Transportation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Stay on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives. While the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature The SPX shrugged off the persistently negative coronavirus epidemic news and made fresh all-time highs last week (top panel, Chart 1). Domestic flush liquidity remains the dominant macro theme coupled with the expectation of a sizable fiscal and monetary easing out of China in the coming months. Importantly, according to the CME there is a 60% chance of a Fed interest rate cut priced in for the July 29, 2020 FOMC meeting which jumps to over 80% probability for the December 16, 2020 meeting. This is sustaining downward pressure on the 10-year Treasury yield, which in turn is boosting equities. A glum JOLTS report along with the 12-month fed funds rate discounter corroborate that additional Fed easing is likely nearing (middle & bottom panels, Chart 1). Chart 1Is A Fed Interest Rate Cut Looming? Chart 2Unsustainable Rise In “Tenuous Trio” The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently. Nevertheless, beneath the surface trouble is brewing. Chart 2 shows three asset classes rising concurrently. The “tenuous trio” as we have called stocks, Treasurys and the greenback in the past, cannot rise in tandem. When all three asset prices appreciate, it typically foreshadows equity market trouble. In this particular iteration, even the VIX is up for the year, representing a big break in historical correlations. Worrisomely, since 2018 every time the VIX and the SPX became positively correlated, the broad market subsequently suffered a setback (Chart 3).  While the SPX is making all-time highs, the VIX is neither making all-time lows nor cyclical lows. Importantly, equity market volatility is staying stubbornly close to 15, slightly below the ten-year average. As a reminder, a “VIX reading of 15 means that in 30 days the S&P 500 is expected to trade between 4.3% lower and 4.3% higher than its current level”.1 Chart 3Watch Out For Vol The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently.2 Chart 4 shows the percentage of GICS2 sectors with negative two-year relative share price momentum. The higher this diffusion rises the fewer the sectors that drive the SPX’s return. Historically, when our diffusion hits the 70% mark, it signals exhaustion in equity market returns. In fact, 70% readings in this diffusion indicator led both the 2000 and 2007 peaks in the SPX. Chart 4Heed The Diffusion Index’s Message This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Meanwhile on the economic front, the JOLTS report made for grim reading. Labor market softness was evident across the board and it was not squarely concentrated in the manufacturing sector. While this indicator only goes back two cycles, it is flashing yellow for the prospects of the broad equity market (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, we will continue to monitor the job openings numbers as they are sending the exact opposite signal compared with unemployment insurance claims (job openings shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 5).  This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Chart 5Avoid Getting JOLTed Mixed Signals We have been neutral the cyclicals/defensives ratio for the past 8 months and continue to recommend investors stay on the sidelines for a while longer. It has been particularly difficult to distinguish a clear signal from noise lately for the cyclicals versus defensives ratio. Relevant macro drivers, operating metrics and profit fundamentals, valuations and technicals all have been emitting conflicting messages and the recent coronavirus epidemic will likely make the waters murkier still. US Equity Strategy’s Global Trade Activity Indicator has turned south recently following in the footsteps of the Chinese manufacturing PMI data that ticked down and are slated to drop below the boom/bust line in the current month (top & bottom panels, Chart 6). The bond market also reflects a gloomy global economic backdrop with the global 10-year Treasury yield sinking like a stone. Such a lackluster bond market will likely weigh on relative share prices (middle panel, Chart 6). CEOs remain a depressed bunch and it is all but certain that for, at least, the next three months executives will put capex plans on the backburner. Basic resources are most at risk and keep in mind that relative capex growth was already decelerating prior to the coronavirus epidemic (top & second panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Trade Uncertainty… Chart 7… And Capex Softness Weighs On Cyclicals A soft sales backdrop coupled with inventory accumulation are firing a warning shot. Relative share prices will likely succumb to the still weak total business sales-to-inventories ratio (third panel, Chart 7). Importantly, an inventory liquidation phase will continue to exert downward pressure on relative profit margins (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 8Pricing Power Proxy Blues Our simple relative pricing power proxy for the cyclical/defensive ratio best encapsulates these relative selling price pressures. The CRB metals-to-gold price ratio is on the verge of a breakdown and warns that the wide gulf that has opened up between our pricing power proxy and relative share prices will narrow via a sell off in the latter (Chart 8). Nevertheless, this stands in marked contrast to the ISM manufacturing prices paid subcomponent of the Report On Business survey and actual cyclicals/defensives pricing power momentum (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9The US Dollar Holds The Key Were the greenback to depreciate in the coming months as our FX strategists expect, then cyclicals selling prices would definitively regain the upper hand versus their defensives counterparts (top & middle panels, Chart 9). But, the jury is still out. Sell-side analysts remain optimistic that relative profits will stage a significant comeback in the next year, but on a short-term basis have been trimming cyclical versus defensive earnings revisions (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). While our macro-factor relative profit growth models were staging a comeback all last year, they ticked down last month (second panel, Chart 10). Finally, relative technical and valuation conditions are both tracing out a bottom near the one standard deviation below the historical mean, a level that has marked prior recoveries in relative share prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Mixed Bag Chart 11Unloved & Undervalued Bottom Line: Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Remain on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives, but stay tuned. Clipped Wings? Airline stocks have taken it to the chin lately on the back of coronavirus demand destruction fears, but we reiterate our overweight stance as extreme bearishness appears overdone. Investors tend to overreact to events such as virus epidemics, but we deem that such fears typically create trading opportunities, especially in the hardest-hit sectors. Similar to hotels (that we upgraded to neutral last week), airlines are part of the tourism-related industries that have suffered disproportionately. Were we not overweight the S&P airlines index, we would not hesitate to initiate such a position. True, consumer and business demand for air transportation services will come under pressure in the near-term, however looking further out such demand destruction will likely prove transitory. Chart 12 shows that the cyclical demand backdrop is robust for the US airline industry. Overall consumer outlays jumped recently, PCE services momentum is perking up, airfare PCE is outpacing overall consumer spending – an impressive feat – and consumer confidence is perched near cycle highs sustaining a wide gap with relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). US domestic and international passenger enplanements are running near the 5%/annum growth rate and the recent rebound in the global and US services PMIs suggests that any kink in demand will likely prove short-lived (Chart 13). Chart 12Firming Cyclical… Chart 13…Demand Backdrop… Importantly, this firm cyclical demand backdrop is reflected in accelerating airline selling price inflation both on domestic and international routes (second & third panels, Chart 14). However, profit margins have yet to reflect this encouraging top line growth backdrop. The airline load factor spread (calculated as load factor minus break-even load factor) also heralds a profit margin expansion phase (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 14…Is A Boon For Selling Prices Chart 15Lower Fuel Costs Should Turbocharge Profit Margins Tack on the roughly 16% year-to-date drubbing in oil prices and airline profit margins will expand in 2020. This is true especially for the bulk of the industry that does not hedge kerosene costs (jet fuel shown inverted, Chart 15). The analyst community has been pessimistic about the prospects of airline stocks. Revenue and profit growth expectations are slated to tail the SPX in the coming twelve months. This sets a low bar for the industry to surpass in coming earnings seasons (Chart 16). Finally, investors have thrown in the towel, pushing relative valuations to extremely depressed levels to the tune of nearly two standard deviations below the historical mean (middle panel, Chart 17). Relative technicals are also washed out and signal that, at least, a reflex rebound is in store in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Low Bar To Surpass Chart 17Contrary Alert: Pessimism Reigns Supreme In sum, while the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon.      Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P airlines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5AIRLX – LUV, DAL, UAL, AAL, ALK.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://us.spindices.com/vix-intro/ 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios”, dated January 13, 2020, and “When The Music Stops…”, dated January 27, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA  Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Underweight – Upgrade Alert Two recent positive developments in railroad operating metrics compel us to put rails on an upgrade alert. Specifically, our operating margin proxy is expanding at a healthy pace (second panel). Further, our core rail shipments diffusion indicator is also predicting that demand for rail freight services is primed to stage a comeback (middle panel). Despite improving operating metrics, the macro picture remains bleak. The ISM manufacturing survey, the CASS freight expenditures index and the most recent roundtable CEO survey are still firing warning shots (fourth panel). Meanwhile, the railroad debt profile remains worrisome, as CEOs have been shunning capex in favor of shareholder friendly activities (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We remain underweight the S&P railroads index, but it is now on our upgrade watch list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU.  

Underweight Transports have taken a beating recently with the heavyweight S&P railroads index leading the pack lower. Our underweight stance is paying handsome dividends and there are more gains in store in the coming months. The dour ISM manufacturing survey served as a catalyst this week to re-concentrate investors’ minds on the U.S. economy getting infected from international ails, and the trade war inflicting heavy wounds on transportation services including rail freight (second & third panels). The implication is that risk premia will continue to widen and relative railroad share prices will have to adjust lower. Tack on decelerating industry pricing power (bottom panel) and an earnings led selloff in the relative share price ratio is a rising probability outcome. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P railroads index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU.​​​​​​​

Neutral - Downgrade Alert The transportation industry is a bellwether for the economy as rising freight hauling services demand is synonymous with firming economic activity and vice versa. The recent FedEx earnings report raised red flags both for the wellbeing of the transport sector (second panel) and the U.S. economy, especially the highly cyclical manufacturing sector. The company blamed soft global macro conditions and significantly trimmed profit guidance for its fiscal year. FedEX also highlighted that the absence of a trade deal with China complicates the free movement of goods (bottom panel) and the longer the uncertainty between the U.S. and China remains in place, the longer it will take for global trade growth to heal. One saving grace for air freight stocks has been the industry’s pricing power rebound, but there are mushrooming signs that sector inflation will cool down in the coming months (third panel). We have been neutral on the S&P air freight & logistics index since removing it from our high-conviction overweight list following previous FedEx profit warning, and now we are putting this transportation subgroup and the overall transportation index on our downgrade watchlist. Bottom Line: We are neutral the S&P transportation index, but now have it on downgrade alert. Our barbell strategy within transports remains in place overweighting airlines, neutral on air freight & logistics (but it is now on downgrade alert) and underweighting rails. Stay tuned. ​​​​​​​

Energy Stocks Are Heading North Banks Clamoring For Higher Rates And A More Hawkish Fed Homebuilding Stocks Are Catching Up To Housing Starts Will Global Trade Get “Fed-Exed”? Do Not Try To Bottom Fish… ... In Cyclicals Vs. Defensives​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Overweight-Downgrade Alert Airline stocks bounced off a critical support level on the back of encouraging profit results (top panel). Lower kerosene prices especially for the non-hedged carriers are flowing straight to the bottom line and a busy travel season signals additional gains in the coming months (jet fuel shown inverted, second panel). Not only domestic, but also international airfares are rebounding smartly and signal more revenue growth for airline stocks despite the grounding of the 737 MAX jet likely into 2020 (third panel). Sell side analysts have taken notice and the industry’s net EPS revisions ratio is on a slingshot recovery. While we continue to avoid rails (see the recent Insight) and remain neutral on airfreight & logistics, airlines are a positive exception within transports.   Bottom Line: Stick with an above benchmark allocation in the S&P airlines index, but stay tuned. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, UAL, AAL and ALK.

Underweight Our underweight S&P railroads call has moved into the black as CSX rattled the industry and chopped 2019 revenue growth from positive 1-2% to negative 2%. While UNP’s numbers were better than expected and partially offset CSX’s weakness, transport data does not lie and warns that a sizable slowdown is already underway in rail freight (second panel). In fact, our rail shipments diffusion indicator is sinking like a stone to levels last hit at the depths of the GFC (third panel). Such broad-based weakness in nearly every rail carload category is worrisome and warns that overly optimistic relative profit expectations (not shown) will suffer a setback. Softening demand for rail freight services will likely remain under intense downward pressure as there is little progress made on the U.S./China trade spat front. As a result, industry pricing power will continue to wane and ignite a de-rating phase in rail valuations (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P railroads index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU.