Equities

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Corporate sector selling price inflation is nil while leading wage inflation indicators signal additional labor cost increases in the coming months. The risk is that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle. We reiterate our tactically cautious overall equity market view. Galloping higher private and public sector software outlays, a structurally enticing software demand backdrop and ongoing industry M&A all signal that it still pays to be bullish software stocks Recent Changes Last Thursday we downgraded the S&P railroads index to underweight. Also last Thursday we trimmed the S&P air freight & logistics index to neutral. Table 1 Feature The SPX stalled last week, digesting the now-complete Fed pivot. Our sense is that the Fed’s dovish turn is now fully reflected in equities. Importantly, the longer and wider the dichotomy between stocks and bonds gets, the more painful the ramifications from the eventual snap will be, likely with equities yielding to the bond market (Chart 1). As we first posited on March 4, short-term equity market caution is still warranted.1 Chart 1Time To Get Back Together While the Fed meeting and sharp decline in Treasury yields dominated headlines last week, it was the NFIB’s latest release that really caught our attention. Importantly, it revealed that taxes and big government are no longer the biggest problems facing small and medium business owners, but labor is: “Twenty-two percent of owners cited the difficulty of finding qualified workers as their Single Most Important Business Problem, only 3 points below the record high. Ten percent of owners find labor costs as their biggest problem, a record high for the 45-year survey.”2 Historically, such extreme tightness in the SME labor market is a precursor of a yield curve inversion (NFIB cost of labor shown inverted, Chart 2). The link is clearer if we show this same NFIB series with the Labor Department’s average hourly earnings monthly release that is currently running at a 3.4%/annum clip (Chart 3). In other words, a tight labor market is conducive to corporations bidding up the price of labor which in turn causes the Fed to raise interest rates, eventually inverting the yield curve. Chart 2Cycle Is Long In The Tooth Chart 3Wage Growth... This macro backdrop is slightly unnerving and our biggest concern is the S&P 500’s profit margins (Chart 4). Q3/2018 marked the all-time peak in SPX quarterly margins according to Standard & Poor’s,3 and in Q4/2018 margins have deflated from a high mark of 12.13% to 10.11%, or a 16.7% q/q drop. Chart 4...Denting Margins Undoubtedly, last year’s fiscal easing-induced all-time highs in SPX margins is unsustainable, and a tight labor market is a warning shot. Using the same NFIB series on cost of labor being the most important problem SMEs face and subtracting it from our corporate pricing power proxy, we constructed an equity market margin proxy, shown as a Z-score in Chart 5. Historically, the y/y change in SPX profit margins move in lockstep with our margin proxy and the current message is grim (Chart 5). Chart 5Margin Trouble Ahead Before getting too bearish though, we want to make three salient points: First, while the NFIB survey’s labor related indicators are disconcerting, unit labor costs – the best measure of wage growth – remain muted as productivity growth has ramped up recently. Second, using empirical evidence dating back to the 1960s, the ultimate SPX profit margin mean reversion occurs during recessions, when EPS suffer a major setback. The implication is that margins can move sideways or grind lower in the coming year. As a reminder, BCA’s review remains that the U.S. will avoid recession in the next 12 months. Third, the most important yield curve slope, the 10/2, has not yet inverted, and even when it does invert, investors will have time to start positioning defensively; we have shown in recent research that the S&P peaks after the yield curve inverts.4 On a related note, we use this opportunity to update our corporate pricing power proxy, and Table 2 summarizes the sectorial results. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Corporate sector selling price inflation has ground to a halt at a time when wage inflation is rearing its ugly head. Worrisomely, our pricing power diffusion index’s breadth sunk below the 50% line, whereas our wage growth diffusion index spiked higher; 70% of the 44 industries we track are struggling with rising wages (second & third panels, Chart 6). Taken together, there is evidence that broad-based profit margin pressures are escalating, the mirror image of what our gauges were signaling in our last update late-last year.5 Chart 6Margins Have Likely Peaked Digging beneath the surface of our corporate pricing power proxy is revealing. As a reminder, we calculate industry group pricing power from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. 57% of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices, but only 27% are raising prices at a faster clip than overall inflation. Both figures are lower than our early-November report. Outright deflating sectors increased by eight to twenty four since our last update, fifteen of which are deflating at 1%/annum pace or lower. One third of the industries we cover are experiencing a downtrend in selling price inflation, representing a 43% increase since our most recent report (Table 2). Deep cyclicals/commodity-related industries (ex-oil) continue to dominate the top ranks, occupying the top six slots (Table 2). Despite the ongoing global manufacturing deceleration and still unresolved U.S./China trade tussle, the commodity complex's ability to increase prices remains resilient. On the flip side, energy-related industries occupy the bottom of the ranks as WTI crude oil is still 22% lower than the most recent peak in October 2018. In sum, business sector selling price inflation is nil while leading wage inflation indicators signal additional labor cost increases in the coming months. The risk is that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle. We reiterate our tactically cautious overall equity market view. This week we update a high-conviction overweight tech subgroup and recap our transportation subsurface moves from last Thursday. Buy The Software Breakout Software stocks are on fire and leading profit indicators suggest that more gains are in store in the coming months. Last week, we published a table ranking all the sectors and subsectors by 12-month forward profit growth estimates (please refer to Table 2 from the March 18 Weekly Report). While the broad tech sector is on an even keel with the SPX, software EPS are racing at twice the speed of the broad market, roughly 14%. Keep in mind, when growth gets scarce, investors flock to industries with accelerating profit prospects. The software profit juggernaut is intact and we reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. Sustained capital outlays on software are a key driver of industry profits (bottom panel, Chart 7). In an otherwise muted Q4 GDP release, rising non-residential fixed investment in general and surging investment in software in particular suggest that our bullish software capex thesis is alive and kicking (middle panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Software On A Tear The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the proliferation of AI, machine learning and augmented reality are not fads but enjoy a secular growth profile, and signal that capital outlays on software are also in a structural uptrend. Not only private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays, but also government investment in software is reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments are taking such risks extremely seriously the world over (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Earnings Led Advance Meanwhile, fear of missing out has rekindled industry M&A and both the dollar amount and number of deals are sky high, with acquirers bidding up premia to the stratosphere (Chart 9). This supply reduction is bullish for industry pricing power. Chart 9M&A Frenzy Granted the M&A frenzy has pushed relative valuations on the expensive side especially on a forward P/E basis, but on EV/EBITDA software stocks are trading below the historical mean and still significantly lower than the late-1990s peak valuation (bottom panel, Chart 8). If our bullish software profit thesis continues to pan out, then software stocks will grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, shareholder friendly activities are ongoing in this key tech subsector and buybacks in particular provide an added layer of artificial EPS growth (bottom panel, Chart 9). Adding it up, galloping higher private and public sector software outlays, a structurally enticing software demand backdrop and ongoing industry M&A, all signal that it still pays to be bullish software stocks. Bottom Line: Buy the software breakout. The S&P software index remains a high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ADSK, RHT, CDNS, SNPS, ANSS, SYMC, CTXS, FTNT. Tweaking Transport Subgroup Positioning The S&P transports index’s recovery rally has stalled recently and is a cause for concern for the overall market. In more detail, the recent gulf between relative share prices and the SPX has widened and warns that the overall market is at a risk of suffering a pullback (Chart 10). Chart 10Engine Trouble Thus on Thursday last week, we made two subsurface transport changes, downgrading a subgroup to underweight that commands lofty valuations at a time when leading profit indicators are flashing red, and also downgrading to neutral a globally exposed transport sub-index. Get Off The Rails In our downgrade of the S&P railroads index late last year to a benchmark allocation, we highlighted that two of our key industry Indicators, the Railroad Indicator and our Rail Shipment Diffusion Indicator, had turned negative.6 These indicators have continued to deteriorate, including total rail shipments which have now started to contract for the first time since the 2015-16 manufacturing recession (third panel, Chart 11). Intermodal shipments in particular have nosedived, likely a result of weak retail sales, as we highlighted earlier this month.7 Chart 11Downgrade Rails To... This contraction would be far less concerning were it not for the rapid degradation of industry balance sheets as firms have sought to increase relatively cheap leverage in order to retire equity. Railroads are now significantly more indebted than the broad market which itself has not shown an aversion to adding leverage (bottom panel, Chart 11). Such a change in railroad capital structure has kept EPS growth rates artificially high while simultaneously adding an extra measure of equity risk premium that does not yet appear fully reflected in relative share prices. Moreover, when we downgraded the S&P railroads index to neutral last year, deteriorating Indicators were offset by exceptionally healthy pricing power.8 After a multi-year expansion, selling price inflation has now rolled over (second panel, Chart 12), taking away the remaining pillar supporting a neutral view which compelled us to move to an underweight allocation last week. Chart 12...Underweight Pricing power is one of the key determinants in our earnings model that, when combined with the previously noted contracting volumes, is indicating the end to the industry’s above-trend earnings growth is nigh (third panel, Chart 12). With relative earnings growth slowing and rising leverage adding incremental risk, the S&P railroads index’s premium valuation multiple looks increasingly dicey (bottom panel, Chart 12). Bottom Line: Broad based declines in traffic volumes, falling pricing power and high leverage suggest that earnings will underwhelm. Accordingly, last Thursday we moved to an underweight recommendation on the S&P railroads index as we expect a de-rating phase to materialize. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU. Air Freight Had Its Wings Clipped We have been offside on the high-conviction overweight call on the S&P air freight & logistics index and the recent FedEx warning suggests that profits will come under pressure for this index for the rest of the year and will trail the SPX. As such, we trimmed exposure to neutral late-last week and removed it from the high-conviction overweight list for a loss of 14%. Chart 13 shows that all the profit drivers we had identified in early December last year have taken a sharp turn for the worse. Energy costs are no longer in deflation as oil prices have jumped from $42/bbl to near $60/bbl. Not only is global growth still decelerating, but also U.S. growth is in a softpatch: the manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio is on the verge of contraction, warning that delivery services’ selling prices are in for a turbulent ride (second panel, Chart 13). In addition, definitive news of Amazon becoming a formidable competitor in courier delivery services is structurally negative for the industry. Chart 13Air Freight: Move To The Sidelines Nevertheless, we refrain from turning outright bearish as air freight stocks are technically oversold and valuations are trading at the steepest discount to the broad market since mid-2002. Bottom Line: Last Thursday we downgraded the S&P air freight & logistics index to neutral and also removed it from the high-conviction overweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs0219hwwd.pdf 3https://ca.spindices.com/documents/additional-material/sp-500-eps-est.xlsx?force_download=true 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Recuperating” dated November 5, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Critical Reset“, dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly“, dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Critical Reset“, dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of visiting clients in Seattle, Anchorage, and Juneau last week. In this week’s report, I address some of the questions that routinely came up during our meetings. Among other things, the topics discussed include our optimistic global growth outlook, waning dollar bullishness, implications of a more dovish Fed on the business cycle, and where we think equities are headed. Next week we will be publishing our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will provide a detailed discussion of our key global macro and investment views. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature Q: You have predicted that global growth will stabilize in the second quarter and then accelerate in the second half of the year. Are you seeing much evidence in support of this view? A: We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. Current activity indicators appear to have stabilized (Chart 1). The global manufacturing PMI edged lower in February, but the services component increased. Consumer confidence has risen, although that may simply reflect the rebound in global equities. Chart 1Global Growth Appears To Have Stabilized The data on international trade has been quite soft. That said, the weekly Harpex shipping index, which measures global container shipping activity, has improved. The Baltic Dry Index has also shown some signs of bottoming (Chart 2). Chart 2Shipping Data Pointing To A Recent Pickup In Global Trade The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which tracks the share of countries with rising LEIs, has also moved higher (Chart 3). It generally leads the global LEI. The fact that global financial conditions have eased significantly since the start of the year is also an encouraging sign. Chart 3The Uptick In The LEI Diffusion Index Suggests Global Growth Will Firm Up Q: What’s your take on the most recent Chinese economic data? A: It has been generally soft, but not abysmal. Manufacturing output continues to decelerate. Retail sales remain lackluster, with auto sales showing little evidence of improvement. Property prices are still rising, but floor space sold has begun to contract. Fixed-asset investment has held up so far this year. However, this is mainly due to a pickup in spending among state-owned companies. Both exports and imports contracted in February. In a rather unusual step, the government announced last week that exports increased by nearly 40% in the first nine days of March compared with the same period last year.1 Electricity production has also apparently rebounded. We would not place a huge weight on these statements, as the data probably has been skewed by the timing of the lunar new year, but it does seem that economic momentum may be starting to turn the corner. We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. There is little doubt that the government is trying to jumpstart growth. Household and business taxes have been cut. The PBOC has reduced reserve requirements by 350 bps over the past year. Interbank rates have dropped. Despite the fact that the February credit data fell short of expectations, the six-month credit impulse has turned decisively higher. The Chinese credit impulse leads imports by about six-to-nine months (Chart 4). This bodes well for global trade in the second half of the year. Chart 4Global Trade Will Benefit From A Chinese Reflationary Impulse Q: Given that Chinese debt levels are already quite high, by how much more can they realistically increase? A: We do not expect credit growth to rise by as much as it did in 2009 or 2016. However, this is because the economy is in better shape, not because there is some intrinsic constraint to increasing debt from current levels. China’s elevated savings rate has kept interest rates well below trend nominal GDP growth, which is the key determinant of debt sustainability (Chart 5).2 As long as the government maintains an implicit guarantee on most local and corporate debt, as it is currently doing, default risk will remain minimal. Chart 5China's High Savings Rate Has Kept Interest Rates Well Below Trend Nominal GDP Growth In any case, given that debt now stands at 240% of GDP, a mere one percentage-point increase in credit growth would still produce a hefty 2.4% of GDP in credit stimulus. In this sense, China may be better off with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio since in steady state this will allow for a larger flow of credit-financed stimulus into the economy. Q: A revival in Chinese growth would presumably help Europe? A: Yes. Our conversations with clients revealed an ongoing negative bias towards Europe among investors (Chart 6). This is echoed in the latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey which, for the first time in history, identified “short European equities” as the most crowded trade. Chart 6European Equities: Unloved And Unwanted We think that such deep pessimism about Europe is largely unwarranted. Faster global growth will help the European export sector later this year, while domestic demand will benefit from more accommodative fiscal policy and lower bond yields, especially in Italy. The ECB will not raise rates this year even if growth speeds up, but the market will probably price in a few more rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. This will allow for a modest re-steepening in the yield curves in core European bond markets, which should be positive for long-suffering bank profits. Political risk remains a concern. The Brexit saga has reached the farcical stage where: 1) The U.K. has voted to leave the EU; but 2) Parliament has voted to stay in the EU unless it reaches a satisfactory deal with Brussels; while 3) rejecting the only deal with Brussels that was on offer. Given that most British voters no longer want Brexit (Chart 7), we think that the government will kick the proverbial can down the road until a second referendum is announced or a “soft Brexit” deal is formulated. Either outcome would be welcomed by markets. Chart 7U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win Q: You seem less bullish on the U.S. dollar than you were last year? A: That is correct. As we discussed last week, the dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 8). If global growth strengthens later this year, the trade-weighted dollar will probably weaken. Chart 8The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Moreover, as this week’s FOMC meeting highlighted, the Fed’s reaction function has shifted in a more dovish direction. The median Fed dot now foresees no rate hikes this year and only one rate hike in 2020. In contrast, the December Summary of Economic Projections envisioned two rate hikes this year and one next year. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth. In a far cry from his October “rates are far from neutral” comment, Jay Powell stressed during this week's post-FOMC meeting press conference that the fed funds rate is currently in the “broad range of estimates of neutral.” While we would not rule out the possibility that the FOMC will raise rates at some point later this year, we now expect a more gradual pace of rate tightening than we had earlier envisioned. Q: Does a more dovish Fed imply that the economic expansion has even further to run? A: Yes. Expansions tend to end when monetary policy turns restrictive. We had previously thought that this point could be reached in late-2020, but it is now starting to look as though it will occur later than that. Broadly speaking, we see the Fed tightening cycle unfolding in two stages. In the first stage, which is the one we are in today, the Fed will raise rates in baby steps in response to better-than-expected growth and falling unemployment. In the second stage, the Fed will hike rates more aggressively as inflation starts to accelerate. Risk assets will be able to digest the first stage, but not the second. The good news is that most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing (Chart 9): Despite higher tariffs, consumer import price inflation has slowed; core intermediate producer price inflation has decelerated; the prices paid components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys have plunged; inflation surprise indices have rolled over; and both survey and market-based measures of inflation expectations remain below where they were last summer. In keeping with these developments, BCA’s propriety Inflation Pipeline Indicator has fallen to a two-and-a-half-year low. Chart 9No Signs Of An Imminent Major Inflationary Upswing In The U.S. ... Wage growth has accelerated, but productivity growth has increased by even more. Unit labor cost inflation has actually been coming down since the middle of last year. Unit labor costs lead core CPI inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). This implies that consumer price inflation is unlikely to reach uncomfortably high levels at least until the second half of next year. Chart 10... And Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being Beyond then, the risks are high that inflation will move up as the economy continues to overheat. This could force the Fed to start raising rates aggressively late next year, a course of action that will push up the dollar and cause equities and spread product to sell off. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will probably plunge the U.S. and the rest of the world into recession in 2021. Q: So stay overweight stocks for now, but consider selling at some point next year? A: Correct. The MSCI All-Country World Index (ACWI) has risen by over 14% since we upgraded it in December after having moved to the sidelines six months earlier. Given this run-up, we are not as bullish now as we were at the start of the year. Most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. While the forward P/E ratio for the MSCI ACWI has returned to where it was last September, analyst earnings expectations are currently much more conservative: Bottom-up estimates foresee EPS rising by 4.1% in the U.S. and 5.3% in the rest of the world in 2019 (Chart 11). The combination of faster growth, easier financial conditions, and ongoing corporate buybacks implies some upside to those estimates. Chart 11Analyst Expectations Are Quite Muted Moreover, real yields have fallen over the past five months – the 10-year U.S. TIPS yield is 48 basis points below its Q4 average, for example. A simple dividend discount model would suggest that global equities are about 10%-to-15% cheaper than they were prior to last year’s autumn selloff. The path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. Q: Aren’t you worried that rising labor costs will push down profit margins even if GDP growth accelerates? A: Not really. As noted above, productivity growth has picked up. Whether this is the start of a new trend remains to be seen, but at least for now, it is dampening unit labor costs. Historically, real unit labor costs – nominal unit labor costs divided by the corporate price deflator – have tracked economy-wide profit margins very closely (Chart 12). Chart 12Real U.S. Unit Labor Costs Historically Have Tracked Economy-Wide Profit Margins Very Closely In practice, it is very rare for earnings to contract outside of recessions (Chart 13). This is why recessions and equity bear markets generally overlap (Chart 14). With the next recession still two years away, it is too early to turn defensive. Indeed, as Table 1 shows, the second-to-last year of business-cycle expansions is often the most lucrative for stock market investors. Chart 13Earnings Rarely Contract Outside Of Recessions Chart 14Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Q: What do you recommend in terms of regional equity allocation? A: If global growth accelerates later this year and the dollar weakens, this will create an excellent environment for international stocks – EM and Europe in particular. Investors should prepare to overweight those regions at the expense of the United States (currency unhedged). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Elaine Chan, “China spreading ‘positive news’ of strong export rebound in early March after February plunge,” South China Morning Post, March 11, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Analysis on Turkey is published below. The key reason why we believe the ongoing EM rally will falter is that EM corporate earnings have begun to contract. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices from selling off. The recent pick-up in China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests the bottom in EM corporate profit growth will only occur toward the end of 2019. There are several key differences between the economic backdrops and financial markets signposts between now and 2016. The current profiles of both EM and DM share prices are a close match to those in 2011-2012 when the strong rally in the first quarter was followed by a major selloff in the second quarter. Feature The common narrative in the market is that the current policy backdrop – a pause by the Fed and policy stimulus from China – is a repeat of early 2016. As such, market participants expect moves in global risk assets to be analogous to those during that period. We too could easily adopt this simple narrative, and recommend investors to chase EM higher. Instead, we have chosen to take on the very difficult task of expounding why 2019 is not a repeat of 2016 in EM and China-related financial markets. Based on this, our view remains that investors should not be chasing the current EM rally. The essential pillar of our negative thesis on EM is that their corporate profits will contract this year. This will be bad news not only for EM share prices but also for EM credit markets and currencies. Chart I-1 illustrates that during the past 10 years, EM stock prices plunged every time profit contraction commenced. Having rallied meaningfully in the past three months, EM financial markets will sell off as EM corporate earnings begin to shrink. Chart I-1EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract The basis for EM profit contraction is the continued slowdown in China. Chart I-2 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months. Hence, the recent pick-up in the former entails the bottom in the latter only toward the end of 2019. Chart I-2EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 In brief, even assuming China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse has bottomed and will improve going forward, EM EPS contraction will deepen for now. EM share prices are unlikely to embark on a cyclical bull market until EM EPS growth bottoms. Earnings Versus Interest Rates Lower interest rates are typically bullish for both equity and credit markets so long as corporate profits do not contract. However, when EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. In general, when discussing the effect of interest rates on equities, one should differentiate between economic and financial linkages. Given the cornerstone narrative of this EM rally has been declining U.S. interest rate expectations, we examine the nexus between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. The economic link refers to the impact of borrowing costs on aggregate spending, and hence corporate profits. The pertinent question is as follows: Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Chart I-3 illustrates that as of the end of February, while Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. expanded by 10% from a year ago, their shipments to China contracted by 10%. Chart I-3Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Hence, the slowdown in EM corporate profits has not been caused by Fed policy. U.S. domestic demand in general and imports in particular have so far been expanding at a healthy pace and they have not been instrumental to EM corporate earnings cycles (Chart I-4). This signifies that lower U.S. interest rates should not have a material impact on EM growth, and thereby corporate profits. Chart I-4EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. Notably, one can argue that the economic and financial market dynamics that prevailed in 2018 worked in the opposite direction: It was China’s slowdown that ultimately imperiled U.S. manufacturing growth, causing U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off, thereby forcing a reversal in the Fed’s stance. The financial link refers to a declining discount rate for EM risk assets as U.S. interest rates drop. A drop in the discount rate lifts the present value of future cash flows and boosts risk asset prices. However, EM equity multiples have not been historically negatively correlated with U.S. bond yields, as shown on the top panel of Chart I-5. Besides, EM credit spreads do not always positively correlate with U.S. borrowing costs, as widely expected (Chart I-5, middle panel). Chart I-5U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship Further, EM currencies have not been negatively correlated with either U.S. bond yields or with the interest rate differential between the U.S. and EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). As to EM local bond yields, especially in high-yielding markets, it is EM exchange rates that drive EM domestic bond yields and their differential over U.S. Treasurys. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. Finally, Chart I-6 illustrates the relationship between the returns on EM assets on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other. This chart corroborates the evidence from Chart I-5 – that the relationship between U.S. interest rates and EM asset markets is not stable. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship Even though in the short term financial markets in developing countries seem to react to changes in U.S. interest rates, in the medium and long run there is no stable relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. Treasury yields. In short, lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. How do we explain the absence of a strong relationship between these financial and economic variables? Our take is as follows: When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices and credit markets from selling off. That is why there is no clear and strong relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Corporate earnings are the key to sustaining this EM rally. What is needed for EM corporate profits to recover is a revival in Chinese demand. The latter is not yet imminent, implying that EM assets will likely hit an air pocket before a more durable bottom occurs. Are lower interest rates in China a justification for the latest EM equity rebound? Chart I-7 demonstrates that both EM and Chinese investable stock indexes positively correlate with interest rates in China. The reason is because all of them are driven by Chinese growth: When growth accelerates, these share prices and Chinese local bond yields rise, and vice versa. Chart I-7Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Bottom Line: Lower interest rates in the U.S. or in China in and of themselves do not constitute sufficient conditions for a cyclical rally in EM share prices. The primary driver of EM share prices in the past 10 years has been Chinese growth, because the latter has a considerable bearing on EM corporate profits. For now, there have been no substantive signs of a growth revival in China. How 2019 Is Different From 2016 We elaborated in detail on how the current round of policy stimulus in China differs from the one in 2015-‘16 in our report titled, Dissecting China’s Stimulus, and will not discuss it here. Instead, we offer several economic and financial signposts illustrating how the EM/China outlook and financial market dynamics in 2019 will differ from those of 2016: Presently, there is no meaningful policy stimulus for the real estate market in China, and property sales will continue to shrink (Chart I-8). This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015-‘16 when the Chinese central bank literally monetized excessive housing inventories by financing residential real estate via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) facility. The ensuing surge in property demand substantially contributed to the business cycle recovery on the mainland in 2016-‘17. Chart I-8A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing EM share prices have been underperforming the DM equity index since late December. In contrast, EM began outperforming DM in January 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December In early 2016, the pace of EM profit contraction stabilized after 18 months of deepening shrinkage (Chart I-1 on page 1). What’s more, investor sentiment on EM was very downbeat in early 2016. Presently, the EM profit contraction is just commencing, and its rate of change will bottom only in late 2019, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. In the meantime, investors are ill prepared for bad news, as their sentiment on EM is extremely buoyant. Finally, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar began selling off in early 2016, corroborating the EM rally. This year the broad measure of the trade-weighted dollar has not sold off. Hence, the dollar has not yet confirmed the EM rebound (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices Is 2019 Akin To 2012? In terms of share-price patterns, the current profiles of both EM and DM are a close match to those in 2011-2012 (Chart I-11). Following a major plunge in the second half of 2011, share prices bottomed in December 2011 and rallied sharply in the following three months. Not only is the duration similar to what transpired with share prices in 2011-’12, but also the magnitude (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? As to the economic backdrop in 2011-‘12, the euro area was in the midst of a credit crisis and China/EM growth was slowing due to the preceding Chinese policy tightening. After the strong rally in January-March 2012, both EM and DM bourses sold off sharply in the second quarter of 2012, re-testing their late 2011 lows. Critically, like the present and unlike early 2016, EM stocks were underperforming DM ones during the early 2012 rally. Lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. On the surface, it appears that the magic words of the European Central Bank President Mario Draghi that “…the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro” that halted the global selloff. Yet, in reality, Draghi’s speech was the trigger for – not the cause of – the markets’ reversal. In retrospect, the primary reason for a major bottom in global risk assets in June 2012 was the bottom in the global business cycle in the second half of 2012 (Chart I-12, top panel). Chart I-12Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed As can be seen on this panel, global equity prices are often coincident with “soft” economic data like global manufacturing PMI. Global stocks typically lead “hard” economic data and corporate profits but do not always lead “soft” data. Presently, the bottom in global manufacturing and trade is not yet in sight. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. These electronics parts are inputs into final goods; when producers of these goods plan to increase production they first order these parts. As a result, trade in these electronics parts lead the broader trade/manufacturing cycle. Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. On the whole, odds are that China’s business cycle as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet hit a durable bottom and are not about to recover. Countries/industries leveraged to China will experience a meaningful profit contraction. Hence, there is a significant probability that EM stocks re-test their recent lows akin to what transpired in 2012. Investment Considerations There is no meaningful evidence indicating that China’s business cycle and global trade and manufacturing have bottomed. Global cyclical equity sectors have rebounded but have not yet decisively broken above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Crucially, their relative performance to the overall global index has been rather sluggish (Chart I-14). This corroborates the lack of global growth tailwinds behind this global equity rally. Chart I-13Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Chart I-14Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks and credit markets within their global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Without an improvement in the global business cycle, the rebound in EM currencies is not durable. As China’s growth disappoints, EM currencies will depreciate versus the dollar, the euro and the yen. Renewed currency depreciation will erode returns on EM local currency bonds for international investors. For dedicated EM local bond portfolios, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea (Chart I-15). Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India and today we are downgrading Turkish local bonds to underweight (please refer to section on Turkey starting on the next page). Chart I-15Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal? The odds of a policy reversal in Turkey are rising. The government’s patience with tight monetary policy may be running thin. The nation’s GDP contracted by 3% in the final quarter of 2018 from a year ago. Further contraction is in the cards. Chart II-1 signifies that monetary policy is indeed tight: Lira-denominated bank loan growth is at zero, and in real (inflation-adjusted) terms bank lending has shrunk by about 18% from a year ago. The ongoing painful economic retrenchment (Chart II-2) and rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing – something the Turkish central bank has done often over the current decade. Specifically, the central bank’s liquidity provisions to the banking system will likely begin to rise (Chart II-3). The severe liquidity tightening, underway since October 2018 via reduced lending to banks, has been partially responsible for the stability in the exchange rate. As the central bank augments liquidity provisions to the banking system, the lira will again come under renewed selling pressure. Rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing. The goal of liquidity provisioning would be to bring down interbank rates and, ultimately, lending rates. Presently, the spread between commercial banks’ lending rates and the interbank rate is negative (Chart II-4, top panel). This is unsustainable. The authorities have forced banks to bring down their lending rates in recent months. As a result, the gap between banks’ lending and deposit rates has also narrowed considerably (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This will weigh on the banks’ profitability. Consequently, we are closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. The government cannot force banks to reduce their lending rates further without reducing their cost of funding. Hence, the central bank might opt to inject excess reserves into the system to bring down interbank rates. Thereafter, the authorities could “guide” banks to further lower their lending rates. Policy easing might not be in the form of outright policy rate cuts to avoid a negative reaction from financial markets. Instead, the central bank could push down inter-bank rates by way of obscure liquidity injections into the banking system. To be sure, the odds of the currency reacting poorly to such loosening of liquidity are non-trivial. This, along with the ongoing recession, the shrinking bank net interest margins and the slow pace of bank loan restructuring, are leading us to downgrade the Turkish bourse that is heavy in bank stocks. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Turkish stocks and local currency bonds back to underweight. We closed our short/underweight positions in the Turkish currency, bonds and equities on August 15, 2018. For details, please see the report Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts. This has proved to be a timely move as Turkish markets have rebounded notably and outperformed their EM peers (Chart II-5). In our opinion, it is now time to downgrade it again. ​​​​​​​ We are also closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. This position has netted a modest 2.3% gain since its initiation on November 29, 2018. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation: 1. Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. 2. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. 3. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways. 4. When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities (Chart of the Week). 5. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds. Right now, with the sum near 3 percent, it is still appropriate to be overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 The global long bond yield recently hit a two-year low (Chart I-2). This is the direct result of central banks’ pivot to dovish – a commitment to keep policy rates at current levels, rather than to hike, for the foreseeable future. Chart I-2The Global Long Bond Yield Recently Hit A Two-Year Low One consequence is that high-quality bonds have become riskier. Consider a German bund or a JGB which is yielding zero percent. The short-term potential for capital appreciation – nominal or real – has almost vanished, while the potential for vicious losses has increased dramatically. The technical term for this negative asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in a field of behavioural economics called Prospect Theory concludes that negative skew is the metric that best encapsulates investment risk. The Correct Way Of Thinking About Investment Risk A great misunderstanding of finance is to equate risk with volatility. Risky assets, such as equities, are risky not because they are volatile in the conventional sense. After all, who minds when their asset price goes up sharply? Risky assets are risky because they have the propensity to experience much larger short-term losses than short-term gains – captured in the saying: equities climb up the stairs on the way up, but they jump out of the window on the way down. High-quality bonds have become riskier. Another great misunderstanding of finance is the idea that bonds offer a diversification benefit and, therefore, that investors should accept a lower return from them. This argument is also flawed. The bond market is bigger than the equity market, and just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investments, equities are a diversifier for bond investments. Indeed, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump’s shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities offer a diversification benefit. In fact, the correct way of thinking about investment risk is as follows: An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. At very low bond yields, bond returns develop the same negative asymmetry as equity returns (Chart I-3). This means that equities lose their excess riskiness versus bonds, requiring equity valuations to experience a phase transition sharply higher (Chart I-4). But when bond yields normalize, equities regain their excess riskiness versus bonds – and their valuations must suffer a phase transition sharply lower. The phase transition in equity valuations is most pronounced when the global 10-year bond yield goes up or down through 2 percent (Chart I-5). This dynamic proved to be the biggest driver of asset allocation in 2018, and is likely to be a big driver in 2019 too. Essentially, higher bond yields can suddenly and viciously undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse. The unsurprising response from central banks is to pivot back to dovish, pulling back bond yields to previous lows. These lower bond yields then push up equity (and other risk-asset) valuations back to previous highs. An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or decline further. But the longer-term danger is that these rich valuations are hyper-sensitive to rising bond yields. The Bubble In Everything The current episode of elevated risk-asset valuations is not unprecedented, but there is a crucial difference. Previous episodes of elevated risk-asset valuations tended to be localised, either by geography or sector: 1990 was focussed in Japan; 2000 was focussed in the dot com related sectors; 2008 was focussed in the U.S. mortgage and credit markets. Extraordinary monetary policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes. By comparison, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes – equities (Chart I-6), credit (Chart I-7), and real estate (Chart I-8). This makes it considerably more dangerous, because we estimate that the total value of global risk-assets including real estate is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.1 Chart I-6Equities Remain Richly Valued Chart I-7Credit Remains Richly Valued Chart I-8The EM Real Estate Boom Happened After 2008 Let’s say you had a risk-asset that was priced to generate 5 percent a year over the next decade. Now imagine that the valuation boost from ultra-accommodative monetary policy capitalises all of those future returns to today. For those future returns to drop to zero, today’s price must surge by 63 percent.2 If you were prudent, you might amortise today’s windfall to generate the original 5 percent a year over the next decade. But if you were imprudent, you might spend a large amount of the windfall today. The total value of global risk-assets equals five times the size of the global economy. Now let’s imagine a valuation derating moves the risk-asset’s returns back to the future. For those that had prudently amortised the original windfall, nothing has really changed and future spending patterns would not be impacted. But not everybody is prudent. For those that had imprudently spent the original windfall, future spending would inevitably suffer a nasty recession. The Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 How can we sense the crucial 2 percent level in the global 10-year bond yield? The answer is that it broadly equates to when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund and JGB is at a 4 percent level (Chart I-9). This is the genesis of our very successful ‘Rule of 4’. In 2019, just as in 2018, investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation. The rule of 4 identifies when the global 10-year bond yield is at 2 percent. Chart I-9When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent  Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways.  When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds (Chart I-10). Overweight equities versus bonds. With the sum of the three 10-year yields now near 3 percent, the rule of 4 has, in a sense, become the rule of 3. It is still appropriate to be tactically overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is to overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Chart I-10Use The 65-Day Fractal Dimension To Pinpoint The Precise Transition Points Between Asset-Classes   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?”, September 13, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 5 percent compounded over ten years.

Special Report

Highlights So What? A major antitrust suit could happen within the next couple of years, paradoxically ushering in a rewarding investment opportunity.  Why? The current environment of corporate overreach, protectionism and popular discontent has often preceded large antitrust suits. An outcome other than a breakup would likely be benign for the stock price, while the announcement of a breakup would be negative. However, the completion of the breakup could present a great buying opportunity. Feature “No wonder that Wall Street’s prayer now is ‘Oh Merciful Providence, give us another dissolution’” - Former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912   The investment community has been increasingly worried about the possibility of regulatory action against America’s biggest technology companies (the so-called “FAANG” stocks). We addressed the mounting probability of such action in a mid-2018 report. In this report, we focus on the market reaction post-dissolution, by examining some of the biggest antitrust cases in the history of the U.S. Specifically, this report complements our work on the U.S. antitrust framework (please see Appendix A) by looking for potential signs indicating that a monopolization suit could be likely. Moreover, we analyze the stock prices of the companies alleged to have committed antitrust violations to understand the implications for investors’ portfolios. To build our sample of U.S. monopolization cases, we set the following criteria: 1.  Non-merger cases: Antitrust cases blocking mergers between two or more companies are common, and most investors are familiar with them. However, we choose to examine the much rarer cases involving a single firm. 2.  Large-cap companies: A large number of anti-monopoly suits are directed towards small or private companies. We select only companies that had a large market capitalization at the time of the suit, in order to closely match the profile of FAANG stocks. 3.  The Department of Justice sought dissolution: We decided against considering monetary fines, as they are generally not big enough to meaningfully affect the stock price of large companies.1 By focusing on cases where dissolution was sought, we narrow our scope to the most severe cases in antitrust history. Table 1 shows the seven companies that we selected, as well as the final verdict, the timeline of the process, and other details. While our sample may seem small, it is important to remember that since the passing of the Sherman Act in 1890, non-merger anti-monopoly cases against large public companies have been incredibly rare in the U.S., even in the periods with the strictest regulatory enforcement.2  The increasing economic and political power of corporations acted as a catalyst for antitrust enforcement. Our sample includes a variety of outcomes: from cases where the accused won the suit or where the suit was dropped (U.S. Steel and IBM), to cases where there was ultimately no dissolution but a different remedy was imposed (Alcoa and Microsoft), to cases where the accused was broken up (Standard Oil, American Tobacco and AT&T). Power, Protectionism, And Discontent: The Causes Of Anti-Monopoly Suits The economic and political context surrounding the cases in our sample share some common features. 1.  Corporate overreach The issue of power was central to the original intent of the Sherman Act,3 with the U.S. Congress understanding that the concentration of economic power will ultimately result in concentration of political power, “breeding antidemocratic political pressures.”4 The data confirms that the increasing economic and political power of corporations acted as a catalyst for enforcement. With the exception of AT&T, every single one of our examined cases occurred following a period where the earnings of the biggest corporations in the U.S. were increasing at a rate faster than worker compensation (Chart 1, top panel). This dynamic likely increased the feeling of distrust towards big business, as corporations were perceived to be getting a disproportionate amount of the national wealth. The prices in the industries of the accused companies were generally decreasing relative to inflation in the period prior to the beginning of their case. Concern regarding corporate power also arose for different reasons. In 1965, Ralph Nader published the book “Unsafe at Any Speed,” accusing the large American automakers of hiding their safety record. Nader’s work coincided with the origin of the modern anti-tobacco movement. The two would mark the beginning of the consumer movement and would increase scrutiny on the power that companies yielded (Chart 1, bottom panel), providing the political impetus behind the antitrust movement.5  Chart 1Antitrust Action Seeks To Curb Corporate Power 2.  Domestic protectionism Traditional economic theory would suggest that monopoly firms can charge “monopoly prices,” i.e. prices much higher than what would exist in a competitive market. However, the data tells a different story, as the prices in the industries of the accused companies were generally decreasing relative to inflation in the period prior to the beginning of their case (Chart 2). Chart 2AAccused Monopolies Were Cutting Prices (I) Chart 2BAccused Monopolies Were Cutting Prices (II) How to explain this? In contrast to the stereotypical monopoly, most of the accused companies were ruthlessly efficient and competitive, having the ability to substantially lower costs relative to their competitors. Some did this through genuine innovation. The Standard Oil corporation, for example, invented the oil tanker, dramatically reducing loading time and associated risk. As a result, it was able to secure lower transportation costs from the railway companies.6 Others did it through economies of scale. An example is Alcoa, which vertically integrated all four stages of aluminum production.7 Moreover, while being responsible for 90% of the supply of U.S. primary aluminum, it produced it all in a single plant, minimizing overhead costs.8  Due to their ability to charge drastically lower prices, the corporations in our sample were accused of using predatory prices in six out of the seven cases.9 This was despite the fact that these claims often fell flat in court, largely because distinguishing between predatory pricing and price competition is extremely difficult in practice.10 But if these companies were lowering prices through innovation and economies of scale, why were they charged in the first place? At its core, regulation of monopolies has broader policy objectives.11 This ranges from protectionism against foreign competition to protectionism against large domestic corporations. This protectionist streak dates all the way back to John Sherman himself, an advocate of tariffs during his entire political career.12 Thus, the efficiency of major companies accused of forming trusts was often their downfall, as struggling domestic rivals applied political pressure to bring the suit forward.13 The timing of antitrust suits suggests that the government was looking to deflect the blame of the bust phase. 3.  Late cycle, recessions, inflation Finally, with the exception of the Microsoft case in 1998, the government filed the antitrust complaints against the companies in our sample in recessionary or late-cycle periods (within a year of a recession). Additionally, rising and relatively high inflation tended to precede these periods (Chart 3). Although we have no outright evidence, the timing suggests that the government was looking to deflect the blame of the bust phase or general economic mismanagement. Chart 3Are Antitrust Suits A Distraction From Economic Mismanagement? Antitrust Cases And Stock Prices  The length of the cases in our sample range from roughly three years in the Microsoft case to more than 13 years in the Alcoa case. Moreover, the number and type of judicial decisions varied widely between cases. To make for a better comparison we look at only three events in each case: 1.  The Accusation: the date when the suit was first filed by the Department of Justice. 2.  The Decision: the date of the effective end of the case; when the case was either dropped or settled, or when the “last resort” court arrived at a final remedy. 3.  The Breakup: for the cases ending in dissolution, the date when shares of the new companies were distributed to investors; when the breakup was consummated. For all the charts in this section, we denote month “t” as the relevant event month. For information on the stock price movement following other important judicial events, please see Appendix B. The filing of a suit was generally negative for the stock price of the accused company. The Accusation The filing of a suit was generally negative for the stock price of the accused company (Chart 4). The stock price of every one of the companies suffered relative to the appropriate benchmark in the month of the accusation. The effect seems to have been more dramatic for the cases before the 1920’s with an average underperformance of 13% in the month of the event, although they were able to recover from the initial hit within six months. The impact on the more recent cases was more muted, with an average underperformance of 3.7%. The Decision When analyzing the last judicial event of the suit, we separate our cases into three different outcomes: cases where the suit was dropped or won (U.S. Steel and IBM), cases where there was a remedy other than dissolution (Alcoa and Microsoft), and cases concluding in dissolution (Standard Oil, American Tobacco, and AT&T). Both U.S. Steel and IBM outperformed the market in the year following the positive announcement (Chart 5), though the effect seems to have been more muted for U.S. Steel. On the other hand, the effect was much more pronounced for IBM, which found some relief from regulators after famously spending a fortune defending itself. Alcoa, on the other hand, suffered a 4.3% underperformance once its stock disposal remedy was announced, although it managed to recover the losses within seven months (Chart 6). Meanwhile, Microsoft finished the year following the announcement outperforming the market by 12%. For the cases in which dissolution was the result, we look at the performance of the stock from the decision of the breakup until the month before the new shares were distributed. The month of the announcement was negative for both Standard Oil and particularly American Tobacco (Chart 7). AT&T, on the other hand, managed to rally slightly following the settlement. However, the months leading to the breakup involved a significant amount of volatility for all companies, most likely as investors slowly got to know the terms that were being agreed upon for the dissolution. In the AT&T case, the two-year period in which the dissolution was arranged proved to be particularly negative, with the stock underperforming the market by more than 20%. Every single one of the companies outperformed the market on the date of the breakup. The Breakup To analyze the performance following the breakup we look at the portfolios that were given to investors in exchange for their pre-dissolution shares. The AT&T case resulted in the simplest portfolio: for every 10 shares of old AT&T, the investor received 10 shares of new AT&T, plus one share of each of the other seven companies. The Standard Oil portfolio involved varying amounts of shares of 34 companies. The American Tobacco portfolio was slightly more complex, as the stock for two of the post-breakup companies was not given away for free but instead offered at a discount. Given that shareholders might not have had the funds available for this purchase we show the portfolio without the investment (LOWER BOUND) and fully invested up to the amount permitted (UPPER BOUND). Every single one of the companies outperformed the market on the date of the breakup (Chart 8). Furthermore, they all managed to outperform by large amounts over the following year, with AT&T outperforming by 14%, American Tobacco outperforming by 47% (10% for the lower bound), and Standard Oil outperforming by a gargantuan 66%.14 While this sample size is small, the large positive market effect from the breakup of companies from such disparate industries has drawn the interest of academics.15 Overall, it seems that the fear that competition might bring about earnings erosion is misguided. Rather, earnings growth outperformed the market following the dissolution (Chart 9). Investment Implications The previous analysis provides us with some answers to the following questions: When will one or more of the FAANGs be accused of monopolization? The current political environment is ripe for significant antitrust enforcement, particularly for the high-flying FAANG stocks. Whether it is election meddling, data privacy issues, perceived ideological bias, or large accumulation of wealth, Americans across the political spectrum are wary of the power of tech companies (Chart 10). Moreover, BCA expects the next recession by 2021 with inflation trending to the upside. Thus, we expect that antitrust action against a large tech company is likely to occur in the next couple of years. Which of the FAANGs is the most likely target? Among all FAANG stocks, no company has crushed its rivals more than Amazon (Chart 11). This makes it particularly vulnerable to antitrust enforcement, and it is thus not surprising that President Trump most often singles it out, entirely aside from any personal issues with CEO Jeff Bezos.16 Chart 11Amazon Is Devastating Small Retailers How will the stock of an accused company react? A monopoly suit will likely be negative for the stock. If recent history is any guide, the underperformance on the event could be relatively mild (2% to 5%), although the stock could underperform by up to 15%, if similar to older cases. However, investors must remember that monopoly cases have historically developed across multi-years periods. Thus, while individual court decisions will influence the stock through the process, other factors will determine the overall trend of these stocks throughout the duration of the case. The date when the breakup is complete could prove to be a fantastic buying opportunity, as competition is unlikely to erode earnings. How will the stock price react when the case is decided? Outcomes in which the accused wins the suit, or there is a remedy other than dissolution will ultimately be benign for the stock within a one-year period. Thus, investors should fade any selloff in this situation. In the case of a breakup, investors should try to sell the stock of the accused on or before the announcement, as the agreement of the terms of the dissolution will likely bring a substantial amount of volatility and negative performance to the share price. However, the date when the breakup is complete could prove to be a fantastic buying opportunity, as competition is unlikely to erode earnings.   Juan Manuel Correa Ossa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com     APPENDIX A A Brief History Of Monopoly Regulation Interest in monopolies started in the late nineteenth century with the emergence of the business trust. It increased markedly in the earlier years of the twentieth century (Appendix A Chart 1, top panel). Soon breaking up powerful companies became a popular bipartisan goal for many voters. Appendix A Chart 1Monopoly Regulation Throughout The Years Politicians reacted accordingly. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Act, the first federal legislation regulating competition. This piece of legislation served as the basis for prosecuting the first few cases  in our sample: Standard Oil in 1906, American Tobacco in 1907, and U.S. Steel in 1911. After a brief respite in the roaring 1920’s, monopoly regulation rose throughout the New Deal, with the 1937 Alcoa case being the landmark case of this era. Regulation continued to tighten and peak in the 1950’s – the era with the strictest enforcement of monopoly laws in the history of the Unites States (Appendix A Chart 1, middle panel). No cases from our sample fall in this period, probably because intense antitrust regulation made it difficult for large monopolies to exist in the first place. Nevertheless, as the 1960’s passed, interest started to dwindle. While regulation of monopolies was a staple talking point of the State of the Union address for Republicans and Democrats alike throughout the first half of the twentieth century, no president would again feature it after 1962.17  Amid this decline in enforcement, the IBM and AT&T cases were the last monopoly cases for many years, as the “Chicago School”, and its free market paradigm, rose in popularity in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Appendix A Chart 1, bottom panel). Monopoly enforcement would continue to decline throughout the 1990’s and into the present, with the Microsoft case being the only one from our sample that developed during the past three decades. Appendix B   Footnotes 1      The largest monetary fine ever imposed by the Department of Justice on an antitrust case was the $925 million fine against Citicorp. This amounts to roughly 0.6% of the market cap of Netflix, the smallest of the FAANGs. Even larger fines imposed in the EU, like the €4.34 billion fine imposed against Google had little effect on the stock price. 2      Please see Spencer Weber Waller, ”The Past, Present, and Future of Monopolization Remedies,” Antitrust Law Journal, 76:11 (2008), pp. 14-15, available at lawecommons.luc.edu 3      Please see Lina M. Khan, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," The Yale Law Journal 126:710 (2017), pp. 739. 4      Khan 740. 5      Please see Steve Coll, The Deal of The Century: The Break Up of AT&T (New York, NY: Open Road Media, 2017). 6      Please see Werner Troesken, “The Letters of John Sherman and the Origins of Antitrust”, The Review of Austrian Economics 15:4 (2002), pp. 279, available at www.gmu.edu 7      Please see Don E. Waldman and Elizabeth J. Jense, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice: Fourth Edition (Routledge, 2016). 8      Please see Robert W. Crandall, ”The Failure of Structural Remedies in Sherman Act Monopolization Cases”, AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies, Working Paper No. 01-05 (March 2001). 9      Ironically, U.S. Steel, the only case won in court and without a predatory pricing allegation, was the only company that fit the definition of a stereotypical monopoly. Its need to coordinate with more efficient competitors to set prices was ultimately used as key evidence to prove that U.S. Steel did not have monopoly power. Please see William H. Page, “Standard Oil and U.S. Steel: Predation and Collusion in the Law of Monopolization and Mergers”, Southern California Law Review 85:3 (2012), pp. 112, available at scholarship.law.ufl.edu 10     Please see Federal Trade Commission, “Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing”, available at www.ftc.gov 11     Please see Christopher Grandy, “Original Intent and The Sherman Antitrust Act: A Re-examination of the Consumer-Welfare Hypotheses,” The Journal of Economic History 53:2 (1993), pp. 360, available at www.jstor.org 12     Please see William Kolasky, “Trustbusters: Senator Sherman And The Origin of Antitrust”, Antitrust Magazine of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law 24:1 (2009), pp. 86. 13     Some examples include the Ohio Oil lobby in the Standard Oil case, MCI in the AT&T case, and Netscape in the Microsoft case. 14     The explosive performance of the trusts after their breakup would anger Theodore Roosevelt, who would bitterly joke that people in Wall Street prayed: ‘Oh Merciful Providence, give us another dissolution’”. Please see Steve Weinberg, Taking on the Trust: The Epic Battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller (Norton & Company, 2009). 15     Please see Malcolm R. Burns, “The Competitive Effects of Trust-Busting: A Portfolio Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy 85:4 (1977), pp. 719, available at www.jstor.org 16     Please see AXIOS, “Trump Hates Amazon, not Facebook,” dated March 28, 2018, available at www.axios.com. 17     Please see The Atlantic, “The Rise And Fall of the Word ‘Monopoly’ In American Life,” dated June 20, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.com

Highlights Portfolio Strategy As growth becomes scarce, investors flock to sectors that are slated to outgrow the broad market and shy away from the ones that are forecast to trail the SPX’s growth rate. This week we rank sectors and subsectors by EPS growth in our universe of coverage, and identify sweet and trouble spots. Fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. The cable industry’s demand headwinds are reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may also provide positive profit offsets. Stick with a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes Boost the S&P Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing index to overweight all the way from underweight today, locking in relative profits of 21%. Table 1 Feature Equities broke out last week and surpassed the upper band of their recent trading range, despite economic data releases that continued to surprise to the downside. Two weeks ago, we cautioned investors not to put cash to work as a tactical indigestion period loomed, with the SPX facing stiff resistance near the 2,800 level. In addition, we posited that most of the good news related to the U.S./China trade spat front was reflected in the S&P 500’s V-shaped recovery (top panel, Chart 1). In relative terms, the bottom panel of Chart 1 confirms that the easy money has already been made on the assumption of a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade dispute. Chart 1Trade Deal Priced In Going forward, the earnings juggernaut will have to remain in place in order for stocks to vault to fresh all-time highs, likely in the back half of the year. The Trump administration’s massive fiscal stimulus artificially fueled profit growth last year both by lowering the corporate tax rate and by encouraging overseas cash repatriation. The latter boosted share buybacks to an all-time record. Despite 24% EPS growth and $1tn in equity retirement, the SPX ended 2018 6% lower. Why? It became clear that EPS growth was headed lower. In order to gauge trend EPS growth we opt to use EBITDA, a cash flow proxy measure that strips out the direct impact of last year’s fiscal easing. Chart 2 clearly shows that trend growth took a step down following the positive base effects of the GFC-induced collapse and averaged close to 5%/annum from 2012 to 2014. Subsequently, the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession sunk EBITDA into contraction, but the euphoria surrounding the newly elected President pushed trend EBITDA growth to near 10%/annum for two full years in 2017 and 2018. Chart 2Return To 5% Growth? Since the late-2018 peak, 12-month forward EBITDA growth continues to drift lower and is now hovering just shy of 3%. Our sense is that 5% organic profit growth is consistent with nominal GDP printing 4%-4.5% at this stage of the business cycle, signaling that a return to the 2012-2014 growth backdrop is likely later in the year. As a reminder, positive profit growth in calendar 2019 remains one of the three pillars underpinning stocks that we have highlighted since the beginning of this year. Stocks have come full circle recovering all of last December’s losses, but in order to make fresh all-time highs, profits will have to deliver. We deem that an earnings validation phase is transpiring and there are early signs that profit growth will trough sometime in the first half of the year. Not only has EBITDA breadth put in a bottom (Chart 2), but also economically hypersensitive indicators suggest that forward EBITDA growth will soon tick higher. Namely, the ISM manufacturing new orders component has perked up on a year-over-year basis. The trough in lumber futures momentum corroborates this message, as does the tick higher in the U.S. boom/bust indicator (Chart 3). Chart 3Growth Green-shoots Given the current macro backdrop and awaiting the profit validation, when growth becomes scarce investors flock to sectors that are outgrowing the broad market and shy away from ones that trail the SPX’s growth rate. Typically, in recessionary times that would equate to investors bidding up defensive sectors that command stable cash flow businesses and avoiding highly cyclical industries. But, BCA does not expect a recession in the coming year. Thus, in order to identify high growth sectors that should outperform during the current soft patch and growth laggards that should underperform, we compiled a table with the GICS1 sectors and all the subsectors we cover. First, we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 2). We aim to reproduce this table once a quarter. Table 2Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The third columns in Table 2 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. The final columns in Table 2 highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Industrials and financials (we are overweight both) are leading the pack outpacing the broad market by 410bps and 350bps, respectively, and enjoy a rising profit trend. On the flip side, energy (overweight) and real estate (underweight) trail the broad market by 490bps and 1480bps, respectively, and showcase a deteriorating EPS trend. With regard to energy, we first identified that analysts are really punishing this sector in the January 22 Weekly Report and the sector’s 2019 EPS contribution was and remains negative.1 Our overweight call will be offside if oil prices suffer a new setback, but our Commodity & Energy strategy service remains bullish on oil, implying relative EPS outperformance in 2019. Year-to-date, energy has bested the SPX by 170bps. This week, we make an energy sector subsurface tweak, and also update a communication services subgroup. Light My Fire Last summer we took refiners down to a below benchmark allocation as all of the good news was perfectly reflected in soaring relative share prices (top panel, Chart 4), at a time when cracks were forming. Now we are compelled to book gains of 21% and boost exposure all the way to overweight. Chart 4Crack Spreads Are On Fire Today, refiners paint a near exact opposite picture compared with last July. Relative share prices are no longer rising by 50%/annum. Instead, momentum has collapsed and is now contracting (middle panel, Chart 4). Sell-side analyst exuberance has turned into outright pessimism: refiners’ profits are expected to trail the broad market in the coming year. By comparison, last summer they were penciled in to beat the market by 30 percentage points (bottom panel, Chart 4). Granted M&A activity had also added fuel to the fire, but now all the hot air has come out of the refining industry, and then some. Refiners’ riches move in tandem with crack spreads. When refining margins widen, profits excel and vice versa. Now that refining margins are in a slingshot recovery, refining ills will turn into fortunes (bottom panel, Chart 4). Importantly, wide Brent-WTI spreads underpin crack spreads. Moreover, the crude oil versus refined product inventory backdrop currently reinforces a widening in refining margins. In absolute terms, gasoline stockpiles are being worked off (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 5) and grinding higher demand for refined petroleum products (top panel, Chart 5) will further tighten the industry’s inventory outlook. Chart 5Healthy Supply/Demand Backdrop One way domestic refiners are taking advantage of the still wide Brent-WTI differential is via the export markets. Net refined products exports are running at over 3mn barrels/day (bottom panel, Chart 6), and the softening greenback since November will further boost profits with a slight lag as U.S. refining exports will grab an even larger slice of the global pie (U.S. dollar shown inverted and advanced, middle panel, Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Dollar Softness Is A Boon To Refining Profits On the valuation front, both the relative forward P/E and P/S have undershot their respective historical means and EPS breadth is as bad as it gets, offering investors an excellent entry point in the pure-play oil & gas refining industry (Chart 7). Chart 7Extreme Analyst Pessimism Reigns In sum, fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to overweight all the way from a below benchmark allocation, crystalizing 21% in relative profits since last summer’s inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR – PSX, MPC, VLO, HFC. Cable’s Down But Not Out Cable & satellite stocks had been in an uninterrupted run from the depths of the Great Recession until the peak in relative share prices in August 2017. Since then, cord cutting news and the proliferation of on demand streaming services have wreaked havoc on the industry and cable stocks have trailed the market by over 33% from peak to the most recent trough (top panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Cable Signals Are… This deteriorating demand backdrop more than offset the industry’s reaction function, which has been intra and inter-industry M&A. Now that the M&A dust has settled, what is next in store for the industry? We reckon that leading profit indicators are a mixed bag and we continue to recommend a benchmark allocation in this niche communications services subgroup. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that relative outlays on cable are on a slippery slope, and will continue to weigh heavily on relative share prices for the coming quarters. Nevertheless, the ISM services survey ticked higher recently and is on the cusp of making fresh recovery highs, unlike its sibling the ISM manufacturing survey. This is encouraging news for cable executives and suggests that demand for cable services may not be as moribund as the PCE release is projecting (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9..A Mixed… While the cable demand backdrop is unclear, industry pricing power has managed to exit deflation. Cable selling prices have been positive for the better part of the past decade, but starting in late-2017 they collapsed by roughly 600bps relative to overall inflation. True, this deflationary impulse dented profit margins, but currently the industry’s selling prices – and to a much lesser extent profit margins – are in a V-shaped recovery mostly courtesy of base effects (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8). Absent a sustained hook up in cable demand, selling price inflation will prove fleeting and the recent margin expansion phase will also lose steam. Meanwhile, cable stocks and the U.S. dollar enjoy a positive correlation as most of the constituents’ earnings are derived domestically (Chart 10). The recent U.S. dollar softness will, at the margin, weigh on relative profits and thus relative share prices, especially if the Fed stays pat and refrains from raising rates for the rest of the year as the bond market currently expects. Chart 10…Bag Finally, earnings breadth continues to fall, but relative valuations are still well below the historical mean (third & bottom panels, Chart 9). Netting it all out, cable’s demand headwinds are well reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may both provide positive profit offsets. Bottom Line: Remain on the sidelines in the S&P cable & satellite index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CBST – CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps