Equities
The previous Insight showed that the industrial sector share price spike was in danger of a reversal. The S&P electrical equipment and components index looks equally vulnerable. Hefty short positions likely played a large role in powering the spike, and we are uncomfortable with paying a premium valuation for a dubious earnings outlook, particularly given the sector's brutal long-term track record during U.S. dollar bull markets (the currency is shown inverted, top panel). From a cyclical perspective, new orders for electric equipment are sensitive to EM currency movements. The current message is that new orders are likely to languish. Relief is not imminent from domestic sources. Real investment spending on electrical equipment is contracting at a steep rate. That is consistent with the trend in overall construction spending. Ergo, the productivity contraction is likely to persist. Downshift to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5ELCO - AME AYI EMR ETN ROK.
Industrials have vaulted higher, in relative terms, on the back of hopes for rampant fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending as far as the eye can see, ignoring any negatives that may arise from protectionist policies and tighter monetary conditions. Large cap industrials companies garner approximately 45% of their revenue from outside the U.S. Regression analysis shows that industrial sectors sales would contract by 4.5% for every 10% in the trade-weighted dollar. Without revenue growth, it is hard for industrial companies to generate good profitability, given high operating leverage. It is no wonder relative performance has had a longstanding tight inverse correlation with the currency (top panel). Industrials sector pricing power has shifted from a deep negative to neutral. However, that appears to represent an unwinding of the rate of change shock more than a resumption of conditions conducive to companies lifting selling prices. Capital goods import price are still deflating. As the Chinese currency devalues, putting downward pressure on its regional counterparts, deflationary pressures will re-intensify for U.S. industrial firms, delivering a blow to the recent escalation in exuberance. We added the industrials sector to our high conviction underweight list in yesterday's Weekly Report.
Highlights Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. Since 2014, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected. This remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Fiscal stimulus will be a positive development and could dominate the investment landscape for some time. But investors should not view it as a panacea for growth headwinds. Feature Investors continue to digest the ramifications of the new configuration in Washington. In this week's report, we answer the most frequently asked queries that we have received from clients. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us with yours. 1. How Has Your Forecast For Markets Changed Since November 9? We had been cautious on risk assets, we had been dollar bulls, and we had been advocating slightly underweight/neutral bond duration positions prior to the elections, as highlighted in the November 7 Weekly Report. Our cautious stance on equities, particularly large-cap stocks, has not changed. Our main worry has been that corporations continue to lack pricing power and top-line growth will struggle to grow meaningfully in 2017. In other words, profit margins are a headwind - as they often are at this point of the cycle (Chart 1). But contrary to past recoveries, persistent low growth means that top-line growth will not provide the same offset to a margin squeeze driven by rising labor costs (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Market On Fire Chart 2Profit Margin Squeeze Intact For Now Our expectations have been for earnings growth to be in the mid-single digits in 2017, with risks to the downside depending on the degree of dollar strength. True, although the above profit outlook is rather uninspiring, it does not justify an underweight allocation to equities. Monetary policy is still accommodative and a recession is unlikely. However, as the Fed drains the punchbowl, volatility will increase as the onus of equity price appreciation falls heavily on profit drivers. Leading up to the election, we made the case that any adverse reaction to a Trump win would be very short and was not the main event for financial markets on a 6-12 month time horizon. Since November 9, there has been a strong, emotional reaction to the Trump win. Our first read of potential policy outcomes is that the "new America" will be far less business-friendly than equity prices are currently suggesting. The headwinds to multinationals from trade reform and immigration constraints may well offset any positive developments from deregulation in the financial and energy sectors. Most importantly, fiscal spending is positive to the extent that new projects and spending will boost top-line growth. But as we discuss below, the violent Treasury sell-off risks crimping growth before any fiscal spending kicks in. Moreover, so far gauges of policy uncertainty have stayed subdued, but that may change quickly, given the number of unknowns ahead and potential negative reactions from other countries to the new U.S. government. Taken together, we see no reason to upgrade our view on equities. For bonds, we had been expecting that the Fed would raise rates in December, because the economic and inflation data have been sufficiently strong relative to policymakers' thresholds to proceed with a rate hike. The bond market had not been fully discounting this outcome; our view was that the 10-year Treasury could move to 2% or slightly higher, due to the re-pricing of the Fed. Our models suggested that fair value on the 10-year Treasury was around 2% and so once bond yields got that level, a trading range would be established. Treasuries were overvalued for most of this year, and a symmetric shift to undervaluation could now occur. However, we have doubts that we have entered a new bond bear market. Market expectations for U.S. interest rates are rapidly converging to the Fed's forecasts. The rise in yields should pause once the gap has closed. Finally, we have been cyclical dollar bulls for some time. Our principle reason is due to the favorable gap in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and most other major currencies. We see no reason to change our dollar bullish stance. 2. Is Fiscal Spending Really The New Panacea? Our view can be summarized as: Curb Your Enthusiasm. Fiscal stimulus is a positive development. Since the early days of the Great Recession, monetary policymakers have been working alone. Monetary policy has become ineffective at boosting growth, and currency depreciation only shifts growth between countries, it does not create more. Fiscal spending is an opportunity to increase the "GDP pie." But as we wrote two weeks ago, the type of fiscal spending matters, a lot. Income tax cuts on high income earners as well as corporate tax cuts tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Equally important is the interest rate regime that coincides with fiscal stimulus. When an economy is near full employment and there is a risk that above trend growth will create inflation, central banks tend to react, and thus dull the force of the initial stimulus. That is the current economic scenario. The bottom line is that fiscal spending will give a fillip to GDP growth for a few quarters in late in 2017 and perhaps in 2018, but investors should be careful in assuming that fiscal spending will meaningfully change the long-term U.S. growth trajectory as it is not a solution for structural headwinds, such as an aging population. Chart 3Can The Economy Handle Higher Yields? 3. What Can We Monitor To Understand The Direction Of Policy With Trump As President? Cabinet appointments will be a key area of interest for financial markets. These personnel will ultimately help shape Donald Trump's policy path. There will likely be many rumors about potential appointments, but we believe it is best to ignore near-term noise and focus on Trump's announcements in December and the Senate's official appointments in January. 4. How High Can Bond Yields Get Before The Sell-off Becomes Economically Damaging? The economic backdrop has improved over the past two years and is much closer to full employment. Thus, underlying economic growth is better positioned to withstand a rise in yields. For example, better job prospects and security will allow prospective homeowners to better absorb higher mortgage rates. Still, investors should note that some equity sectors have already responded to the tightening. Chart 3 shows that home improvement stocks are underperforming significantly. What has changed is the greater role of the currency in overall monetary condition tightening. Indeed, the tightening in monetary conditions over the past twelve months has been principally due to the dollar rise. Our U.S. fixed income team's model of fair value for government bonds is based on global PMIs as a proxy for growth, policy uncertainty, and sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The current reading suggests that 10-year Treasuries are fairly valued when at around 2.25%. Note that fair value has been moving higher in recent weeks on the back of better global economic news. Since 2014, i.e. the start of the dollar rally, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected (Chart 4). We think this remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Chart 4How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? 5. Deregulation And Other Pro-Business Reforms Will Surely Spur Improved Business Confidence And Investor Animal Spirits? We are unsure. History has shown that periods of deregulation (the 1980s and 1990s especially) were conducive to high equity market returns and strong business growth, so this is indeed a positive factor. But there is a lot that can go wrong. Allan Lichtman, a political historian who has correctly predicted all of the past eight Presidential elections, is now predicting that Trump will be impeached within the next four years, due to previous improper business dealings. If that were to occur, we would expect market sentiment to be negative, closely akin to the Worldcom and Enron accounting scandals, which shook faith in the role of the public company CEO. One important gauge will be the global uncertainty index (Chart 5). Uncertainty leads to an increase in risk aversion, and can spur a flight into the safety of government bonds. So far, readings are benign, but should be monitored closely. Chart 5Beware A Rise In Uncertainty 6. What Are The Prospects For Fed Rate Hikes? We don't expect a major shift in the message from the Fed (i.e. the Fed dot plots) until monetary policymakers have better visibility on what the fiscal landscape will look like (Chart 6). Chart 6Fed Will Wait And See Janet Yellen's testimony last week indicates that a December rate hike is almost a certainty. However, there was no hint that the Fed is preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle thereafter. Her assessment of the economy was balanced, noting that growth improved to 3% in Q3 from 1% in H1, but downplayed the full extent of the rebound due to a rise inventories and a surge in soybean exports. She described consumer spending to be posting "moderate gains," business investment as "relatively soft," manufacturing to be "restrained" and housing construction as "subdued." There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its growth and inflation forecasts following last week's election. Yellen expects growth to continue at a "moderate pace" and inflation to return to 2% in the "next couple of years." Larger budget deficits would likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively, but for now, their bias is still to manage asymmetric downside risks. 7. Where Would You Deploy New Funds Today? Into cash. Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. If the new American government succeeds in implementing a pro-business strategy of lower corporate taxes, increased infrastructure spending, a lighter regulatory burden for the financial services industry, while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform, foreign policy blunders, and general decline in economic and policy uncertainty, then perhaps the current risk-on market moves make some sense. However, that is a massive list, especially for a new President without political experience. In other words, markets have overshot and policy is likely to under-deliver. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. 8. You Like Small Caps, But Are Cautious On High Yield Corporate Credit. These Two Markets Tend To Perform Similarly. Can You Comment? Historically, the absolute performance of small caps and high-yield corporate bond spreads have been tightly negatively correlated. This is because owning both investments tend to be considered a risk-on strategy. But over the past several years, this relationship has weakened and particularly, the correlation between high-yield corporate bond spreads and relative performance of small/large caps has loosened (Chart 7). This is in part because small cap sector weightings are now more closely aligned with large cap weightings. In other words, the S&P 600 index is no longer overly exposed to cyclical relative to the larger cap weightings. Chart 7Small Caps Are A Winner We expect small caps to outperform S&P 500 companies because they tend to have a domestic focus and will be more insulated from a rise in the dollar. As well, small caps, by virtue of being more geared to domestic growth, will benefit from ongoing better U.S. growth rates than global markets. Relative profit margins proxies favor small caps as well. 9. Is There A Structural Bear Market In Voter Turnout In The U.S.? A certain number of headlines have quoted a drastically lower turnout numbers for the 2016 election than in 2012. This has been reinforced by a theory of a structural downturn in voter participation. Both statements are incorrect. Early estimates for this year's election show that approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, down from 58.6 percent in 2012.1 Note that these are just estimates. It is plausible that any decline in voter turnout in 2016 is due to the extreme unpopularity of both candidates (Chart 8). It is unlikely that this experience will be repeated in future elections. As for the longer-term picture, as Chart 9 shows that voter turnout had been, in fact, rising steadily since 2000. Chart 8Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History Chart 9Americans Like Voting, Just Not These Candidates 10. What Are Your Expectations For Upcoming Elections In Europe? A narrative has emerged in the financial industry since Donald Trump's victory and the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU: there is a structural shift towards anti-establishment movements. But we feel this is overstated. France is a case in point as Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), is reportedly enjoying a tailwind. To be sure, she can win the 2017 Presidential election, but her probability of winning has been inappropriately inflated following the U.S. election and, according to our Geopolitical experts, is approximately only 10%.2 Because Marine Le Pen is going to face off against an "establishment" candidate, she offers the alternative to the status quo that the French are seeking. But she is trailing her likely second round opponent, Alain Juppé, by around 40% in the polls. Le Pen is sticking to her negative views on the EU and euro membership. That is a formidable obstacle, since 70% of the French support the euro. The bottom line is that we do not believe that the U.S. election has had a meaningful influence on European voters. Developed nations across the globe are struggling with the same structural issues such as low growth and income inequality. It should not be surprising that common reactions and responses are occurring in various countries. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please See "United States Elections Project," available at http://www.electproject.org/2016g. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?," dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy The strong U.S. dollar is tightening global liquidity conditions, putting the post-election jump in stock prices at risk unless growth imminently accelerates. The spike in large cap industrial stocks represents a massive knee-jerk overreaction and we are adding the sector on our high conviction underweight list. Take profits in the S&P air freight & logistics group and cut to neutral, and downgrade the S&P electrical components & equipment group to underweight. Recent Changes S&P Air Freight & Logistics - Take profits of 6% and reduce to neutral. S&P Electrical Components & Equipment - Trim to underweight from neutral. S&P Industrials Sector - Add to our high-conviction underweight list. Table 1 Feature Equities are still in a post-election honeymoon phase. The savage reaction in the bond market has not yet backlashed onto the broad stock market. Instead it has sparked a rapid and powerful rotation in intra-sector capital flows. The danger is that an unwinding of the momentum trade in the bond market is being misinterpreted as a pro-growth, pro-cyclical investment shift. Investors appear to be equating a potential increase in economic growth with better profitability. However, basing equity strategy on unknown future policies is fraught with risk, as is equating GDP with corporate profits. Trump's signature policies, protectionism and fiscal spending, are inflationary and U.S. dollar bullish, and the timing of implementation and ultimate size of spending programs, remain anyone's guess. In a closed economy driven more by consumption than investment, a strong currency can be supportive via increased purchasing power and a dampening in corporate sector input costs. But what's good for the economy should not be automatically extrapolated through to profits. Net earnings revisions fall when the currency is strong (Chart 1). Capital has won out handily vs. labor since the Great Recession, which allowed profits to boom even though economic growth was below-potential. This is changing. Labor costs are now on the upswing, and productivity has deteriorated. If the economy strengthens, it may only serve to boost wage inflation. If labor expenses accelerate, it becomes even more critical for corporate sector sales to regain traction in order to offset the squeeze on profit margins. However, just under half of S&P 500 sales come from abroad. A strong U.S. dollar means the U.S. will be importing deflationary pressures, undermining pricing power. U.S. dollar appreciation also saps growth in developing countries. Emerging market capital spending is already contracting (Chart 2), and as shown last week, financial strains are flaring back up. Ergo, U.S. companies will be less competitive, and selling into weaker demand growth abroad. Chart 1A Strong Dollar Will Sink Profits... Chart 2... And Hit Global Growth Chart 3 shows that S&P 500 sales typically contract during major dollar bull markets. A recovery has only occurred once currency depreciation occurs. The equity market reaction has been mixed during these periods, as a strong dollar has capped growth and pushed down Treasury yields, supporting a valuation expansion. We do not recommend positioning for a bullish equity outlook, given already overvalued conditions and the rise in government bond yields. It is notable that the inflation component of yields has done the heavy lifting, rather than an upgrading in economic expectations (Chart 4). In other words, there is a sequencing issue, a strong currency saps profits now, while stimulus may only arrive much later. U.S. dollar-based global financial liquidity is now contracting as a consequence of U.S. dollar strength (Chart 4). If excess liquidity and low rates were the argument for supporting high valuations previously, tighter liquidity and rising rates can't also justify current multiples, especially if global growth is soft. As discussed in our November 3, 2014 Special Report, currency strength favors a mostly non-cyclical, domestically-oriented portfolio structure. One of our favored themes over the past few months has been to tilt portfolios in favor of domestic vs. globally-oriented industries. With the U.S. dollar breaking above its trading range, a catalyst now exists to spur an imminent recovery in the domestic vs. global share price ratio. The latter had become extremely oversold as the U.S. dollar consolidated and the Chinese economy began to stabilize, but economic fundamentals are shifting decisively back in favor of the U.S. The U.S. PMI is already making small strides vs. the Chinese and euro area PMI (Chart 5, second panel), heralding a rebound in the cyclical share price momentum. Chart 3No Sales Recovery Ahead Chart 4Tighter Liquidity, Rising Inflation Chart 5Domestic Will Beat Global World export growth remains anemic, and world export prices continue to deflate, albeit at a lesser rate. Sagging Asian currencies warn that trade is at risk, over and above protectionist rhetoric and/or policies. When compared with the reacceleration in U.S. retail sales, the outlook for domestic-sourced profits is even brighter. We reiterate our theme of tilting to domestic vs. globally-oriented industries. The bottom line is that the outlook for the broad averages has soured as a consequence of a strong dollar, rising yields and the prospect for tighter Fed policy. These dynamics augur well for domestic vs. global bias, small vs. large caps and defensive vs. cyclical sector strategy. This week we are taking some cyclicality out of our portfolio following the wild market gyrations in the past two weeks. Taking Advantage Of The Industrials Sector Overreaction... Industrials have vaulted higher, in relative terms, on the back of hopes for rampant fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending as far as the eye can see, ignoring any negatives that may arise from protectionist policies and tighter monetary conditions. While defense contractors may see an increase in activity (we continue to recommend an overweight in the BCA defense index), in aggregate, the surge in the large cap industrials sector is an opportunity to retool exposure from a position of strength. Large cap industrials companies garner approximately 45% of their revenue from outside the U.S. The industrials sector has the second worst track record among all sectors during U.S. dollar bull phases, trailing only the materials sector. Regression analysis shows that industrial sectors sales would contract by 4.5% for every 10% in the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 6). Without revenue growth, it is hard for industrial companies to generate good profitability, given high operating leverage. The U.S. dollar surge is a direct threat to any benefit from an increase in domestic infrastructure spending. Commodity prices key off the U.S. dollar. Emerging markets (EM) are also sensitive to the currency. A strong U.S. dollar undermines income in commodity producing countries, creates financial strains related to EM foreign currency denominated debt and reins in domestic liquidity in countries that need to intervene to stop their currencies falling too far lest capital flight and inflation occur. As noted last week, emerging market currencies are already rolling over, and CDX spreads have begun to widen (Chart 7). EM equity markets are underperforming the global benchmark, reinforcing the lack of a regional growth impulse (Chart 7). It is rare for the industrial sector to deviate from relative EM equity performance. There has been no evidence of EM deleveraging, and the back up in global bond yields represents a financial stress. If U.S. industrials stocks are a high-beta play on EM, then contrarians should beware recent sector action. Chart 6Top-Line Trouble Ahead Chart 7Sell The Spike Importantly, capital spending is in retreat. Business investment is a function of confidence and expected return on investment. The gap between the return on and cost of capital is narrowing fast (Chart 8). Free cash flow is paltry, especially in resource sectors, major industrial sector end markets. It is hard to envision a major capital spending turnaround if the U.S. dollar keeps climbing and the cost of capital backs up further. Policy ambiguity will act as a weight for at least the next few quarters. During this period, the negative profit impact of the contraction in private and public sector construction activity will ultimately re-exert a major influence on sector risk premia. It will take at least several quarters before any hoped for fiscal spending will benefit industrial companies. Industrials sector pricing power has shifted from a deep negative to neutral. However, that appears to represent an unwinding of the rate of change shock more than a resumption of conditions conducive to companies lifting selling prices. Chart 9 shows that capital goods import price are still deflating. As the Chinese currency devalues, putting downward pressure on its regional counterparts, deflationary pressures will re-intensify for U.S. industrial firms (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus Is Needed... Right Now! Chart 9The Dollar Will Do Damage ...By Selling Electrical Components & Equipment ... In terms of specifics, were we not underweight machinery shares already, we would institute a high conviction underweight today. In addition, the S&P electrical equipment and components (ECE) index looks equally vulnerable. While less exposed to commodity prices than machinery stocks, ECE shares have benefited alongside the overall sector from the post-election buying frenzy. Hefty short positions likely played a large role in powering the spike (Chart 10), and we are uncomfortable with paying a premium valuation for a dubious earnings outlook, particularly given the sector's brutal long-term track record during U.S. dollar bull markets (Chart 11, top panel, the currency is shown inverted). From a cyclical perspective, it is premature to position for a reversal in the relative earnings bear market. New orders for electric equipment are sensitive to EM currency movements. The current message is that new orders are likely to languish (Chart 11). Relief is not imminent from domestic sources. Chart 11 shows that real investment spending on electrical equipment is contracting at a steep rate. That is consistent with the trend in overall construction spending, which represents a long-term headwind. It is no surprise that industry productivity growth is contracting (Chart 11), reinforcing that the path of least resistance for profits is lower. It would take a major resurgence in top-line growth to restore productivity to positive levels. The ECE industry is one of the few 'smokestack' parts of the economy to have added capacity in recent years. That is confirmed by persistent growth in ECE wage inflation (Chart 12). Without a pickup in demand, this backdrop is conducive to ongoing deflation (Chart 12, bottom panel). Sell into strength. Chart 10Short Covering Will Not Last... Chart 11... As Fundamentals Erode Chart 12Cost Structures Are Too High ...And Taking Profits In Air Freight Stocks ... Elsewhere, we are taking profits on our overweight S&P air freight & logistics index. While we only recently went overweight in early-September, a much shorter time horizon than our desired cyclical calls, we are concerned that the index has front run an improvement in global trade that may be slow to materialize. Our upgrade was predicated on a tightening in inventories relative to GDP, which boosts the need for just-in-time air freight services, as well as a pickup in emerging markets activity. However, our confidence in the latter has been shaken. Air freight stocks are a reflation play, and a surging U.S. dollar is a threat to global liquidity (Chart 13). Global revenue ton miles have already crested after a muted rebound (Chart 14, second panel). Chart 13A Reflation Play Chart 14Take Profits Moreover, protectionist/anti-globalization sentiment may heat up, representing a risk to a recovery in global trade. The IFO export expectations index continues to sink, a warning for relative forward earnings estimates (Chart 14). The contraction in transport and warehousing hours worked confirms that transport activity is not yet on the mend (Chart 14). Relative performance has a history of violent oscillations, and the price ratio has soared to the top end of its multiyear range. Thus, even though the structural increase in online sales bodes well for long-term growth, and value remains appealing, we are booking profits and reducing positions in this globally-exposed group back to neutral in order to de-risk in our portfolio. Bottom Line: Take profits of 6% in the S&P air freight & logistics index and reduce to neutral. Downgrade the S&P electrical equipment index to underweight and add the overall industrial sector to our high conviction underweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD, and BLBG: S5ELCO - AME AYI EMR ETN ROK. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.
The previous Insight showed that the fundamental backdrop is shifting decisively in favor of domestic vs. globally-oriented equities. That is a major plus for U.S. small vs. large caps. In fact, a broad-based and powerful rotation into small caps already appears to be getting underway, as all the major small cap sectors have surged relative to their large cap counterparts of late. While there may be some tactical downside risk given the scope of the small cap spike, a strong U.S. dollar and likelihood of renewed emerging market financial strains argue for riding out any volatility and maintaining a core overweight in the small cap asset class. It would take evidence of a reversal in the small vs. large cap profit outlook to trigger a downgrading in our view, as discussed in previous research reports.
One of our favored themes over the past few months has been to tilt portfolios in favor of domestic vs. globally-oriented industries. With the U.S. dollar breaking above its trading range, a catalyst now exists to spur an imminent recovery in the domestic vs. global share price ratio. The latter had become extremely oversold as the U.S. dollar consolidated and the Chinese economy began to stabilize, but economic fundamentals are shifting decisively back in favor of the U.S. The U.S. PMI is already making small strides vs. the Chinese and euro area PMI (second panel), heralding a rebound in cyclical share price momentum. World export growth remains anemic, and world export prices continue to deflate, albeit at a lesser rate. Protectionist rhetoric and/or policies would only serve to undermine trade. When compared with the reacceleration in U.S. retail sales, the outlook for domestic-sourced profits is even brighter. We reiterate our theme of tilting to domestic vs. globally-oriented industries.
Highlights The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. However, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. in China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s. The case of China U.S. steel trade dispute suggests that unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. Feature Global financial markets have gradually been coming to terms with the concept of President Donald Trump. Interestingly, U.S. equity market participants appear to be cheering on a potentially sizable fiscal spending package under the new administration, which has boosted industrial sector stocks over the past week. Markets in Asia, particularly Chinese H shares, however, have been less upbeat and have focused more on a possible protectionism backlash emanating from the U.S. under the new leadership. Tough talk on China has featured in every U.S. presidential campaign going back to Nixon reaching out to China in the early 1970s - from Jimmy Carter's strong condemnation of Nixon-Kissinger's "immoral" secret diplomacy of "ass kissing" the Chinese, to Bill Clinton's harsh warnings to the "butchers of Beijing", to repeated pledges by Obama in the 2008 campaign to label China as a "currency manipulator" - all of which signaled an immediate confrontation. Once in office, however, all candidates significantly softened their rhetoric, as government policies require much more realistic and thoughtful discussion, negotiation and compromise. Furthermore, given the huge importance of trade for both economies, a full-fledged trade war between the U.S. and China would risk the growth recession and enormous financial volatility around the globe, a lose-lose outcome hardly conceivable to anyone, no matter how much chest-thumping and aggrandizing is involved. To be sure, the threat of protectionism should not be downplayed. It appears clear that president-elect Trump will be less accommodative to free trade than his predecessors, which is confirmed by his choice of Mr. Dan Dimicco, a former CEO of an American steelmaker and an outspoken critic of U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, to head his trade transition team. However, it is unpredictable at the moment what specific measures he would take to be able to assess potential consequences. It is therefore more useful to take a step back and look at the big picture of trade relations between the two countries. China-U.S. Bilateral Trade Chinese sales to the U.S. far outnumber its purchases, leading to an ever-growing trade surplus in China's favor (Chart 1). In fact, the U.S. accounts for over half of China's total trade surplus - a key piece of evidence supporting some American politicians' accusation of China's purported currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. Underneath, however, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. as part of China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s (Chart 2). The share of U.S.-bound Chinese exports has remained roughly unchanged since the global financial crisis, and down significantly from pre-crisis levels. Chinese sales to the U.S. in recent years have been largely in line with overall export growth. On the contrary, American shipments to China have increased sharply as a share of total exports. Over the past five years, China has accounted for almost 20% of the net increase in U.S. exports, far outpacing any other American trade partner. Chart 1U.S.-China##br## Bilateral Trade Chart 2China Depends More ##br##On The U.S. Than Vice Versa Conventional wisdom holds that protectionist policies will be of more benefit to those countries running deficits in bilateral trade. However, a trade war with China would also remove the biggest source of marginal demand for American goods, which would be met with strong domestic resistance. Anti-Dumping And China's Trade Performance China is no stranger to anti-dumping measures in global trade. The country accounts for 30% of all anti-dumping actions initiated by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in recent years, even though Chinese products account for only about 14% of total global goods exports. China has not been regarded as a "market economy" by major developed countries, making it an easier target for punitive tariffs and other barriers under WTO rules. A case in point is steel products, which remain center stage in the ongoing trade dispute between China and the U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002 imposed tariffs of up to 30% on a broad range of Chinese steel products, while the Obama administration further upped the ante with various product-specific punitive measures during his tenor. These measures have dramatically changed steel trade for both countries: From the U.S. side, total American steel imports have remained largely range-bound in the past 20 years, but Chinese steel products have had a dramatic rollercoaster ride (Chart 3). Punitive tariffs led to a collapse of Chinese steel in the U.S. market, accounting for a mere 3% of total U.S. steel imports, down from a peak of almost 20% in 2008. However, the losses to Chinese steelmakers have simply been filled by other exporting countries. For example, U.S. steel imports from Brazil have roared back to historical high levels as Chinese products plummeted (Chart 3, bottom panel). On the Chinese side, Chinese steel products suffered huge market share losses in the U.S., but the country's total steel exports have continued to make new record highs, as it has dramatically expanded sales to other markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 4). The U.S. currently accounts for about 1% of total Chinese steel exports, down from about 10% at the peak, while Vietnam has rapidly replaced the U.S. as a key market for Chinese steelmakers to expand overseas sales. Chart 3China In U.S. Steel Imports Chart 4U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports Moreover, the punitive measures imposed by the U.S. have pushed Chinese steelmakers into higher value-added products. The top panel of Chart 5 shows the average price of American steel imports from China was roughly comparable to U.S. steel purchases from other developing countries in the late 1990s, while Germany and Japanese steelmakers traditionally occupied the higher-priced segments. The situation has shifted quickly in the past two decades: The unit price of Chinese steel sales in the U.S. has risen rapidly relatively to their peers, increasingly challenging producers in more advanced countries. Other emerging countries have filled the space left by China and remained at the lower end of the spectrum. Similarly, on the Chinese side, the average price of Chinese steel exports to the U.S. has increased sharply in recent years relative to other major markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, the average price of China's steel products exported to the U.S. is far higher than to other countries - almost triple that to other emerging countries. This confirms that Chinese steelmakers have been moving up the value-added ladder in the U.S. market, but have been "dumping" cheaper products to other developing countries. The important point here is that the punitive tariffs have indeed significantly reduced Chinese sales to the U.S., but other steel-producing countries have simply "stolen" China's lunch. By the same token, unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. Moreover, President Trump may still target Chinese steel products as a highly symbolic gesture to show his toughened stance on China and to keep his campaign trail promises of reviving rust-belt states - the relevance of which, however, has diminished dramatically, as steel products now account for only a tiny fraction of total trade between these two countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Steelmakers##br## Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chart 6Steel Is No Longer ##br##Relevant For China-U.S. Trade U.S. And China In Global Trade A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. For tradable goods, it is well known that China has long surpassed the U.S. as the world top exporter. For imports of goods, the U.S. is still bigger, but the gap has narrowed dramatically (Chart 7). China has already become a bigger market than the U.S. for a growing list of countries, particularly commodities producers and China's Asian neighbors. What is much less known is that Chinese imports of services just this year also surpassed that of the U.S., marking an important milestone in China's global reach and influence (Chart 8). Moreover, China's exports of services are much smaller, leaving a deficit almost as large as U.S. service surpluses with the rest of the world. Chart 7U.S. And China##br## In Global Trade Of Goods Chart 8China Surpassed##br##The U.S. In Service Imports In a world starving for growth, China remains a bright spot. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. China will inevitably continue to explore bilateral and multilateral free-trade agreements (FTA) with its main trade partners. China currently has 19 FTAs under construction, among which 14 agreements have been signed and implemented. Together, FTAs cover an increasingly bigger share of Chinese exports, higher than Chinese sales to the U.S. (Chart 9). Chart 9China Sells More To FTA##br## Countries Than To The U.S. Meanwhile, China will likely take a more active role in negotiating the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)" - an ambitious multilateral agreement on trade and investments that covers almost half of the world population and output. On the other hand, the outlook of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) under President Trump has become more uncertain, which may also push other emerging countries to participate in China-initiated trade deals. If President Trump indeed turns more inward, the center of global trade will further shift toward China. A Word On The RMB And Industrial Stocks The RMB has continued to drift lower against the greenback in recent days, which still reflects the dollar's broad strength rather than RMB weakness. In fact, the trade-weighted RMB has strengthened notably (Chart 10). Conspiracy theories abound that China may engineer a flash-crash of the RMB before President Trump takes office to "preempt" any protectionist pressures. This scenario certainly cannot be ruled out, but it is highly unlikely in our view, as it may further intensify trade tensions between the two countries, making Trump's trade policy on China even less predictable. In short, we maintain the view that the near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar, and that the Chinese authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability, as discussed in recent reports.1 Turning to the stock market, Chinese industrial stocks have not joined the sharp post-Trump rally of their U.S. counterparts, likely a reflection of investors' conviction that protectionism in the U.S. may benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign entities, particularly Chinese firms. (Chart 11). However, similar to almost all other major sectors, the profitability of Chinese industrial names is almost identical to their American peers, but they are trading at hefty discounts based on conventional valuation indicators, reflecting a much larger risk premium in Chinese stocks. For now, we remain on the sidelines with respect to Chinese stocks due to developing global uncertainty, as discussed in detail last week.2 Beyond near-term tactical consideration, we expect Chinese shares to resume their uptrend both in absolute terms and against EM and global benchmarks. Chart 10The RMB Remains Stable##br## In Trade-Weighted Terms Chart 11Industrial Stocks:##br## Spot The Differences Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, and "Greater China Currencies: An Overview", dated November 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights The 50bps spike in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the most aggressive tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher bond yields weaken credit growth, and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds. Lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. Feature November 9 is an important date in the annals of history. November 9, 1989 was the day that the Berlin Wall came down. Chart of the WeekGlobalization Has Been Good For Profits, Bad For Wages Through 1961-89, the Berlin Wall divided a city. More significantly, it symbolized a divided world. So when the wall came down on November 9, 1989, it marked a new era of globalization. Goods, services, capital and people started to move around the world much more freely, resulting in greater efficiencies and lower costs. In developed economies, profits surged. Using the United States as an example, in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, stock market real earnings per share have gone up 200% (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Backdrop For Populism But globalization has exacted a heavy price: the pressure on wages means that in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, U.S. median household real income has gone up just 10%. By comparison, in the 28 years that the Berlin Wall stood, the median household real income went up 60% (Chart of the Week). November 9 is also the date that Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States. So exactly 27 years after one symbolic wall fell, is another one about to go up? Will Mr. Trump's promised wall with Mexico symbolize a new era of anti-globalization, and a reversal of the economic and financial trends since the Berlin Wall came down? Flaws In The Trump Plan Economists are almost unanimous that protectionism, trade barriers and tariffs - in other words, "building walls" - depresses long-term global growth. It is conceivable that protectionism could help some parts of the U.S. economy, though other parts might lose out as trading partners retaliated. It is inconceivable that protectionism would be good for the world economy as a whole. Chart I-3One Of The Most Aggressive Tightenings ##br##Since The Great Recession But what about Trump's noise about fiscal stimulus, and specifically infrastructure spending - why would anybody not get excited about that? The two word answer is: crowding out. If a dollar that is borrowed and spent by the government (or even forecast to be borrowed and spent by the government) pushes up the bond yield (Chart I-3), it makes it more expensive for the private sector to borrow and spend. If, as a result, the private sector scales back its borrowing by a dollar, the dollar of government spending would have no impact on GDP. This is because the dollar of government spending has crowded out a dollar of private sector spending. The fiscal multiplier would be zero. But doesn't the euro area debt crisis provide compelling evidence of the power of fiscal thrust and a very high fiscal multiplier? No, not exactly. The fiscal multiplier was high through the debt crisis because euro area austerity - a fiscal tightening - very unusually coincided with sharply rising bond yields - which killed private sector borrowing. In other words, fiscal tightening and private sector tightening were reinforcing each other. Through 2009-12, when the euro area debt crisis escalated, the relationship between fiscal tightening and growth in GDP per capita in 13 sampled economies had a near-perfect explanatory power (r-squared of 0.9); and its slope of 1.5 indicated an extremely high average fiscal multiplier (Chart I-4). But through 2012-15, after Mario Draghi "did whatever it takes" the unusual combination of fiscal tightening and higher bond yields no longer existed, and both the explanatory power of the relationship and fiscal multiplier collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Very Strong Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2009-12... Chart I-5...But No Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2012-15 The lesson is that the efficacy of fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending crucially depends on its impact on the bond yield - and thereby on private sector borrowing. Now note that the 6-month increase in the U.S. (and global) 10-year bond yield constitutes one of the sharpest tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-6). A weaker 6-month credit impulse then almost always depresses subsequent 6-month GDP growth (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Depress##br## Credit Growth... Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Growth Depresses ##br##Subsequent GDP Growth So yes, fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending could be effective as long as the bond yield is anchored, as it is in Japan. But if the bond yield goes up sharply, the consequent drag from the private sector will partly or entirely negate any putative boost from the government. Explaining Market Shocks And Electoral Shocks In his seminal book Thinking, Fast And Slow psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman1 proposed that the human brain has evolved two separate and independent systems for decision making: a fast, rapid-response, associative way of thinking which he calls "System 1" and a slow, analytical, measured way of thinking which he calls "System 2". The two ways of thinking, fast and slow, have evolved to protect us from two types of threat to our survival: immediate, and long-term. Thousands of years ago, the immediate threat to survival might have been a sudden noise in the bushes suggesting that a predator was stalking. Today, for a bond investor, the immediate threat might be a sudden noise about aggressive U.S. fiscal stimulus, suggesting that the end of deflationary pressures is nigh. Faced with this immediate but uncertain threat, using the slow and measured thinking of System 2 could be fatal. So we obey the fast-thinking, associative, emotional System 1 and run for cover - or sell bonds. Thousands of years ago, a long-term threat might have been a war of attrition against an enemy tribe. Today, for the bond investor, the long-term threat might be the end of the debt super cycle, suggesting that deflationary pressures will persist. Faced with this long war of attrition, an over-reliance on the impulsive decisions of System 1 could also be fatal. We must use the measured analysis and strategies of slow-thinking System 2. Kahneman's System 1 and 2 is also an excellent framework to help explain how the simple messages of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump led to stunning success at the ballot box. Faced with job destruction and stagnant real wages, many people intuitively believe that less globalization, less competition and less immigration must mean more jobs and a better standard of living. Associative and emotional System 1 immediately identifies with simple messages such as "take back control" or "build a wall". The success of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump was to acknowledge the deep malaise that many people are feeling and offer simple and intuitive cures. To be absolutely clear, this is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of the Brexiteers or Donald Trump, but simply an explanation of why their message hit home. Still, as we have argued, the more analytical and measured System 2 will find that the simple and intuitive cures that the Brexiteers and Donald Trump offer are not the panaceas that they might first seem. The Immediate Investment Decision Short-term traders generally use the rapid-response, associative, emotional System 1 for their decision making. Long-term investors generally use the slow, analytical, measured System 2. But after a shock, disoriented long-term investors may also switch from System 2 to System 1 and just follow the herd. Eventually though, System 2 switches back on, and the excessive herding and trend-following reverses. At the moment, several sector trends are at or near such a point of reversal according to our excessive groupthink indicator (Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11, Chart I-12). Chart I-8Healthcare Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-9Consumer Goods Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-10Telecoms Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-11Financials Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-12Government Bond Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Specifically, on a 3-month trading view, we would lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds; and we would lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. More generally, what does the Trump victory mean for European equities? In today's highly-connected financial markets, mainstream investments in Europe overwhelmingly depend on global developments, and not on parochial issues. The dominant components of the Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40, AEX, SMI, and other major indices, are multinationals with a truly global footprint. So the answer rests on two subsidiary questions: What does the Trump victory mean for global monetary conditions? What does the Trump victory mean for global growth? As already mentioned, global monetary conditions have tightened significantly in recent months, and in accelerated fashion after the Trump victory. The 50bps tightening in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the sharpest 3-month spikes since the Great Recession. But as in previous cases, the spike may be self-limiting given its squeeze on credit sensitive sectors and emerging markets. Since August, the dividend yield on equities is little changed - meaning that equities have become more expensive relative to bonds. But this is hard to justify as short-term growth prospects have, if anything, worsened. To repeat the powerful messages from Chart 6 and Chart 7, higher bond yields weaken credit growth; and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Putting all this together, asset allocators should maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002 for his work on decision making. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. After the big recent moves in markets, four open positions were closed at their trading-rule limits, two at profit targets, two at stop-losses. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 1-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Feature Today’s Insight is a Special Report written by BCA’s Senior Technology Strategist, Brian Piccioni. Brian discusses the reasons for ongoing M&A in the semiconductor industry, and the investment implications. We trust you will find this report insightful and informative. Semiconductor Consolidation Makes Sense But Changes Little We have written extensively about our stance against financial engineering through M&A in the high tech sector.1 However, we view the semiconductor space as somewhat of an anomaly. Unlike most tech goods, a large portion of semiconductor products generate revenues for many years, even decades, after they are first released. Although most of the development costs of these devices are depreciated in the first few years after introduction, price deflation continues. This means that for most such devices, margins do not rise to a very high level. In addition, incremental costs may be associated with "die shrinks" (making smaller devices with the same function), and changes in IC packaging, as the cost of the package can be more than the semiconductor itself. In addition to the inherent benefits of buying a company that makes a product line with long duration revenues, most semiconductors are sold through the same channels and have similar, if not identical, customers. This can allow for the rationalization of sales and marketing efforts. On the surface it might appear there is an opportunity for economies of scale in manufacturing, but these can prove elusive. It is often not worth the effort to consolidate manufacturing for an acquired company due to large differences in manufacturing processes. This is especially true since it would require an investment in R&D for a catalog of mostly dated products. These products would have to be "re-qualified" by customers, as there is no guarantee parts produced in a different factory will function the same as the old one. While most high tech M&A destroys shareholder value, that is less likely to be the case when two mature semiconductor companies combine (Chart 1). However, industry consolidation is not likely to lead to pricing power or unusual profitability post consolidation because: Semiconductor buyers are reluctant to adopt a product made by only one vendor; There is a powerful push for the adoption of technologies based upon Open Standards in order to avoid semiconductor vendors having too much power over customers; and For the most part, with the exception of leading edge process technology used in CPU and commodity memory devices, semiconductor expertise is well understood and widely available, as are the tools for the development of new devices. Total Intangible Asset Writedowns And Restructuring Charges As A Percent ##br##Of Assets By S&P 500 Tech Sub-Sector, 2000 - 2016 Semiconductor Buyers Are Reluctant To Adopt A Product Made By Only One Vendor Large device manufacturers always had an aversion to single sourced semiconductors but exceptions were made when there was a critical need or simply no other choice. For example, if you are going to design a PC you are either going to use a single-sourced device from Intel or AMD. Things changed after the "Dot Com" bubble when equipment manufacturers found themselves unable to ship finished products because a single-source vendor had declared bankruptcy and the parts were no longer being made. Even when a single source part is specified, an effort is made to ensure there are substitutes available. This hedges against the possibility the part may no longer be available and also reduces vendor pricing power. Powerful Push For The Adoption Of Technologies Based Upon Open Standards Open standards are standards where form, fit, and function, are both defined and easily referenced. The standard itself is typically inexpensive to license and any related Intellectual Property is available for license on "fair and equitable" terms, meaning that the price is reasonable and the same for all licensees. Open standards have a long history in the semiconductor industry. The market for certain devices such as memory chips would likely have never developed if every vendor had a different way of doing things. Nevertheless, companies such as Intel were able to establish a proprietary standard CPU architecture and profited handsomely as a result. Similarly, purported abuses by companies such as Rambus and Qualcomm have resulted in all players being leery of patent suits. It is now very difficult to get manufacturers to accept a new standard unless it is open. Difficult To Benefit From Competitive Advantage, Even For Largest Players The components sold by most small semiconductor companies do not require cutting edge process technology or expertise. The largest companies such as Intel, Samsung, and TSMC may have an advantage due to their process R&D, but competition among themselves limits returns. In addition, there are very few "must have" products nowadays, and consumers and businesses can typically decide to simply not purchase a new PC, video game, etc., if prices get out of hand. Industry Consolidation Will Not Fuel Growth As we have frequently noted, semiconductor industry growth has slowed to GDP plus or minus a few points (Chart 2). The industry operates within the context of chronic high price deflation, meaning many more units have to be sold each year just to keep revenues flat. Some end markets allowed for the sale of higher value-add components with increased functionality, offsetting some of the deflation. However, the era of hyper growth in PCs, networking gear and smartphones is in the past. This places downward pressure on pricing through the value chain. Chart 2Semiconductor Industry Growth Has Slowed, ##br##Now Near GDP Growth Rate Loosely speaking the industry can be separated into commodity semiconductors and proprietary ones. Commodity devices are exact functional equivalents to devices sold by multiple vendors. Examples might be discrete devices such as transistors and diodes, memory chips, logic devices, and so on. The competition in commodity semiconductors is so extreme that for some products package costs can be similar to the cost of the semiconductor itself and saving a small amount of plastic or using slightly thinner leads influences profit margins. The product life of many commodity products extends to decades. The market for proprietary semiconductors is somewhat more complicated than for commodity devices. Intel is the prototypical example of a company that makes mostly proprietary devices, though Qualcomm, Xilinx, and others exist. Some companies such as Texas Instruments are a sort of hybrid, offering both commodity and proprietary products. It would be a mistake to assume that proprietary vendors have no competition, because substitutes are typically available. A smartphone vendor can select a high end ARM-based microprocessor from Qualcomm, make its own, or buy from any number of licensees selling similar devices, depending on the market segment and price range it is targeting. This has the effect of limiting the price of a proprietary device and the associated margins. As with any M&A transaction the opportunity arises to take associated restructuring charges, write-downs, and all manner of "one-time" items which can make "non-GAAP" earnings look better than before. Similarly, management may decide to cut costs by reducing R&D and other expenses to improve near-term performance at the expense of long term results. Company managers typically highlight "synergies" and "complimentary businesses" when selling their latest M&A transactions. Nevertheless, it is rare that the combination of two semiconductor companies actually amounts to something greater than what the two were apart. Instead, what tends to result is a mix of products and activities with varying degrees of margins and growth potential. Like any overly diversified portfolio, the combined companies are more likely to grow at the same rate as the industry than to become high-tech powerhouses. In summary there is no reason to believe that organic revenue growth will arise as a consequence of any particular semiconductor M&A transaction and it is far more likely that revenue growth and margins will trend towards the mean for the industry, setting aside the impact of "non-GAAP" adjustments. Why Is There A Buyer's Panic? As we have shown, in most cases industry consolidation will not provide much in the way of operational leverage to the consolidator's results. Similarly there is little reason to believe that companies which remain independent will be affected positively or negatively from the trend.2 This raises the question of why these transactions are occurring at such a frenetic pace. Most likely the answer has more to do with capital market trends than objective business decisions. Investors have elected to reward high tech companies for financial engineering on an equal footing with organic growth (i.e. innovation), and the capital is very cheap nowadays (Chart 3). As we have addressed previously, increasingly imaginative "non-GAAP" financial presentation means that overpaying for an acquired product line is better for the bottom line than developing it in house, so managers are focusing more on financial engineering than actual engineering. Cheap capital and less-than-rational capital markets mean that companies become acquirers or targets. As companies get larger, the targets need to be large enough to "move the needle" with respect to financial impact. This goes all the way down the food chain as mid-cap companies buy small-cap companies and large cap-companies buy mid-cap companies. There are a finite number of target firms for any given company and this creates a sort of "buyer's panic" which stimulates the buyers to move quickly before the target is acquired by a rival (Chart 4). As acquirers get bigger they become the targets of larger acquirers, as they are now large enough to provide the illusion of growth. Chart 3Capital For Financial Engineering Is Cheap Chart 4'Buyer's Panic' In Semiconductor Industry Non-S&P 500 Semiconductor Companies Are Also Targets Unless the cost of capital rises significantly or investors suddenly get concerned about actual operating results rather than "non-GAAP" performance, consolidation will continue until there is a relatively modest number of large semiconductor companies. As we explained above, this does not mean these companies will have superior margins or revenue growth. Indeed we believe the end of the consolidation period will have negative impact for semiconductor industry valuations because: Opportunities for financial engineering of revenue growth and managing "non-GAAP" earnings will be limited; Balance sheets will typically be highly leveraged; and Valuation premiums associated with M&A activity will disappear. Until the consolidation phase runs its course investors should be able to profit by assembling a portfolio of smaller names since these are more likely to be acquired. This is a major reason we have most of the smaller members of the S&P 500 Semiconductor sub-index rated Overweight. Table 1Summary Of Potential Semiconductor Targets We have identified 14 additional small semiconductor firms that are not included in the S&P 500 as likely targets (Table 1). This list is not exhaustive but represents companies which are both likely to be acquired and large and liquid enough to be investible. We selected the most attractive companies based on the Price-Earnings-to-Growth (PEG) ratio, which attempts to adjust valuation for growth prospects. These companies, which have a PEG ratio close to or below 1, are bolded in Table 1 above. We are adding these 10 companies to our Overweight list, and will track these recommendations as an equally-weighted index (Chart 5). Chart 5Small Semiconductor Companies Should ##br##Outperform Due To M&A However, due to the "buyer's panic" described above, companies that appear expensive or exhibit deteriorating financial performance are also potential acquisition targets. As such, it is important to note that our recommendations in this sub-sector are not driven by company fundamentals. Alternatively, investors might consider playing consolidation through the iShares PHLX Semiconductor ETF (SOXX). The structure of this ETF limits the weight of each constituent to approximately 8%, effectively overweighing smaller firms. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Paul Kantorovich, Research Analyst paulk@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Tech Company Red Flags Part 2: Intangible Assets And Restructuring Charges," dated July 12, 2016, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 That would not be the case if, for example, Hynix and Samsung, two major DRAM manufacturers, were to merge which would be problematic for the #3 player Micron. However, we doubt regulators would permit such a merger.