downshifted at the margin. Bottom Line: Crystalize gains of 13.3% in the S&P HIR index since inception, and downgrade exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: The World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MANF.SM.FN.ZS?locations=US&name_desc=true 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The Reward/Risk Tradeoff Changed?" dated June 25, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Special Report

Highlights Rates are going higher ... : Flight-to-quality episodes aside, the bond bear market that began in July 2016 remains in force. Investors should maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration. ... but that doesn't necessarily spell immediate trouble for stocks: Consistent with our work on the fed funds rate cycle, it appears that the level of rates matters more for equity returns than their direction. Empirical evidence of a rates tipping point is elusive ... : The notion that investors migrate from stocks to bonds at a particular level of rates exerts a powerful intuitive appeal, but the data fail to validate it. ... but a 10-year yield Treasury of 3.75 - 4% might halt the bull market in its tracks: Higher rates reliably slow equities only when they rise enough to slow the economy. We estimate that the pinch point is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.75 - 4% 10-year Treasury yield. Feature A share of stock is a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. Holding future earnings constant, the price an investor will be willing to pay for a share is wholly a function of the rate used to discount its earnings back to the present day. The simplicity and ubiquity of this valuation approach suggest that equity returns should be predictably related to moves in interest rates. It may also point the way to a tipping point - either in the level of rates, or the magnitude of their rise - at which capital and savings migrate from stocks to bonds. This Special Report reviews the historical record to see how U.S. equities have interacted with real 10-year Treasury yields. It considers the key variables that would logically seem to bear on equity performance and investors' propensity to rotate between asset classes. We find that the relationship between rates and equity returns is conditional, depending on which crosscurrent dominates in any given episode. We did not uncover any predictable rotation pattern. Do The Math As noted above, valuing a stream of future cash flows is a simple mechanical process once one settles on an appropriate discount rate for converting future dollars to current dollars. According to the security analysis textbooks, then, moves in stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. But the textbooks leave out one key point: changes in interest rates don't occur in a vacuum. When they change, earnings estimates are likely to change, too, most often in the same direction as real rates. To be sure, the denominator discounting future cash flows rises when real rates rise, but the future-earnings numerator most likely rises, too. If real rates are rising, the economy is probably gaining momentum, and earnings estimates should probably be revised higher as well. Conversely, falling rates lead to a higher earnings multiple (ex-the not insignificant animal-spirits wild card), but will regularly be accompanied by downward revisions in future earnings. The net effect is uncertain, and depends on whether the multiple change outweighs the change in earnings or vice versa. Bonds Are A Snap Compared To Stocks It's far simpler to compute the impact on a bond portfolio from a given increase in interest rates because the denominator is the only variable that changes. The future-cash-flows numerator is contractually fixed, and it takes a big shift in the state of the economy to spark an economy-wide change in perceived repayment potential.1 This is why bonds' sensitivity to changes in interest rates can be captured in a single universal metric (duration). Stocks are pulled in so many different directions by factors affecting future cash flows that duration has no equity analogue. Investors should therefore be cautious about pinning too much on interest rates as they relate to equities. Bonds move in fixed orbits around the interest-rate sun, according to strictly ordered rules that establish a very clear cause-and-effect relationship. Equities improvise as they go along, taking their cues from a rotating cast of variables that interact differently over time. Attempts to stretch the concept of interest-rate sensitivity beyond bonds regularly trip up equity investors; we cannot know in advance how rates will come together with the other factors that influence equities. Confounding Intuition, Part 1: Equities Prefer Rising Rates (And Multiples Don't Care) U.S. postwar history makes it clear that equity investors need not run from rising rates. The S&P 500 has fared considerably better when real 10-year yields have risen by at least 100 basis points ("bps") than it has when they've declined by that magnitude (Chart 1), gaining 9.4% and 5%, respectively (Chart 2). Rates do not exhibit any sort of a consistent relationship with either forward (Chart 3) or trailing (Chart 4) S&P 500 multiples, though extremely high and extremely low real yields are both associated with lower trailing P/Es. Negative real yields carry an unwelcome whiff of deflation, and their scatterplot data points tend to cluster at below-the-mean forward and trailing multiples. Chart 1Stocks Actually Do Better When Rates Rise ... Chart 2... Considerably Better When Do Higher Rates Hurt The Economy? Charts 3 and 4 show that both forward and trailing multiples almost always decline when real 10-year Treasury yields cross above 5%. What's bad for multiples isn't necessarily bad for earnings, however, and a 5% real threshold is irrelevant to today's cycle. The steady decline in the average fed funds rate over the last several completed cycles (Chart 5) makes it clear that neutral rate thresholds are not constant across time periods. Assessing interest rates' impact on the economy over time requires a sliding scale. Chart 3Hard To See A Trend Through The Windshield ... Chart 4... Or The Rear-View Mirror Estimates of potential economic growth provide a useful yardstick for measuring the impact of real yields. Comparing real long rates to potential output offers insight into the burden of servicing debt across the economy. If real rates exceed the economy's potential growth rate by a material amount, several marginal borrowers are likely to be gasping for air, and their travails will weigh on the economy. Conversely, servicing debt should be easy when real rates are below potential growth, and investors are more likely to invest, businesses are more likely to expand, and consumers are more likely to spend. Chart 5One Size Does Not Fit All There have been 22 instances in the postwar era when real 10-year Treasury yields have increased by at least 100 bps, and Table 1 lists all of them, grouped by their relationship to real GDP's potential five-year growth rate. There are three possible states for interest rate increases in relation to potential output: starting and ending below trend growth, starting below trend growth and ending above it, and starting and ending above trend. The S&P 500 comfortably tops its overall postwar returns when rates go from Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above, but declines outright when rates start above potential growth and go even higher. Earnings consistently rise when rates start below potential growth, making multiples the swing factor - when they expand, S&P 500 gains tend to be very large (Box 1). Table 1Real Rates Versus Potential GDP Growth Box 1 Decomposing S&P 500 Returns Table 2 details the decomposition of S&P 500 returns during rising real rate episodes occurring after S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979. Except in the crucible of 2009, when they were flat, forward earnings estimates have always risen when rates rise from a below-trend starting point, putting a tailwind behind the S&P 500 that regularly overcomes the multiple contraction that occurs in half of the Below/Above instances. Multiples are the swing factor; when they expand in conjunction with rising earnings estimates, U.S. equities soar. They always contract when rates go from high to higher, dragging stocks down against a mixed earnings expectations backdrop. The action is consistent with our fed funds rate cycle work: stocks do best when rates are below equilibrium and falling because earnings and multiples expand in tandem in that setting, but they do nearly as well after rate hikes commence, in spite of multiple contraction. Earnings surge when the Fed is confident enough about the economy to embark on a tightening cycle, but has not yet hiked enough to choke off the expansion. Multiple expansion in a majority of the Below/Above instances reveals that investors do not rotate out of equities en masse when rates rise, even by a considerable amount. The rotation story has intuitive appeal, but it doesn't show up in these data. Table 2Decomposition Of S&P 500 Returns During Rising Rate Periods A Little More Slicing And Dicing (Potential GDP Matters) Chart 6Mind The Gap Defining Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above states is easy in hindsight, but an investor cannot know in real time where a rising-rate instance that begins with rates below potential output will end. Earnings rise no matter where rates end relative to potential GDP, but re-rating in Below/Below can flip to de-rating in Below/Above, slamming the brakes on phase gains. The empirical data say investors should lighten up on S&P 500 exposure when real rates cross above real potential GDP. S&P 500 returns trounce their overall postwar gain when rates rise from below potential GDP to potential GDP but lag it once rates cross above potential GDP (Chart 6). Confounding Intuition, Part 2: Institutional Investors Don't Rotate Even if S&P 500 returns fail to demonstrate any consistent relationship with interest rates, one would expect that professional investors' asset-class positioning would. Bonds and stocks are alternatives for one another, and institutional investors presumably shift their allocations in line with the asset classes' relative prospects. We examine Pension Funds', Life Insurers', and Mutual Funds' asset-allocation profiles over time using balance-sheet data from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Flow of Funds report. The data show that asset-allocation decisions are made without apparent regard for relative valuations, at least as proxied by the equity risk premium. Pension funds' steady increase in equity allocations across the '90s appears to have been less a function of rate moves than buying into the bull market (Chart 7). Since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, bond and equity allocations have mainly reflected the performance tides. The extended trend in pension funds' equity-to-bond allocation ratio suggests that the funds set a long-range goal and grind steadily toward achieving it, regardless of relative valuation movements. It also suggests that the funds may not bother with rebalancing, much less dynamic asset allocation. Life insurers kept their fixed income and equity allocations more or less fixed across the '70s (not shown) and most of the '80s. They then reduced equity exposure for three years after 1987's Black Monday, assiduously built it up across the '90s, and have more or less let it drift since the millennium (Chart 8). The equity risk premium does not appear to have been a consideration. Asset-allocation stasis may simply be a reflection of life insurers' stringent regulatory constraints, but their portfolio managers' limited discretion precludes opportunistic allocation shifts. Mutual fund allocations tend to depend much more on past events than future expectations. Equity holdings peak when the equity risk premium bottoms and bottom when the equity risk premium peaks (Chart 9). The problem is that mutual fund managers are structurally hostage to their investors' whims. They are sorted into narrow silos and then straitjacketed by the rigid allocation rules written into their fund prospectuses. Even if they think asset-class rotation is a great idea, only a tiny minority of fund managers can act upon it. Chart 7Pension Funds Don't Allocate Based On Yields Or The ERP ... Chart 8... While Life Insurers Appear To Allocate In Defiance Of Them Chart 9Mutual Funds##BR##Obey Their Owners ... Confounding Darwin's Intuition: Human Investors Never Learn Chart 10... Who Act On Real Emotion, Not Real Yields Kahneman and Tversky's groundbreaking research into decision-making under uncertainty revealed that our species is wired to make suboptimal investment decisions. Prospect theory, loss aversion and an unhealthy fixation on recent data all encourage retail investors to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. When it comes to asset allocation, households appear to focus exclusively on the action in the rear-view mirror (Chart 10). Retail investors as a group rotate between equities and fixed income retroactively, in response to recent past returns, not proactively in response to cues about future relative-return prospects. Investment Implications Despite the compelling intuition that investors should set their course by the interest-rate stars, there is no evidence in the flow of funds data that they have done so in the past. We posit that structural constraints on institutional investors, combined with humans' durable cognitive biases, offer no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. While there may not be any predictable rotation pattern, rising rates have given rise to a predictable performance pattern. Equities reliably perform better when real rates are rising by at least 100 basis points than they do when they're falling. Decomposition of S&P 500 returns indicates that the pattern holds because earnings rise a good bit more in rising-rate periods than multiples decline. And multiples don't always decline when rates rise, anyway; sometimes emotion overrides cash flow discounting mechanics. Investors should lighten up on Treasury allocations, while keeping the exposures they do hold at below-benchmark duration. They should not flee equities, however. Rates have not yet risen enough to cool off the economy in any material way, and we judge that they won't until somewhere around a 3.75% 10-year Treasury yield.2 Tight supplies in labor and goods markets will eventually stoke realized inflation and provoke the Fed into tightening enough to cut off the rally, but it hasn't happened yet, and it is far too early to de-risk portfolios on account of interest rates. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 An unusually large drop in rates may well be associated with economic distress, but default-adjusted bond payment streams are much less variable than near- and intermediate-term earnings estimates. 2 Based on the evolution of the Congressional Budget Office's longer-run estimates of real potential GDP growth, and the trend in our own model of long-term inflation expectations, it appears as if nominal potential GDP growth will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.75-4% next year. This is a much lower estimate than one would get from adding the Fed's 2% inflation target to the current rate of GDP growth, but we need to look past the immediate boost of the stimulus package to get a read on its longer-run effects. As with all of the estimates produced by our models, we look to it for a general guide to the future, not a precise point estimate.

Highlights We review last year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" and offer four additional ones: Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short Dec 2020 Fed funds futures contract Trade #2: Long USD/CNY Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection Feature A Review Of Last Year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's last Annual Investment Conference on September 25th, 2017, where I presented the following three trade ideas (Chart 1): 1. Short December 2018 Fed funds futures We closed this trade for a profit of 70 basis points. Had we held on, it would be up 92 basis points as of the time of this writing. 2. Long global industrial equities/short utilities We closed this trade on February 1st for a gain of 12%, as downside risks to global growth began to mount. This proved to be a timely decision, as the trade would be up only 6.1% had we kept it on. We would not re-enter this trade at present. 3. Short 20-year JGBs/long 5-year JGBs This trade struggled for much of 2018 but sprung back to life in August. It is up 0.6% since we initiated it. We still like the trade over the long haul. Investors are grossly underestimating the risk that Japanese inflation will move materially higher as an aging population creates a shortage of workers and a concomitant decline in the national savings rate. We also think the government will try to egg on any acceleration in consumer prices in order to inflate away its debt burden. In the near term, however, the trade could struggle if a combination of weaker EM growth and an increase in the value of the trade-weighted yen cause inflation expectations to decline. Four Additional Trades Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short December 2020 Fed funds futures contract Investors expect U.S. short-term rates to rise to 2.38% by the end of 2018 and 2.85% by the end of 2019. The 47 basis points in tightening priced in for next year is less than the 75 basis points in hikes implied by the Fed dots. Investors appear to have bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They are convinced that short rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession (Chart 2). Chart 1Revisiting Last Year's Three Tantalizing Trades Chart 2Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Regardless of what one thinks of Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term drivers of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019 compared to 3.6% of GDP in 2015. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP next year, little changed from a deficit of 0.9% it ran in 2015 (Chart 3). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is rising faster than GDP (Chart 4). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 5). Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 6). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 7). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 3U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary Than The Euro Area Chart 4U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 5U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Chart 6Quits Rate Is Signaling That There Is Upside For Wage Growth Chart 7The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 A more hawkish-than-expected Fed will bid up the value of the greenback. A stronger dollar, in turn, will undermine emerging markets, which have seen foreign-currency debts balloon over the past six years (Chart 8). The deflationary effects of a stronger dollar and falling commodity prices could temporarily cause investors to price out some hikes over the next few quarters. With that in mind, we recommend shorting the December 2020 Fed funds futures contract, while going long the June 2019 contract. The first leg of the trade captures our expectation that the market will revise up its estimate the terminal rate, while the second leg captures near-term risks to global growth. The gap between the two contracts has widened over the past few days as we have prepared this report, but at 21 basis points, it has plenty of room to increase further (Chart 9). Chart 8EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 9U.S. Rate Expectations Are Too Low Beyond Mid-2019 Trade #2: Long USD/CNY China's economy is slowing, which has prompted the government to inject liquidity into the financial system. The spread in 1-year swap rates between the U.S. and China has fallen from about 3% earlier this year to 0.6% at present, taking the yuan down with it (Chart 10). It is doubtful that China will be willing to match - let alone exceed - U.S. rate hikes. This suggests that USD/CNY will appreciate. China's real trade-weighted exchange rate has weakened during the past four months, but is up 25% over the past decade (Chart 11). U.S. tariffs on $250 billion (and counting) of Chinese imports threaten to erode export competitiveness, making a further devaluation necessary. Chart 10USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Chart 11The RMB Is Still Quite Strong President Trump will oppose a weaker yuan. However, just as China's actions earlier this year to strengthen its currency did not prevent the U.S. from imposing tariffs, it is doubtful that efforts by the Chinese authorities to talk up the yuan would appease Trump. Besides, China needs a weaker currency. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46%. As a matter of arithmetic, national savings need to be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. China has concentrated on the former strategy over the past decade. The problem is that this approach has run into diminishing returns. Chart 12 shows that the capital stock has risen dramatically as a share of GDP. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, the rate of return on assets among Chinese state-owned companies, which have been the main driver of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below their borrowing costs (Chart 13).2 Chart 12China's Capital Stock Has Grown Alongside Rising Debt Levels Chart 13China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For State-Owned Companies Now that the economy is awash in excess capacity, the authorities will need to steer more excess production abroad. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. The dollar is currently working off overbought technical conditions, a risk we flagged in our August 31st report.3 That process should be complete over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, hopes of a massive Chinese stimulus focused on fiscal/credit easing will fade. The combination of these two forces will push up USD/CNY above the psychologically-critical 7 handle by the end of the year. Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD A weaker yuan will raise raw material costs to Chinese firms. This will hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are much more vulnerable to slower Chinese growth than oil. Chart 14 shows that China consumes close to half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced in the world, compared to only 15% of oil output. Our expectation that developed economy growth will hold up better than EM growth over the next few quarters implies that oil will outperform industrial metals. Oil is also supported by a tighter supply backdrop, particularly given the downside risks to Iranian and Venezuelan crude exports. A bet on oil over metals is a bet on DM over EM growth in general, and the Canadian dollar over the Australian dollar specifically (Chart 15). Canada exports more oil than metals, while Australian exports are dominated by ores and metals. In terms of valuations, the Canadian dollar is still somewhat cheap relative to the Aussie dollar based on our FX team's long-term valuation model (Chart 16). Chart 14China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil Chart 15Oil Over Metals = CAD Over AUD Chart 16Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar The loonie has been weighed down by ongoing fears that Canada will be left out of a renegotiated NAFTA. However, our geopolitical strategists believe that the Trump administration is trying to focus more on China, against whom the case for unfair trade practices is far easier to make. The U.S. has already negotiated a trade deal with Mexico and an agreement with Canada is more likely than not. If a new deal is struck, the Canadian dollar will rally. We recommended going short AUD/CAD on June 28. The trade is up 3.4%, carry-adjusted, since then. Stick with it. Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection It is too early to call a bottom in EM assets. Valuations have not yet reached washed-out levels (Chart 17). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 18). However, at some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. During the 1990s, this capitulation point occurred shortly after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in September 1998. EM equities fell by 26% between April 21, 1998 and June 15, 1998. After a half-hearted attempt at a rally, EM stocks tumbled again in July, falling by 35% between July 17 and September 10. The second leg of the EM selloff brought down the S&P 500 by 22%. Thanks to a series of well-telegraphed Fed rate cuts, global markets stabilized on October 8th (Chart 19). The S&P 500 surged by 68% over the next 18 months. The MSCI EM index more than doubled in dollar terms over this period. EM stocks outperformed U.S. equities by a whopping 71% between February 1999 and February 2000. Europe also outperformed the U.S. starting in mid-1999. Value stocks, which had lagged growth stocks over the prior six years, also finally gained the upper hand. Chart 17EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 18EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound Chart 19The ''Great Equity Rotation'' Is Coming: A Roadmap From The 1990s The "Great Equity Rotation" is coming. All the trades that have suffered lately - overweight EM, long Europe/short U.S., long cyclicals/short defensives, long value/short growth - will get their day in the sun. Investors can prepare for this inflection point by scaling into EM equities today, but guarding against near-term downside risk by buying puts. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM), while purchasing March 15, 2019 out-of-the-money puts with a strike price of $41. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too simulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging," dated August 29, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Global Growth: Are The Tables About To Turn?" dated August 31, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Prediction 1: A major financial downturn will trigger the next major economic downturn, and not the other way round. Prediction 2: The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. But for those who can fine tune, the global long bond yield must rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice. Take short-term profits in the overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Take short-term profits in the underweight position in basic materials. Take short-term profits in the underweight positions in Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and overweight position in Denmark (OMX). Feature The twenty-first century has witnessed three major downturns: the first started in 2000; the second started in 2007 culminating in the Lehman crisis a year later; and the third started in 2011 (Chart of the Week). Today, we are going to stick our necks out and make two predictions about the century's fourth major downturn. Chart of the WeekThree Episodes When Equities Underperformed Bonds By 20 Percent Or More A major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn. The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. Where The Consensus Is Very Wrong As investment strategists, our primary focus should be the financial markets rather than the economy. On this basis, we define a major downturn in terms of the markets: an episode in which equities underperform bonds by more than 20 percent over a period of more than six months.1 All the same, our market based definition of a major downturn perfectly captures the three occasions that the European economy went into recession or stagnation (Chart I-2). Does this mean that the economic downturns triggered the financial market downturns? No, quite the reverse. The onset of the three major financial downturns clearly preceded the onset of the three major economic downturns. Chart I-2Three Episodes When The Euro Area Economy ##br##Contracted Or Stagnated On reflection, this is hardly surprising. The twenty-first century's major economic downturns have all resulted from financial market distortions and fragilities: the bubble valuations of the technology, media and telecom sectors in 2000 (Chart I-3); the mispricing of U.S. mortgages and credit in 2007 (Chart I-4); and the mispricing of euro area sovereign credit risk in 2011 (Chart I-5). Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the downturns in financial markets should precede the downturns in the economy, even when both are measured in real time. Chart I-3The Major Downturns Stemmed From##br## Financial Market Distortions: The Dot Com ##br##Bubble In 1999/2000... Chart I-4...The Mispricing Of U.S. ##br##Mortgages And Credit##br## In 2007/2008... Chart I-5...And The Mispricing Of Euro Area ##br##Sovereign Credit Risk##br## In 2010/2011 Today, the consensus overwhelmingly believes that an economic downturn will cause the next major downturn in financial markets. But history has taught us time and time again that the causality is much more likely to run the other way. Why not learn the lesson? So here's our first prediction: a major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn, and not the other way round. This prediction raises some obvious questions: what could be the major fragility in financial markets, and what could fracture it? A Sharp Rise In Bond Yields Triggered The Last Three Major Downturns Look carefully at the financial market downturns that started in 2000, 2007 and 2011, and you will see another striking similarity. In each episode, the global long bond yield rose by 60 bps or more in the months that preceded the onset of the financial market downturn: April 1999 through January 2000 (Chart I-6); March through July 2007 (Chart I-7); and October 2010 through April 2011 (Chart I-8). This strongly suggests that the spike in the bond yield was the trigger for the subsequent major downturn in financial markets. Chart I-6A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2000 Chart I-7A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered##br## The Major Downturn Of 2007 And 2008 Chart I-8A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2011 A sharp rise in bond yields is usually the straw that breaks the back of financial market fragilities, in (at least) one of three ways: it flushes out those actors that are reliant on cheap liquidity; it pressures interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy; and it weighs on the valuations of other assets such as equities, especially if those valuations are already extremely elevated. Which segues us neatly to the current fragility in the global financial system. As we wrote last week, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies across all asset-classes. And the total value of those global risk-assets is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.2 We have also consistently highlighted that not only do the rich valuations of $400 trillion of risk-assets depend (inversely) on bond yields, but that this relationship is an exponential function.3 So here's our second prediction: the straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time - just as it did in 2000, 2007 and 2011. But Bond Yields Haven't Gone Up Far Enough... Yet Now comes some bullish news, at least for those who can play shorter-term moves in the market. The global long bond yield has been trapped within a tight channel and is only 20 bps up from its recent low in April (Chart I-9). Therefore, it has the scope to rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice and unleashing a 'risk-off' phase. Chart I-9In 2018, The Bond Yield Has Not Risen Sharply...Yet For those who want to fine tune their investment strategy, the journey up to that turning point would define a phase when many of this year's cyclical sector underperformances would end or even switch to a phase of modest outperformances. Bear in mind that the cyclical sector underperformances this year have been substantial: European banks have underperformed healthcare by 35 percent; global basic materials have underperformed the market by 10 percent; emerging market equities have underperformed developed market equities by 15 percent. So it is prudent to take some short-term profits, especially as these trends are likely to end, at least in the near term. Hence, three weeks ago we closed our underweight banks versus healthcare position, booking a tidy profit of 23 percent. Today, we are closing our underweight position in basic materials versus the market, booking a profit of 6 percent. In a similar vein, we are taking the modest profits in our overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Sector allocation has unavoidable implications for stock market allocation - because the mainstream stock market indexes all have dominant sector skews which determine their relative performances (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare On this basis, closing our underweight banks versus healthcare removes the justification for being underweight bank-dominant Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and the justification for being overweight healthcare-dominant Denmark (OMX). These three positions now move to neutral. While we consider our next shift, our European stock market allocation is temporarily reduced to just five positions. Overweight: France, Ireland, Switzerland. Underweight: Sweden, Norway. Finally, just to say that there will be no report next week as I will be attending our annual Investment Conference which is in Toronto this year. I look forward to seeing some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Based on the relative performance of the MSCI All Country World Index versus the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index, both in local currency terms. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?' September 13 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds' August 2 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, we note that the very strong recent outperformance of U.S. telecoms versus U.S. autos is technically extended, reaching a fractal dimension that has previously signalled the start of a countertrend move. Hence, the recommended trade is short U.S. telecoms, long U.S. autos. Set a profit target of 9% with a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-11 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. * 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 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