Bear/Bull Market

Highlights The latter stages of expansions and bull markets ought to be jittery, ... : Equities tend to get jumpier in the final stages of equity bull markets, but performance typically improves enough to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. ... and tariff fights, a potential trade war, and other daunting headlines only make things worse: Tariff worries are starting to pile up in earnings calls, threatening financial markets and the real economy. When it comes to the economy, U.S. investors have to ask how much good news is too much good news: The trouble with an extended stretch of good news is that it conditions investors to keep setting the bar higher. After all, bear markets don't begin when things are bad, they begin when things can't get better. We remain constructive on risk assets, but we recognize the need for vigilance: The indicators we're watching are not signaling a turn right now, but we are keeping our eyes peeled. Feature So much for the boring bull market. After a somnolent 2017, when single-day moves of at least 1% were a rarity, and there were no 2% moves at all, volatility is back (Chart 1). The S&P 500 shed 9% in the three weeks ended Wednesday; the major small-cap indexes and the NASDAQ have fared a good bit worse; and with the vast majority of S&P 500 constituents having made corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%), breadth is crumbling. The key question for asset allocators and equity investors of all stripes is whether or not the recent moves mark the beginning of a bear market. Chart 1What A Difference A Year Makes What A Difference A Year Makes What A Difference A Year Makes We do not think they do; volatility is supposed to reawaken in the latter stages of bull markets, and we are not deterred by October's admittedly lousy action. Our work on the key cycles does not point to an imminent inflection point, and we still think the bull market has another year to go. We are conscious of the dangers of being lulled to sleep by a strong U.S. economy, but we take some comfort from a review of the way bull markets have played out over the last 50 years. A preponderance of evidence suggests that the expansion, the credit cycle, and the equity bull market are not over yet, and we recommend staying invested. The Evolution Of Bull Markets The bull market that began in March 2009 is the ninth bull market of the last 52 years.1 Bull markets have been the rule, with the S&P 500 spending less than 20% of that stretch in a bear market (Chart 2). We have previously noted that large-cap U.S. bull markets have a tendency to sprint to the finish line; the pace of appreciation tends to quicken noticeably over a bull's final stages. Chart 2Bull Markets May Be Stocks' Natural Condition ... Bull Markets May Be Stocks' Natural Condition ... Bull Markets May Be Stocks' Natural Condition ... Charts 3 and 4 present the course of bull-market gains from 1966 through 2007. Details of the bull markets, which span nearly 8,400 sessions, are listed in Table 1. Each quintile in Chart 3 reflects the aggregate performance over the eight complete bull markets between 1966 and 2007; the first quintile's performance is calculated by linking the advance in the first 104 days of Bull #1, with the advance over the first 133 days of Bull #2, the advance over the first 311 days of Bull #3, and so on through the first 252 days of Bull #8, summing to eight advances across 1,679 trading days. Decile calculations follow the same protocol, aggregating 839 or 840 days of performance. Chart 3... But Performance Within A Bull ... Late-Cycle Blues Late-Cycle Blues Chart 4... Is Quite Variable Late-Cycle Blues Late-Cycle Blues Table 1S&P 500 Bull Markets Since 1966 Late-Cycle Blues Late-Cycle Blues The return distributions are quite uneven, with only the first and last deciles clearly topping the aggregate bull-market return. Investors who underweight equities before the bull market is complete are at risk of underperforming their benchmarks. Investors who are underweight equities when the bull market commences are almost certain to underperform. Bull markets may quicken in their final stages, but they begin by being shot out of a cannon. The cannon shot may offer an important takeaway about equity positioning in bear markets, but we will take the inflections one at a time. The key U.S. equity decision currently confronting an investor is whether or not attempting to capture the final gains in this bull market is worth his/her while. Per historical annualized mean returns and standard deviations in each bull-market decile, the risk/reward profile favors remaining fully invested (Chart 5, top panel). The first and last deciles lead the way on a return-per-unit-of-risk basis just as surely as they do on an absolute-return basis (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Bulls Also Sprint To The Finish Line On A Risk-Adjusted Basis Late-Cycle Blues Late-Cycle Blues Bottom Line: The lion's share of bull-market gains are earned in their first and last deciles, on both an absolute and a risk-adjusted basis. If the bull market has another year to run, history favors maintaining at least an equal weighting in equities in spite of the recent upheaval. What Might Be Different This Time There is no shortage of factors to worry about right now. The tit-for-tat imposition of new tariff barriers is likely to exert at least some downward margin pressure for all companies that export goods to China, and/or consume resources/sell imported goods subject to tariffs. Tariffs are beginning to be cited regularly as a burden on quarterly earnings calls. Our geopolitical strategists don't expect the issue to go away any time soon; they view the trade contretemps as just one element of a struggle for preeminence between the U.S. and China. Pressure from a stronger dollar is also being blamed for lowered earnings forecasts. Comments from reliably dovish Atlanta Fed President Bostic confirmed that the FOMC is viewing developments through a more hawkish lens. Price stability is the focus at the Fed, as one should expect with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low and headed lower.2 There is more to exchange rates than policy-rate differentials, but the rising fed funds rate will keep at least some wind at the dollar's back. We do not expect that the president's ongoing attempts to discourage the Fed from continuing to hike will amount to anything. White House pressure on the Fed is nothing new, from LBJ's inimitable face-to-face negotiating style, to Nixon's (successful) campaign to influence Arthur Burns, to George H.W. Bush's testy public inveighing against rate hikes early in his term. Just last week, Paul Volcker divulged a remarkable joint effort by President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker to get the Fed to stay its hand ahead of the 1984 election. As Reagan looked on silently, according to Volcker, Baker told him, "The president is ordering you not to raise interest rates before the election."3 The news that devices resembling functional pipe bombs had been mailed to several Democratic officials, including former president Obama and the Clintons, helped to unsettle markets last Wednesday. Trade matters more to financial markets, however. For all the dispiriting headlines, it remains our view that the expansion remains healthy and is likely to continue for another year, backed by double-barreled fiscal and monetary accommodation. We are monitoring trade tensions and the dollar, but we don't yet see a catalyst to precipitate an inflection point in the key cycles. How To Fool A Macro Investor Even if the domestic economy is hale and hearty, however, investors can't blithely ignore the risks. The latter stages of expansions and bull markets can be treacherous. We know of no one who has articulated the market perils of good times as well as Oaktree Capital co-founder Howard Marks. Inspired by a client, we read all of Marks' client memos from 20074 at the beginning of the year, and we have been mulling over his concerns about the current cycle as he's raised them. Although we are not concerned about current valuation levels, the S&P 500 isn't cheap. We are encouraged that the forward earnings multiple is nearly three points off of its year-to-date high (Chart 6), but other metrics are at least somewhat elevated relative to history (Chart 7). We only get exercised about valuation at extremes, and we long ago internalized the law of mutual exclusivity: investors can have cheap stocks or good news, but they can't have both. Given the relentless drumbeat of good economic and corporate earnings news, stocks shouldn't be cheap. Chart 6Valuations Have Cooled Considerably Since January ... Valuations Have Cooled Considerably Since January ... Valuations Have Cooled Considerably Since January ... Chart 7... Across The Board ... Across The Board ... Across The Board There is a fine line between good and too good, however, because growth in mature companies and economies ultimately reverts to the mean. When expectations get too high, investors run the risk of finding themselves offside, as Marks has written: No matter how favorable and steady fundamentals may be, the markets will always be subject to substantial cyclical fluctuation. The reason is simple: even ideal conditions can become overrated and therefore overpriced. And having reached too-high levels, prices will correct, bringing capital losses despite the idealness of the environment [.] So don't fall into the trap of thinking that good fundamentals = positive market outlook [.] ... [P]rofit potential is all a matter of the relationship between intrinsic value and price. There is no level of fundamentals that can't become overpriced.5 Investment Implications We remain constructive on the economy and markets, because we do not see a near-term catalyst to cut off the expansion, the credit cycle and/or the equity bull market. Significant equity market downturns typically require outright contractions in corporate earnings (contractions, not decelerating growth, which has historically been just fine for stocks), and they rarely occur outside of recessions. Our simple recession indicator, which looks at the slope of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in leading economic indicators, and the state of Fed policy, is nowhere near danger territory.6 There is no doubt that complacent investors could get too bulled up on already-discounted good news, but fiscal stimulus would seem to ensure that a recession is out of the question in 2019. The fraught environment pushed us to cut our house view on global equities from overweight to equal weight at our June View Meeting, redirecting the proceeds to establish a cash overweight. U.S. Investment Strategy followed suit, pulling in its horns on U.S. equities. The downgrade has paid off; as of Thursday's close, the MSCI All-Country World Index had fallen 7% since June 15th, while the S&P 500 was down 2.7%. As we mentioned last week, the 2,600-2,640 range, spanning correction territory to the year-to-date lows (Chart 8), looks pretty good to us and we will look to increase our recommended equity exposure if the S&P approaches its lower bound. Chart 8The Sell-Off May Nearly Be Spent The Sell-Off May Nearly Be Spent The Sell-Off May Nearly Be Spent Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 We adhere to the classic definition of bull (and bear) markets, a trough-to-peak closing-price gain (peak-to-trough decline) of at least 20%. 2 According to the Atlanta Fed's online calculator (https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx?panel=1), it takes less than 110,000 monthly payroll gains to keep the unemployment rate at a steady state. 3 "Paul Volcker, at 91, 'Sees a Hell of a Mess in Every Direction,' New York Times. Accessed October 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/dealbook/paul-volcker-federal-reserve.html 4 Marks' memos are available to the public at https://www.oaktreecapital.com/insights/howard-marks-memos. 5 Marks, Howard, "It's All Good," July 16, 2007 Memo to Oaktree Clients, p.5. Accessed from online archive February 18, 2018. 6 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The correction in global equities is not yet over, but we would turn more constructive if stocks retreated about 6% from current levels. Among the many things bothering investors, the fate of the Chinese economy remains high on the list. Chinese growth continues to slow, with the impact of the trade war yet to be fully felt. Investors are likely to end up being disappointed by both the size and the composition of Chinese stimulus. High debt levels and excess capacity limit the prospective benefits of traditional fiscal/credit easing. Stimulus measures aimed at boosting consumption, which is what the authorities are increasingly focusing on, would help the Chinese economy. However, they would generate only small gains for the rest of the world. A weaker yuan would be outright negative for other economies. Cyclically and structurally, we expect the bond bear market to continue, but slower Chinese growth and a stronger dollar could temporarily cap Treasury yields over the coming months. Feature Correction Slightly More Than Halfway Through We argued in our October 5th report that "prudent investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets" because the market was at an elevated risk of a "phase transition" from unbridled optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks presently facing the global economy.1 The good news is that the ongoing correction will be just that, a correction. Both monetary and fiscal policy in the U.S. remain highly accommodative. The next recession will not occur until late-2020 at the earliest. U.S. equities, which account for over half of global stock market capitalization, rarely enter sustained bear markets outside of recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap The bad news is that we have yet to reach a capitulation point. As we noted last week, corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot.2 Normally, stocks need to break through prior support levels several times before "buy the dip" investors throw in the towel. This week saw the S&P 500 fall below its October 11th lows. A few more iterations of this pattern may be necessary. To repeat what we wrote before, barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on global equities again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% 6% from current levels. With that in mind, we are putting in a limit order to buy the ACWI ETF at $64.3 Emerging Markets: Time To Pay The Piper Even if we were to turn more positive on global equities, we would maintain our preference for developed market stocks over emerging markets, despite the latter's higher beta nature. The wave of liquidity created by the Fed and other major central banks over the past decade ended up flowing into places where it was not needed. Emerging markets were a prime destination: Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets now stands at levels reached just before the late-1990s Asian Crisis (Chart 2). Chart 2EM Dollar Debt At Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt At Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt At Late-1990s Levels While EM valuations have cheapened considerably, they are not yet at washed out levels. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey showed that managers were slightly net overweight emerging market equities in October. This is a far cry from 2015, when a net 30% of managers were underweight EM stocks. Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? China figures heavily into the equation. If the Chinese government were to deliver a massive dose of traditional fiscal/credit easing, this would boost fixed-asset investment and thus commodity prices, helping emerging markets in the process. Such a dollop of stimulus would also lift global growth. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar tends to weaken when global growth accelerates (Chart 3). The reflationary impulse from higher commodity prices and a softer dollar would be manna from heaven for emerging markets. Chart 3Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar If we had strong confidence that such a burst of stimulus were forthcoming, we would be comfortable in calling the end of the global stock market correction now and going overweight EM assets. Unfortunately, the evidence so far suggests that while the Chinese authorities are stimulating the economy, they are not doing so by enough to reignite growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Growth Remains Soft Chinese Growth Remains Soft Chinese Growth Remains Soft Real GDP increased at a weaker-than-expected pace in the third quarter. Industrial production surprised on the downside in September, echoing declines in the manufacturing PMI. Home sales are running well below housing starts, suggesting downside risk for the latter in the months ahead. Goldman's China Current Activity Indicator has continued to grind lower, while the economic surprise index remains mired in negative territory. Our conversations with clients suggest that most are expecting the recently announced stimulus measures to arrest and then reverse the downward trend in growth. We are not so sure. As our geopolitical team has stressed, the Chinese government has expended a lot of political capital on its reform agenda.4 Abandoning it now would not only cause the government to lose credibility, but it would undermine the very reasons it was implemented in the first place. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart 5). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 6). Our China team estimates that 15%-to-20% of apartments are sitting vacant.5 Chart 5China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 6Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For Chinese SOEs Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For Chinese SOEs Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For Chinese SOEs Today, Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. As such, we are skeptical that the recent acceleration in credit growth will have long legs (Chart 7). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some companies which are receiving credit are simply holding on to the cash, rather than running the risk of being accused of investing in money-losing projects. Monetary policy in China is increasingly pushing on a string. Chart 7China: Only A Modest Acceleration In Credit Growth China: Only A Modest Acceleration In Credit Growth China: Only A Modest Acceleration In Credit Growth Rebalancing: Be Careful What You Wish For This does not mean that China will not try to prop up its economy. It will. But the form of stimulus the government pursues may not be to foreign investors' liking. For example, consider the recently announced income tax reforms, which raise the threshold at which households need to start paying taxes while increasing deductions for education, health, housing, and eldercare. In and of themselves, these measures are admirable and long overdue. The Chinese income tax system is fairly regressive. Poor households face an effective income tax rate exceeding 40%. This is well above OECD norms (Chart 8).6 A more progressive tax system would boost consumption among poorer households. Chart 8High Tax Burden For Low-Income Households In China Chinese Stimulus: Not So Stimulating Chinese Stimulus: Not So Stimulating The snag is that raw materials and capital goods comprise 85% of Chinese imports. As Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's Chief EM strategist, has long noted, policies that boost Chinese consumption are simply less beneficial to the rest of the world than policies that boost investment.7 Pundits who talk about the virtue of "rebalancing" the Chinese economy away from fixed-asset investment and towards consumer spending should be careful what they wish for! The Trade War Will Heat Up One of the more notable aspects of China's recent slowdown is that it has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in net exports. Remarkably, Chinese exports to the U.S. actually increased by 12% in dollar terms in the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period in 2017. However, judging from the steep drop in the export component of both the official and private-sector Chinese manufacturing PMI, the export sector is likely to come under increasing pressure over the next few quarters as the headwinds from higher tariffs fully manifest themselves (Chart 9). Chart 9China: An Ominous Sign For Exports China: An Ominous Sign For Exports China: An Ominous Sign For Exports Investors hoping that U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will reach a deal to end the trade war on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Buenos Aires on November 29 are likely to be disappointed. As we have stressed in the past, Trump's fiscal policy is completely inconsistent with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus in a full-employment economy will suck in imports. It will also force the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a larger trade deficit. Trump will not be able to blame Canada or Mexico for a deteriorating trade position because he just signed a "big, beautiful" trade agreement with them (incidentally, the new USCAM USMCA agreement is remarkably similar to the "horrible" one that it replaced with the notable exception that it contains a clause barring Canada and Mexico from negotiating bilateral trade deals with China). This means Trump needs a patsy who will take the blame for America's burgeoning trade deficit. Reaching a deal with China would actually be a strategic mistake for Trump's political career. A Weaker RMB Ahead A weaker Chinese currency would blunt some of the pain inflicted on China's export sector from Trump's tariffs. There is obviously a limit to how far China can let its currency slide, but last week's decision by the U.S. Treasury to refrain from labeling China a currency manipulator will probably embolden the Chinese to allow the currency to depreciate some more from current levels.8 A weaker Chinese currency would be a cold shower for the rest of the world. Not only will it make other economies less competitive in global markets; it will also reduce Chinese imports. Concluding Thoughts Investors spend a lot of time debating the magnitude of China's stimulus plans and not enough time thinking about the composition of that stimulus. Credit/fiscal easing of the sort China has historically engaged in is good for other emerging markets because it sucks in raw materials and capital goods. In contrast, consumption-based stimulus is only modestly beneficial to the rest of the world, while a weaker Chinese currency is an outright negative for other economies. If China focuses more on the latter two types of stimulus and less on the former, global investors are likely to be disappointed. Emerging market assets have cheapened considerably over the past few months and will likely find a bottom in the first half of next year. For now, however, investors should overweight developed market stocks relative to their EM peers. Consistent with our July 5, 2016 call declaring "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," both the cyclical and structural trend in bond yields is firmly to the upside. Tactically, however, bonds are deeply oversold (Chart 10). The combination of slower EM growth, disappointments over the magnitude and composition of Chinese stimulus, and a stronger dollar will put a lid on yields over the next few months. Chart 10Treasurys Are Oversold Treasurys Are Oversold Treasurys Are Oversold Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today," dated October 19, 2018. 3 Valid during extended trading hours. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two," dated August 15, 2018. 5 Please see Emerging Market Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is China Heading For A Minsky Moment?" dated April 13, 2018. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018. 8 Ironically, while China may not be manipulating its currency based on the Treasury's legal definition, economic logic suggests it is. True, China is no longer buying dollars in a bid to weaken the yuan. In fact, its reserves have actually declined significantly since 2015. However, the value of the yuan is determined not just by current dollar purchases; it is also determined by those that have taken place in the past. If a central bank buys dollars, this bids up the value of those dollars relative to its own currency. If it then stops buying dollars, its currency does not instantly fall back to its original level. All things equal, it just stays where it is. The best parallel is with quantitative easing. Both theory and evidence suggest that it is the stock of bonds that a central bank owns, rather than the flow of bonds in and out of its balance sheet, that determines the level of yields. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The combination of slower global growth, trade protectionism, Italy's budget crisis, and rising Treasury yields have made U.S. equities increasingly vulnerable to a phase transition from euphoric optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks facing the global economy. The good news is that the U.S. economy is still quite healthy and none of our recession indicators are flashing red. This suggests that the correction which began last week will be just that, a correction. The bad news is that corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot. Stock market sentiment is still fairly ebullient, which suggests that it will take more pain to put in a bottom. Investors should anticipate renewed weakness in risk assets over the coming days, but be prepared to increase exposure to global equities if they retreat 9% from current levels. Feature Global Equities: How Low Will They Go? I have been on the road meeting clients this week. Not surprisingly, much of the discussion has focused on what caused last week's stock market sell-off and whether the rebound earlier this week marked the end of the correction. At times like these, I am reminded of Robert Shiller's study of the 1987 stock market crash. Soon after the crash, Shiller sent questionnaires to investors soliciting their views on what caused stocks to swoon. Shiller's assessment downplayed the role of program trading, instead ascribing the crash to investor panic.1 Simply put, Shiller contended that investors were selling because other investors were selling. While I broadly agree with Shiller's conclusion, I think his argument can be enhanced by drawing on a ubiquitous concept in physics: the idea of "phase transitions." Phase Transitions In Financial Markets A phase transition occurs when a substance changes from a solid, liquid, or gas into a different state. For example, water remains a liquid until its temperature either falls below zero degrees Celsius, at which point it becomes a solid (ice), or rises above 100°C, where it turns into gas (steam). The relationship between water and temperature is highly nonlinear. To someone who can only visually observe the contents of a kettle, it is difficult to say if the temperature of the water is 20°C or 80°C. The same principle applies to markets. Sometimes, as economic and financial stresses build, nothing discernible happens until a phase transition is reached, at which point everything goes haywire. Importantly for investors, these phase transitions are surprisingly common and, at least with the benefit of hindsight, are often predictable. The Twilight Zone From Boom To Bust Consider the lead-up to five market crashes in the U.S. over the past 100 years: 1929: The conventional wisdom is that the stock market crash of October 1929 was the first hint that the economy was about to go into a tailspin. But, in fact, automobile, machinery, and steel production were already falling by the summer of 1929 (Chart 1). Automobile output had declined by a third by the time stocks reached their zenith. Investors simply ignored the fact that the economic thermostat was plunging towards zero in those late summer months, setting the stage for a phase transition from boom to bust. Chart 1The Economy Had Started To Deteriorate Before The 1929 Stock Market Crash The Economy Had Started To Deteriorate Before The 1929 Stock Market Crash The Economy Had Started To Deteriorate Before The 1929 Stock Market Crash 1987: It was not so much one single thing that caused the stock market crash on October 19, 1987, but a culmination of things that the market either ignored or downplayed in the months leading up to Black Monday. A rising U.S. trade deficit and a falling dollar raised concerns that the Fed would be forced to expedite the pace of rate hikes. The 10-year Treasury yield increased from 7.1% at the start of 1987 to almost 10% on the eve of the crash (Chart 2). The House of Representatives filed legislation that sought to eliminate the tax benefits of financial mergers. Against a backdrop of increasingly stretched valuations, these developments were enough to bring the temperature of the stock market below zero. Chart 2Treasury Yields Spiked In The Run-Up To The 1987 Crash Treasury Yields Spiked In The Run-Up To The 1987 Crash Treasury Yields Spiked In The Run-Up To The 1987 Crash 1998: Popular lore attributes the 22% plunge in the S&P 500 from July 20 to October 8 to the implosion of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), but in fact almost all of the decline in the index occurred before the problems at LTCM surfaced. It was more the steady drip of bad news over the course of 1998 - the spread of the EM crisis from Thailand to Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea; the collapse of Hong Kong-based Peregrine Investments Holdings, Asia's largest private investment bank at the time; growing fears that China would devalue its currency; and finally, the Russian sovereign debt default - which caused market sentiment among U.S. investors to turn from euphoric ambivalence to bearish panic (Chart 3). Chart 3Key Events During The Asian Crisis Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today 2000: After cutting interest rates three times in the autumn of 1998, the Fed resumed hiking rates, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to a cycle high of 6.5% in May 2000. The Fed's actions pushed monetary policy into restrictive territory, weakening the foundation on which the stock market boom had been built. A massive wave of equity issuance from initial and secondary public offerings only made matters worse. Net corporate equity issuance went from -$111 billion in 1998, to $6 billion in 1999, to $153 billion in Q1 of 2000 alone (Chart 4). With the market unable to absorb the increase in the supply of shares, prices began to tumble. Chart 4A Tidal Wave Of Equity Issuance Preceded The 2000 Crash A Tidal Wave Of Equity Issuance Preceded The 2000 Crash A Tidal Wave Of Equity Issuance Preceded The 2000 Crash 2008: The stock market crash in the autumn of 2008 did not come out of the blue. U.S. home prices peaked in April 2006 - twenty months before the recession officially began. Delinquency rates on both conventional and nonconventional mortgages had already more than doubled by late-2007 (Chart 5). By then, residential investment had already fallen by 2.5% of GDP from its high in December 2005. Investors may be forgiven for not appreciating the full extent of the mortgage problem. However, it should have been clear, even at the time, that nothing was going to fill the void in aggregate demand that the decline in housing-related spending had opened up. This made a recession highly likely. Chart 5The U.S. Housing Sector Weakened Sharply Prior To The 2008 Crash The U.S. Housing Sector Weakened Sharply Prior To The 2008 Crash The U.S. Housing Sector Weakened Sharply Prior To The 2008 Crash Corrections Vs. Bear Markets The five sell-offs discussed above share many similarities, along with a number of key differences. As far as the similarities are concerned, all five began when stocks were richly priced and macro fundamentals were starting to look increasingly shaky (Chart 6). Chart 6Bear Markets Tend To Occur When Earnings Disappoint Bear Markets Tend To Occur When Earnings Disappoint Bear Markets Tend To Occur When Earnings Disappoint The differences lie mainly in what happened to stocks after the dam burst. In 1987 and 1998, equities quickly bottomed; whereas the initial drop in stocks in 1929, 2000, and 2008 was followed by further declines, morphing into major bear markets. The evolution of the economy distinguishes the two sets of episodes. The 1929, 2000, and 2008 sell-offs foreshadowed significant declines in economic activity and corporate earnings. In contrast, neither the stock market crash in 1987 nor the one in 1998 presaged any imminent economic doom. The latter two episodes were among those "false positives" that had led Paul Samuelson to quip decades earlier that "the stock market had predicted nine out of the last five recessions."2 History suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when the economy is suffering from significant macroeconomic imbalances. Both the 1929 and 2008 crashes were preceded by large increases in leverage (Chart 7). This made the financial system highly vulnerable to economic shocks. History also suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when policymakers lack either the will or the tools to stimulate the economy. The Fed did little to arrest the myriad bank failures in the early 1930s. This negligence allowed the money supply to decline by one-third, which caused deflation to set in. Chart 7Large Increases In Leverage Occurred During The Lead-Up To The 1929 & 2008 Crashes Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today Policymakers were more adept in combating the Great Recession, but were nevertheless constrained by a lack of regulatory authority to handle distressed nonbank financial institutions. The zero lower bound on short-term interest rates also limited the Fed's ability to cut rates by enough to revive growth, a pernicious constraint given Congress' unwillingness to enact a sufficiently large fiscal stimulus program. Both the 1987 and 1998 crashes had the potential to spawn recessions. Fortunately, policymakers were quick to put out the fire. The Federal Reserve eased short-term liquidity conditions by engaging in large-scale open market operations in the hours following the 1987 crash. The Fed also issued a statement affirming "its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system."3 Likewise, the FOMC's decision to cut rates in the autumn of 1998 helped to temporarily weaken the dollar and give some breathing room to struggling emerging markets. The Fed was slower to cut rates after the stock market fell in March 2000, partly because the economy was more overheated by that point than it was in 1998. In addition, the bubble in stocks was much greater in 2000, as were the economic imbalances created by years of easy financing, chief of which was a massive overhang of capital spending in the tech sector (Chart 8). Chart 8The Dotcom Boom Created A Massive Overhang In Tech Sector Capex The Dotcom Boom Created A Massive Overhang In Tech Sector Capex The Dotcom Boom Created A Massive Overhang In Tech Sector Capex Lessons For Today Buying on the dips in the early stages of a bear market is usually a recipe for disaster. Investors who jumped back into the stock market in September 2008 were in for a rude awakening as stocks continued to plummet into October and November. It was only in March 2009, when the first green shoots appeared, that the stock market finally bottomed. In contrast, buying into a correction tends to be a profitable strategy, provided one does so when technical indicators are signaling that a capitulation point has been reached. This brings us to today. The combination of slower global growth, trade protectionism, Italy's budget crisis, and rising Treasury yields have made U.S. equities increasingly vulnerable to a phase transition from euphoric optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks presently facing the global economy. The good news is that the U.S. economy is still quite healthy and none of our recession indicators are flashing red (Chart 9). As we discussed two weeks ago, aggregate demand continues to benefit from fiscal stimulus, strong credit growth, and a strengthening labor market.4 While bond yields have risen, they are still far from levels that will choke off growth. This suggests that the correction which began last week will be just that, a correction. Chart 9A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent The bad news is that corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot. Stock market sentiment is still fairly ebullient, which suggests that it will take more pain to put in a bottom (Chart 10). This message is echoed by our forthcoming MacroQuant model, which is designed to gauge the "internal temperature" of the market. (Chart 11). It is currently pointing to downside risk for the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. Chart 10Stock Market Sentiment Is Still Fairly Elevated Stock Market Sentiment Is Still Fairly Elevated Stock Market Sentiment Is Still Fairly Elevated Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends Continued Caution Towards Equities Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today Even EM sentiment has yet to reach bombed-out levels. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey showed that managers were slightly net overweight emerging market equities in October. This is a far cry from 2015, when a net 30% of managers were underweight EM stocks. Bottom Line: Investors should anticipate renewed weakness in risk assets over the coming days, but be prepared to increase exposure to global equities if they retreat 9% from current levels. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert J. Shiller, "Investor Behavior in the October 1987 Stock Market Crash: Survey Evidence," NBER Working Paper (2446), November 1987. 2 Paul Samuelson, "Science and Stocks," Newsweek, September 19, 1966 (p. 92). 3 Mark Carlson, "A Brief History of the 1987 Stock Market Crash with a Discussion of the Federal Reserve Response," Federal Reserve, 2006. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The current market action in the EM equity space qualifies as a bear market, not a correction. Yet the magnitude of this drawdown (25%) is still considerably smaller than the median stock price drop (45%) of previous bear markets. Hence, more downside in EM share prices in dollar terms is to be expected. The Federal Reserve is not about to rescue EM - not until U.S. share prices fall considerably and the dollar appreciates sharply. For EM dedicated equity portfolios, we are downgrading Taiwan from overweight to neutral (please see page 11). We reiterate our underweight stance on Peruvian stocks (please see page 14). Feature All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina To rephrase Leo Tolstoy's famous quote from Anna Karenina: All bull markets are alike; but, each bear market is distinctive in its own way. The emerging market stock index has dropped by 25% from its January high. We reckon EMs are in a bear market - not a correction. Thus, there is still meaningful downside in EM financial markets, and it is still too early to bottom-fish. Many commentators and investors are comparing the current selloff with other bear markets, most notably those that occurred in 1997-'98 and 2014-'15. Our answer to these comparisons is the above quote from Tolstoy. This EM rout is different from the previous ones, including the most recent one that occurred in 2015. Yet just because this selloff is in certain aspects unlike previous bear markets does not mean it is not a full-fledged bear market. Bear Markets Versus Corrections There is no scientific distinction between a bear market and a correction. The below considerations suggest to us that EMs are in a genuine bear market, not a correction. These deliberations complement rather than substitute our fundamental analysis that foreshadows weakening growth and deteriorating profitability in EM/China - the topics that we regularly discuss at great length in our weekly reports. Chart I-1 portrays EM share prices since the mid-1980s and identifies periods of bear markets. Bear markets differ from corrections not only by the magnitude of drawdowns but also by duration. We define an EM bear market as a drawdown that either lasted longer than six months or in which peak-to-trough price declines exceeded 25%. Chart I-1EM Stock Prices: A Long-Term Perspective Of Bear Markets EM Stock Prices: A Long-Term Perspective Of Bear Markets EM Stock Prices: A Long-Term Perspective Of Bear Markets Table I-1 and Table I-2 illustrate EM equity corrections and bear markets over the past 30+ years, respectively. Median and mean EM equity market corrections have historically lasted one and a half to two months, with price drawdowns of 18% in U.S. dollar terms each (Table I-1). On the other hand, median and mean EM equity bear markets have lasted eight to 10 months, with share prices falling by 45% (Table I-2). EMs Are In A Bear Market EMs Are In A Bear Market The current selloff is already more than eight months old, with share prices down 25% in dollar terms. Its duration has by far surpassed that of previous corrections. Therefore, the current market action in the EM equity space qualifies as a bear market. If this bear market produces a drawdown of 45%, on par with the median bear market, it would require another 30% drop in EM share prices in dollar terms from current levels. The range of price declines of previous EM equity bear markets is between 31% and 67%. For the current selloff to match the lowest point of this range (31%), share prices should fall another 10%. These estimates should help investors conduct their own scenario analyses. Our bias is that there will likely be at least another 15% drop in EM share prices before the risk-reward profile of this asset class improves. The way this EM selloff has been evolving is more consistent with a bear market than a correction. As a rule, EM equity corrections are sharp but short-lived. Table 1 shows that EM equity corrections have typically lasted from one to three months. In corrections, all markets drop together at once. In contrast, bear markets are drawn out, and domino effects leading to rotational selloffs are the norm. The current episode corresponds more to this pattern. Initially, the EM market riot was concentrated among discernably vulnerable markets such as Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. Then, the epicenter of the selloff rotated to emerging Asia, where large equity markets including China, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong took a beating1 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2EM: Rotational Selloffs EM: Rotational Selloffs EM: Rotational Selloffs A similar pattern of rotational selloffs prevailed in the 1997-'98 bear market in EM and in 2007-'08 in the U.S. (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). Chart I-3ARotational Selloffs During EM Bear Markets EMs Are In A Bear Market EMs Are In A Bear Market Chart I-3BRotational Selloffs During U.S. Credit Crisis In 2007-08 EMs Are In A Bear Market EMs Are In A Bear Market With the exception of bombed-out cases like Turkey and Argentina, there has been no panic-selling or forced liquidation. Although the current EM selloff has already been stretched out, it appears that selling has been rather reluctant. It would be unusual if a selloff of this magnitude and duration, occurring amid worsening EM/China growth and Fed tightening, does not culminate into liquidation/capitulation. We still expect such capitulation to occur. In fact, this would be one of the signposts for us to turn positive on EM. Bottom Line: Taking into account the duration and disposition of the current selloff, EM stocks are in a bear market, not a correction. That said, the magnitude of this drawdown (25%) is still smaller than the median price falloff (45%) and the range of price declines of previous EM bear markets. Hence, there is potentially another 10-30% price drop for EM stocks in dollar terms for this bear market to be on par with the smallest and median EM bear markets, respectively. Technical Signposts Of A Bear Market There are a number of technical signposts that are consistent with further downside in EM risk assets and currencies: Relative share price performance of EM versus DM has failed to break above its long-term moving average that has in the past served as an important technical support or resistance (Chart I-4). This entails that the relative bear market in EM versus DM is intact, and major fresh lows lie ahead. Chart I-4EM Versus DM: Relative Stock Prices In U.S. Dollars Rotational Selloffs During U.S. Credit Crisis In 2007-08 Rotational Selloffs During U.S. Credit Crisis In 2007-08 In absolute terms, the crest in EM share prices early this year was typical of a major top. The EM equity index has failed to break above its previous tops (Chart I-1 on page 1). This represents bearish price formation. Usually, when a market fails to break above its previous tops, a major downslide ensues. In short, the chart formation of EM stocks is in line with a bear market - not a correction. The breadth of the EM equity selloff has been extensive, entailing a genuine bear market. The stock market selloff has not been limited to large-cap names. Both the EM small-cap and equally-weighted stock indexes have in fact sold off more (Chart I-5). Chart I-5EM Equity Selloff Is Broad-Based EM Versus DM: Relative Stock Prices In U.S. Dollars EM Versus DM: Relative Stock Prices In U.S. Dollars The global equity sectors exposed to EM/China growth such as industrials, chemicals, mining and steel have all relapsed after failing to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-6). This entails more downside in their share prices, and corroborates our view that global trade growth will deteriorate further. Chart I-6Global Cyclicals Are Breaking Down EM Equity Selloff Is Broad-Based EM Equity Selloff Is Broad-Based Asian semiconductor stocks are breaking down - another bad omen for global trade and Asian growth (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Asian Semiconductor Stocks Are Plunging Global Cyclicals Are Breaking Down Global Cyclicals Are Breaking Down U.S. Treasury yields as well as U.S. TIPS yields have broken out, and there is more upside to come. Odds are that U.S. interest rate expectations will continue to ratchet higher, which will weigh on EM currencies and risk assets. In terms of risks to our view, the technical profile of the U.S. dollar looks worrisome (Chart I-8). The broad trade-weighted greenback might potentially be forming a head-and-shoulder pattern. If the dollar relapses, EM risk assets will rally, and our negative stance on EM will turn out wrong. Chart I-8Trade-Weighted Broad U.S. Dollar: At A Vulnerable Spot? Asian Semiconductor Stocks Are Plunging Asian Semiconductor Stocks Are Plunging For now, however, we maintain that current global macro dynamics warrant a stronger dollar. In particular, a stronger dollar is required to redistribute growth away from the U.S. and towards the rest of the world.2 Specifically, the U.S. needs a strong dollar to cap budding inflation. For now, we view the recent dollar's softness as a short-term correction from overbought levels. Is A Replay Of February 2016 In Cards? A number of clients have been questioning whether current global macro dynamics - in certain aspects - is reminiscent of the peak in the dollar and the bottom in EM and global equity and credit markets that occurred in February 2016. Back then, the Fed paused its tightening cycle, and China's fiscal and credit stimulus put a floor under mainland growth. These measures combined marked a major top in the dollar and a bottom in EM risk assets. Presently, conditions are substantially different from those that prevailed during that time. In particular: Presently, there is no basis for the Fed to halt its tightening. The U.S. economy is now much stronger - nominal GDP growth is 5.4% versus 2.4% in the first quarter of 2016 (Chart I-9, top panel). Manufacturing production - excluding oil and mining output - is presently very robust (Chart I-9, middle panel). This stands in stark contrast to early 2016 when it was shrinking. Chart I-9U.S. Growth Is Much Stronger Today Than In Early 2016 Trade-Weighted Broad U.S. Dollar: At A Vulnerable Spot? Trade-Weighted Broad U.S. Dollar: At A Vulnerable Spot? Importantly, the U.S. output gap is positive, and core inflation is 2% and rising (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Overall, the Fed is not about to pause. On the contrary, U.S. interest rate expectations are still low relative to what is required to restrain America's growth and cap budding inflation. In short, the Fed is not about to rescue EM - not until the latter's financial and economic conditions deteriorate much more, U.S. asset prices fall considerably and the dollar appreciates sharply. In China, the fiscal and credit stimulus implemented so far has been insufficient to bolster growth. The impact of previous tightening is working its way through the economy, and the recent liquidity and fiscal stimuli have so far been insufficient to kick off a new business cycle upturn. We will re-visit this issue in next week's report. EM equities are not yet as cheap as they were at their 2016 lows, according to their cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio (Chart I-10). Another 15% decline in EM share prices will bring the EM CAPE ratio to one standard deviation below its mean - the level where the EM CAPE ratio bottomed in early 2016. Chart I-10EM Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio: Not Very Cheap U.S. Growth Is Much Stronger Today Than In Early 2016 U.S. Growth Is Much Stronger Today Than In Early 2016 Crucially, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation metric. It matters for investment horizons beyond two to three years. It is not a useful gauge for the next 12 months or so. As such, even for long-term investors, the risk-reward trade-off for EM stocks is not yet favorable. Bottom Line: Conditions do not exist for the Fed to halt its tightening campaign. This, along with the currently limited stimulus from China and not-so-cheap EM equity valuations, entail that a major bottom in EM stocks is not in the cards. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrading Taiwanese Stocks 18 October 2018 We have been overweighting Taiwanese stocks within an EM equity portfolio since 2007, and this bourse has outperformed the EM index by 30% since that time (Chart II-1). Presently, odds of a pullback in relative performance have risen considerably, and we recommend reducing allocation to this bourse from overweight to neutral. Chart II-1Take Profits On Overweight Taiwanese Stocks Position Take Profits On Overweight Taiwanese Stocks Position Take Profits On Overweight Taiwanese Stocks Position With the exception of DRAM prices, semiconductor prices are collapsing (Chart II-2). This is a nail in the coffin for this semi- and technology hardware-heavy bourse. Chart II-2Deflation In Semiconductor Prices Deflation In Semiconductor Prices Deflation In Semiconductor Prices In the past, Taiwan has depreciated its currency to offset the impact of falling export prices in dollar terms on corporate profitability. This option is no longer available to the authorities. It seems the Trump administration has made it clear to the island that its political and military support partially hinges on Taiwan not intervening in the currency market. In short, the authorities will not be able to resort to material currency depreciation to fight deflation in manufacturing goods as they have in the past. This is bad news for Taiwan's manufacturing-heavy economy, and especially corporate profitability. Exports and manufacturing are decelerating (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Taiwan's Business Cycle Taiwan's Business Cycle Taiwan's Business Cycle Exports of electronic products parts lead non-financial EBITDA, and currently foreshadow a deteriorating profit outlook (Chart II-4). Chart II-4Taiwan: Corporate Profits Are At Risk Taiwan: Corporate Profits Are At Risk Taiwan: Corporate Profits Are At Risk The recent underperformance of Taiwanese small-cap stocks versus their EM peers is a red flag for the relative performance of large caps. Last but not least, Taiwan is extremely exposed to U.S.-China strategic tensions, as our geopolitical team has argued.3 Escalating geopolitical and strategic tensions between the U.S. and China are taking us closer to a point where these risks are set to materialize, and the risk premium on Taiwanese equities to rise. This will hurt Taiwanese stocks' performance in both absolute and relative terms. Bottom Line: We are downgrading our allocation to Taiwanese stocks from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. This bourse is also vulnerable in absolute terms. This shift is also consistent with our overall portfolio strategy of reducing equity allocations to Asia in favor of Latin America, as well as with our new equity trade of shorting emerging Asia versus Latin America - a recommendation we made last week. In emerging Asia, having downgraded Taiwan, we now remain overweight only in Korea and Thailand. Peru: An Unsustainable Divergence 18 October 2018 Relative performance of Peruvian equities to EM has been resilient over the past nine months despite falling industrial and precious metals prices and a buoyant dollar (Chart III-1, top panel). Banks, and in particular Peru's financial behemoth, Credicorp, have been the primary contributors to Peruvian market outperformance.4 Excluding banks from the stock index shows that non-financials stocks have not outperformed the EM benchmark since early 2017 (Chart III-1, bottom panel). Chart III-1Peruvian Relative Equity Performance Has Diverged From Metals Prices Peruvian Relative Equity Performance Has Diverged From Metals Prices Peruvian Relative Equity Performance Has Diverged From Metals Prices Is such a divergence between metals prices and Peru's relative equity performance sustainable over the coming year? We think not. Balance of payment (BoP) dynamics has historically driven the macro cycle in Peru. In 2016-17, a favorable external backdrop - high commodity prices and capital inflows into EM - led to a stable exchange rate that in turn allowed the Peruvian central bank to cut interest rates by 150bps. Domestic demand has recovered briskly. However, based on our overall global macro view, we expect Peru's BoP to deteriorate and the virtuous cycle to reverse for the time being. Terms of trade are set to deteriorate with lower industrial and precious metals prices. Mining exports represent 60% of total exports, and the drop in copper and gold prices will dampen the value of exports. Historically, the currency and share prices perform poorly when the trade balance deteriorates (Chart III-2). Chart III-2Current Account Dictates Currency And Equity Trends Current Account Dictates Currency And Equity Trends Current Account Dictates Currency And Equity Trends Importantly, a strong dollar and a global EM riot will lead to diminishing foreign portfolio inflows. Foreigners own 42% of the local fixed-income market and any currency weakness could prompt hedging of currency risk. This will necessitate the central bank (the BCRP) to intervene in the foreign exchange market to defend the sol. By doing so, the central bank will withdraw domestic liquidity - banks' excess reserves at the BCRP will shrink (Chart III-3). Tightening local currency liquidity will lead to higher interbank rates (Chart III-4). Chart III-3Central Bank Selling FX Reserves = Lower Domestic Liquidity Central Bank Selling FX Reserves = Lower Domestic Liquidity Central Bank Selling FX Reserves = Lower Domestic Liquidity Chart III-4Lower Domestic Liquidity = Higher Rates Lower Domestic Liquidity = Higher Rates Lower Domestic Liquidity = Higher Rates Rising interbank rates will dampen banks' net interest margin as well as constrain loan growth in the process. In short, banks' profitability will be materially affected. Interestingly, interest rates, shown as inverted in the chart, correlate with banks' share prices (Chart III-5, top panel). Chart III-5Higher Rates Will Hurt Bank Stocks Higher Rates Will Hurt Bank Stocks Higher Rates Will Hurt Bank Stocks Finally, a slowdown in the economy and higher borrowing costs, both local and U.S. dollar, will cause non-performing loans (NPLs) to rise. Banks will be forced to increase provisions for non-performing assets, hurting bank profits in the process (Chart III-5, bottom panel). In terms of financial markets implications, we have the following observations and recommendations to make: Peruvian stock prices have been unable to break above their previous highs in absolute terms, pointing to a major top (Chart III-6). Chart III-6A Major Top? A Major Top? A Major Top? We recommend maintaining an underweight allocation to Peru in an EM dedicated equity portfolio. A negative external backdrop - rising U.S. interest rates, a strong dollar and falling commodities prices - constitute a major headwind for this equity market. Fixed income investors with local market exposure should consider betting on curve flattening given the outlook of higher short-term rates and decelerating growth. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed the domino effect in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, the link is available on page 19. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments," dated September 20, 2018, the link is available on page 19. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, the link is available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Credicorp constitutes 70% of the Peru MSCI Index. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Our October house view meeting was mostly uneventful, ... : The backup in bond yields has so far proceeded in line with our expectations, and the BCA consensus is that they have not risen enough to pose a fundamental threat to equities. ... in contrast to the action in global equities: Single-day declines of 3-4% in headline equity indexes around the world gave investors a jolt, and revived the too-far/too-long talk about equity gains with a new intensity. We do not believe that the end of the U.S. equity bull market is at hand, ... : The components of our recession indicator do not suggest that a recession, or a bear market, is on the horizon. It appears that the fiscal stimulus package will keep the expansion going into 2020. ... but thinking through the factors that would lead us to downgrade equities will help put the ongoing data flow into context: In addition to the elements of our bear-market/recession indicator, we consider items that could pressure earnings, spur inflation, or indicate the presence of widespread exuberance. Feature BCA's strategists held their October View Meeting last Tuesday. The monthly meeting gathers all of the editorial staff together to determine the firm's internal consensus on the future direction of markets. The results are published in the form of our House View Matrix, and the discussion and debate of the rationales underpinning our views inform the content of the individual services' publications. The agenda this month focused squarely on interest rates, and consisted of two basic questions: 1) Why are Treasury yields rising, and what does it mean for other asset classes? 2) How worried should we be about the surge in Italian bond yields? Neither question provoked much disagreement. The room broadly agreed that Treasury yields have been rising for the welcome reason that robust U.S. growth calls for higher rates. The Fed has been doing its part at the short end via its gradual quarter-point-per-quarter rate-hike pace, and the bond market got into the act two weeks ago, breaking out to a new seven-year high on robust data releases and Chairman Powell's "long-way-from-neutral" remark (Chart 1). Our bond strategists expect that the Fed will walk back Powell's seemingly off-the-cuff comment, but its substance meshes easily with our assessment of a burgeoning economy that may well overheat in the face of supply constraints. Chart 1Breakout Breakout Breakout As we have recently argued, the implications for equities depend much more on the level of rates than on their direction. Until real rates begin to squeeze the economy, history suggests that their impact on stocks will be benign. All else equal, higher real rates are a by-product of a stronger economy, and increased economic strength has helped stocks more than the larger haircuts on future cash flows, mandated by a higher discount rate, have hurt them. Using real potential GDP as a proxy for the level at which higher rates would slow the economy, we estimate that the bull market won't meet its demise until the 10-year Treasury yield reaches 3.75-4%.1 Consensus was quickly reached on the Italian question. Although the situation bears close monitoring, BCA does not deem Italy to be a flash point for global financial markets. Our base case is that bond markets can easily handle the deficit back-and-forth between Rome and Brussels, and that the more worrisome outcome - Italy's exit from the Eurozone - is increasingly remote. A bond selloff could become self-perpetuating, but our Global Investment Strategy service believes that European policy makers would intervene if Italian sovereign yields broke above 4%.2 Some strategists expressed interest in downgrading the equity view to underweight. Although a considerable majority voted to maintain BCA's neutral stance, the final stages of the meeting were devoted to debating the merits of a more bearish take. That discussion led us to think about the factors that might encourage us to downgrade our view on equities. The rest of this week's report lays out those factors in the form of an equity-downgrade checklist to accompany the rates checklist we rolled out last month. Together, the two checklists will provide a real-time guide to the evolution of our key asset-allocation views. Our Base-Case Bull-Market Denouement While U.S. Investment Strategy has been slightly more constructive than the BCA consensus, we joined in the house-view downgrade of global equities in June without lament. We did so on the grounds that the latter stages of expansions and bull markets can be treacherous, and significant geopolitical uncertainties could make the current iteration especially so. Last week's swoon, and its remarkable intra-day equity volatility, revealed the wisdom of staying within sight of the shore. We nonetheless believe that it is too early to underweight equities and spread product. We remain constructive on the outlook because we expect the monetary policy cycle, the business cycle, and the credit cycle have yet to run their course. All three will continue to provide an equity tailwind for roughly another year, while allowing spread product to generate excess returns over Treasuries for another quarter or two. Our base case is that the cycles will turn once aggregate demand, ginned up by fiscal stimulus, runs into capacity constraints, stoking inflation pressures and compelling the Fed to impose more restrictive policy settings. Once tight policy is in place, the equity bull market will come to an end, followed by the expansion. The Equity Downgrade Checklist Recessions and bear markets regularly coincide (Chart 2), as multiple de-rating is typically not enough to effect a 20% decline on its own. Earnings have to contract as well, and they typically only do so within the context of a recession. The three components of our recession indicator3 - an inverted yield curve (Chart 3); year-over-year contraction in the index of leading economic indicators (Chart 4); and tight policy, defined as a target fed funds rate greater than the equilibrium fed funds rate (Chart 5) - comprise the first three items on our checklist (Table 1). We round out the recession section by watching for an uptick in the headline unemployment rate, which has led, or coincided with, every postwar recession (Chart 6). Chart 2Bear Markets And Recessions Tend To Coincide Bear Markets And Recessions Tend To Coincide Bear Markets And Recessions Tend To Coincide Chart 3The Yield Curve Has Called 8 Of The Last 7 Recessions... The Yield Curve Has Called 8 Of The Last 7 Recessions... The Yield Curve Has Called 8 Of The Last 7 Recessions... Chart 4... And So Have Leading Economic Indicators ... And So Have Leading Economic Indicators ... And So Have Leading Economic Indicators Chart 5Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Policy Is Tight Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Policy Is Tight Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Policy Is Tight Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist Introducing Our Equity Downgrade Checklist Introducing Our Equity Downgrade Checklist Chart 6Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate There is more to equity investing than trying to skirt bear markets, however. Our checklist therefore also focuses on elements that could induce corrections (declines of at least 10% that don't reach the 20% bear-market threshold). We focus on three broad categories of variables: those that could pressure earnings growth by undermining revenues, profit margins or both; those that promote uncomfortably high inflation; and those that indicate unsustainable investor over exuberance. We do not have any preconceptions about which, or how many, boxes would have be checked to inspire a downgrade; we are simply trying to obtain a holistic sense of the equity outlook. Earnings Headwinds Employee compensation constitutes the single largest component of corporate expenses, making wage increases a direct threat to profit margins. We view the employment cost index, including benefits, as offering the most comprehensive and accurate insight into companies' wage bill. It has been rising, albeit slowly, and the Fed would like to see it rise even more to ensure that the expansion's gains are shared more broadly across the income spectrum (Chart 7). It would seemingly be happy with wage growth in the mid-3% range, but anything beyond that, if not supported by an uptick in productivity, could lead to faster and/or larger rate hikes.4 Chart 7The Fed Wants Wages Higher, But Not Too Much Higher The Fed Wants Wages Higher, But Not Too Much Higher The Fed Wants Wages Higher, But Not Too Much Higher A stronger dollar makes American goods less competitive in the global marketplace. Extended advances confront U.S.-based multinationals with an unpalatable choice: cut prices to maintain share, or accept lesser share to maintain margins. Currency moves impact corporate profits with a lag, however, so the initial effects of the dollar's 7% advance since mid-February should only begin to surface in the third-quarter earnings season that kicked off on Friday. S&P 500 constituents have been dining out for a year on the dollar's 14% 2017 slide, and a march to 100 and beyond will give rise to a multi-quarter headwind (Chart 8). Chart 8From Tailwind To Headwind From Tailwind To Headwind From Tailwind To Headwind Interest accounts for a meaningful share of corporate expenses, especially given the post-crisis rise in corporate debt outstanding. Using BBB-rated bonds as a proxy for overall corporate indebtedness, we view 4.8 to 5%, a level corporations last contended with eight years (and a considerable amount of issuance) ago, as a range that might cause some indigestion (Chart 9). Chart 9Debt Service Costs Are Rising Debt Service Costs Are Rising Debt Service Costs Are Rising Rising wages squeeze profit margins, but they won't necessarily cut into profits if top-line growth is robust enough to overcome the cost increase. Wage gains have the potential to set off a virtuous circle in which spending increases enough to promote expanded payrolls and capital expenditures, leading to more spending, and so on. An elevated savings rate suggests that households have the capacity to help fuel the fire (Chart 10). If they decide to save that money instead, perhaps with an eye on the metastasizing pile of student debt, it could dampen the multiplier effect of higher wages. Chart 10Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption We do not have a hard-and-fast preconception for the point at which deterioration in the emerging markets would be felt in the U.S. Given the relatively closed U.S. economy - the oceans bordering it are big - we expect that the EM distress would have to be quite acute. Full-on decoupling is a chimera, however, even for the fairly insulated U.S., and weakened global demand will eventually make itself felt here. A major credit event or two in some of the larger EM economies would likely accelerate the process. Inflation Now that full employment has been achieved, and then some, the price-stability element of the Fed's mandate will come to the fore as the binding policy constraint. The Fed is still trying to nudge realized inflation and inflation expectations higher, to be sure, but its bias could turn on a dime. Force-feeding sizable fiscal stimulus to an economy already operating at capacity is a recipe for fueling upward inflation pressures. We expect that the Fed will eventually be obliged to hike rates at faster than a gradual pace to get the inflation genie back into the bottle. The Fed's 2% inflation target applies to the core PCE deflator, and growth above the top of the 2.5% range that's held for 20-plus years might make it uneasy if the inflation slope proves to be as slippery as we expect (Chart 11). Regarding inflation expectations, we are keeping a close eye on the long-maturity TIPS break-evens, the expected level of inflation implied by the difference in yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasuries. Our bond strategists peg 2.3-2.5% as the break-even level consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, and expect that the Fed will turn more hawkish if break-evens breach the top end of the range (Chart 12). Inflation matters to the investing public, as well, and earnings multiples would surely contract if inflation fears break out among the general populace. Headline CPI growth that looked like it could persist in the mid-3s could easily spark a correction (Chart 13). Chart 11Mission Impossible(?): Limit Inflation ... Mission Impossible(?): Limit Inflation ... Mission Impossible(?): Limit Inflation ... Chart 12... While Nudging Inflation Expectations Higher ... While Nudging Inflation Expectations Higher ... While Nudging Inflation Expectations Higher Chart 13CPI Matters, Too CPI Matters, Too CPI Matters, Too Irrational Exuberance It is not easy to recognize over exuberance in real time, but it is a regular feature of cycle peaks. In a bull market that is already the longest in the postwar era, and an expansion that's on track to establish a postwar longevity record of its own, it would be surprising if things didn't ultimately get silly. We will have to rely on judgment to assess the overall climate of recklessness, but we can objectively track valuation levels relative to history. We are not troubled by a 15- or 16-handle forward P/E multiple (Chart 14). While other standard valuation metrics are elevated (Chart 15), they typically only compel our attention at +/- 2-standard-deviation extremes. Chart 14Nothing Irrational About P/E ... Nothing Irrational About P/E ... Nothing Irrational About P/E ... Chart 15... Or Other Valuation Metrics, On Balance ... Or Other Valuation Metrics, On Balance ... Or Other Valuation Metrics, On Balance Investment Implications There is a natural tension between market forecasts and investment strategy. The future is unknowable, and it is rarely prudent to position portfolios all-in based on necessarily uncertain forecasts. The divergence should be especially wide in the latter stages of a cycle, when a reversal could be right around the corner. Even though we are constructive on the economic and policy backdrops, we are positioned conservatively, equal-weighting equities, underweighting fixed income, and overweighting cash. We have created a checklist to track what it would take to make us turn bearish on equities because our inclination is to lean bullish, and try to capture what may be the last outsized returns for a while. Markets are never one-way, however, and we could flip back to overweight upon a 10-15% peak-to-trough decline if nothing altered our view about the bull market's remaining lifespan. We could also return to an equity overweight at current levels if Chinese policymakers were to pursue stimulus with the pedal-to-the-metal urgency that characterized their efforts in 2008 and 2016. We could even try to play a melt-up, with tight stops, if we thought one was about to take hold. We are keeping an open mind, as an investor always should. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the September 24, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the October 12, 2018 Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks," available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Equity Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Fed Chair Jay Powell recently said that wage growth should approximately equal the sum of inflation and productivity gains. Given the 2% inflation target, and 1% trend productivity growth, the FOMC would likely be content with wage gains modestly above 3%.

Highlights Rising U.S. bond yields will continue to put downward pressure on global stocks in the near term, but will not trigger an equity bear market until rates reach restrictive territory. We are still at least 12 months away from that point. The blowout in Italian bond yields has further to go, which will also weigh on global risk assets. Nevertheless, we would buy BTPs for a tactical trade if the 10-year yield rose above 4%, because at that level EU policymakers will call out the fire engines. We downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral in June, while maintaining our bias for DM stocks over EM stocks. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish again if global stocks were to fall by 8% from current levels. Remain cyclically underweight interest rate duration. We would move to neutral on duration if the U.S. 10-year yield were to rise to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Feature Bond Yields: Up, Up, And Away Global risk assets remained on the back foot this week. The MSCI All-Country World stock market index has now fallen by 6.3% in dollar terms since last Wednesday. Even the mighty S&P 500 has finally buckled under the pressure. The vulnerability of U.S. stocks had been accumulating beneath the surface for some time, as evidenced by the fact that the advance-decline line has been deteriorating since the late summer. The small cap Russell 2000 is down 11.3% from its August 31st highs (Charts 1A& 1B). Chart 1ABreadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Breadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Breadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Chart 1BStocks Under Pressure Stocks Under Pressure Stocks Under Pressure Bond yields usually fall when equities swoon. This time around, it is the increase in bond yields itself that has undermined stocks. In the U.S., yields have risen in response to better-than-expected growth, a wider budget deficit, rising oil prices, and an increasingly hawkish Fed. In Italy, worries about debt sustainability have been the primary driver of rising yields. Neither factor spells doom for global risk assets. However, a period of indigestion is likely over the coming weeks, which could see global equities go down before they go up again. The U.S. Economy: Too Much Winning? We have argued for much of this year that investors were underappreciating the extent to which the Federal Reserve can raise rates without choking off growth. The past few weeks have seen a growing recognition among investors that the Fed may be behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. This has led to a steepening in the expected path of U.S. short-term rates, which, together with an increase in the term premium, have pushed up yields at the longer-dated maturities. Both better economic data and Fedspeak contributed to the bond sell-off. On the data front, the non-manufacturing ISM index clocked in at 61.6. The all-important employment component of the index hit a record high. Confirming the encouraging labor market signal from the ISM, the unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.68% in September. While average hourly earnings ticked down to 2.75% on a year-over-year basis, this was entirely due to base effects. On a month-over-month basis, average hourly earnings have risen by 0.3% for three straight months. If this trend continues, the year-over-year rate will rise to 3.2% by the end of this year. Tellingly, recent wage growth has been concentrated among workers at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 2). This is important because not only do the wages of low-income workers correlate better with labor market slack than those of high-income workers, but low-income workers are also more likely to spend the bulk of their paychecks. Chart 2Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Higher wage growth will boost consumer spending. Indeed, it is probable that consumption will rise more than income, given that the personal savings rate has plenty of scope to fall from the current elevated level of 6.6%. Rising wages will incentivize companies to invest more in labor-saving technologies, translating into an increase in capital spending.1 Add in ongoing fiscal stimulus, and we have a recipe for an overheated economy. Starstruck No More As of today, the market has priced in one Fed rate hike in December but only two rate hikes in 2019 (Chart 3). Investors expect no rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. That still seems implausible to us, which suggests that the bond sell-off has further to go. Chart 3The Market Still Thinks The Fed Can't Raise Rates Above 3% Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks In contrast to the past, the Fed no longer seems interested in talking down rate expectations. Speaking with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival, Chairman Powell stated the Fed "may go past neutral, but we are a long way from neutral at this point, probably."2 Even uber-dove Chicago Fed President Charles Evans appears to have jettisoned his worries about deflation, noting in a speech last Wednesday that "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years."3 The Fed has also increasingly downplayed the importance of estimates of the neutral rate of interest, the concept on which the long-term "dots" in the Summary of Economic Projections are based. The Fed's new mantra is that economic data, rather than some theoretical model, should guide monetary policy. Ironically, it was New York Fed President John Williams, who developed one of the most widely used models of r-star, the eponymously named Holston-Laubach-Williams model, that best articulated the Fed's position. At a speech last Monday, Williams argued that the neutral rate of interest, or r-star, has "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy." He went on to say that "Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star."4 Trump And Bonds President Trump was quick to blame the Fed for this week's stock market sell-off. Within the span of 24 hours, he used the words "crazy," "loco," "ridiculous," "too cute," "too aggressive," and "big mistake" to describe recent Fed policy. We doubt Trump's rhetoric will have any immediate effect on Fed decision-making. But even if it did sway the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes, the result will be higher bond yields, not lower yields. This is simply because any further delays in raising rates will lead to even more overheating, and ultimately, higher inflation and the need for higher rates down the road. Bond Sell-Off Will Produce A Correction In Stocks, Not A Bear Market At the height of this week's bond sell-off, the 10-year Treasury yield breached its 200-month moving average for the first time since ... October 1987 (Chart 4). While that sounds pretty ominous, keep in mind that the 10-year yield had reached almost 10% on the eve of the 1987 stock market crash, or about 6% in real terms. Chart 4Two Lines Meet After Three Decades Two Lines Meet After Three Decades Two Lines Meet After Three Decades As my colleague, Doug Peta, discussed two weeks ago, it is the level of interest rates that tends to matter more for stocks rather than the change in rates.5 Specifically, equity returns tend to be lowest at times when monetary policy is already in restrictive territory (Chart 5 and Tables 1 and 2). That was the case in 1987. It is not the case today. Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health... Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Table 2...Especially In Real Terms Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks The fact that stocks do worse in environments where monetary policy is tight makes perfect sense. A restrictive monetary policy is usually a prelude to a recession. As Chart 6 illustrates, bear markets and recessions almost always coincide, with the latter usually leading the former by about six-to-twelve months. None of our favorite leading recession indicators are flashing red now (Chart 7). Even the yield curve has steepened in recent weeks. Chart 6Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Still, higher long-term bond yields do reduce the long-term attractiveness of stocks compared with bonds. The S&P 500 earnings yield has risen modestly since 2016 due to the fact that earnings have grown somewhat more quickly than equity prices. However, the U.S. real 10-year yield has surged by almost 120 basis points over this period. On balance, this has caused the equity risk premium to decline (Chart 8).6 In order to bring the equity risk premium back down to mid-2016 levels, the S&P 500 would need to fall by about 15% from today's levels. We do not expect stocks to fall by that much, partly because the economic environment is more robust than back then, but a further drop of 5%-to-10% from current levels is certainly plausible. Chart 7A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent Chart 8Stocks Versus Bonds Stocks Versus Bonds Stocks Versus Bonds Italy: Heading For A Debt Crisis? The rise in Treasury yields has reduced the attractiveness of other global government bond markets, causing them to sell off in sympathy. Notably, German bund yields have increased by 33 basis points since their May lows (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Rising German bund yields are bad news for Italy. All things equal, a higher "risk free" bund yield implies a higher Italian bond yield. To make matters worse, as Italian borrowing costs have risen, the perceived likelihood that Italy will be unable to repay its debt has increased. This has caused the spread between German bunds and Italian BTPs to widen, thereby magnifying the effect on Italian bond yields from the increase in risk-free yields. All this has happened at the worst possible moment. Italy's populist government and the European Commission are locked in a battle of wills over next year's budget. The Italian government is targeting a fiscal deficit of 2.4% of GDP for 2019, compared with a deficit of 0.8% that the outgoing caretaker government had proposed in May. Strictly speaking, the new deficit target is still consistent with the 3% limit under the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, it is still causing consternation in Brussels. There are at least three reasons for this: While the government's program has a lot of specifics about how it will increase the deficit - more public investment; a universal minimum income scheme; the ability to retire earlier than under current law; corporate tax cuts; no VAT hike in 2019, etc. - it does not specify which items in the budget will be cut. The program also provides few details on revenue measures, other than proposing a one-off tax amnesty, which will arguably reduce tax receipts over the long haul. The proposed budget assumes real GDP growth of 1.5% in 2019. This is higher than the May projection of 1.4%, and well above the IMF's most recent projection of 1%. The government's real GDP projections for 2020-21 are also about 0.7 percentage points above the IMF's estimates. While Italy's proposed fiscal deficit is below the Maastricht Treaty limit, its current debt-to-GDP ratio of 132% is well above the ceiling of 60% (Chart 10). This implies that Italy should be aiming for a smaller deficit target than what it is currently proposing. Chart 10Italy's Public Debt Mountain Italy's Public Debt Mountain Italy's Public Debt Mountain We expect the Italian government to ultimately acquiesce to the EU's demands, but not before the bond vigilantes have pushed them into a corner. For their part, the EU establishment would love nothing more than to embarrass the Five Star-Lega coalition in order to send a message to voters across Europe about the dangers of voting for populist parties. This means that the Italian 10-year yield may need to break above 4% - the level at which Italian banks would likely be technically insolvent based on the market value of their BTP holdings - before a compromise is reached. We would put on a tactical trade to buy 10-year BTPs at that level, but not before then. Investment Conclusions Goldilocks will survive, but the next couple of months will be challenging. Our soon-to-be-launched MacroQuant model is signaling a bearish outlook for stocks over the next 30 days (Chart 11). On the bond side, the model currently pegs the fair value for the U.S. 10-year yield at 3.7% (Chart 12). Bond sentiment is quite bearish at the moment, which makes a brief countertrend bond rally quite likely. However, the cyclical trend in yields remains to the upside. Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends That Caution Is Warranted Towards Equities Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Chart 12MacroQuant Sees 10-Year Treasury Yields Still Below Fair Value Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks We stated last week that investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets. We continue to favor this more cautious stance. For the first time in over a decade, short-term U.S. rates are above the dividend yield on the S&P 500 (Chart 13). Holding a bit more cash is finally an attractive option, at least for U.S.-based investors. Chart 13Cash Anyone? Cash Anyone? Cash Anyone? If the sell-off in global equities continues, it will present a buying opportunity, given that the next major global economic downturn is probably at least another two years away. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on stocks again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% from current levels.7 We would recommend that investors move from an underweight to a neutral interest rate duration position in global bond portfolios if the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield rose to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that additional investment spending will raise aggregate supply, but normally it takes a while for that to happen. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see "WATCH: Powell says Fed is focused on 'controlling the controllable,' not politics," PBS News Hour, October 3, 2018; and Jeff Cox, "Powell says we're 'a long way' from neutral on interest rates, indicating more hike are coming," CNBC, October 3, 2018. 3 Charles Evans, "Monetary Policy 2.0?" OMFIF City Lecture on the U.S. Economic Outlook, London, England, October 3, 2018. 4 John C. Williams, "Remarks at the 42nd Annual Central Banking Seminar," Bank for International Settlements, October 1, 2018. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" dated September 24, 2018; and Special Report, "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018. 6 For this exercise, we define the equity risk premium as the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year bond yield (using CPI swaps as our measure of expected inflation). 7 The perils of writing a report during a week when markets are moving fast. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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

Highlights Chart 1Corporate Health: Improving Everywhere, ##br##Down In The U.S. Corporate Health: Improving Everywhere, Down In The U.S. Corporate Health: Improving Everywhere, Down In The U.S. Dollar bull markets are often accompanied by positive returns for the S&P 500. While a strong dollar hurts the earnings outlook for the S&P 500, it supports an expansion of multiples by putting downward pressure on rates and elongating the U.S. business cycle. The dollar and stocks are most positively correlated when the U.S. yield curve slope is between zero and 50-basis points, and flattening. Today's environment fits this bill. BCA is neutral on U.S. in a balanced portfolio. While the USD's strength should be associated with rising U.S. equity prices, the quality of U.S. stock returns is deteriorating. This warrants a certain degree of de-risking relative to our former overweight stance. Feature For the past two weeks, we have warned investors that the dollar rally was over-extended, and that a correction was likely to ensue. However, we also argued that this correction was likely to prove a countertrend move, and that the dollar was likely to end the year at higher levels. BCA has a neutral stance on equities on both a cyclical and tactical horizon. BCA is also neutral on U.S. equities within a global equity portfolio. For investors, it becomes important to understand whether a stronger dollar constitutes an additional downside risk for stocks. This is especially relevant in the U.S., where equity valuations are comparatively elevated, and where corporate health is deteriorating relative to the rest of the world (Chart 1). In this report, we built on the research of our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, who spearheads BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service, who has shown that the dollar and the S&P often do rise in unison.1 Ultimately, while the dollar can have an impact on the relative performance of the U.S., it is generally not a strong determinant of the trend in the S&P 500. Strong Dollar And The S&P: Good Friends Indeed A picture is worth a thousand words. As Chart 2 illustrates, a strong dollar has never really been enough to slay a bull run in the S&P 500. Between late 1978 and early 1985, the real trade-weighted dollar rallied by 45%, yet the S&P 500 was able to advance by 102%. Between 1995 and 2002, the real trade-weighted dollar increased by 33% but rallied by nearly 92%. If one were to confine their observations to 1995 to August 2000 window, the dollar would have been up 16.5% and the S&P an outstanding 223%. Finally, from its most recent cyclical bottom in 2011 to the end of 2016, the trade-weighted dollar rallied by 22%, but the S&P 500 managed to rise by another impressive 68%. It is true that the magnitude of the strength of U.S. equities in the face of a strong dollar has decreased over time. This essentially reflects the fact that in the early 1980s, 20% of S&P 500 revenues were garnered outside the U.S. versus roughly 40% today, which in turn has increased the drag on earnings created by a stronger dollar. This problem is illustrated by the negative relationship present between the dollar and U.S. earnings revisions (Chart 3). Chart 2Strong Dollar, No Problem Strong Dollar, No Problem Strong Dollar, No Problem Chart 3Dollar Is Dangerous For The Earnings Outlook Dollar Is Dangerous For The Earnings Outlook Dollar Is Dangerous For The Earnings Outlook Yet, despite this negative link between earnings revisions and the dollar, the S&P can still rise when the dollar increases. What explains this seeming paradox? The answer is almost tautological: It is multiples. A strong dollar tends to be associated with a rising P/E ratio. This is because a strong dollar has a dampening impact on inflation. As a result, when the dollar rises, the Federal Reserve can keep interest rates lower than would otherwise be the case, fomenting periods of declining bond yields (Chart 4). Thanks to lower bond yields, not only do multiples get a boost, but additionally the domestically driven U.S. economic cycle also gets elongated. This further helps stocks in the process. Another more international dimension helps explain the positive correlation between stocks and the dollar. The dollar tends to experience its strongest rallies when U.S. growth is superior to that of the rest of the G-10. As Chart 5 illustrates, the bulk of the early 1980s dollar rally, of the late 1990s rally, and of the 2011 to early 2017 rally materialized when U.S. economic activity was outperforming. In all these instances, the relative strength of the U.S. economy attracted funds from abroad. This also meant that foreign funds flowing into the U.S. economy bolstered liquidity in the U.S. economy. Not only did this liquidity support economic activity, thereby counterbalancing the drag created by a stronger dollar, these funds also found their way into asset markets, generating higher multiples in the U.S. in the process. Chart 4Strong Dollar Hurts Yields Strong Dollar Hurts Yields Strong Dollar Hurts Yields Chart 5Growth Differentials Matter For The Dollar Growth Differentials Matter For The Dollar Growth Differentials Matter For The Dollar Bottom Line: A strong dollar in and of itself has never been enough to derail a bull market in the S&P 500. While a strong dollar creates a hurdle for foreign earnings accruing to U.S. firms, higher multiples often compensate for this negative. Essentially, a higher dollar causes downside to bond yields, warranting lower hurdle rates and higher valuations. Moreover, a stronger dollar diminishes inflationary pressures in the U.S., warranting easier Fed policy than would otherwise be the case. Since the U.S. economy is domestically driven, this elongates the business cycle, helping stocks in the process. Correlation And The Yield Curve Slope While a strong dollar does not seem to be a death threat for the equity market, are there environments when the dollar and the S&P 500 are more correlated than others? Table 1Dollar Versus S&P 500 Correlation: ##br##A Function Of The Yield Curve The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar The answer to this question is yes. As Table 1 illustrates, the correlation between the dollar and the S&P 500 fluctuates significantly based on both the slope of the yield curve and whether the yield curve is flattening or not. Interestingly, when the yield curve is steep (defined as greater than a 50-basis-point spread between 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields), the dollar and U.S. stock prices tend to move in opposite directions. However, when the yield curve is flatter but before it has yet to invert (a yield curve slope of between zero and 50 basis points), the correlation between the dollar and the S&P 500 changes: it becomes positive. In fact, the time at which the correlation between stocks and the dollar is the highest is when the yield curve slope is in that zone and is also flattening. This is surprising, but at the same time it makes sense. We know that when the yield curve is flat but not inverted, the stock market tends to still rally (Chart 6). However, this flattening yield curve indicates that monetary conditions are not as accommodative as they once were. Interestingly, while the dollar performs poorly in the early innings of a monetary tightening campaign, it performs much better when monetary conditions are not so easy anymore that they juice up global growth, but they are not yet tight enough to cause an imminent recession in the U.S.2 This corresponds to a an environment with a flatter yield curve that has yet to invert, such as the one in place today. In light of these observations, the close correlation between the S&P 500 and the dollar in this environment should not be very surprising. Chart 6Flat And Flattening: No Problem For Stocks Flat And Flattening: No Problem For Stocks Flat And Flattening: No Problem For Stocks Bottom Line: The dollar and the stock market are not always positively correlated. However, when the U.S. yield curve slope stands between zero and 50 basis points and is flattening, the positive correlation between the S&P 500 and the dollar is at its strongest. This defines today's environment. Investment Implications BCA thinks the U.S. dollar has ample downside on a long-term basis. After all, the U.S. dollar trades at a significant premium to its PPP fair value, and this kind of overvaluation historically indicates significant downside for the greenback on a multi-year time horizon (Chart 7). Moreover, the Trump administration's fiscal policy is likely to result in a widening of both the fiscal and current account deficits. While a twin deficit rarely impacts the dollar negatively, so long as U.S. real rates rise relative to the rest of the world, it nonetheless often ends up being a harbinger of long-term weakness in the greenback.3 It is hard to make any inference for the S&P 500 based on a bearish long-term dollar view as historically, during a structural dollar bear market, the relationship between the greenback and the S&P has been rather ambiguous. However, BCA also thinks the 2018 dollar rally is not over. As Chart 8 shows, when U.S. rates are in the top of the distribution of interest rates among G-10 economies, the dollar tends to perform well. The U.S.'s status as the global high-yielder is currently unchallenged. This suggests the dollar has a natural advantage over other currencies through the remainder of the year. Chart 7Long-Term Downside For The Dollar... Long-Term Downside For The Dollar... Long-Term Downside For The Dollar... Chart 8...But 2018 Rally Is Not Over ...But 2018 Rally Is Not Over ...But 2018 Rally Is Not Over Moreover, as the U.S. economy is less exposed to the global industrial cycle than the rest of the world is, the U.S. dollar will benefit from the softening global economic environment. This is even truer, given that the U.S. economy was already set to outperform other G-10 economies even before the soft patch in global trade began. As a result, long-term flows into the U.S. are strong, which is generating a basic balance-of-payments surplus (Chart 9). American investors are not blind to this reality; the higher expected rate of returns on U.S. projects along with U.S. corporations bringing earnings back home to take advantage of the Trump tax cuts is generating outsized repatriation flows into the country, historically a good correlate of a strong dollar (Chart 10). This phenomenon is likely to remain alive through the remainder of the year. Chart 9Money Is Making Its Way Into The U.S. Money Is Making Its Way Into The U.S. Money Is Making Its Way Into The U.S. Chart 10Americans Like Their Dollar Americans Like Their Dollar Americans Like Their Dollar Since the U.S. yield curve slope currently stands between zero and 50 basis points while it is flattening in response to the Fed's interest rate hikes, we are in the part of the cycle where the dollar and stocks are positively correlated, and where they in fact often rise together. This suggests the S&P 500 has more upside ahead for the rest of the year as well. It is important to note that the tech sector is now the most at risk from the dollar strength as it has the largest percentage of foreign sales (Chart 11). However, BCA is neutral on stocks on a cyclical horizon. This is not because stocks will not be able to eke out some positive returns; it is because we are acutely aware that we stand close to the end of the bull market. Moreover, the end of an equity bull market is often marked by a pick-up in volatility. Accordingly, risk-adjusted returns for U.S. equities are declining. Hence, while an underweight stance on stocks is not yet warranted, a neutral stance is appropriate as we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late.4 There remains a big risk that could cause the dollar to rally and stocks to fall, despite where we stand in the cycle: trade disputes. As Chart 12 illustrates, since May, tariff announcements and protectionist pronouncements have buoyed the dollar. However, the same announcements ultimately represent a real risk to profits as they create a real danger for global supply chains and imply higher cost of goods sold by U.S. corporations. Investors should monitor these risks closely. Chart 11S&P 500: Aggregate Sector International Revenue Exposure (%) The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar Chart 12While Tariffs Can Help The Dollar, ##br##They Will Not Help Stocks While Tariffs Can Help The Dollar, They Will Not Help Stocks While Tariffs Can Help The Dollar, They Will Not Help Stocks Bottom Line: BCA anticipates the dollar to be able to rise over the course of the next six to nine months, as U.S. rates are in favor of the greenback and domestic growth outperformance will continue to favor inflows into the U.S. This bullish view on the U.S. dollar currently does not constitute a reason to downgrade stocks to underweight. In fact, at this stage of the cycle, U.S. stocks and the dollar tend to rise in unison. However, since the quality of the equity gains is likely to deteriorate as equity volatility is on an uptrend, BCA prefers to maintain a neutral cyclical stance on equities within a balanced portfolio rather than an overweight stance. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Insight Report, titled "Can the S&P 500 Continue Rising Alongside the U.S. Dollar?", dated October 13, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "This Time Is NOT Different," dated May 25 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Twin Deficits: Bearish Or Not, The Fed Holds The Trump Card," dated February 23 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, titled "U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment," dated June 28, 2018 available at bcaresearch.com.