Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Higher Treasury Yields: As core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by at least 50 basis points and the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move above 2.80%. This is substantially higher than the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries: TIPS will outperform nominal Treasury securities in 2018 as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates widen alongside rising core inflation. The passage of tax cuts in the first half of next year would speed up the adjustment in breakevens. Curve Steepeners, Then Flatteners: The slope of the yield curve is positively correlated with TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Look for mild curve steepening in the first half of 2018 as breakevens widen, transitioning to flattening once breakevens level-off around mid-year. The Cyclical Sweet Spot Comes To An End: The cyclical sweet spot of solid growth and low inflation that has been driving the outperformance of spread product will come to an end in 2018. The catalyst will be higher inflation. We will start paring exposure to spread product once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%, probably in the middle of next year. A Year Of Low Returns: Spreads are not that far from all-time expensive levels, meaning there is limited room for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle. Excess returns from spread product will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Feature BCA's Outlook for 2018 was published last week.1 That report laid out the macroeconomic themes that will impact markets during the next year. In this week's report we expand on those themes and discuss what they mean for U.S. fixed income markets specifically. We identify five key implications. Implication 1: Higher Yields One important theme for 2018 will be the resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation. As was stated in the Outlook: The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil import prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. Rising inflation mustn't necessarily translate into higher yields, but the Treasury market is not currently priced for the possibility that core inflation will ever re-gain the Fed's 2% target. Chart 1 shows the nominal 10-year Treasury yield split into its two main components: Chart 110-Year Treasury Yield Components The compensation for future inflation - proxied by the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. The real 10-year Treasury yield - proxied by the 10-year TIPS yield. As has been stated repeatedly in this publication, in an environment where realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has historically traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (Chart 1, top panel). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at 1.84%. This means that by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target, a feat we think will be achieved in 2018, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will impart 56 to 66 basis points of upside to the nominal 10-year Treasury yield. It is possible that any increase in the compensation for inflation protection could be offset by falling real yields. However, it is highly unlikely that the 10-year real yield would decline while the Fed is hiking rates, unless there is a sharp downward adjustment in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter2 (Chart 1, panel 2). On that front, the market is currently priced for between two and three rate hikes during the next 12 months. This expectation could be revised even higher in the near-term as inflation recovers, but that faster pace of rate hikes is unlikely to be sustained for any significant period of time. All in all, the discounter appears not that far from its fair value, meaning that the 10-year real yield should impart some modest additional upside to the 10-year nominal yield on a 6-12 month horizon. To summarize, if core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018, then the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move into a range between 2.90% and 3.00% (Chart 1, bottom panel), conservatively assuming no additional upside or downside from real yields. This is substantially above the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%, and we therefore advocate a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. The Importance Of Synchronized Growth It was also observed in the Outlook that, according to the IMF, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018. If these forecasts pan out, then 2018 will also be the first year since the recession that more than 50% of those 20 economies have output gaps in positive territory. Meanwhile, the IMF estimates that the U.S. output gap has been essentially closed since 2015 (Chart 2). In other words, the U.S. has been leading the global economic recovery for the past few years but this is now starting to change. The rest of world is quickly catching up and the global economic recovery is now much more synchronized. This is critically important for U.S. bond yields because it lessens the impact of foreign inflows. For example, when U.S. growth was far outpacing growth in the rest of the world in 2014 and 2015, any increase in U.S. Treasury yields also widened the spread between U.S. yields and yields in the rest of the world. The wider gap encouraged foreign inflows to the U.S. bond market and limited how high U.S. yields could rise. Now, with the global economic recovery more synchronized, U.S. yields will have to increase by much more to have the same impact on the spread between U.S. yields and yields in the rest of the world. In our view this is an extremely bond-bearish development that often goes under-appreciated. Our 2-factor Treasury model attempts to quantify the impact of synchronized global growth on the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3). The model uses Global Manufacturing PMI as its proxy for global growth, and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar as a proxy for the synchronization of the global recovery - a less synchronized recovery should lead to increased bullishness toward the dollar and vice-versa. The model's current reading pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.69%. Chart 2Rest of World Playing Catch-Up Chart 32-Factor Treasury Model Bottom Line: As core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by at least 50 basis points and the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move above 2.80%. This is substantially higher than the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Implication 2: TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries It should be obvious that if the forecasts in the prior section pan out then TIPS will substantially outperform nominal Treasury securities as breakeven inflation rates widen in 2018. In our opinion the low level of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates represents the greatest source of medium-term value in U.S. bond markets. Chart 4Breakevens Biased Wider In addition, a wide range of indicators, such as our own Pipeline Inflation Indicator and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, already suggest that breakevens are biased wider (Chart 4). With the Fed engaged in a rate hike cycle, evidence of price pressures in the realized inflation data will be required before breakevens see significant upside. Our base case forecast is that the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate will reach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5% around the same time that core PCE inflation reaches 2%, probably in the middle of next year. However, there is one political risk that could speed up that adjustment. Namely, if Congress manages to pass tax cuts in the first half of 2018. From the Outlook: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform [...]. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. [...] There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. Fiscal stimulus from tax cuts at this late stage of the cycle would be very inflationary, and judging by the sharp increase in TIPS breakevens that followed President Trump's election last November, the market has already figured this out. The passage of a tax bill early next year would no doubt speed up the return of long-maturity TIPS breakevens to our target range. Bottom Line: TIPS will outperform nominal Treasury securities in 2018 as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates widen alongside rising core inflation. The passage of tax cuts in the first half of next year would speed up the adjustment in breakevens. Implication 3: Curve Steepeners, Then Flatteners Another recommendation that follows from rising inflation is that the yield curve will steepen as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. We have previously observed that changes in the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve are positively correlated with changes in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Crucially, this positive correlation remains intact even when the Fed is hiking rates.3 In the current rate hike cycle (which started in December 2015) we observe that monthly changes in the 2/10 nominal Treasury slope have been positively correlated with monthly changes in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate in 22 out of 24 months (Chart 5). It stands to reason that we should expect the yield curve to steepen as TIPS breakevens rise. Chart 52/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year Forward ##br##(December 2015 - Present) However, we caution that curve steepening is probably only a story for the first half of 2018. Steepening will transition to flattening once long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our 2.4% to 2.5% target range, and in the meantime, there is a limit to how steep the yield curve can get. Let's assume that the Fed's median projection of a 3% terminal fed funds rate is reasonably accurate. It follows that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to rise much above 3% before the end of the recovery. We can also calculate what the 2-year Treasury yield will be under different scenarios for the fed funds rate and the 2-year/fed funds slope. The latter can be thought of as simply the number of rate hikes the market expects during the subsequent two years. With these assumptions we can craft scenarios for where the 2/10 Treasury slope will be under different conditions, and these scenarios are presented in Table 1. The shaded cells in Table 1 are the scenarios that cause the 2/10 Treasury slope to steepen from its current level of 59 bps. Table 1Scenarios For The Number Of Fed Rate Hikes By ##br##The Time That Inflation Returns To Target For example, by the time that inflation recovers to the Fed's 2% target, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will most likely be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. If the Fed only delivers two rate hikes between now and then it is very likely that the yield curve will steepen. This is shown in the section of Table 1 labelled "2 Rate Hikes". However, if the Fed lifts rates four times between now and the time that inflation returns to target, then it is much more likely that the 2/10 curve will flatten. These scenarios are shown in the top three rows of Table 1. The message is that the order of events matters. In our base case scenario, inflation starts to recover early next year and long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our 2.4% to 2.5% target by mid-2018. At that point it is quite likely that the Fed will have only hiked rates a couple of times and the curve will have steepened. More rapid rate hikes, however, would severely limit the amount of potential steepening. We continue to advocate positioning for 2/10 steepening via a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in the duration-matched 2/10 barbell. At present, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for 4 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months, so even mild curve steepening will lead to outperformance during that timeframe.4 We will shift from curve steepeners to flatteners once TIPS breakevens return to our target range. Bottom Line: The slope of the yield curve is positively correlated with TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Look for mild curve steepening in the first half of 2018 as breakevens recover, transitioning to flattening once breakevens re-normalize around mid-year. Implication 4: The Cyclical Sweet Spot Comes To An End From the Outlook: The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. [...] We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. Chart 6The "Fed Put" Is Still In Place This publication has named that goldilocks environment the "cyclical sweet spot" for risk assets. Essentially, as long as inflation is below the Fed's target, the Fed must respond to any economic weakness (or tightening of financial conditions) by adopting a more accommodative policy stance. The market knows that this "Fed put" is in place and that makes it very difficult to get a meaningful sell-off. In fact, the last major sell-off in corporate credit (in 2014/15) only occurred because the market assumed that the Fed would not deviate from its projected rate hike path even though commodity prices were plunging, causing defaults in certain exposed industry groups. Notice in Chart 6 that our 24-month Fed Funds Discounter stayed flat as spreads widened. Spreads only tightened in early 2016 after the Fed capitulated. So under what conditions will the "Fed put" disappear? Logically, if inflation were much higher the Fed would be less inclined to support markets at any sign of trouble. This is the reason that, while we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now, we expect the cyclical sweet spot for spreads will come to an end next year. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approaching our target range of 2.4% to 2.5% will be the first signal that it is time to pare exposure. The importance of supportive monetary policy for spread product performance is also evident when looking at our three favorite credit cycle indicators (Chart 7). Historically, three conditions must be met before a sustained period of spread widening can occur. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Our Corporate Health Monitor must be in "deteriorating health" territory (Chart 7, panel 2). Fed policy must be restrictive. This can be proxied by an inverted yield curve, or a real fed funds rate above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 7, panels 3 & 4). Bank Commerical & Industrial lending standards must be in "net tightening" territory (Chart 7, bottom panel). For the time being only corporate health is sending a negative signal, but once inflation recovers we will be at increasing risk of monetary conditions turning restrictive. Tighter lending standards tend to follow restrictive monetary policy with a short lag. Bottom Line: The cyclical sweet spot of solid growth and low inflation that has been driving the outperformance of spread product will come to an end in 2018. The catalyst will be higher inflation. We will start paring exposure to spread product once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%, probably in the middle of next year. Implication 5: A Year Of Low Returns From the Outlook: Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation. That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. Heading into 2018 almost all U.S. spread product sectors are indeed faced with a more adverse starting point for valuations. Chart 8 compares today's option-adjusted spread (OAS) with the OAS at the end of 2016 for seven major spread products. With the exception of MBS, all sectors currently have lower spreads than at they did at the beginning of 2017. Chart 8Less Value In Spread Product Starting valuation is only one component of excess returns. Capital gains/losses from the change in spreads is the other. However, the deeper we move into the credit cycle the less room there is for further spread compression. In fact, we have previously calculated that the average spread for the investment grade Corporate bond index can only tighten another 35 bps before it reaches all-time expensive levels. This represents only 3 months of historical average spread tightening. The same calculation for the High-Yield index shows that the spread can only tighten another 145 bps, representing 4 months of average tightening.5 In other words, there is not much potential for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle and excess returns will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Chart 9 shows annualized 2017 year-to-date excess returns for each sector alongside projected excess returns for 2018 under two scenarios. The "flat spread" scenario assumes that spreads stay flat at current levels, while the "optimistic" scenario assumes that spreads tighten to all-time expensive valuation levels. Chart 92018 Excess Return Projections For investment grade corporate bonds even this extremely optimistic scenario would only provide excess returns of 363 bps, just 121 bps above this year's likely returns. For High-Yield, the optimistic scenario would provide excess returns of 637 bps, a mere 148 bps above this year's likely returns. For consumer ABS and domestic Agency bonds, the projections from our optimistic scenario do not even surpass this year's likely excess returns. Bottom Line: Spreads are not that far from all-time expensive levels, meaning there is limited room for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle. Excess returns from spread product will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Outlook 2018, "Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter measures the number of rate hikes priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For further details on our yield curve models and how we calculate the amount of steepening/flattening priced into the butterfly spread please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 These numbers refer to the spread tightening necessary to reach all-time lows on the 12-month breakeven spread for each index. We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. Fixed Income Sector Performance

Highlights Risk assets continue to rise despite a flattening yield curve. Individual investors are more sanguine than institutional investors as stocks make new highs. The S&P 500 is testing the top of a key channel. Will it break out or break down? Bond market sentiment, positioning and technicals today vs. 1994. Feature Risk-on returned to financial markets last week as the S&P 500 hit a new all-time high and oil prices reached a 2-year high. Credit spreads narrowed as well. This occurred despite growing investor angst regarding the flattening yield curve. At 58 basis points, the 2/10 yield curve is still in positive territory, but the recent flattening could be interpreted as heralding a Fed policy mistake. We, too, are concerned. The flattening curve is being driven by the Fed's determination to continue lifting short-term rates even in the face of subdued inflation readings. Our base case outlook sees inflation grinding higher in the coming months, leading to a temporarily steeper curve. Nonetheless, we will re-evaluate our asset allocation if the curve continues to flatten and core inflation remains stuck in a range. BCA expects U.S. stocks to outperform Treasuries in 2018. S&P 500 EPS growth and margins will hold up through mid-year, supported by an above-trend domestic economic expansion in 1H 2018, a dose of fiscal stimulus and accelerating economic activity outside the U.S. Still, many investors are concerned that sentiment and valuations are signaling that a pullback is nigh. Sanguine Sentiment Our technical and sentiment indicators are not flashing red as in previous bear markets, but neither are they giving an all-clear for U.S. equity investors. Sentiment levels are a bigger concern than technical indicators and investors should monitor both for signs of an equity sell-off. BCA's U.S. equity sentiment indicator is elevated, although not at an extreme (Chart 1). Remarkably, in contrast to previous market troughs, individual Investors (panel 2) are more sanguine than either financial advisors (panel 3) or traders (panel 4). Bullishness among traders is at a 10-year high. Typically, after a long bull run, institutions are more cautious about equities than the oft-maligned individual investor. Several other sentiment surveys illustrate the divergence in sentiment between institutions and individuals. As per the American Institute of Individual Investors, the percentage of small investors who are bearish (Chart 2, 35%, panel 2) is in the middle of a 30-year range while the percentage of bulls (29%, panel 3) is at the low end. Moreover, Chart 3 shows the gap in the expectation between households and professionals on future stock market returns (as tallied by the Yale School of Management's International Center for Finance) and on buying the dips (panel 4). That said, individuals and institutions are more aligned on the likelihood of a stock market crash in the next six months. None of the three sentiment indicators from the Yale survey are at an extreme. Chart 1Overall Sentiment Levels Elevated##BR##But Not At Extremes Chart 2Individuals Are Not##BR##Overly Bullish Active managers have reduced equity risk since the beginning of Q4 (Chart 4). At 61%, the average equity exposure of institutional investors surveyed by the NAAIM1 is at the lowest level since May 2016 and is nearly half the 102% exposure at the start of 2017. The March 2017 reading was the highest since 2007, just before the S&P 500 peak in October 2007. Chart 3Gap Between Individual##BR##And Institutional Investors Chart 4Active Managers Still##BR##Overweight Equities... Similarly to previous bear markets, BCA's equity speculation index moved into "high speculation" territory in early 2017 and remains so as the year ends and range bound on average at somewhat lower levels. Net speculative positions of S&P 500 stocks are in balance, however, and do not signal that market risk-taking is rampant (Chart 5). Moreover, the dispersion of equity volatility of new high and lows of the S&P500 is quite wide, ranging from over 20% to below 5%, over previous historical periods since 1994. Although volatility is not a leading indicator of future equity market returns, good or bad, the current low level of volatility, especially over the short-term, 6 months to 1-year, may be longer-lasting, having peaked from over 15% only since early 2016 and now closer to 5%. Longer-term volatility, for example, based on 2-, 3- and 4-years, still remains above 10%. It is not unusual for both short-term and long-term volatility to eventually converge, as seen in post-bear market phases, especially in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Chart 5Speculation High, But Not At Extremes Chart 6Equity Vol Remains Low Warning Signs From Technicals? On balance, the technical indicators we monitor do not suggest that the market is stretched. Chart 7 shows that the S&P 500 is testing the top end of the 2009-2017 recovery trend channel. A failure to break out of the channel may result in some near-term consolidation for U.S. equities. However, a definitive break above 2616 would imply another upleg for stocks. The escalating advance/decline line is also in a bullish trend (Chart 7). The other technical indicators we monitor fall into two categories. Some are elevated, but not at extremes. Others are still in the middle of the range and are not a concern. The S&P 500 is 6% above its 200-day moving average, in the upper end of its post-2000 range, which is well below the recent highs set in 2009, 2011 and 2013. The S&P's distance from its 50-day MA is in a similar position (Chart 8, panels 1 and 2). BCA's composite technical measure is in the middle of the 2007-2017 range, and is not a concern (Chart 9, panel 5). Moreover, the percent of NYSE stocks above their 10- and 30-week highs are midway in their recent range. Furthermore, new highs minus new lows is at neutral lows (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 7Breakout...Or Breakdown##BR##At Top Of Channel? Chart 8S&P Not Elevated Vs.##BR##Moving Averages Chart 9U.S. Stocks Not##BR##Overextended Bottom Line: Neither sentiment nor technical indicators are flashing red, although the fact that institutional managers are heavily overweight stocks is worrying. We continue to recommend stocks over bonds in the next 12 months, but acknowledge that risks to BCA's stance are climbing. Investors should be prudent with risk assets, paring back any maximum overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service maintains a positive technical stance on the energy sector2 and notes that technicals in the consumer discretionary sector look washed out.3 BCA downgraded consumer discretionary from overweight to neutral on September 25, 2017 despite the attractive technical backdrop of the sector. Is It 1994 - Again? BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service puts fair value on the U.S. 10-year Treasury at 2.69%,4 and rates may climb as high as 3.0% in 2018 if inflation returns to the Fed's 2.0% target. Fundamentals (elevated inflation, above-trend U.S. growth, a more aggressive Fed) support our bond view. However, what does the technical picture in the bond market tell investors? Charts 10 and 11 show the sentiment and technical indicators for the bond market in 2017 and 1994. The duration positioning of portfolio managers in late 2017 matches the situation in 1994. At 100%, portfolio duration is the highest since March 21, 2017. This positioning implies that the market is vulnerable to a spike in rates, as it was in 1994 when the Fed's 75-basis point rate hike in February caught the market off guard. In October 1994, portfolio duration was 103%. While BCA views a Fed policy mistake as a risk to our bullish equity call in 2018, a 1994-style surprise from the Fed is unlikely. In 1994, the Fed's policy intentions were opaque, at best. Since then, the Fed has become increasingly transparent and frequently seeks a "buy-in" from the market before boosting rates. Chart 10Bond Market Positioning,##BR##Sentiment And Technicals In 1994.... Chart 11...And In##BR##2017 The 10-year Treasury yield is currently in an uptrend as it was in early 1994. Today, yields have climbed 80 bps off their post-Brexit lows in mid-2016. The 10-year yield troughed in October 1993 at 5.19%, and rose 60 bps before the Fed's shock rate hike in early 1994. However, in 1994 yields were only beginning to enter the second decade of what would become a 35-year fall in bond yields. BCA's view is that the 1.57% yield in June 2016 marked the end of that multi-year decline. The bond market in late 2017 is as oversold as the bond market was in early 1994, although it took different paths to get to the same juncture. According to BCA's Composite Bond Indicator, the bond market in late 1993 and early 1994 was working off a deeply overbought position. However, by early 1994, bonds were modestly oversold. BCA's bond measure was deeply oversold in late 2016 and early 2017, but shifted into overbought territory in the summer. Today, bonds are modestly oversold. Panel 4 of Charts 10 and 11 show that Fed rate hikes were not priced in at the end of 1993 and in early 1994; today, a few increases are priced in. Investors were net purchasers of bond funds in 1993 and 1994, which is the same as the current situation. In 1993, however, investors were shedding bond funds while individuals are now adding to their bond positions. Bottom Line: Several sentiment and technical indicators in the bond market echo the scenario in 1994. Nonetheless, 25 years of increased Fed transparency means it would be unlikely that the market will be surprised by the Fed's next rate increase. Still, with a new Fed Chair, a record number of vacancies on the Fed's Board and an unprecedented unwinding of its balance sheet, a policy misstep by the Fed would threaten BCA's position on the economy, equities and bonds in 2018. A bigger risk may be that the bond market is still priced for the low inflation environment to persist. Accordingly, if there is an upside surprise on inflation, bonds could be hit hard on a re-assessment of the Fed's rate path. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 National Association of Active Investment Managers. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Invincible", published November 6, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Resilient", published September 25, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Into The Fire", published November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Synchronized global capex growth, a derivative of BCA's synchronized global growth thesis, will be a dominant theme next year, benefiting cyclicals over defensives. Three high-conviction calls are levered to this theme. Higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation expectations is another BCA theme that should materialize in 2018. Three calls focus on a selloff in the bond markets for the coming year. Two special situations round up our high-conviction calls for 2018. Recent Changes S&P Software index - Boost to overweight. S&P Homebuilding index - Downgrade to underweight. Table 1 Feature Equities continued to grind higher last week, largely ignoring tax bill passage jitters. The S&P 500 is on track to register an eighth consecutive month of positive monthly returns, an impressive feat. Firm global economic data suggests that the synchronized global growth theme is gaining traction and remains investors' focal point. While the 10/2 yield curve flattening is a bit unnerving, another curve to watch is the spread between 2-year yields and the Fed funds rate, or what BCA often refers to as the "Fed Spread". This spread has widened 50bps since early September closely tracking the Citi economic surprise index (Chart 1A), and signals that the U.S. economy remains on a solid footing. We would be most worried that a recession was imminent were both slopes concurrently flattening and approaching inversion (third panel, Chart 1A). Chart 1AThe 'Fed Spread'Is Right Chart 1BHigher Interest Rates Theme Moreover, credit growth has turned the corner, and the three, six and twelve month credit impulses are all simultaneously rising at a time when total loans outstanding have hit an all-time high. Importantly, credit breadth is also broad-based. Our six month impulse diffusion index shows that six out of the eight credit categories that the Fed tracks have a positive second derivative (Chart 1A). All of this suggests that, cyclically, the path of least resistance is higher for equities, especially given BCA's view of a recession hitting only in 2019. In this context, we are revealing our high-conviction calls for the next year. Most of our calls leverage two BCA themes: synchronized global capex growth (a derivative of our flagship publication's "The Bank Credit Analyst" synchronized global growth theme articulated in last week's outlook)1 and a higher interest rate theme ("The Bank Credit Analyst" expects yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018)2. Over the past few months we have been articulating the ongoing synchronized global capital spending macro theme3 that, despite still flying under the radar, will likely dominate in 2018. Table 2 on page 4 shows that both DM and EM countries are simultaneously expanding gross fixed capital formation. As a result, we reiterate our recent cyclical over defensive portfolio bent,4 and tie three high-conviction overweight calls to this theme. Table 2Synchronized Global Capex Growth Similarly in recent reports we have been highlighting BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy view of a higher 10-year yield on the back of rising inflation expectations for 2018. If BCA's constructive crude oil view pans out then inflation and rates may get an added boost (Chart 1B). Three high-conviction calls are levered to this theme. Finally, we have a couple of special situations, and this year we characterize two out of these eight calls as speculative. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "OUTLOOK 2018 Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ibid. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Invincible" dated November 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives" dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade" dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks (Overweight, Capex Theme) The capex upcycle will likely fuel the next machinery stock outperformance upleg. Not only are expectations for overall capital outlays as good as they get (Chart 2), but there are also tentative signs that even the previously moribund mining and oil & gas complexes will be capex upcycle participants. While we are not calling for a return to the previous cycle's peak, even a modest renormalization of capital spending plans (i.e. maintenance capex alone would suffice) in these two key machinery client segments would rekindle industry sales growth. A quick channel check also waves the green flag. Both machinery shipments and new orders are outpacing inventory accumulation (Chart 2). Moreover, backlogs are rebuilding at the quickest pace of the past five years (not shown). This suggests that client demand visibility is returning. This machinery end-demand improvement is a global phenomenon. In fact, the fourth panel of Chart 2 shows that global machinery new orders are climbing faster than domestic new order growth. Tack on the reaccelerating global credit impulse courtesy of the latest Bank for International Settlements Quarterly Review and the ingredients are in place for a global machinery export boom. Finally, our machinery EPS model is firing on all cylinders, underscoring that the earnings-led recovery has more running room (Chart 2). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF - CAT, CMI, PCAR. Chart 2S&P Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks Energy (Overweight, Capex Theme) The slingshot recovery in basic resources investment - albeit from a very low base - suggests that there is more room for relative gains in the S&P energy index in the coming months (second panel, Chart 3). The U.S. dollar remains down significantly for the year and, irrespective of future moves, it should continue to goose energy sector profits owing to the positive impact on the underlying commodity. Importantly, energy producers are a levered play on oil prices and the latter have jumped roughly $14/bbl to $58/bbl or ~32% since July 10th, but energy stocks are up only 8% in absolute terms. Given BCA's still sanguine crude oil market view, we expect a significant catch up phase in energy equity prices into 2018. On the supply front, Cushing and OECD oil stocks are now contracting. As oil inventories get whittled down, OPEC stays disciplined and oil demand grinds higher, oil prices will remain well bid. The implication is that the relative share price advance is still in the early innings. Relative valuations have ticked up in the neutral zone according to our composite relative Valuation Indicator, but on a number of metrics value remains extremely compelling in the energy space. Finally, our EPS model heralds additional growth in the coming quarters on the back of solid industry pricing power and sustained global oil producer discipline. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRS - XLE:US. Chart 3S&P Energy Software (Overweight, Capex Theme) The S&P software index is a clear capex upcycle beneficiary (Chart 4) and we recommend an upgrade to a high-conviction overweight stance today. If software commands a larger slice of the overall capital spending pie as we expect, then industry profits should enjoy a healthy rebound (second panel, Chart 4). Small business sector plans to expand have returned to a level last seen prior to the Great Recession, underscoring that software related outlays will likely follow them higher. Recovering bank loan growth is also corroborating this upbeat spending message: capital outlays on software are poised to accelerate based on rebounding bank loans. The latter signals that businesses are beginning to loosen their purse strings anew (Chart 4). Reviving animal spirits suggest that demand for software upgrades will stay elevated. CEO confidence is pushing decade highs. Such ebullience is positive for a pickup in software investments. It has also rekindled software M&A activity, with the number of industry deals jumping in recent months. Meanwhile, the structural pull from the proliferation of cloud computing and software-as-a-service has served as a catalyst to raise the profile of this more defensive and mature tech sub-sector. Finally, our newly introduced S&P software EPS model encapsulates this sanguine industry backdrop and heralds a bright profit outlook. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT-MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, INTU, EA, ADSK, RHT, SYMC, SNPS, ANSS, CDNS, CTXS, CA. Chart 4S&P Software Banks (Overweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) The S&P banks index is a core overweight portfolio holding and there are high odds of significant relative gains in the coming quarters. All three key drivers of bank profits, namely price of credit, loan growth and credit quality, are simultaneously moving in the right direction. On the price front, the market expects the 10-year yield to hit 2.47% in November 2018 from roughly 2.32% currently. BCA expects the 10-year yield will rise more quickly than is discounted in the forward curve. Our U.S. bond strategists think core inflation will soon resume its modest cyclical uptrend (Chart 5). A parallel recovery in the cost of inflation protection will impart 50-60 basis points of upside to the 10-year Treasury yield by the time core inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target.5 C&I and consumer loans, two large credit categories, are both forecast to reaccelerate in the coming months. The ISM has been on fire lately and consumer confidence has been following closely behind. Our credit growth model captures these positive forces and is sending an unambiguously positive message for loan reacceleration in the coming months (Chart 5). Finally, credit quality remains pristine despite some pockets of weakness in, subprime especially, auto loans. At this stage of the cycle, near or at full employment, NPLs will remain muted. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.  Chart 5S&P Banks Utilities (Underweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) Increasing global economic growth expectations bode ill for defensive utilities stocks (global manufacturing PMI diffusion index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Synchronized global economic and capex growth (second panel, Chart 6) and coordinated tightening in monetary policy spells trouble for bonds. Our U.S. Bond strategists expect a bond selloff to gain steam in 2018. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase. Importantly, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio and utilities sector relative performance also has a tight inverse correlation. The implication is that downside risks remain acute. Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, or of indiscriminate capital flight from all riskier assets, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty. Add on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place. Finally, industry utilization rates are probing multi-decade lows and overcapacity is negative for pricing power. Turbine and generator inventories have been hitting all-time highs. This is a deflationary backdrop. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5UTIL - XLU:US. Chart 6S&P Utilities Pharmaceuticals (Underweight, Special Situation) Weak pricing power fundamentals, a soft spending backdrop, a depreciating U.S. dollar and deteriorating industry operating metrics will sustain downward pressure on pharma stocks in the coming year. Both in absolute terms and relative to overall PPI, pharma selling prices are steadily losing steam (Chart 7). In the context of a bloated industry workforce, the profit margin outlook darkens significantly. If the Trump administration also manages to clamp down on the secular growth of pharma selling price inflation, then industry margins will remain under chronic pressure. Moreover, our dual synchronized global economic and capex growth themes bode ill for defensive pharma stocks. Nondiscretionary health care outlays jump in times of duress and underwhelm during expansions. Currently, the soaring ISM manufacturing index is signaling that pharma profits will remain under pressure in the coming months as the most cyclical parts of the economy flex their muscles (the ISM survey is shown inverted, second panel, Chart 7). A depreciating currency is also synonymous with pharma profit sickness (bottom panel, Chart 7). While pharma exports should at least provide some top line growth relief during depreciating U.S. dollar phases, they are contracting at an accelerating pace (middle panel, Chart 7), warning that global pharma demand is ill. Finally, even on the operating metric front, the outlook is dark. Pharma industrial production is nil and our productivity proxy remains muted, warning that profits will likely underwhelm. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. Chart 7S&P Pharma Homebuilding (Speculative Underweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) Year-to-date, the niche homebuilding index is the best performing sub-index within consumer discretionary stocks surpassing even the internet retail subgroup that AMZN is part of, and has bested the broad market by 50 percentage points. Such exuberance is unwarranted and we deem that stocks prices have run way ahead of earnings fundamentals. Worrisomely the trifecta of higher interest rates, high lumber prices and likely tax reform blues are substantial headwinds to the index's profit potential. The second panel of Chart 8 shows that if BCA's interest rate view materializes in 2018, then 30-year fixed mortgage rates will rise in tandem with the 10-year yield (assuming the spread stays intact) and cause, at the margin, some consternation to homeownership. Near all-time highs in lumber prices are also a cause for concern (bottom panel, Chart 8). Lumber is an input cost to new homes built and eats into homebuilder margins if they decide not to pass it on to the consumer. If they do add it as a surcharge to new home selling prices, then existing homes become a "cheaper" alternative, hurting new home demand. Finally, the GOP tax plan may change mortgage interest and property tax deductions, affecting largely new home owners and becoming a net negative to the homebuilding index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME-DHI, LEN, PHM, LEN / B. Chart 8S&P Homebuilding Semiconductor Equipment (Speculative Underweight, Special Situation) Semiconductor stocks in general and semi equipment in particular have gone parabolic. The latter have bested the market by 60 percentage points year-to-date, and over a two-year period the outperformance jumps to roughly 180 percentage points (top panel, Chart 9). Something has got to give, and we are putting the S&P semi equipment index on our speculative high-conviction underweight list. A global M&A frenzy and the bitcoin/ICO mania (bottom panel, Chart 9) have pushed chip equipment stocks to the stratosphere. In absolute terms this index is near the tech bubble peak, and relative share prices are following close behind (top panel, Chart 9). Worrisomely five year EPS growth forecasts recently surpassed the 25% mark, an all-time high. Both the tech sector's (in 2000) and the biotech index's (2001 and 2014) long term growth estimates hit a wall near such breakneck pace (second panel, Chart 9). This indefinite profit euphoria is unwarranted and we would lean against it. On the operating front, DRAM prices (a pricing power proxy) have tentatively peaked and so have semi sales (an industry end-demand proxy), warning that extrapolating the recent semi equipment V-shaped profit recovery far into the future is fraught with danger (third & fourth panels, Chart 9). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SEEQ-AMAT, LRCX, KLC. Chart 9S&P Semis Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week's Global Investment Strategy Special Report is the first of a two-part series imagining a timeline of important economic and financial events spanning the next five years. This report covers the period from the present to the autumn of 2019. Next week's report will focus on the subsequent three years. We expect global growth to stay strong in 2018. Activity should slow in early 2019, culminating in a recession later that year, followed by a decade of stagflation in the 2020s. Historically, equity markets have led recessions by anywhere between three-to-twelve months. The scenario envisioned in this report sees stocks peaking in February 2019, but an earlier climax is possible. As such, we are likely to turn more cautious towards risk assets in the second half of next year. In addition to this week's report, we sent you our annual outlook on Monday, featuring a discussion between BCA editors and Mr. X, a long-standing client of the firm, as well as his daughter, Ms. X. My colleague, Caroline Miller, will be doing a webcast on the BCA 2018 outlook on Wednesday, November 29th. We hope that you will find these reports informative and stimulating. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature I. The Blow-Off Phase December 4, 2017: U.S. stocks fall by 1.7% on reports that Mitch McConnell does not have enough votes to get the tax bill through the Senate. A sell-off in high-yield markets and a tightening of financial conditions in China aggravate the situation. December 13, 2017: The Fed hikes rates by 25 basis points, taking the Fed funds target range to 1.25%-to-1.5%. December 14, 2017: Global equities continue to weaken. The S&P 500 suffers its first 5% correction since June 2016. December 15, 2017: The correction ends on news that the Senate will consider a revised bill which trims the size of corporate tax cuts and uses the savings to finance a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. President Trump and House leaders promise to go along with the proposal. The PBoC also injects fresh liquidity into the Chinese financial system. December 29, 2017: Global equities rally into year-end. The S&P 500 hits 2571 on December 29, placing it just shy of its November high. The dollar also strengthens, with EUR/USD closing at 1.162. The 10-year Treasury yield finishes the year at 2.42%. January 10, 2018: The global cyclical bull market in stocks continues. European and Japanese indices power higher. Both the NASDAQ and the S&P 500 hit fresh record highs. EM stocks move up but lag their DM peers, weighed down by a stronger dollar. January 12, 2018: U.S. retail sales surprise on the upside. Department store stocks, having been written off for dead just a few months earlier, end up rising by an average of 40% between November 2017 and the end of January. February 14, 2018: The euro area economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. Nevertheless, inflation stays muted due to high levels of spare capacity across most of the region and the lagged effects of a stronger euro. The 2-year OIS spread between the U.S. and the euro area widens to a multi-year high. February 26, 2018: China's construction sector cools a notch, but industrial activity remains robust, spurred on by a cheap currency, strong global growth, and rising producer prices. Chinese H-shares rise 13% year-to-date, beating out most other EM equity indices. March 14, 2018: The U.S., Canada, and Mexico reach a last-minute deal to preserve NAFTA. The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso breathe a sigh of relief. March 16, 2018: In a surprise decision, Donald Trump nominates Kevin Hassett as Fed vice-chair. Trump cites the "tremendous job" Hassett did in selling the GOP's tax cuts. A number of Fed appointments follow. Most of the picks turn out to be more hawkish than investors had expected. This gives the greenback further support. March 18, 2018: Pro-EU parties do better than anticipated in the Italian elections. Italian bond spreads compress versus the rest of Europe. March 21, 2018: The Fed raises rates again, bringing the fed funds target range up to 1.50%-to-1.75%. April 8, 2018: Bank of Japan governor Kuroda is granted another term in office. He pledges to remain single-mindedly focused on eradicating deflation. April 11, 2018: Chinese core CPI inflation reaches 2.9%. Producer price inflation stays elevated at 6%. A major market theme in 2018 turns out to be how China went from being a source of global deflationary pressures to a source of inflationary ones. April 30, 2018: U.S. core PCE inflation jumps 0.3% in March, reaching 1.7% on a year-over-year basis. Goods and service inflation both pick up, while the base effects from lower cell phone data charges in the prior year drop out of the calculations. May 17, 2018: Oil prices continue to rise on the back of ongoing discipline from OPEC and Russia, smaller-than-expected shale output growth, and production disruptions in Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. June 13, 2018: Strong U.S. growth in the first half of the year, a larger-than-projected decline in the unemployment rate, and higher inflation keep the Fed in tightening mode. The FOMC hikes rates again. June 25, 2018: Global capital spending accelerates further. Global industrial stocks go on to have a banner year. June 27, 2018: Wage growth in the U.S. accelerates to a cycle high. Donald Trump takes credit, stating that "this wouldn't have happened" without him or his tax cuts. July 31, 2018: The Japanese labor market tightens further. The unemployment rate falls to 2.6%, 1.2 percentage points below 2007 levels, while the ratio of job vacancies-to-applicants moves further above its early-1990s bubble high. A number of high-profile companies announce plans to raise wages. August 2, 2018: A brief summer sell-off sees global equities dip temporarily, but strong global earnings growth keeps the cyclical bull market in stocks intact. August 28, 2018: The London housing market continues to weaken, with home prices falling by 9% from their peak. The rest of the U.K. economy remains fairly resilient, however. EUR/GBP closes at 0.87. August 31, 2018: The Greek bailout program ends and a new one begins. Greece's economy continues to recover, but Tsipras fails to obtain debt relief from creditors. September 7, 2018: The U.S. unemployment rate falls to a 49-year low of 3.7%, nearly a full percentage below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. September 26, 2018: The Fed raises rates again. By now, the market has gone from pricing in only two hikes for 2018 at the start of the year to pricing in almost four. September 27, 2018: Profit growth in the U.S. moderates somewhat as higher wage costs take a bite out of earnings. Nevertheless, stock market sentiment remains buoyant. Retail participation, which had been dormant for years, takes off. CNBC sees a surge in viewers. Micro cap stocks go wild. October 7, 2018: The outcome of Brazil's elections shows little appetite for major structural reforms. Economic populism lives on. October 31, 2018: Realized inflation and inflation expectations continue grinding higher in Japan, triggering market speculation that the BoJ will abandon its yield-curve targeting policy. The resulting rally in the yen is short-lived, however. At its monetary policy meeting, the Bank of Japan indicates that it has no near-term plans to modify its existing strategy. November 6, 2018: The Democrats narrowly regain control of the House but fail to recapture the Senate. Investors shrug off the results, figuring correctly that a Republican Senate will keep Trump's corporate tax cuts in place and that Democrats will agree to extend the expiring payroll tax cut and other tax measures that benefit the middle class. December 7, 2018: The U.S. unemployment rate falls to 3.5%. Donald Trump tweets "You're welcome, America". December 19, 2018: The Fed raises rates for the fourth time that year - one more hike than it had signaled in its December 2017 "dot plot" - taking the fed funds target range to 2.25%-2.5%. December 31, 2018: The MSCI All-Country Index finishes up 12% for the year (in local-currency terms), led by the euro area and Japan. U.S. stocks gain 8%. EM equities manage to rise 6%. Small caps edge out large caps, value stocks beat growth stocks, and cyclical stocks outperform defensives. December 31, 2018: The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finishes the year at 3.05%. German bund yields reach 0.82%, U.K. gilt yields rise to 1.7%, Canadian yields hit 2.3%, and Australian yields back up to 3%. Japanese 10-year yields remain broadly flat, but the 20-year yield moves up 40 basis points to nearly 1%. Credit spreads finish the year close to where they started, providing a modest carry pick-up over high-quality government bonds. December 31, 2018: The DXY index rises 4% to 98. EUR/USD closes at 1.11, USD/JPY at 123, GBP/USD at 1.31, and AUD/USD at 0.76. The Canadian dollar manages to edge up against the greenback on the year, with CAD/USD finishing at 0.81. The Chinese yuan also strengthens to 6.4 versus the dollar. December 31, 2018: Brent and WTI spot prices finish the year at $65 and $63, respectively. Copper and metal prices are broadly flat for the year, having faced the dueling forces of a stronger dollar (a negative) and above-trend global growth (a positive). Gold sinks to $1,226. II. The Clouds Darken February 22, 2019: The global economy starts to decelerate. The slowdown is led by China, where the government's crackdown on shadow banking activities begins to take a bigger toll on growth. Most measures of U.S. economic activity also soften somewhat in the first two months of the year. Investors take heart in the hope that the economy will achieve a soft landing, allowing the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes. February 27, 2019: In an otherwise mundane day, the S&P 500 edges up 0.3% to 2832. Little do investors know that this marks the cyclical peak in the U.S. stock market. March 13, 2019: Hopes that the Fed can take its foot off the brake are dashed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that inflation rose by more than expected in February. U.S. core CPI inflation increases to 2.9% while the core PCE deflator accelerates to 2.4%. Market chatter turns from whether the Fed can slow the pace of rate hikes to whether it needs to start hiking more rapidly than once-per-quarter. The S&P falls 2.1% on the day. March 20, 2019: The Fed lifts the funds rate target range to 2.5%-to-2.75% and signals a readiness to keep hiking rates. The 10-year Treasury yield rises to 3.3%. EUR/USD sinks to 1.08. The first quarter of 2019 marks a watershed of sorts. In 2018, the Fed raised rates because of stronger growth; in 2019, it kept raising them because of brewing inflation. As it turned out, risk assets were able to tolerate the former, but not the latter. March 29, 2019: The U.K. does not leave the EU two years after Britain invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU votes to prolong negotiations given growing political support within Britain for the country to remain part of the European bloc. April 5, 2019: The S&P 500 sinks further and is now 10% below its February high, returning close to where it was at the start of 2018. The increasingly sour mood on Wall Street does not appear to be hurting Main Street very much, however. The U.S. unemployment rate edges down further to 3.4%. Euro area growth remains resilient. May 31, 2019: The Brazilian government announces that the fiscal deficit will come in larger than originally expected. USD/BRL slips to 3.45. June 4, 2019: Jens Weidmann, who had gone out of his way to soften his hawkish rhetoric over the preceding months, is chosen to succeed Mario Draghi, whose term expires in October. Nevertheless, the euro still strengthens on the news. June 6, 2019: Markets temporarily regain their composure. The S&P 500 gets back to within 4% of its all-time high. The reprieve does not last long, however. June 12, 2019: The Fed hikes rates, taking the fed funds target range to 2.75%-to-3%. The FOMC cites inflation as its primary concern. July 8, 2019: Global risk assets weaken anew as a fiscal crisis grips Brazil. Turkey, South Africa, and a number of other emerging markets show increasing signs of fragility. August 20, 2019: Korean exports, a leading indicator of the global business cycle, decelerate once again. Global PMIs sag, as do most measures of business confidence. September 25, 2019: Despite a slowing U.S. economy, the Fed hikes rates again, bringing the fed funds target range to 3%-to-3.25%. The FOMC justifies the decision based on the fact that the unemployment rate is below NAIRU, core inflation is above the Fed's 2% target, and real rates are less than 1%. To assuage markets, Jay Powell suggests that the Fed could keep rates on hold in December. This turns out to be more prescient than he realizes. It will be another three years before the Fed raises rates again. By then, Powell is no longer the Fed chair. September 30, 2019: Commodity prices tumble, further adding to the pressure facing emerging markets. The U.S. yield curve inverts for the first time during this business cycle. The dollar, which previously strengthened due to a hawkish Fed, now starts strengthening on flight-to-safety flows back into the U.S. The yen appreciates even more than the greenback. October 15, 2019: The bottom falls out of the Canadian housing market. Home sales dry up and prices begin to sink. The Canadian dollar, which peaked back in February at 83 cents, falls to 74 cents against the U.S. dollar. October 19, 2019: A failed North Korean launch lands a missile 80 kilometres from Japanese shores. Prime Minister Abe pledges swift retaliation. October 21, 2019: The negative feedback loop between a rising dollar, falling commodity prices, and EM stress intensifies. Sentiment towards emerging markets deteriorates dramatically. Rumours begin to swirl that Brazil will miss a debt payment. October 23, 2019: Trump tweets "Dopey Rocketman thinks he is so smart, but we know where all his hideouts are. Sweet dreams!" October 24, 2019: News reports are abuzz about a massive buildup of troops on the North Korean side of the border. Panic grips Seoul. Asian bourses sell-off, taking global stock markets down with them. III. The Reckoning October 25, 2019: All hell breaks loose ... To be continued next week. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights We are exploring the key FX implications of the views presented in BCA's 2018 annual outlook. The dollar is likely to experience some upside in the first half of 2018, but then weaken as U.S. monetary policy becomes increasingly onerous. The euro should mirror these dynamics, bottoming toward 1.1 in mid-2018. The yen could continue to weaken for most of 2018. But as markets begin to collide with policy, the second half of 2018 should be friendlier to the yen as potential risk-off events emerge. Risk-off events should also support the CHF versus the EUR. The GBP will remain victim to Brexit negotiations. It is cheap, but on a risk adjusted basis, potentially elevated expected returns will come at the price of heavy volatility. The commodity currencies and the Scandinavian currencies will suffer when global volatility picks up. Feature Key Views From The Outlook This past Monday we sent you BCA's Annual Outlook, exploring the key macroeconomic themes that we expect will shape 2018. This year, the discussion between BCA's editors and Mr. X, and his daughter, Ms. X, yielded the following key views:1 The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly, which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between three and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Essentially, global economic growth remains robust, which opens a window for global policy makers to abandon their ultra-easy policy stance. Asset markets will have to ultimately adjust to this gradual tightening in global policy. This will be an environment where risk in DM economies should perform well in the first half of the year. However, as policy becomes increasingly constraining, risk assets are likely to fare more poorly in the second half of 2018. Implications For The FX Markets What are the key implications of these views for currency markets? The USD is likely to perform well in the first half of 2018. BCA believes that U.S. inflation should gather steam during the first two to three quarters of 2018. This suggests the Fed will be able to follow the path described by the dot plots - something interest rate markets are not ready for (Chart I-1). As investors are short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1BCA Sees Upside To Rates Chart I-2The Dollar Is A Pariah The euro is likely to continue to behave as the anti-dollar. The euro is currently over-owned and vulnerable to negative surprises. While the European economy remains very strong, growing at a 2.5% pace on an annual basis last quarter, inflation is set to ebb as our core CPI diffusion index has sharply decelerated (Chart I-3). This means that contrary to the U.S., the upside risk is limited in the European OIS curve. The divergence in our inflation forecast between the U.S. and the euro area should thus be translated in a lower EUR/USD in the first half of 2018. A target around 1.1 on EUR/USD makes sense for mid-2018. The euro is unlikely to find much downside beyond these levels, as it would be trading at a more than 15% discount to its purchasing-power-parity equilibrium - a level often associated with bottoms. Moreover, investors are still cyclically underweight European assets, which points to pent-up buying power in favor of the euro (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Dissipating Inflation Pressures##br## In Europe Chart I-4Portfolio Rebalancing Toward Europe ##br##Key To A Higher Euro The picture for the yen is likely to be buffeted by two factors. The Japanese economy seems to be on the mend. The recent decoupling between the Nikkei and the yen is very interesting (Chart I-5). The strength of Japanese stocks could highlight that Japan's domestic economy is gaining momentum, and is less in need of massively easy policy. Thus, the Bank of Japan may be moving away from the apex of its easy policy. Moreover, the rising probability of growing fiscal stimulus could further diminish the need for easy monetary policy. This is a consequence of Abe winning yet another supermajority, which raises the likelihood that he will begin campaigning on a referendum to amend the Japanese constitution. Despite this, the BoJ will still maintain among the loosest policy settings in the world. Moreover, USD/JPY remains closely correlated with Treasury yields and Treasury/JGB spreads (Chart I-6). BCA anticipates both these variables to continue to trend in a yen-negative fashion. If BCA's view that risk assets could peak during the second half of 2018 is correct, bond yields may peak around that time frame as well. Since the yen is trading at a massive discount (Chart I-7), mid-year may well prove a massive buying opportunity for yen bulls, especially if the U.S. yield curve ends 2018 in a near-flat state. Chart I-5Nikkei Trying To Tell Us Something Chart I-6Yen Still A Function Of T-Notes Chart I-7Yen Is Cheap The Swiss franc continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair-value against the euro. This means the Swiss National Bank will maintain very easy policy that will promote CHF weakness. However, the fight will remain difficult; once Switzerland's prodigious net international investment position of 130% of GDP is taken into account, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value (Chart I-8). Thus, the CHF will continue to behave as a funding, or risk-off, currency. So long as global market volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. If asset markets peak in the second half of 2018, EUR/CHF is likely to depreciate, which will prompt renewed intervention by the SNB to mitigate any deflationary impact of a stronger CHF. The pound does look very cheap, trading at an 18% discount against the USD (Chart I-9). However, Brexit remains a key problem. Brexit is about limiting immigration into the U.K., the key force that has generated the U.K.'s economic outperformance over the past 15 years (Chart I-10). Without higher trend growth than its neighbors, England will see its equilibrium real neutral rate fall, limiting the upside to the Bank of England's cash rate. As FDI into the U.K. is succumbing to the heightened level of uncertainty, a falling neutral rate means it will be more difficult to finance Britain's current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Thus, the pound is cheap for a reason. Until negotiations with the EU progress, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Chart I-8CHF: Not What It May Seem Chart I-9GBP: A Value Trap? Chart I-10U.K. Trend Growth And Neutral Rate Will Fall Commodity currencies are at a difficult juncture. The AUD, CAD, and NZD could begin the year on a firm tone, if global growth remains robust in the early innings of 2018. However, they will suffer if global volatility rises, which seems unavoidable if markets and policy indeed collide in the second half of 2018 (Chart I-11). The pain for commodity currencies could be compounded by the fact that China looks set to start some potentially painful reforms. The AUD is the worst placed of the three as it is the most expensive, while the CAD is the best placed, as BCA's commodity strategists remain more positive on the energy complex than on the base metals market. Shorting AUD/JPY may prove to be a great hedge for investors who are long risk assets. The Scandinavian currencies are at an interesting juncture as well. Both the NOK and the SEK are extremely cheap on a trade-weighted basis and against the euro (Chart I-12). While strong oil prices should help the NOK, and the overheating Swedish economy should prompt investors to price in policy tightening by the Riksbank, neither of these fundamentals are lifting their respective currencies. The strength in EUR/SEK and EUR/NOK is likely to reverse in the first half of 2018. However, if BCA is correct that markets could begin to feel the pain from gradual tightening in global policy in the second half of 2018, the historically very cyclical Scandinavian currencies should only enjoy a short-lived rally against the euro. Chart I-11The End Of The Great Carry##br## Trade Is Coming Chart I-12Scandies Should Rally##br## In Early 2018 Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 The full report, The Bank Credit Analyst, titled "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", dated November 20, 2017, is available at fes.bcaresearch.com Forecasts Forecast Summary

Special Report

Feature When things get ultra-small, the laws that describe the universe change radically. Classical physics breaks down and we have to turn to quantum physics to explain behaviour that seems strange and counterintuitive. In this short Special Report, we would like to extend the quantum principle into the financial world. When interest rates get ultra-low, the laws that describe the behaviour of financial markets also change radically. Classical financial theory breaks down and we have to turn to what we will call the quantum theory of finance. Figure I-1AThe Quantum Theory Of Physics Figure I-2BThe Quantum Theory Of Finance Some Interest Rates Are Not Allowed Somebody once said the test of a good theory is that you should be able to write it on the front of a T-shirt. What would the T-shirt for the quantum theory of physics say? Probably this: "For a physical system, energies take discrete values and some energies are not allowed." What would the T-shirt for the quantum theory of finance say? Probably this (Figure I-1): "For a financial system, interest rates take discrete values, and some interest rates are not allowed." At large scales, the granularity that defines the energy of all physical system and the interest rates in a financial system is not apparent. Allowable values seem a continuum, and all values are allowed. Chart I-1A Promise To Keep The Policy Interest Rates##br## Ultra-Low Pulls Down Bond Yields But at ultra-small scales for both energy and interest rates, the granularity of the values becomes very apparent and this granularity becomes the dominant driver of physical systems and, we would argue, financial systems too. Policy interest rates do not have to take discrete values, but in practice they do move in steps. More importantly, some policy interest rates are not allowed. Policymakers accept that there exists a 'lower bound' to interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Hence, this lower bound marks the limit of allowable interest rates. When policy interest rates approach this lower bound, central banks can turn to a second strategy: they can promise to keep rates at this lower bound for an extended period of time. Thereby they can pull down long-term interest rates towards the lower bound too (Chart I-1). To do this, they must convince the market that their promise is genuine. Enter quantitative easing (QE). In the words of ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet, "the credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by asset purchases." QE is nothing more than "a signalling channel which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on (ultra-low) policy rates." Once bond yields approach ultra-low levels, we begin to see some of the strange effects of the quantum theory of finance. When bond yields cannot fall much further, they can only stabilize or rise, leaving the bond investor with a highly asymmetric payoff (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) - technically known as negative skew. Chart I-2When Bond Yields Become Ultra-Low, Potential Losses Become Larger Than Potential Gains Chart I-3Bonds Become Much More Risky At Ultra-Low Yields Put simply, a distribution with negative skew produces values that usually turn out to be slightly higher than the mean and rarely, values substantially lower than the mean (Figure I-2). For financial returns negative skew means frequent small gains and infrequent large losses. The opposite is true for positive skew. Figure I-2Distributions With Negative And Positive Skew This brings us to an important point. Empirical and theoretical evidence now proves that investors are not concerned about small fluctuations around an investment's mean return. Instead, they are concerned about large and sudden losses. Hence, the classical use of volatility1 σ as a standard measure of risk is wrong.2 The truth is that risk premiums are a compensation for holding assets that provide positive cash flows but may occasionally suffer very large losses, erasing a large proportion of wealth. In other words, assets with negative skew. Hope And Fear Move In Quanta Too There is compelling theoretical evidence linking risk premiums to negative skew. It comes from a branch of behavioural finance developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, called prospect theory. In their seminal 1979 paper in Econometrica,3 Kahneman and Tversky proposed that "choices among risky prospects exhibit several pervasive effects that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of (classical) utility theory." Contrary to classical utility theory, people do not think in terms of final wealth (utility). In practice, people think in terms of gains and losses. And within these gains and losses, people tend to overweight low probability events by very large amounts - contributing to the attractiveness of both gambling and insurance. In prospect theory, the value of any gain or loss is multiplied by a 'decision weight'. Decision weights measure the impact on the investor of a specific prospect. Prospect theory finds that people tend to ascribe large decision weights to low probability events. Why? Remarkably, Kahneman and Tversky found the answer comes from quantum theory (what they called a quantal effect). "There is a limit to how small a decision weight can be attached to an event, if it is given any weight at all. Because people are limited in their ability to comprehend and evaluate extreme probabilities, highly unlikely events are either ignored or overweighted." Just like the energies of a physical system, or policy interest rates, the feelings of hope and fear occur in quanta and not in a continuum. You move stepwise from 'no hope' to 'some hope' to 'a lot of hope'. You move stepwise from 'no fear' to 'some fear' to 'a lot of fear'. Furthermore, the step from no hope to some hope and the step from some fear to no fear are especially large. You significantly overpay for a lottery ticket versus your expected gain because it takes you from no hope to some hope of winning a life-changing fortune. Likewise, you overpay for the insurance on your home versus your expected loss because it takes you from some fear to no fear of a ruinous loss. In exactly the same way, investment risk premiums are the return compensation for holding assets that may occasionally suffer ruinous losses - in other words, investments that exhibit negative skew (Table I-1 and Chart I-4). Table I-1At Low Bond Yields, Bonds Have ##br## Extreme Negative Skew Chart I-4Bonds Become Much More Risky##br## At Ultra-Low Yields Applying The Quantum Theory To Markets So now let's pull together what the quantum theory of finance tells us: A lower bound to interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - defines the 'quantum limit' of allowable interest rates. When bond yields approach this lower bound, prospective returns from bonds suffer strong negative skew, meaning the prospect of a rare but ruinous loss. The quantum step from 'no fear' to 'some fear' means that negative skew requires a risk premium. Therefore, at low bond yields the valuation relationship between bonds and equities changes radically. Given that equity returns always possess negative skew, we can say that at low bond yields, bond risk becomes equity-like. So the excess return demanded on equities relative to bonds - the equity risk premium - should compress, or indeed fully disappear (Chart I-5). This means that at low bond yields equity prospective returns should become bond-like. Justifying much richer equity valuations today. Chart I-5At Low Bond Yields, The Excess Prospective Return On Equities Over Bonds Disappears However, the conditionality on the negative skew of bonds is crucial. The negative skew on a 10-year bond starts to fade when the bond yield is at 2% and completely disappears at 3%, at which point the equity risk premium must fully re-emerge. Removing the justification for the richer equity valuations. Markets tend to move en masse, so we infer that the rich valuation of equity markets would be at risk of correction if a mainstream 10-year bond yield broke well north of 2.5%. At current yields, the 10-year bond closest to the 2.5%-3% 'red zone' is the U.S. T-bond. And a breach into the 'high 2s' would trigger us to de-risk our portfolio. However, the flight to investment havens that would follow a sell-off in risk assets would also curtail the rise in bond yields. No mainstream bond yield can realistically rise beyond 3% - and stay there - in the foreseeable future. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Root mean squared 2 Please see Quantitative Finance, Risk premia: asymmetric tail risks and excess returns, by Y. Lemperiere et al. 3 Please see Econometrica Volume 47 Number 2 March 1979, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Special Report

Dear Client, Today we are sending you a two-part Special Report prepared by my colleague Billy Zicheng Huang of our Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy team, entitled “A Sector Guide To A-shares”. Part I of the report was published in September, and emphasized the key takeaways from MSCI’s decision to include A-shares in the MSCI EM index beginning in June 2018. More importantly, it provided a comprehensive analysis of the financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples sectors. Part II of the report was published at the end of October, and provided an analysis of the remaining sectors not included in Part I. The reports underscore that while the top-down impact of MSCI’s decision is limited, it is significant in terms of expanding potential alpha from security selection. I trust that you will find this report to be useful. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Part I of the Special Report discussed the market impact of MSCI's decision to include A-shares in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the four most investment-relevant sectors with corresponding company calls in each sector. In the second part of the Special Report, the EMES team will analyze the remaining sectors, and provide investment recommendations. We will publish an Investment Case by the end of this year, highlighting our best sector picks from Part I and Part II of the Special Reports to construct an A-share portfolio. A Recap In the first part of our A-shares special report, the EMES team discussed the key takeaways from A-shares' inclusion in the MSCI EM index and concluded that, despite a limited near-term impact on the market from a passive investment standpoint, the MSCI's decision will provide an expansion of the investable universe for active EM investors, and more opportunities to allocate assets and generate alpha.1 Moreover, we looked at the four sectors most relevant for investors - financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples - analyzing valuations, profitability, leverage, and the growth outlook. In this special report, we will continue our journey through the remaining sectors: energy, healthcare, IT, materials, real estate, and utilities. Please note that only one company, Dr.Peng Telecom & Media (CH 600804), will be added to telecoms, and will not result in material changes to the sector. Thus we omitted analysis of this sector. Energy Seven companies from the energy sector will be included into the MSCI EM index, including six from the oil & gas industry. The equally weighted basket of the seven A-share energy companies has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 26.2%, and by 19.8% over a one-year period (Table 1). With the Chinese government's mandate to cut excess capacity, capex growth in the energy sector will continue to be weak, which will weigh on the growth outlook for the sector. In terms of valuation, stripping out two dual-listed names that are already in the MSCI EM Index (Sinopec and PetroChina - please see Appendix I for the full list), Lu'an Environmental and Xishan Coal & Electric Power are trading at significantly cheaper valuations than their peers. On the other end of the spectrum, Guanghui Energy and Wintime Energy's P/Es have expensive valuations. Looking at profitability, low P/E names tend to have high ROEs, while Guanghui Energy suffers from the weakest ROE (Charts 1A & 1B). From a profitability-versus-valuation perspective, Lu'an Environmental offers a superior risk-reward profile, while Guanghui Energy has the least favorable risk-reward profile (Chart 1C). Wintime and Lu'an reported the strongest operating margins, while Offshore Oil Engineering has the weakest margin among peers (Chart 1D). On leverage, Offshore Oil Engineering has the lowest debt-to-equity (D/E) ratio, mainly because its core business is energy equipment and service rather than oil & gas exploration. All energy producers are highly leveraged, with Wintime and Guanghui topping the list. On free cash flow yield, Lu'an leads the table, while both Guanghui and Wintime have negative yields which, together with high leverage, is a negative combination (Charts 1E, 1F, 1G). The A-share Energy companies have a dividend yield of less than 2%, with Offshore Oil Engineering enjoying the highest yield among peers, while Xishan Coal & Electric Power has the lowest yield (Chart 1H). Screening the earnings forecasts, all companies' EPS are expected to growth by more than 10%, led by Offshore Oil Engineering and Guanghui Energy (Chart 1I). Taking all the factors into consideration, we suggest investors should be cautious on the energy sector, and should be especially cautious about betting on the likelihood of Guanghui Energy's turnaround. The company registered surprising positive bottom-line growth in 1H17, but this was mainly due to a low base in 2016. The commencement of its new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Jiangsu Province will not help much to lift sales volumes or margins, given little LNG price recovery and growing competition from well-positioned larger players such as Kunlun and CNOOC. Healthcare There are 13 companies in the A-share healthcare sector. Stocks in the sector have a heavy tilt towards pharmaceutical producers. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 1.8%, and outperformed by 0.9% over a one-year period (Table 2). On an absolute return basis performance was resilient across various time horizons. The EMES team has been bullish on healthcare sector on a long-term investment horizon, with overweight calls on Fosun Pharma (2196 HK) from among the current MSCI EM constituents.2 We prefer companies with innovative drug R&D pipelines, which will more likely take advantage of the new China FDA rule encouraging biopharmaceutical innovation. Shanghai Pharma and Fosun Pharma are excluded from our analysis, as their H-listed shares are already in the MSCI EM index. Examining valuations, on a trailing P/E basis we favor Sanjiu Medical and Dong-E-E-Jiao. By contrast, Hengrui Medicine and Guizhou Bailing look expensive (Chart 2A). Looking at the profitability side, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao have the strongest ROE, while Tongrentang and Baiyunshan Pharma lie on the other end of the spectrum (Chart 2B). In summary, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao will likely outperform, based on a valuation-versus-profitability comparison (Chart 2C). Furthermore, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao also lead by operating margin, with relatively safe leverage levels at the same time (Chart 2D). On the other hand, Jointown suffers from the highest debt level, the only one with debt-to-equity surpassing 100%. In terms of free cash flow, Sanjiu Medical and Salubris have the most attractive FCF yield, while Jointown and Tasly, both companies with the highest debt levels, also display a worryingly negative FCF yield (Charts 2E, 2F, 2G). Salubris and Baiyun Shan dominate the dividend yield rank (Chart 2H). Concerning the earnings outlook, Huadong Medicine and Kangmei are expected to see fast bottom-line growth in 2018, driven by robust antibiotic and cardiovascular sales respectively, while Tongrentang and Baiyunshan are likely to fall behind the industry average (Chart 2I). In summary, we prefer Salubris Pharma among the A-share healthcare basket, supported by its stronger fundamentals and the bullish outlook on innovative drug R&D and sales in China, in which Salubris Pharma is specialized. IT 14 names from the IT sector will be added to the MSCI EM index. The equally weighted basket has outperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 22.3%, and outperformed by 23.3% over a one-year period (Table 3), with most stocks performing strongly across various investment horizons. We believe the A-share IT basket provides investors with attractive opportunities in the investable universe given that it is less expensive than its H-share counterpart. The inclusion will also dilute the weight of IT sector ADRs, such as Alibaba and Sina Weibo, in the index. Please note that Protruly Vision Tech has been suspended from trading due to legal issues, with no further detail released by the court. Stripping out ZTE because of its H-share listing already in the MSCI EM index, there are 12 names left. Regarding valuations, most companies are trading at a below-50 trailing P/E, with the exceptions of Hundsun Tech and iFlytek, both of which are above 150x, while Aisino and BOE are relatively undervalued compared to other names in the sector. It is worth mentioning that Hundsun is 100% owned by Zhejiang Finance Credit Network Technology, a company 99% owned by Alibaba. From a profitability perspective, Hikvision Digital and Dahua Tech have the highest ROE, while Hundsun Tech and Tsinghua Unisplendour lie at the other end of the spectrum (Charts 3A & 3B). Taking these two factors into consideration, we highlight Hikvision Digital and Dahua Tech as the most attractive based on their risk-reward profile (Chart 3C). When looking at the income statement, Sanan Optoelectronics displays robust operating margins, with 2345 Network following suit. By contrast, Hundsun Tech and Tsinghua Unisplendour report the most disappointing margins (Chart 3D). On the positive side, Hundsun Tech has virtually zero debt on the balance sheet, while Dongxu Optoelectronic is more than 80% leveraged. Meanwhile, only four companies register positive FCF yields. Taking both metrics into account, Aisino can most easily service its debt with free cash flow (Charts 3E, 3F, 3G). By dividend yield, Aisino and Hikvision rank top (Chart 3H). With respect to forward EPS growth, iFlytek and Hundsun Tech are expected to see the fastest bottom-line expansion, while Aisino's and BOE Tech's bottom lines will increase at the slowest pace (Chart 3I). Based on our criteria, we like video surveillance manufacturers Hikvision and Dahua Tech for their robust fundamentals and reasonable valuations. In particular, Hikvision is likely to have the largest market cap among A-share tech companies newly included in the MSCI indexes. Materials Currently only seven Chinese companies from the materials sector are included into the MSCI EM Index. After the inclusion, some 26 more companies will be added, substantially expanding the investable universe. Two subsectors will most likely draw investors' attention due to the significant exposure increase: metals & mining, and chemicals. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 2%, but outperformed by 4.6% over a one-year period (Table 4). We exclude five names, which are already in the current MSCI EM index: Sinopec Shanghai Petrochem, Anhui Conch Cement, Aluminum Corp of China, Jiangxi Copper, and Zijin Mining. Among the other companies, we have been underweight Maanshan Iron & Steel (H-share listing) and Aluminum Corp of China (H-share listing) in our China Materials trade, and overweight Tianqi Lithium in the lithium supply chain trade. Maanshan Iron & Steel and Angang Steel have attractive valuations, with trailing P/Es below 15. On the other end of this scale, China Northern Rare Earth and Baotou Steel appear very expensive (Chart 4A). On profitability, Wanhua Chemical and Tianqi Lithium top the ROE rank, while Jinduicheng Molybdenum and Baotou Steel sit at the bottom (Chart 4B). Screening the risk-reward profile, it is noticeable that chemicals normally demonstrate a better ROE vs. P/E metric than companies from the metals & mining industry. Specifically, Wanhua Chemical and Tianqi Lithium are the most attractive, while Jindiucheng Molybdenum is the least attractive (Chart 4C). In terms of operations, Tianqi Lithium reported the strongest operating margin, followed by Junzheng, while Hainan Rubber and Jinduicheng Molybdenum are the only companies that registered negative operating margins (Chart 4D). Looking at the balance sheet, Jinduicheng Molybdenum has the healthiest leverage, while Hesteel shows the most worrisome leverage. Moreover, it has the lowest FCF yield. In terms of FCF yield versus leverage, Kingenta offers the best tradeoff, while Hesteel is the least attractive (Charts 4E, 4F, 4G). Furthermore, dividend yield favors Longsheng and disfavors Northern Rare Earth (Chart 4H). In terms of projected EPS growth, Jinduicheng Molybdenum and Shandong Gold Mining have the strongest outlook for next year, while Maanshan Iron & Steel and Angang Steel are likely to report profit declines (Chart 4I). In summary, apart from Maanshan Iron & Steel, Hainan Rubber is a good candidate for the underweight basket due to its relatively expensive valuation, negative margin and FCF yield. Moreover, its focus on the rubber business diversifies the portfolio risk from metal & mining-concentrated underweight exposure. China Molybdenum, with its above-average risk-reward profile, moderately strong operations and financial position, as well as robust growth outlook, is a good candidate for the overweight basket of our lithium supply trade to replace Ganfeng Lithium. The company has a strong market presence in Congo, where over 60% of cobalt is mined. Real Estate Some 14 developers will be added to the existing MSCI EM index. Among the top 10 Chinese developers, measured by contracted sales and floor space sold, existing MSCI EM constituents account for six, while the A-share list will add two (Poly Real Estate and China Fortune Land). In the environment of property market tightening in China, primary land supply has remained stagnant. The government is unlikely to ease the supply restrictions in the near-term, especially in the residential land space. In this vein, we believe large market players will be better-positioned in this market, due to their bargaining power. Also, developers with heavy exposure to commercial property will be less affected by policy uncertainty than their residential counterparts. Looking at historical performance, the equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 20.5%, and by 17.1% over a one-year period (Table 5). Xinhu Zhongbao and Financial Street are trading at the cheapest valuations, while Zhejiang China Commodities and China Fortune Land seem to be slightly overpriced compared to peers. The ROE for Xinhu Zhongbao is remarkable, while Zhangjiang High-tech Park is the only company with ROE under 10% (Charts 5A, 5B). Taking both dimensions into account, Xinhu Zhongbao and Gemdale display an attractive risk-reward profile (Chart 5C). Looking at operational metrics, Zhejiang China Commodities and Financial Street enjoy the highest margin, while Xinhu Zhongbao and Tahoe lie on the other end of the spectrum (Chart 5D). Due to the nature of business, leverage is high across the sector. In particular, Oceanwide and Tahoe have a high debt-to-equity ratio, while Zhejiang China Commodities and Gemdale have a more prudent capital structure. Furthermore, FCF yields vary a lot across companies, with Financial Street and Xinhu Zhongbao on the positive end, and Tahoe and Oceanwide on the negative. Financial Street also beats other developers in terms of cash generation for debt payment (Charts 5E, 5F, 5G). Gemdale and Risesun have the highest dividend yield, while Tahoe and Zhejiang China Commodities have the lowest (Chart 5H). Regarding the full-year 2018 expectations, Financial Street and Zhejiang China Commodities have a robust growth outlook with respect to funds from operations (FFO) and EPS respectively, while Gemdale is likely to see sluggish growth on both metrics (Charts 5I & 5J). In summary, we believe Financial Street Holding is likely to outperform in the real estate sector, given its appealing risk-reward profile, decent dividend yield, superior cash flow yield and operating margin, reasonable debt ratio, and robust FFO growth. Its large-scale and commercial property exposure is expected to be more immune to policy tightening in China. Utilities Some 12 utility companies will be added to the existing MSCI EM index, most of which are in power generation and renewables. EMES published in July an investment case on China utilities, underlining our preference toward companies with a focus on the environment and clean power, in line with the Chinese government's emphasis in the 13th five-year plan.3 In the A-share basket, we highlight Yangtze Power, the hydro power large cap, National Nuclear, as its name suggests the state-owned nuclear power operator, and Beijing Capital, the water utility provider. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 19.2%, and by 14.2% over a one-year period (Table 6). Huaneng Power is excluded from our analysis, as its H-share is already in the MSCI EM Index. Screening valuations, the trailing P/E factor favors Shenery and Chuantou Energy. By contrast, Huadian Power and Beijing Capital look expensive (Chart 6A). On profitability, Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy have the strongest ROE, while Huadian Power and Shenzhen Energy fall far behind the average (Chart 6B). Based on valuation versus profitability, Chuantou Energy, Yangtze Power, and SDIC Power will likely outperform (Chart 6C). Yangtze Power and SDIC Power have remarkably high operating margins, while Shenery and Beijing Capital are at the other end of the spectrum (Chart 6D). Concerning leverage, most large-scale players such as Datang International Power and National Nuclear Power are highly leveraged. By contrast, low leveraged players, such as Hubei Energy and Shenergy, tend to have small market caps of around US$ 5 bn. In terms of FCF yield, we highlight Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy, while we are cautious on Shenzhen Energy and National Nuclear Power due to their deeply negative yields. In summary, we like Chuantou Energy, Yangzte Power, Zheneng Electric, and Shenergy with respect to FCF yield versus leverage, which also coincides with dividend yield rank (Charts 6E, 6F, 6G, 6H). Finally, Huadian Power and Datang are expected to show the fastest bottom-line growth next year, while Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy are likely to see limited earnings expansion (Chart 6I). Therefore, within utilities sector, we expect Yangtze Power to outperform in the long term, supported by its appealing risk-reward profile, margin expansion, and debt service ability. We also like the fact that the company's dominant strength of hydropower is the Yangtze River Delta. Billy Zicheng Huang, Research Analyst billyh@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "A Sector Guide To A-shares - Part I ", dated September 19, 2017, available at emes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Investment case "China Healthcare, Getting Healthier", dated August 9, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Investment case "Budding Green Equities In China", dated July 11, 2017, available at emes.bcaresearch.com Appendix - I Appendix - II Overweight Company Profile Underweight Company Profile

Special Report

Dear Client, Today we are sending you a two-part Special Report prepared by my colleague Billy Zicheng Huang of our Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy team, entitled “A Sector Guide To A-shares”. Part I of the report was published in September, and emphasized the key takeaways from MSCI’s decision to include A-shares in the MSCI EM index beginning in June 2018. More importantly, it provided a comprehensive analysis of the financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples sectors. Part II of the report was published at the end of October, and provided an analysis of the remaining sectors not included in Part I. The reports underscore that while the top-down impact of MSCI’s decision is limited, it is significant in terms of expanding potential alpha from security selection. I trust that you will find this report to be useful. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports The EMES team will be publishing a series of Special Reports in the coming weeks, analyzing sector dynamics and company highlights of Chinese A shares that MSCI has decided to include in the MSCI EM index from next June. In the first part of our report, we emphasize the key takeaways from A-shares' inclusion, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the four sectors that investors will probably most focus on. The second part of our report to be released in the coming weeks will analyze the remaining sectors. MSCI's decision to include Chinese A shares will likely have only a limited near-term impact on the market from a passive investment perspective. A 5% inclusion factor will not cause significant changes to the current sector weightings of the MSCI EM index or the MSCI China index. The symbolic effect - that global investors are becoming more confident in the Chinese market's efficiency and transparency - is likely to have a larger impact. From an active investment perspective, however, an expansion of the investable universe will give investors with EM mandates more opportunities to allocate assets and generate alpha. Impact Is Limited On A Macro Perspective... On June 20, MSCI announced its decision to include Chinese A shares in the MSCI EM index and the MSCI ACWI index on a gradual basis starting from June 2018.1 The inclusion process will be finalized in two steps following the May semi-annual index review and August quarterly review in 2018, at a 5% inclusion factor. Full inclusion of the remaining A-share universe is expected to take place gradually over five to 10 years. After three previous proposals of an A-shares inclusion having been rejected by investors surveyed by MSCI, the successful start of the inclusion process signifies that the A-share market is gaining broad support from institutional investors. This follows the Chinese government's and regulators' focus on improving market accessibility via stock connect programs (Hong Kong-Shanghai connect, and Hong Kong-Shenzhen connect) as well as improving market liquidity via loosening requirements for index-linked financial instruments. Further steps regarding capital movement and better reporting standards are expected to be implemented in due course. influence of the inclusion is minimal from a broad market perspective. As is planned, 222 A-share companies will be added to the MSCI EM index, accounting for a pro-forma weight of only 0.73% of the MSCI EM index, or 2.5% of the MSCI China index (Charts 1A and 1B). A shares will boost China's weight in the MSCI EM by approximately only 1%, given the 5% inclusion factor. Sector-wise, it will not substantially move the current weights of each sector either. Company wise, all selected stocks are large caps, with 43 being "A" and "H" dual-listed companies already included in the current MSCI EM index, mostly concentrated in the financials, industrials and materials sectors (see Appendix I). This means the inclusions are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to index performance in the upcoming year. Similarly, capital inflows from passive fund trackers are expected to be negligible, only marginally adding to the trading income of the Hong Kong Exchange through the northbound stock connect program. refore, we believe the impact from an investor perspective is more symbolic, confirming a positive outlook on market transparency and corporate governance. ...But Significant In Stock Selection Despite immaterial near-term market impact, the 222 A-share large-cap stocks will expand the investable universe, providing active investors with plenty of opportunities to extract alpha. In particular, compared to the current weights of the 11 sectors, industrials, financials, consumer staples, materials, healthcare, utilities, and real estate would see weight expansion, while IT, telecom, energy, and consumer discretionary would see weight contraction (Table 1). Newly added stocks mainly come from the financial and industrial sectors, with the name count by far outpacing other sectors. Given an overall larger market cap, these two sectors will experience the most substantial incremental weight boost under the full inclusion scenario. However, this does not mean sectors with fewer companies to be added are negligible. Instead, liquidity in these sectors is expected to improve significantly, with specific stocks drawing strong interest from investors. Since the launch of BCA's EMES service, we have made several calls on A-share stocks as out-of-benchmark plays, including Yutong Bus (600066 CH) and Tianqi Lithium (002466 CH) from our best-performing trade, overweight the lithium supply chain. In this vein, in this Special Report we will identify and analyze four sectors that we believe are most investment-relevant. A second Special Report examining the remaining sectors will follow in the coming weeks. Financials Some 50 companies from the financials sector will be included in the MSCI EM index, with a strong tilt toward brokerage firms (27). The rest will be split between banks (19) and insurers (4). Banks The equally weighted basket of 19 A-share banks has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 13.4%, and underperformed by 11.6% over a one-year period (Table 2). In absolute return terms, however, performance has been resilient across various time horizons. It is worth mentioning that the "big five banks" are all listed in both mainland China and Hong Kong. Therefore, investors will focus more on joint-stock banks and regional banks in the A-share universe, which makes analysis on shadow banking activities within the earnings profile crucial. In terms of valuation, stripping out dual-listed banks that already exist in the MSCI EM index, Huaxia Bank and CITIC Bank are trading below their book values, displaying relatively cheap valuations. Looking at profitability, three regional banks top the earnings profile: Bank of Guiyang, Bank of Ningbo, and Bank of Nanjing, while the two "cheapest" banks, Huaxia and CITIC, display the lowest ROE (Charts 2A & 2B). From a profitability versus valuation perspective, companies such as Huaxia Bank, Industrial Bank, Bank of Beijing and Pudong Development Bank offer a superior risk-reward profile (Chart 3). Bank of Guiyang and Ping An Bank report the highest net interest margins, but pay a relatively low dividend yield. On the other hand, Industrial Bank and Bank of Beijing have the lowest net interest margins, but relatively high dividend yields (Charts 4A & 4B). In terms of asset quality, Bank of Nanjing and Bank of Ningbo report the lowest NPL ratios, both under 1%, while Pudong Development Bank and Ping An Bank are at the top of the table. Meanwhile, Bank of Nanjing and Bank of Guiyang show the most robust loan growth, while Bank of Shanghai and Huaxia Bank suffer from the most sluggish loan growth (Charts 5A & 5B). Therefore, on a two-dimensional measure, we prefer Bank of Nanjing, and Bank of Guiyang (Chart 6). Screening the earnings forecast, Bank of Guiyang and Bank of Ningbo are expected to see the fastest growth in two years, while CITIC Bank and Ping An Bank will see the slowest growth (Chart 7). Diversified Financials The equally-weighted basket of 27 diversified financial companies has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 26.5%, and by 27.8% over a one-year period (Table 3). Currently there are only nine diversified financial companies in the MSCI EM, with seven securities companies and two state-owned asset management companies specializing in distressed asset management. As mentioned, the inclusion of A shares will not improve brokerage fees dramatically in the near term, but this milestone event could trigger a positive outlook on market sentiment, especially for the broad A-share market, where the dominant players are retail investors. This could explain the subsector's resilient performance over the past three months. Therefore, it is reasonable to be bullish on diversified financials, with the largest securities names expecting a revenue boost in the longer term. Some pure A-share names include Shenwan Hongyuan, Guosen, and Avic Capital. Similar to banks, after stripping out dual-listed names already included in MSCI EM (CITIC, Everbright, GF, Haitong, and Huatai), Northeast Securities and Guotai Junan Securities have the cheapest valuations, while Anxin Trust seems to be the overpriced compared to its peers. Accordingly, its ROE is remarkable (Charts 8A & 8B). Taking both dimensions into account, Guotai Junan Securities and Northeast Securities display attractive risk-reward profile (Chart 9). Looking at the top line, performances diverge across various securities companies. Pacific and Guoyuan generate the highest net interest margin, while Orient and Northeast suffer from serious top-line contraction (Chart 10A). Meanwhile, Guoyuan and Anxin score the highest dividend yield, exceeding 2%, while Sinolink pays less than a 0.5% dividend yield (Chart 10B). Looking at the earnings forecast, Western Securities, AVIC Capital and Sealand Securities are expected to see the strongest bottom-line growth in 2018, while local securities companies Shanxi and Huaan rank at the bottom of the spectrum (Chart 11). Insurance The following four insurers are already constituents of the MSCI EM index: China Life, China Pacific, New China Life and Ping An. The equally weighted basket has outperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 12.4%, and outperformed by 21.2% over a one-year period (Table 4). We will not analyze the subsector in much detail, given none of them are pure A-share companies. As such, market impact from the inclusion will not be material. EMES has been overweight Ping An's H shares since August 9, 2016.2 Industrials There are 44 companies in the industrials sector, the second-largest name count after financials. This sector is also expected to make the greatest impact on sector weights, assuming full A-shares inclusion. Stocks in the sector are split between airlines, national defense, machinery, construction and transportation. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 20.5%, and by 22.8% over a one-year period (Table 5). We believe increasing construction activity boosted by the 'One Belt, One Road' initiative will drive sales growth of construction equipment, while disputes in the South China Sea, India, Tibet and Xinjiang autonomous districts will continue to boost the defense industry. Air China, Southern Airline, China Communications Construction, China Railway Construction, China Railway Group, China State Construction Engineering, CRRC, Weichai Power, and COSCO are excluded from our analysis, as their H-listed shares are already in the MSCI EM index. Looking at valuations, the trailing P/E varies significantly across companies. Defense stocks in general are more expensive compared to other industries. By contrast, Daqin Railway stands on the lowest end of the P/E ranking, while electrical equipment companies normally display lower valuations (Chart 12A). Looking at the profitability side, Yutong Bus, one of our overweight calls, leads the ROE ranking, while Zoomlion lies on the lowest end by registering a net loss (Chart 12B). In summary, Yutong Bus, Chint Electrics, Gold Mantis and Beijing Orient Landscape will likely outperform, based on a valuation versus profitability profile comparison (Chart 13). Furthermore, the EV/EBITDA forecast for 2017 coincides with our overweight call on national defense stocks. It is worth noting that Eastern Airline would likely see unsatisfactory growth in terms of firm value (Chart 14A). Shanghai International Airport, Tus-sound Environment and Beijing Landscape rank as the top three measured by operating margin, while XCMG Construction Machine displays a negative margin, despite excavator sales in China surging year over year (Chart 14B). In terms of dividend and free cash flow, Yutong Bus and Zoomlion score highest on dividend yield, and Sany Heavy Industry, Daqin Railway, and XCMG secure highest free cash flow yield. On the other hand, Sany and other (check) defense stocks generate the least in dividend yields, and more than half of the companies post negative free cash flow yield (Charts 14C & 14D). Investors should be cautious on airline companies with negative free cash flow, such as Eastern Airline and Hainan Airline. Looking at leverage, Shanghai International Airport and AECC Aero-engine Control have the lowest debt-to-equity ratio, while Power Construction and China Eastern Airline are highly leveraged (Chart 14E). Last but not least, looking at expected growth profile, XCMG is forecast to see the highest bottom-line growth, driven by growing demand for excavators, while China Eastern Airline and Zoomlion are expected to suffer from negative growth (Chart 15). Consumer Discretionary Some 26 names from the consumer discretionary sector will be added to the MSCI EM index. Stripping out Fuyao Glass, BYD, Guangzhou Auto, and Haier, which are already included in the index, there are still six automakers and auto components manufacturers to be included. This should provide investors with enough investable stocks for an auto industry play. Furthermore, six A-share media companies will be added to the index over a one-year period (Table 6). Sector performance has been overall disappointing, with some exceptions being CITIC Guoan Information, Chinese Universe Publishing, Wanxiang Qianchao and China International Travel. Regarding valuations, CITIC Guoan Information, Suning Commerce and Alpha Group are the most expensive, with trailing P/Es surging above 50, while two automakers (SAIC and Huayu) along with a travel agency (Shenzhen Overseas Chinese Town) are relatively undervalued in the sector. From a profitability perspective, Robam Appliances and Midea Group generate solid ROE, while CITIC Guoan Information and Sunning Commerce dominate the other end of the spectrum (Charts 16A & 16B). Taking these two factors into consideration, we highlight Robam Appliances, Midea Group, and Xinhua Media as the most attractive (Chart 17) based on a risk/reward profile. Investors should be cautious on Suning Commerce, not only from a fundamental perspective but also because its acquisition of Inter Milan is unlikely to generate synergy amid the Chinese government's tightening of rules on overseas M&A in the entertainment and leisure industries. Looking at the income statement, Shenzhen Overseas Chinese Town displays robust operating performance, matching its high valuation. Robam Appliances and China South Publishing follow suit. By contrast, Suning Commerce suffers from negative margins (Chart 18A). When comparing free cash flow, Midea Group and China South Publishing register the highest yield, while Shenzhen Overseas Chinese Town, Gran Automotive Service, and CITIC Guoan Information have negative yields (Chart 18B). Meanwhile, autos and auto components manufacturers enjoy the highest dividend yields, such as SAIC Motor, Huayu Automotive System, Weifu High-Tech, and Grand Automotive Service (Chart 18C). With respect to leverage, the media industry normally displays the lowest D/E ratio, seen in firms such as China Film, Xinhua Media and China South Publishing. On the other hand, auto and auto component manufacturers as well as large retailers are highly leveraged (Chart 18D). Based on our criteria, Guoan Information and Robam Appliances are expected to see the fastest bottom-line growth, while Xinhua Media, Wanxiang Qiaochao, and Xinjiekou Dept.'s bottom lines would remain stagnant (Chart 19). Consumer Staples Currently only nine Chinese consumer staples constituents are included in the MSCI EM Index. After the inclusion, 14 more companies will be added, substantially expanding the investable universe. Two subsectors will most likely draw investors' attention: food producers such as Yili and Henan Shuanghui, as well as beverage producers, especially premium liquor producers such as Moutai, Wuliangye Yibin and Yanghe Brewery. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 19.6%, and by 11% over a one-year period (Table 7). The sector has not deviated much from the EM benchmark across the selected time horizon. In particular, premium liquor manufacturers have been the main contributor to overall sector performance. Their sales are expected to experience a seasonal peak in September and October during the Chinese mid-autumn festival and National Day. Both Wuliangye Yibin and Moutai announced robust top-line and bottom-line growth in their second-quarter financial results, largely beating market expectations. Stripping out the one dual-listed name already in the MSCI EM index (Tsingtao Brewery), Changyu Pioneer, New Hope Liuhe, and Shuanghui display attractive valuations, with trailing P/Es under 20. On the other end of the metrics, Yonghui Superstores, and Luzhou Laojiao are the most expensive (Chart 20A). Examining profitability measures, Shuanghui and Moutai top the ROE rank, while Bailian Group and Yonghui Superstores sit at the bottom of the rank (Chart 20B). Looking at risk/reward profile, it is noticeable that Shuanghui, Yili and Yanghe Brewery are well positioned (Chart 21). In terms of operations, premium liquor makers reported overall strong operating margins, led by Moutai and Yanghe Brewery, while Bailian Group and New Hope Liuhe stand at the other end of the spectrum (Chart 22A). Looking at the capex-to-sales ratio, Wuliangye and Shuanghui score the best measures, driven by strong sales with less capex. While Changyu Pioneer demonstrates a much higher ratio compared to all peers (Chart 22B), this can be partially explained by its high capex requirement, as it is the only wine maker in the sector. Nonetheless, we believe its top line is expected to be under downward pressure as the wine market in China becomes increasingly competitive, and as premium products from France, Australia, and the U.S. gain easier market access through not only traditional in-store sales but also authorized e-commerce platforms like JD.com. Similarly, free cash flow measure also indicates that Changyu Pioneer is the only liquor player that suffers from negative yield (Chart 22C). In terms of financial position, with the exception of COFCO Tunhe Sugar, all companies in the sector display reasonable levels of leverage (Chart 22D). Looking at top-line growth, sales forecasts in FY2017 are more in favor of Moutai, Dabeinong Technology, and Luzhou Laojiao, but less in favor of Bailian Group, Shuanghui, and Changyu Pioneer (Chart 23A). Moreover, when looking at bottom-line growth two years out, Luzhou Laojiao and Yonghui Superstores score the highest rankings, while Changyu Pioneer and Shuanghui are at the other end of the spectrum (Chart 23B). In summary, among food producers, we are inclined to overweight Shuanghui. Among beverage producers, we like Yanghe Brewery, and Wuliangye, but are avoiding Changyu Pioneer. What's Next? We will highlight the following sectors in part 2 of our Special Report: Materials, energy, IT, telecoms, healthcare, and real estate. Billy Zicheng Huang, Research Analyst billyh@bcaresearch.com Appendix - I Appendix - II Overweight Company Profile Underweight Company Profile 1 For the full MSCI press release, please visit: https://www.msci.com/eqb/pressreleases/archive/2017_Market_Classification_Announcement_Press_Release_FINAL.pdf 2 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy - Investment case "China Healthcare, Getting Healthier", dated August 9, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights When it meets in Vienna at the end of this month, OPEC 2.0 will look through the pipeline leaks in South Dakota, which are expected to take some 500k b/d of Canadian crude shipments to the U.S. off the market until repairs are done at the end of November. While this will provide an unexpected assist in draining U.S. inventories, it truly is a transitory event (no pun intended). The larger issue for prices is gauging market expectations going into the OPEC 2.0 meeting at the end of this month. We believe the market is giving high odds to the coalition extending its 1.8mm b/d production cut to cover all of 2018 at its Vienna meeting. This is without doubt the result of the synchronized messaging coming from the leaders of OPEC 2.0, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Based on our balances models, an extension of the cuts to end-June - our base case - will draw OECD stocks down below their five-year average by mid-2018 (Chart of the Week). An executed extension to end-December 2018 would produce even sharper draws. This leaves the only material risk to prices a failure to extend the cuts on Nov. 30, or a reduction in the cuts themselves. Of the two, a failure to extend the cuts is the only material downside risk we see going into the Vienna meetings. Should OPEC 2.0 fail to extend its production cuts at month-end, and cause the markets to sell, we would view it as a buying opportunity: a Mar/18 expiry runs counter to OPEC 2.0's strategy. Energy: Overweight. Our Brent and WTI call spreads in May, July and December 2018 - long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl calls - are up an average 41.4%, since they were recommended in September and October. Our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI trade initiated November 2, 2017 in expectation of steepening backwardation is up 27.7%. Base Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD is providing a tailwind for copper, which is up ~ 2% over the past week. Our U.S. Bond Strategy desk expects the Fed to remain behind the inflation curve, which will translate into lower real rates and continue to support base metals.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold continues to trade on either side of $1,280/oz, hardly budging following the upheaval in KSA. U.S. financial conditions - particularly a weaker USD - are driving gold. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 4.2% since inception May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Updated projections of record-high yields from U.S. corn farmers is behind the upward revision to 2017/2018 corn ending stocks in the November WASDE. This led to a massive increase - by 7.56mm MT - in U.S. corn output, which was partially offset by an increase in expected world demand and a downward adjustment to global beginning stocks. Corn prices were down more than 3% in the week following the revisions, but have since regained 2.5%. Feature Markets appear to be pricing in an extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018 when the producer group meets in Vienna at the end of the month around OPEC's regularly scheduled meeting. Our updated balances suggest a sharp sell-off triggered by market disappointment in OPEC 2.0 would represent a buying opportunity, particularly in 2H18. We continue to expect Brent to average $65/bbl next year in our base case (OPEC 2.0 cuts extended to end-June), with WTI trading $2/bbl under that. An extension of OPEC 2.0's cuts to end-December could lift our 2018 Brent forecast as much as $5/bbl, although the Brent-WTI spread likely would widen to $4 to $5/bbl, if this occurs. We do not believe additional cuts are in the offing. Nor do we expect an even-more-dramatic announcement of cuts being extended beyond 2018. We are deliberately keeping our base case more conservative than the apparent market expectation of an extension to end-2018. This suggests markets will be disappointed with anything less than an extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-June. Given our balances modeling, we believe any disappointment in the market's expectation that leads to a sell-off would represent a buying opportunity, since a Mar/18 expiry – the current terminus of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts, defeats the coalition's strategy of reducing OECD inventories. Under our base case, inventories draw to their five-year average levels by mid-year 2018 (Chart of the Week). In our updated balances model, we have a 100k b/d downward revision in expected U.S. oil-shale output for 2018 tightening the supply side for next year. The U.S. EIA has repeatedly revised its historical estimated shale production lower in recent months, and late-2017 rig counts have deteriorated slightly, which have shifted our historical production curve lower as well. On the demand side, we expect growth of ~ 1.65mm b/d on average in 2017 - 18. These assumptions give an upward bias to our 2018 price forecasts for Brent and WTI crude oil (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekSupply-Demand Balances##BR##Point Toward Tight Markets Chart 2Balances Are Tightening,##BR##Giving An Upward Bias To Prices Inventory Draw Could Be Sharper Chart 3Extending OPEC 2.0 Cuts To End-December##BR##Will Result In Sharper Draws An extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-Dec/18 would translate to a deeper storage draw than our end-June base case expectation (Chart 3). The Keystone pipeline leaks referenced above also provide an unanticipated assist in drawing down inventories, by temporarily removing ~ 500k b/d from the market in the 2H of November. While we have modeled price-induced additions to U.S. shale-oil output next year in our base case, an extension of OPEC 2.0's cuts to end-December likely will accelerate this production increase as additional production is added in 2H18. This will tend to temper price hikes, but not arrest them, given the differential storage draws we expect of 127 mm bbls. As we have noted, an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to the end of 2018 could lift Brent and WTI prices by as much as $5/bbl. However, given the still-insufficient pipeline take-away in the U.S. shale basins, we would expect higher production would widen the Brent - WTI price spread to $4 to $5/bbl next year. Practically, if the extension of the production cuts pushes Brent to $70/bbl, we're more inclined to expect WTI prices to average ~ $65/bbl next year. EM Continues To Lead Growth In Oil Demand EM oil demand strength continues to be the dominant feature of the oil market this year, and, we expect, into next year. We are modeling a 1.13mm b/d and 1.22mm b/d increase in EM demand this year and next, respectively. This accounts for 75% and 77% percent of global growth in 2017 and 2018 (Table 1). DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption, is expected to average 47.5mm b/d over the two-year interval, an average gain of 490k b/d over the interval, vs. 1.18 mm b/d gain in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) China and India account for slightly more than one-third of the 52mm b/d of consumption we are modeling for non-OECD demand over this period, and ~50% of the non-OECD demand growth from 2016 to 2018. The indicators we use to confirm or refute the demand trends we see - EM imports and global PMIs - continue to support the global-growth theme we've noted throughout the year, particularly in the EM markets (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 4EM Trade Volumes Remain Strong,##BR##Supporting The Global Growth Hypothesis Chart 5Global Manufacturing Activity##BR##Remains Robust Continue Watching The Fed EM oil demand and import volumes are highly dependent on Fed policy, which is of particular concern now, because the U.S. central bank is trying to carry out its rate-normalization policy (Chart 6). Still, as our colleagues on the U.S. Bond Strategy desk note, "To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve." This will be bullish for trade, since as we've shown in the past, U.S. monetary policy has a huge effect on trade.2 For the near term - into 1H18 - fundamentals will dominate the evolution of price: Supply, demand and inventories will matter more than U.S. monetary policy effects on the USD and real rates. Nonetheless, should the hawks in the Fed carry the day, we would expect a strengthening of the USD, which, all else equal, would act as a headwind to oil prices next year. For the time being, a weaker USD is reinforcing stronger prices brought about by tighter fundamentals, particularly in the Brent market (Chart 7). Chart 6Continue Watching The Fed Chart 7A Weaker USD Provides A Slight Tailwind Bottom Line: Markets are expecting OPEC 2.0 to extend its 1.8mm b/d production cut to end-2018. We are deliberately using a more conservative extension to end-June in our balances modeling, which produce 2018 Brent and WTI prices forecasts of $65/bbl and $63/bbl. An executed extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-December 2018 likely would add as much as $5/bbl to Brent prices, and perhaps $2/bbl to WTI prices, which would widen the Brent - WTI spread to $4 to $5/bbl on average next year. Fundamentals will continue to dominate the evolution of prices into 2018 - supply growth (falling), demand growth (rising), and inventories (falling) will drive prices. For the moment a weaker USD is supportive for commodities generally, particularly oil and copper. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve," published October 24, 2017, by BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see footnote 1 above. U.S. monetary policy effects on EM oil demand and trade volumes, and the feedback loop back to the key indicators used by the Fed, have been a recurrent theme in our research. Please see, e.g., "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 8, 2017, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Our line of research recently found support in IMF research published earlier this month; please see "Global Trade and the Dollar," published by the IMF November 13, 2017. The IMF research is available at http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/11/13/Global-Trade-and-the-Dollar-45336?cid=em-COM-123-36197 Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q17 Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

Highlights The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. The Mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. Both the steel and coal industries in China are becoming more efficient and more competitive, with low-quality output falling and high-quality supply rising. Feature Reducing capacity (also called "de-capacity") in the oversupplied commodities markets (e.g., steel, coal, cement, and aluminum) has been a key priority within China's structural supply side reforms over the past two years. The reforms were announced by President Xi Jinping in November 2015 and have focused primarily on steel and coal, and to a lesser extent on the aluminum and cement sectors. China's "de-capacity" reforms have been aiming to reduce inefficient productive capacity and low-quality output of the above mentioned commodities, as well as boost medium-to-high-quality production. The main focus of this report is to dissect China's supply side "de-capacity" reforms, and to assess their impact on steel, coal and iron ore prices. The de-capacity reforms were announced in late 2015 and, coincidentally, all major industrial commodities prices made a synchronized bottom in late 2015/early 2016 (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ASynchronized Bottom & Rally: ##br##Due To Chinese 'De-Capacity' Reforms? Chart I-1BSynchronized Bottom & Rally: ##br##Due To Chinese 'De-Capacity' Reforms? China is the largest producer and consumer of various raw materials, ranging from steel and coal to base metals. Hence, two interesting questions arise: was it the "de-capacity" reforms or other factors that caused the various raw materials to bottom in early 2016 and rally thereafter? How will China's ongoing "de-capacity" reforms affect steel, coal, and iron ore prices going into 2018 and 2019? Progress Of "De-Capacity" Reforms Three main approaches have been used by policymakers with respect to de-capacity reforms: The government sets up capacity reduction targets and then implements concrete plans to achieve these targets. The government conducts inspections to ensure the reforms are being implemented or for environmental protection purposes. The government aims to eliminate outdated capacity by setting up electricity price rules (higher electricity prices for producers with inefficient technologies) as well as ordering banks to curtail lending to those producers. In terms of timelines, the Chinese supply side "de-capacity" reforms so far have been rolled out in three phases: Phase I: Initiation and preparation phase (2015 Q4 - 2016 H1): The first phase involved policy makers drawing related policies and capacity reduction targets in the steel and coal industries. Local governments and related SOEs began implementing the so-called "de-capacity" reforms. During this period, only 30% of the 2016 capacity reduction targets for both steel and coal markets were achieved. Phase II: The accelerating implementation phase (2016 H2): The second phase included a ramp-up of "de-capacity" reforms, with over 70% of 2016 steel and coal capacity reduction targets being implemented. Meanwhile, steel production disruptions increased due to more stringent environmental rules, more frequent inspections, and government-ordered closures of low-quality steel (called "Ditiaogang" in Chinese) production in Jiangsu and Shandong provinces. Phase III: The reform-deepening phase (2017): The third phase, implemented in the first half of this year, was a clamping down on overcapacity to eliminate all illegal sub-standard steel (Ditiaogang) production and capacity by the end of June 2017. To date, the Chinese authorities have succeeded in their "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal: both the steel and coal industries in China have become more efficient, more competitive, and have much less obsolete excess capacity: The government's plan was to reduce capacity by 100-150 million metric tons in steel and 1 billion metric tons in coal within "three to five years." This equated to a 9-13% and 18% reduction of existing 2015 Chinese capacity in steel and coal, respectively. In addition, this is equivalent to 7-9% for steel and 10% for coal of 2015's global output (Table I-1). As of August 2017, within less than two years since the beginning of the supply side reforms, 77% of the steel "de-capacity" target (or 10% of 2015 capacity) and 52% of the coal "de-capacity" target (or 7% of 2015 capacity) have been achieved (Table I-1). Table I-1Chinese Supply-Side Reform - Capacity Reduction Target And Actual Achievement With declining capacity and rising production, the capacity utilization rates (CUR) of the steel and coal industries have increased meaningfully. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reported that as of the third quarter of 2017, the CUR for the steel industry has risen to 76.7% (the highest since 2013, and an increase of 4.4 percentage points from a year ago). As for the coal sector, the CUR reached 69% (the highest since 2015, and an increase of 10.6 percentage points from a year ago). With outdated and illegal production capacity exiting the marketplace, the number of companies and the number of employees have declined significantly in both the steel and coal industries (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Since the start of the "de-capacity" reforms, the central government has allocated 100 billion yuan (0.1% of GDP and 3.6% of central government spending) to a special fund for the relocation of employees in the coal and steel industries. Chart I-2Consolidation In Chinese Steel ##br##And Coal Sectors: Fewer Companies... Chart I-3...And Fewer Employees Higher prices for steel and coal have greatly boosted producers' profitability. From January 2016 to September 2017, the number of loss-making enterprises as a share of all enterprises has dropped from 25% to 17% in the steel industry and from 34% to 21% in the coal sector. Improving financial conditions have enhanced steel and coal companies' ability to invest in industrial upgrades (i.e., more investment in advanced technologies and new equipment). Bottom Line: Chinese "de-capacity" reforms have been successfully implemented, which has improved economic efficiency in the steel and coal industries by reducing high-cost and low-quality supply, and by increasing lower-cost and high-quality output. Understanding The Cycle In this section, we try to connect the dots between the progress of China's supply side reforms, and steel and coal prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B show the fascinating dynamics among policy actions, production and prices. Chart I-4APolicy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector Chart I-4BPolicy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector Here are our major findings: (A) Except for coal, Chinese "de-capacity" reforms were not the major trigger for the price bottom in major industrial commodities in early 2016. As the period from November 2015 to June 2016 was only the initiation stage of the reforms, not much steel capacity reduction - only 1.2% of total existing 2015 capacity - occurred in the first half year of 2016. Moreover, most of the reduced capacity was outdated capacity and probably had been offline for years. Therefore, the policy driven capacity cut in the first half of 2016 was unlikely the reason for the rally in steel prices. The reasons behind the bottom in raw materials prices in general and steel in particular during the first half of 2016 were the following: 1. Production cuts in both 2015 and the first half of 2016 was market-driven. In other words, it was not government reforms but natural market forces (the dramatic drop in raw materials prices in 2015) that caused company closures and declines in various raw materials output in both 2015 and the first half of 2016 (Chart I-4A). The price recovery in the first half of 2016 was not sufficient to make most producers profitable. 2. Remarkably, the authorities injected considerable amounts of credit and fiscal stimulus in late 2015 and early 2016. As a result, demand recovery was another major trigger for the synchronized bottom in early 2016. The rise in the aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse led to a revival in property construction, automobile production and infrastructure investment in the first half of 2016 (Chart I-5). 3. Financial/speculative demand for commodities was also a driving force behind the early 2016 price recovery. Chart I-6 illustrates that Mainland trading volumes in various commodities futures surged in the first half of 2016, and specifically in coal in the third quarter of 2016, coinciding with their respective price spikes. Chart I-5Strong Demand Recovery In 2016 Chart I-6Speculative Buying In Early 2016 All of these factors contributed to the synchronized price bottom in early 2016 and the consequent price rally in the first half of 2016, in which Chinese "de-capacity" reforms only played a minor role, especially in the steel market. (B) Chinese "de-capacity" reforms were the determining factor for the coal price spike in 2016 and steel price appreciation in 2017. Coal in 2016: "De-capacity" reforms were behind the surge in coal and coke prices throughout 2016. In February 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stipulated that domestic coal mines could operate no more than 276 working days in one year, down from 330 working days in the past. This was equivalent to the immediate removal of 16% of existing operating capacity off the market. Before this decision, Chinese coal production had already declined 2.5% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2015 (Chart I-4B on page 6). On top of this decision, the government enforced a 250 million metric ton capacity cut target in the coal industry in 2016. Furthermore, actual coal capacity reduction in 2016 was 116% of that year's target (Table I-1). The end result was a 10% decline in Chinese coal production during the period of January and September of 2016 from the same period of 2015, triggering an exponential rise in both thermal coal and coking coal prices (Chart I-1 on page 2). Coking coal is mainly used for coke production, and coke is employed as a fuel in smelting iron ore in a blast furnace to produce steel. Therefore, a shortage of coking coal combined with a revival in steel production made coke the best-performing commodity last year, with its price skyrocketing by 300%. Chart I-7Diverging Prices In 2017 Towards the end of last year, the authorities realized that "de-capacity" in the coal market was too aggressive, and began loosening up coal production restrictions in September 2016. Last November the NDRC further eased policy by allowing companies to operate 330 days a year again (Chart I-4B on page 6). In response to these adjustments, thermal coal, coking coal and coke prices all peaked in December 2016/early 2017 (Chart I-1 on page 2). This reveals how Chinese supply side reforms can be a determining factor for global commodities prices. Steel prices in 2017: Steel prices have exhibited a steady rally throughout 2017, even though prices for coal, coke and iron ore all declined. There has been considerable price divergence this year between steel, on one hand, and coal, coke and iron ore, on the other. Prices for thermal coal, coking coal, coke and iron ore all peaked in late 2016/early 2017, while prices for steel continued to rise and reached a six-year high in September, expanding profit margins for steel producers (Chart I-7). The resilience of steel prices this year was because the Mainland had dismantled all "Ditiaogang" capacity by the end of June 2017, resulting in an accelerated drop in steel products production (Chart I-4A on page 6). "Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality, and also lead to environmental degradation. "Ditiaogang" is often converted into products like rebar and wire rods. As steel produced this way is illegal, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. Both falling steel products production and surging scrap steel exports entail that the "Ditiaogang" capacity elimination policy has been very effective (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Removal Of 'Ditiaogang' Has ##br##Been Successfully Implemented As reported by the government, about 120 million metric tons per year of "Ditiaogang" capacity has been eliminated, more than double this year's steel "de-capacity" target of 50 million metric tons. A considerable portion of the 120 million metric ton "Ditiaogang" capacity was still in operation early this year when "Ditiaogang" producers enjoyed higher profit margins than large steel producers. This rapid change created a sudden squeeze on steel products supply, which consequently boosted their prices. Bottom Line: China's "de-capacity" reforms have played a major role in driving the rallies in steel prices in 2017 and in the coal markets in 2016. In short, China's supply-side reforms have been effective in shaping prices and boosting efficiency in Mainland industries by eliminating weak/inefficient producers or forcing their industrial upgrade. However, the government efforts at times have also produced large price swings, as in the case of both coal and coke. The Outlook For 2018 And 2019 Given past success and the nation's leadership adherence to reforms, China will firmly proceed with its "de-capacity" reform strategy over the next two years. However, steel and coal prices are likely to decline going forward. The most aggressive phase of "de-capacity" reforms is now behind us. The pace of capacity reduction for both steel and coal will decrease over the next two years as more than half of the 2016-2020 target has already been achieved for both sectors. Both steel and coal producers currently enjoy near-decade high profit margins, and their profits have swelled (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Not surprisingly, steel and coal producers have already sped up their investment in advanced technologies to augment their capacity - by introducing ecologically friendly equipment that can produce medium- to high-end quality products. Chart I-9AStrong Profits For Steel And Coal Producers Chart I-9BRising Profit Margins For Steel And Coal Producers Importantly, the capacity swap policy introduced by the authorities has been allowing steel and coal producers to add new capacity to replace obsolete capacity at a ratio of 1:1-1.25 (the range depends on region). In short, having eliminated the inefficient/outdated capacity, producers are now allowed to add as much capacity as they had before, but using efficient technologies. This will weigh on steel and coal prices as output gains and production costs will likely be lower with new technologies. In addition, Chinese steel producers are accelerating the expansion of advanced electric furnace (EF) capacity. At 6%, current Chinese EF steel output as a share of total steel production is much lower than the same ratio for the major world steel producers and the world average (Chart I-10). The Chinese government's target is to raise the share of EF crude steel production as a share of total production to 15% by 2020. It usually takes at least 1-2 years to build a new EF plant. Hence, newly installed EF capacity will likely come into operation in 2018-'19. On the whole, this points to lower prices for crude steel and steel products. The EF steel-making process only requires scrap steel and electricity to produce crude steel. It does not need either iron ore or coke. This is negative for iron ore and coke prices. With the abundance of used cars and used home appliances in China, the domestic availability of scrap steel has significantly improved over the past few decades. In addition, electricity prices for industrial use have declined by about 5% since March 2015. Therefore, easing resource constraints (availability of scrap steel) and lower electricity costs will facilitate EF steel capacity expansion in China. Some words about the policy-driven steel production cut during the winter season. More than two dozen cities in northern China drew up detailed action plans during September and October to fight the notorious winter smog. China has set a target to reduce the level of Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 pollution by at least 15% in cities around the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region between October 2017 and March 2018. The new rules will require seasonal suspensions or production cuts of steel, aluminum and cement (with the most focus on steel) during the winter heating season from November 15 to March 15. Therefore, over the next four months, downside in steel and coal prices may be limited due to support from these output cuts. This also entails less short-term demand for coke and iron ore, prices for these commodities may remain under downward pressure. Nonetheless, Chinese crude steel output is set to continue rising over the next two years, which in turn will eventually reverse the recent decline in steel products production and assure expansion in steel products production in 2018-'19 (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Chinese Electric Furnace Crude ##br##Steel Production Will Go Up Chart I-11Steel Products Output Will Soon Catch Up For coal, production will accelerate in 2018. The NDRC expects coal production capacity to rise by a net 200 million metric tons this year as increases at more "advanced" mines exceed shutdowns of outmoded facilities. This will be a 50 million metric ton gain over this year's 150 million metric ton obsolete capacity reduction target. In addition, China's coal utilization rate as of the third quarter of 2017 was still below 70%, implying substantial additional capacity remains, potentially boosting coal output, so long as the government does not alter the 330 working-day rule. Importantly, on the demand side, China is aiming to reduce coal usage for electricity generation while promoting renewable energy like hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. This constitutes a structural headwind to coal prices. This is especially significant, given than China accounts for half of global coal consumption. The supply side reforms of the past two years (shutting down inferior capacity) along with the adoption of new, more efficient technologies, has already strengthened the competitiveness of Chinese steel and coal producers. This entails that China will soon resume net exports of steel products, and that its net imports of coal will drop (Chart I-12). This is bad news for international steel and coal producers, who in the past two years have benefited from higher steel and coal prices on the back of a revival in Chinese demand, and curtailed supply. Last but not least, our broad money impulse as well as the aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse shows that economic growth in general and demand for industrial metals in particular are set to decelerate considerably in the next nine to 12 months or so (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China May Increase Its Net Steel Exports ##br##And Decrease Its Net Coal Imports Chart I-13Demand Is Set To Decelerate Chinese steel and coal markets will determine the direction of coke and iron ore prices, both of which will likely be headed lower as well. Coke: Rising coking coal output as a result of coal production ramping up will increase coke supply sizably. As an increasing share of steel output will come from non-coke-reliant EF capacity, coke demand growth will be constrained. Iron ore: Recovering domestic iron ore production could cap China's imports of iron ore (Chart I-14). First, a marginal rise in profit margins for Chinese iron ore domestic producers and a declining number of loss-generating companies heralds modest upside for iron ore output in China (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Chinese Iron Ore Output Will Rise Chart I-15Chinese Iron Ore Producers: ##br##Marginal Rise In Profit Margins Second, more vertical integration - a rising number of Chinese steel producers that have bought iron ore mines - will result in higher domestic iron ore output. Steel companies' current fat profit margins could prompt them to boost iron ore output from the mines that they have integrated into their production chain. Although profits from iron ore production specifically are likely to be limited. This will be the case especially if the government encourages them to do so. Last year, Chinese iron ore imports accounted for 87% of national total consumption - an all-time high. The authorities dislike such great dependence on resource imports, and the government will likely introduce policies such as reducing taxes for domestic iron ore producers or other efforts to boost domestic production. Bottom Line: China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. The Mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist EllenJ@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations