Valuations

Special Report

Highlights The plunge in government bond yields means that There Is No Alternative to stocks: TINA. As long as bond yields stay reasonably low, stocks will continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry. Global equities are quite cheap compared with bonds. This suggests that stock market returns could be quite strong over the next couple of years, as PE multiples rise in order to narrow the gap between bond yields and earnings yields. While cheap in relative terms, global equities are modestly expensive in absolute terms. Thus, long-term absolute stock market returns are likely to be subpar, even if they are reasonably high in the near term. U.S. stocks are noticeably more expensive than their overseas peers. Differences in sector composition can explain some of the valuation gap, but not all of it. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks later this year once global growth begins to reaccelerate. Feature Falling Bond Yields Have Made Stocks More Attractive After peaking last year, global bond yields have plunged anew (Chart 1). To a large extent, the decline in yields has been driven by the slowdown in global growth. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between government bond yields and manufacturing purchasing manager indices. Chart 1Global Bond Yields Sinking Chart 2The Decline In Bond Yields Driven By Slower Global Growth   Chart 3Dividend Yields Are Higher Than Bond Yields Globally As we discussed last week, global growth should stabilize and recover over the remainder of the year, which will cause bond yields to move somewhat higher. Nevertheless, yields are poised to stay low by historic standards – at least until inflation picks up significantly, which is unlikely to occur during the next 12 months. The fact that government bond yields in many countries are negative in real terms – and indeed, negative in nominal terms in Japan and across much of Europe – implies that the only way investors can hope to generate decent returns is by taking on more risk. This means moving further down the quality ladder in the fixed-income space, as well as turning to historically riskier asset classes such as equities. The allure that equities have in today’s low rate environment even has a name: TINA – There Is No Alternative. The S&P 500 dividend yield is currently 1.98%, 37 bps above the yield on 10-year Treasury notes. To put things in perspective, even if S&P 500 companies did not increase cash dividends at all for the next ten years, the real value of the index would still have to fall by 26% (assuming 2% inflation) for bonds to outperform stocks. The gap between dividend yields and bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 3).   TINA’s Critics That may seem like a very low bar for success, but there are plenty of prognosticators who think stocks will still fail to clear it. TINA’s detractors offer two arguments to justify their skepticism: Today’s low interest rates are simply a reflection of poor economic growth prospects. Even if one believed that lower interest rates warrant higher equity multiples, the stock market has already priced that in. John Hussman eloquently summarized these arguments in a recent report: Another danger for investors here is the willingness to accept offensively speculative valuations on the argument that bond yields are low. The empirical fact is that bond yields are tightly correlated with nominal GDP growth. But as one can demonstrate using any discounted cash flow model, if interest rates are low because growth rates are also low, no valuation premium is “justified” by the low interest rates at all. Long-term returns will already be lower, commensurate with the lower interest rates, by virtue of the lower growth rate itself. A valuation premium then just adds insult to injury.           – John Hussman, “Questions we hear a lot,” Hussman Market Comment, (January 2019). John Hussman is a perspicuous market observer, but there are two flaws in his logic here. The first one is factual. Despite his claim to the contrary, U.S. bond yields have actually fallen more than trend nominal GDP growth over the past decade (Chart 4). The current gap between U.S. potential nominal GDP growth, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 10-year Treasury yield is over two percentage points, the highest since 1979. Chart 4Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth Chart 5The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM At the global level, trend GDP growth has barely changed, largely because faster-growing emerging markets now make up a larger share of the global economy (Chart 5). For large multinational companies, global growth, rather than domestic growth, is the more relevant measure. If trend global GDP growth has not fallen, why are real interest rates so low? The answer is that the world is still awash with savings. As Chart 6 illustrates, an increase in desired savings will lead to a decline in real rates, even if underlying growth does not change.   No Free Lunch The second error is more subtle. Hussman discusses earnings growth and GDP growth as though they are one in the same. However, there is no long-term mechanism that magically bestows faster earnings growth on firms just because trend economic growth accelerates. Earnings growth and GDP growth are tightly correlated over the course of a business cycle because rising demand allows firms to spread fixed costs over a larger amount of output, thus increasing so-called operational leverage. But if a firm wishes to grow earnings over the long run, it has to invest in new technology and new capacity. That takes real resources — resources that could otherwise be distributed to shareholders. An example might clarify this point. Consider two firms, each with a market value of $1 million and $100,000 in earnings. Firm A distributes all its earnings to shareholders in the form of dividends. Firm B pays no dividend. Rather, it invests all its earnings in trying to grow the business. Which firm would you rather own? There is actually no simple answer to this question. If you invest in Firm A and the share price remains unchanged because the company has done nothing to grow its business, you will still receive a 10% dividend yield. You will not receive a dividend by investing in Firm B. However, if the company is able to grow earnings by 10% and the price-earnings ratio remains unchanged, the share price will rise by 10%. In both cases, you make a 10% return. The point is that there is no free lunch. Firms in fast-growing economies will be able to avail themselves of expanding domestic markets, but they will need to spend money to grow their businesses. They are also likely to face stiffer competition from new entrants. This is a key reason why Jay Ritter and other economists have shown that there is no clear correlation between long-term economic growth and shareholder returns (Chart 7). Priced For Perfection? One thing that Hussman gets completely right is that absolute long-term equity returns depend on the absolute level of valuations rather than how expensive stocks are in relation to bonds. A decline in the discount rate will increase the present value of future earnings, thus leading to a temporary period of abnormally high returns. However, once equity valuations have reset to a higher level, returns will be permanently lower. In other words, falling interest rates simply shift returns from the future into the present (Chart 8). The key question for investors is where we are in this process. If stock valuations have yet to fully adjust to the decline in interest rates, near-term returns could still be quite strong, even if they do come at the expense of subsequent returns. There is good reason to think this adjustment has yet to play out fully. The forward PE ratio for U.S. stocks is currently 16.5. If one were to use the earnings yield as a proxy for expected returns (see Appendix A for details), one would expect U.S. equities to generate long-term annualized real total returns of 6.1%. Outside the U.S., the forward PE ratio stands at 12.7, implying an expected return of 7.8% (Chart 9). Chart 10 shows that the equity risk premium in the U.S. based on the forward PE ratio remains quite high, indicating that the earnings yield has not fallen as much as one would have expected based on the decline in real bond yields. The equity risk premium is even higher outside the U.S., reflecting both the fact that valuations are cheaper abroad and interest rates are generally lower. Chart 10AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 10BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II)   Are PE Ratios Biased Down? One legitimate criticism of the forward PE ratio is that it relies on analyst earnings estimates, which tend to be too optimistic. That analysts tend to be too bullish is undeniable (Chart 11). However, even if one were to use the trailing PE ratio, the implied long-term expected real total return would still be 4.8% in the U.S. and 7.1% abroad. Chart 11Analysts Are Usually Too Optimistic Moreover, as Chart 12 illustrates, projected 12-month earnings growth is currently below its historic average both in the U.S. and abroad. Thus, to the extent that forward PE ratios are biased downwards, that bias is arguably smaller than in the past. Chart 12Earnings Growth Estimates Are Not Excessive Today Chart 13Cyclically-Adjusted PEs Point To Subpar Absolute Future Returns   A further criticism of both trailing and forward PE ratios is that they do not take into account cyclical factors that could either flatter or depress earnings. For example, if profit margins are temporarily inflated, standard PE ratios will tend to show that stocks are cheaper than they really are. One way to address this issue is to use a moving average for earnings. The most popular tool for doing so is the Shiller PE ratio (also known as the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio, or CAPE). It divides the value of today’s stock market index by the average of real earnings over the past ten years. The Shiller PE ratio currently points to below-average, but still positive, real returns for stocks over the coming years (Chart 13). S&P 500 Margins Versus Economy-Wide Margins Some stock market bears charge that the Shiller PE ratio does not go far enough in eliminating the upward bias to earnings. They point out that even though S&P 500 profit margins were very depressed following the Global Financial Crisis, the 10-year average of margins is now well above its historic norm (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S.: 10-Year Average Of Margins Is Now Well Above Its Historic Norm John Hussman’s preferred measure, the Margin-Adjusted PE ratio, tries to control for this alleged problem by adjusting earnings using the economy-wide profit-to-GDP ratio. It suggests that future returns will be lower than those implied by the Shiller PE ratio. The problem with Hussman’s approach is that S&P 500 profits have increasingly become disconnected from economy-wide profits. Chart 15 shows that pre-tax profits have trended lower as a share of GDP in recent years, a move that has been mirrored in the rise in employee compensation. However, no such decline has occurred for S&P 500 profits. Chart 15The Recent Decline In U.S. Pre-Tax Profits Has Been Mirrored In The Rise In Employee Compensation Chart 16S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector S&P 500 margins have stayed elevated partly because U.S. multinationals are less exposed to domestic wage pressures. Margins have also been propped up by the fact that the largest companies in the index increasingly operate like natural monopolies. It is perhaps no surprise that all of the increase in S&P 500 margins over the past few decades has been due to soaring profits in the IT sector (Chart 16). If this represents a true structural change, S&P margins could remain high by historic standards. Investment Implications Different valuation measures can generate different results. As such, we would not get too hung up on the precise expected return forecast that any one particular valuation indicator produces. Appendix B shows long-term return projections for various stock markets using a composite valuation measure based on price-to-trailing earnings, price-to-forward earnings, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, price-to-book, Tobin’s Q, stock market capitalization-to-GDP, and dividend yield. Three broad conclusions stand out: First, global equities are quite cheap compared with bonds. This suggests that stock market returns could be quite strong over the next couple of years, as PE multiples rise in order to narrow the gap between bond yields and earnings yields. We recommend that asset allocators overweight stocks relative to government bonds on a 12-to-18 month horizon. Second, global equities are modestly expensive in absolute terms. Thus, long-term stock market returns are likely to be subpar, even if they are reasonably high in the near term. Put differently, while equities will trump bonds over the long haul, both asset classes will deliver uninspiring absolute returns compared with their long-term history. Third, U.S. stocks are noticeably more expensive than their overseas peers. Differences in sector composition can explain some of the valuation gap, but not all of it. As Chart 17 illustrates, if one were to calculate the forward PE of say, European stocks, using U.S. sector weights, the former would still be significantly cheaper than the latter. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks later this year once global growth begins to reaccelerate.   APPENDIX A The Earnings Yield As A Proxy For Expected Shareholder Returns  APPENDIX B CHART 1 Equities: Composite Valuation Indicators Versus Subsequent 10-Year Real Annualized Returns Peter Berezin,  Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores  

Special Report

Dear Client, Please note that there will be no regular Weekly Report next week, as we take a summer break. Our regular publication will resume September 6th. Best regards, Chester Ntonifor, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights Our PPP models show the DXY index to be overvalued by 10-15%. Within the G10 universe, the cheapest currencies are the Swedish krona, the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Norwegian krone. Look to go short CHF/GBP on valuation grounds. Feature Regular readers of our publication will notice that we tend to adhere to very simple and time-tested ideas. One such is the concept of purchasing power parity (PPP). The beauty comes from its simplicity. If the price of a good in Sweden is rising faster than in South Africa, then the krona should depreciate versus the rand to equalize prices across both borders. Otherwise, the krona becomes incrementally expensive, relative to the rand. In practice, various models have shown PPP to be a very poor tool for managing currencies. One roadblock comes from measurement issues, since consumer price baskets tend to differ in composition from one country to the next. Second, there is less price discovery for services, than there is for tradable goods. For example, it is rather difficult to import a haircut from Mumbai into the U.S., and so arbitraging those prices away tends to be impractical. Tariffs, trade restrictions and transport costs also tend to dampen the explanatory power of PPP models, though those have had diminishing importance over time. In order to get closer to an apples-to-apples comparison across countries, we make two adjustments. First, we divide the consumer price index (CPI) baskets into five major groups. In most cases, this breakdown captures 90% of the national CPI basket: Food, restaurants and hotels Shelter Health, culture and recreation Energy and transportation Household goods The second adjustment is to run two regressions with the exchange rate as the dependent variable. The first regression (call it REG1) uses the relative price ratios of the five groups as independent variables. This allows us to observe the most influential price ratios that help explain variations in the exchange rate. The second regression (call it REG2) uses a weighted average combination of the five groups to form a synthetic relative price ratio. If for example, shelter is 33% in the U.S. CPI basket, but 19% in the Swedish CPI basket, relative shelter prices will represent 26% of the combined price ratio. This allows for a uniform cross-sectional comparison, compared to using the national CPI weights. The results were largely consistent: Both regressions were statistically significant, but more so for REG1. This makes intuitive sense, as the number of variables were higher in the first regression. The sign for household goods was negative for some countries. This could be due to some specter of multicollinearity, if the tradable goods price effect is captured in other categories. There is also the low value-to-weight ratio for many household goods such as refrigerators or air conditioners, which could make currency deviations from PPP persistent. The shelter sign was also negative for some countries, meaning rising shelter prices tended to be associated with an incrementally cheaper currency. This could be due to the Balassa-Samuelson effect. Rising incomes (one key determinant of rising house prices) usually reflect rising productivity levels, which tend to lift the fair value of the exchange rate. The results showed the U.S. dollar as overvalued, especially versus the Swedish krona, British pound and Norwegian krone. Commodity currencies were closer to fair value, and within the safe haven complex, the Japanese yen was more attractive than the Swiss franc. The euro was less undervalued than implied by the overvaluation in the DXY index. As a final note, PPP models are just an additional kit to our currency toolbox, and so should never be used in isolation, but in conjunction with other currency signals. This is just a first iteration in our PPP modelling work, which we intend to improve in the months to come. U.S. Dollar We reverse-engineered the fair value for the DXY index by aggregating the model results from its six constituents. This includes the euro, the Japanese yen, the British pound, the Canadian dollar, the Swedish krona, and the Swiss franc, using the corresponding DXY weights. The message from the synthetic model is clear: the U.S dollar is above its fair value, in line with our fundamental view (Chart 1). Chart 1The Dollar is Slightly Expensive Americans spent 35% of their income in 2018 on goods and 65% on services. Shelter remains the single largest consumption item for American households, which makes up 33% of the consumption basket. However, the relative importance of shelter is dwarfed by much more rampant rent and house price increases in other developed countries. Medical care accounts for 8.7% of the CPI basket, and is the highest in the developed world on a per capita basis. Total spending on health care accounts for almost 20% of nominal GDP. Since the 1980s, the CPI for medical care has risen fivefold, far outpacing many developed countries. This makes the dollar incrementally expensive.  Core CPI edged higher to 2.2% in July, driven by medical care and shelter. While above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, the risks to inflation remain asymmetric to the downside. That will keep the Fed on a dovish path near-term, which should help close overvaluation in the dollar. Euro We had limited data for the euro area, and so our regression results were less robust. REG1 shows the euro as cheap, while REG2 is more ambiguous (Chart 2). In short, a PPP model for the euro had one of lowest explanatory powers within the G10 universe. Food, restaurants and hotels are the largest consumption item in the euro CPI basket. Looking at the details, food and non-alcoholic beverages account for 14%, alcohol and tobacco make up 4%, and restaurant and hotels account for about 10% (Table). Relative price trends have moved to undermine the fair value of the euro. Chart 2The Euro Is Slightly Cheap Euro Area CPI Weights Shelter’s weight in the euro area CPI basket currently stands at 16.7%, the smallest among G10 countries. Since 2012, relative house and rent prices in the euro area have been decreasing compared with that in the U.S. Rampant rent controls, especially in places like Germany have subdued housing CPI, and tempered the fair value of the euro. This makes sense to the extent that it represents a concomitant rise in the welfare state. It is well-known that the euro area is relatively open and so tradable goods prices are important for the fair value of the euro. Given that the epicenter of trade tensions is between the U.S. and China, this will act to boost the relative attractiveness of European goods, which will be a bullish underpinning for the euro. Inflation expectations have collapsed in the euro area. However, compared to the Federal Reserve, there is little the European Central Bank can do to boost inflation. This is relatively euro bullish. Once global growth eventually picks up, improved competitiveness in the periphery will allow for non-inflationary growth. Japanese Yen The yen benefits from being cheap, as well as being a safe-haven currency (Chart 3). The overarching theme for Japan is a falling (and rapidly aging) population, which means that deficient demand and falling prices are the norm. This makes the yen relatively attractive on a recurring basis. Most of the Heisei era in Japan has been characterized by deflation. Importantly, all categories in Japan have been in a relative price downtrend during this period (Table). Domestically, an aging population (that tends to be a large voting base), prefer falling prices. Meanwhile, the bursting of the asset bubble in the late 80s/early 90s led to a powerful deleveraging wave that undermined prices. Chart 3The Yen Is Quite Cheap Japan CPI Weights The relative prices for most items have been decreasing, but culture and recreation inflation have experienced a meaningful rebound since 2013, largely due to a booming tourism industry in Japan.1 According to tourism statistics, the number of international visitors to Japan reached 31 million in 2018, almost five times the number ten years ago. But as long as the younger generation in Japan continues to save more and consume less, prices will remain under pressure. BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda remains committed to achieving a 2% inflation target, but inflation expectations are falling to historical lows at a time when the BoJ is running out of policy bullets.2  That means inflation will likely lag that of other developed countries, lifting the fair value of the yen. British Pound Both regressions show the pound as undervalued. This supports our view that over the long term, the pound is a categorical buy (Chart 4). The consumption baskets in both the U.K. and the U.S. are roughly similar, which means traditional PPP models do a good job at capturing the true underlying picture of price differentials (Table). For example, OECD PPP models, based on national expenditure, show the pound as 15% undervalued. Chart 4The Pound Is Cheap U.K. CPI Weights Housing is the largest item in the consumption basket, with a total weight close to 30% (including housing electricity and water supply). The shelter consumer price index in the U.K. started to fall relative to the U.S. in 2016, which has lowered the fair-value of the pound (in the Balassa-Samuelson framework). That said, the fall in the pound has been much more deep and violent than suggested by domestic price fundamentals. For example, food restaurants and hotels are 10% cheaper in the U.K. compared to the U.S. over the last half decade. However, rather than appreciating 10%, the pound has plummeted by about 30%. Brexit will continue to dictate the ebb and flow of sterling gyrations, but the reality is that the pound should be higher on a fundamental basis. Meanwhile, a pick up in the global economy will benefit the pound. Going short CHF/GBP on valuation grounds is an attractive bet today. Australian Dollar As a commodity currency, PPP models are less useful for the Australian dollar than terms of trade, or even interest rate differentials. That said, the Aussie dollar is still relatively cheap versus the USD on a PPP basis (Chart 5). The key driver for value in the AUD has been a drop in the currency, relative to what price differentials will dictate. Food, restaurants and hotels comprise 23% of the Australian CPI basket, with the alcohol and tobacco category alone making up 7.4% (Table). Given food price differentials have been stable versus the U.S. in over a decade, Aussie citizens have not been particularly worse off. Chart 5The Aussie Is Slightly Cheap Australia CPI Weights Shelter accounts for almost a quarter percent of the basket. Relative shelter prices in Australia have been rising since the late 1990s, but started to soften in the past few years, on the back of macro prudential measures. Meanwhile, holiday travel and accommodation have a total weight of 6%, of which domestic travel makes up 2.9%, and international travel 3.1%. The overall cost of tourism in Australia has been falling relative to the U.S., boosting the fair value of the Aussie. In the 1980s, inflation in Australia averaged around 8.3% year-on-year. This made the Aussie incrementally expensive, creating grounds for a subsequent 50% devaluation from 1980 to 1986. Inflation targeting was finally introduced and has realigned Aussie prices with the rest of the world. Our bias is that the Aussie will be less driven by price differentials going forward, but more by RBA policy and terms of trade. New Zealand Dollar The New Zealand dollar is at fair value according to both models (Chart 6).  Like the aussie, the kiwi is less driven by price differentials and more by terms of trade. Food and shelter account for the largest share of the consumption basket, and relative prices have not been moving in favor of the kiwi (Table). So, while the kiwi was overvalued earlier this decade, the overvaluation gap has been mostly closed via a higher dollar. Chart 6The Kiwi Is At Fair Value New Zealand CPI Weights Relative shelter prices in New Zealand have been soaring in recent decades compared to the U.S. Higher immigration, foreign purchases and a commodity boom helped. However, in August 2018, the ban on foreign property purchases came into effect, which helped cool down the housing market. Like in Australia, the inflation rate in New Zealand reached 18% year-on-year in the early 1980s, and was subsequently addressed via inflation targeting. This has realigned New Zealand prices somewhat with the rest of the world. Our bias is that going forward, the kiwi will underperform the aussie, mainly because of a negative terms of trade shock. Canadian Dollar The loonie is currently trading below its fair value, according to both of our models (Chart 7).  Shelter remains the largest budget item for Canadian households (Table). The average Canadian household spent C$18,637 on shelter per year, around 29.2% of the total consumption in 2017.3 Interestingly, the shelter consumer price index does not fully capture skyrocketing house prices in Canada over the last decade. Since 2005, Canadian house prices relative to U.S. have doubled, according to OECD. On the contrary, the relative shelter CPI has trended downwards. These crosscurrents have dampened the explanatory power of the exchange rate. Chart 7The Loonie Is Slightly Cheap Canada CPI Weights Canadians are avid users of private transportation. The average spending on transportation accounted for 20% of total consumption, the second-largest expenditure item. Relative prices in this category have been rising, which has lowered the fair value of the exchange rate. Canada stands as the sixth largest energy producer in the world, but due to heavy taxation, Canadian consumers are paying more for gas prices than their U.S. neighbors. That said, terms of trade have been more important than PPP concerns for the loonie. In the near term, we believe energy prices (and the Western Canadian Select price spread) will continue to be important for the loonie. Swiss Franc USD/CHF is trading slightly below fair value, despite structural appreciation in the franc in recent years (Chart 8). The largest consumption item in Switzerland is the food, restaurants and hotels category (Table). The second item is shelter. Social services have a higher weight in the CPI basket, compared to other developed nations. This has been a huge driver of relative prices between Switzerland and the rest of the world, with falling relative prices boosting the fair value of the franc. Chart 8The Swiss Franc Is At Fair Value Switzerland CPI Weights Healthcare notably accounts for 15.5% in the total CPI basket, of which patient services makes up 11.5%. The Swiss healthcare system is a combination of public, subsidized private, and entirely private systems. It is mandatory for a Swiss resident to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments. The insured person then pays the insurance premium plus part of the treatment costs. Finally, as a small open economy, tradable goods prices are important for Switzerland. Given high levels of specialization, terms-of-trade in Switzerland are soaring to record highs. This makes the franc a core holding in a currency portfolio. Norwegian Krone The Norwegian krone is undervalued according to both models (Chart 9). Food and shelter account for the largest share of the Norwegian CPI basket (Table). While the share of shelter is lower than in the U.S., other categories share similar weights, allowing traditional PPP models to be adequate for USD/NOK. One difference is that in terms of social services, only 0.2% of the expenditures are allocated to education, since all schools are free in Norway, including universities. Chart 9The Norwegian Krone Is Cheap Norway CPI Weights As a large energy producer, Norwegians pay less for electricity, gas, and other fuels. Norway is also a heavy producer of renewable energy, notably hydropower. This makes the domestic energy basket less susceptible to the ebbs and flows of energy prices. Going forward, the path of energy prices will continue to dictate ebbs and flows in the krone. Meanwhile, long NOK positions also benefit from an attractive valuation starting point.  Swedish Krona The krona is the cheapest currency in our universe by a wide margin (Chart 10). This stems less from fluctuations in relative prices and more from negative rates that have hammered the exchange rate. Like many countries, food and shelter is the largest component of the consumption basket (Table). Transportation is also important. However, an important driver for undervaluation in the currency has been a drop in the relative price of social services. Chart 10The Swedish Krona Is Very Cheap Sweden CPI Weights Sweden experienced very high inflation rates in the 1980s, and since then, has been in a disinflationary regime. More recently, the inflation rate has edged down below the Riksbank’s target, mostly dragged down by recreation, culture, and healthcare. This makes Swedish real rates relatively attractive. We remain positive on the Swedish krona and believe that it will be one of the first to benefit, should global growth pick up.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com   Kelly Zhong, Research Analyst kellyz@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We removed the shelter component in regression 1, since it was distorting results. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much”, dated May 31, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see “Survey of Household Spending, 2017,” Statistic Canada, December 12, 2018. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Today’s equity risk premium of 1.6 percent makes equities the preferred long-term asset-class versus bonds at the current level of bond yields. The caveat is that this conclusion would quickly change if bond yields were to rise significantly. German equities are offering a more attractive risk premium of 3.7 percent versus German bunds. We closed our tactical short in equities at its 4 percent profit-target, and are now tactically neutral. Fractal analysis suggests that bonds are now technically overbought… …but developments in the coming weeks warrant a degree of caution. With trade tensions still simmering, the Italian government in chaos, the ECB likely to unveil new stimulus in September, and the no-deal Brexit deadline looming at the end of October, there is too much event risk to short bonds with high conviction right now. Feature Chart of the WeekStocks Set To Return 3 Percent, Bonds Set To Return 1.4 Percent Bonds Set To Return 1.4 Percent This year’s rally in bonds has dragged down bond yields to unprecedented lows. Indeed, in many markets, the term ‘bond return’ should more truthfully be called ‘bond penalty’. For example, with the German 10-year bund now yielding -0.7 percent, buying and holding it for its ten year life will lose you 7 percent of your money.1 Or will it? Unlike in most jurisdictions where the currency cannot disintegrate, euro area bond yields are complicated by ‘redenomination’ discounts and premiums. If you were certain that the euro was going to break up within the next ten years, and that the German bund would pay you back in new deutschmarks worth 7 percent more than euros, then the currency redenomination gain would more than cancel out the cumulative loss from the negative yield. For this reason a better measure of the euro area bond yield comes from the single currency bloc’s average yield – because in a break up, the expected currency gains and losses for the average euro area bond yield must sum to zero. To avoid the onerous calculation of this euro area average yield, a useful proxy turns out to be the French OAT yield. While not as depressed as the German bund yield, the 10-year OAT yield, at -0.35 percent, still constitutes a bond penalty (Chart I-2). The global bond yield has reached a new record low. Meanwhile, although the global 10-year bond yield is still positive, it recently fell to an all-time low of 1.40 percent – breaking the previous record low of 1.43 percent set in the aftermath of the 2016 shock vote for Brexit (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The French OAT Is A Good Proxy For The Average Euro Area Bond Chart I-3Bonds Set To Return##br## 1.4 Percent Stocks Set To Return 3 Percent    The long term prospective return from most asset-classes is well-defined: for the bond asset-class it is the yield to maturity, now at 1.4 percent;2 for the equity asset-class it comes from the starting valuation, which tends to be an excellent predictor of the long term prospective return. But which valuation metric? Equity valuations based on earnings are problematic – because valuations appear deceptively attractive when profit margins are structurally high, as they are now (Chart I-4). The problem is that earnings will face a structural headwind when margins normalise, depressing prospective returns. Some people suggest adjusting the earnings to derive a cyclically adjusted price to earnings multiple (CAPE), but by definition this only corrects for the cycle and does not correct for any structural trend. Chart I-4Structurally High Profit Margins Flatter Equity Earnings Equity valuations based on assets are also problematic. Nowadays, such assets comprise intellectual capital or intangibles or ‘virtual’ assets, which are extremely difficult to quantify accurately. Hence, our preferred long-term valuation metric is price to sales – because sales are quantifiable, objective, and unambiguous. Indeed, the starting price to sales multiple of the global equity asset-class has been a near-perfect predictor of its prospective 10-year nominal return (Chart I-5). The method is to regress historic starting price to sales with (the known) prospective 10-year returns. Then apply the established relationship to the current price to sales to predict the (the unknown) prospective return. Chart I-5Stocks Set To Return 3 Percent On this basis, today’s prospective 10-year annualised return from global equities is 3 percent.  Is The 1.6 Percent Excess Return Enough? So the prospective 10-year return from equities, at an annualised 3 percent, is 1.6 percent more than that from bonds, at 1.4 percent.3 Is this excess return – the so-called ‘equity risk premium’ – enough (Chart of the Week)? Price to sales has been a near-perfect predictor of long term equity returns.   Yes, because at ultra-low bond yields, the risk of owning bonds converges with the risk of owning equities. The asymmetry in the future direction of bond yields makes bonds riskier investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation – nominal or real – diminishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically. The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Recent breakthroughs in risk theory and behavioural economics conclude that our perception of an investment’s risk does not come from its volatility or correlation characteristics. It comes from the investment’s negative skew. The upshot is that today’s excess prospective return of 1.6 percent does make equities the preferred long-term asset-class at the current level of bond yields. The caveat is that this conclusion would quickly change if bond yields were to rise significantly (Chart I-6). Interestingly, German equities are an excellent long-term proxy for global equities, producing near-identical returns (Chart I-7). This is not surprising given the very similar international and sector focusses. We can infer that the German stock market, just like the global equity asset-class, is set to deliver an annualised 10-year return of 3 percent. But in Germany, the 10-year bond yield is -0.7 percent, implying that German equities are offering a more attractive risk premium of 3.7 percent versus German bunds. Chart I-7German Equities Are An Excellent Proxy For Global Equities Some Other Asset Allocation Thoughts The rally in bonds has hurt our cyclical overweight to the DAX versus long-dated German bunds. However, given the aforementioned long-term analysis, we are sticking with it, albeit switching it from a cyclical to a structural recommendation. Our other recent asset allocation recommendations have worked. In May, we pointed out that the simultaneous strong rallies in equities, bonds, and oil was extremely rare, and that at least one of the rallies would soon break down. This is precisely what happened. While bonds rallied a further 5 percent, equities corrected by 5 percent, and the crude oil price plunged 20 percent. However, our portfolio construction could have been better as our weightings in the three assets left the combined short position roughly flat. The position is now closed. Our tactical short in equities achieved its 4 percent profit-target. Likewise in June, fractal analysis suggested that the double-digit rally in stock markets was vulnerable to a countertrend reversal. This is precisely what happened. Our tactical short position in the MSCI AC World Index achieved its 4 percent profit-target and is now closed (Chart I-8). Stay tactically neutral to equities. Chart I-8Stocks Were Overbought, And Reversed Interestingly, the same fractal analysis is suggesting that it is the stellar rally in bonds that is now vulnerable to a countertrend reversal (Chart I-9), implying a tactical short position in bonds. Having said that, developments in the coming weeks warrant a degree of caution. With trade tensions still simmering, the Italian government in chaos, the ECB likely to unveil new stimulus in September, and the no-deal Brexit deadline looming at the end of October, there is too much event risk to short bonds with high conviction right now. Chart I-9Bonds Are Overbought Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the sharp underperformance of Spain (IBEX 35) versus Belgium (BEL 20) is technically extended and susceptible to a liquidity-triggered reversal. Accordingly, the recommended trade is to go long Spain versus Belgium setting a profit-target of 3.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In the other trades, short MSCI All-Country World achieved its 4 percent profit-target and is now closed. 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 I-10 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. * 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. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Assuming no default risk and no reinvestment risk. 2 Assuming no default risk and no reinvestment risk. 3 Nominal annualised total return, capital plus income. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Recession odds continue to tick higher, according to the NY Fed’s probability of recession model, at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. The souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. The global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight, today. Initiate a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) pair trade, today Table 1 Feature Obsession with the Fed easing continues to trump all else, with the SPX piercing through the 3,000 mark to fresh all-time highs last week. However, it is unrealistic for the Fed to do all the heavy lifting for the equity market as we have argued recently (see Chart 3 from June 24),1 at a time when profit cracks are spreading rapidly. This should be cause for some trepidation. Since the Christmas Eve lows essentially all of the 26% return in equities is explained by valuation expansion. The forward P/E has recovered from 13.5 to nearly 17.2 (Chart 1). There is limited scope for further expansion as four interest rate cuts in the coming 12 months are already priced in lofty valuations. Now profits will have to do the heavy lifting. But on the eve of earnings season, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors are forecast to have contracted profits last quarter, and three sectors could not lift revenue versus year ago comps, according to I/B/E/S data. Looking further out, there is a plethora of indicators that we highlighted last week that suggest that a profit recession is looming.2 Our sense is that once the euphoria around the looming Fed easing cycle settles, there will be a massive clash between perception and reality (Chart 2) that will likely propagate as a surge in volatility. Chart 1Multiple Expansion Explains All Of The SPX’s Return Chart 2Unsustainable Divergence This addiction to low rates has come at a great cost to the non-financial corporate sector. As a reminder, this segment of the economy is where the excesses are in the current cycle as we have been highlighting in recent research.3 Using stock market related data for the non-financial ex-tech universe, net debt has increased by 70% to $4.2tn over the past five years, but cash flow has only grown 18% to $1.7tn. As a result, net debt-to-EBITDA has spiked from 1.7 to 2.5, an all-time high (Chart 3). While stocks are at all-time highs (top panel, Chart 3), the debt-saddled non-financials ex-tech universe will likely exert substantial downward pressure to these equities in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 3Balance Sheet Degrading Chart 4Something’s Got To Give Moving on to the labor market, we recently noticed an interesting behavior between the unemployment rate and wage inflation since the early-1990s recession: a repulsive magnet-type property exists where like magnetic poles repel each other (middle panel, Chart 5). In other words, every time the falling unemployment rate has kissed off accelerating wage growth, a steep reversal ensued at the onset of recession during the previous three cycles. A repeat may be already taking place, as average hourly earnings (AHE) growth has been stuck in the mud since peaking in December 2018. Importantly, the AHE impulse is quickly losing steam and every time the Fed embarks on an aggressive easing cycle it typically marks the end of wage inflation (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Beware Of Repulsion Chart 6Waiting For Growth Meanwhile, BCA’s global manufacturing PMI diffusion index has cratered to below 40% (middle panel, Chart 6). Neither the G7 nor the EM aggregate PMIs are above the boom/bust line (top panel, Chart 6). Our breakdown of the Leading Economic Indicators into G7 and EM14 also signals that global growth is hard to come by, albeit EMs are showing some early signs of a trough (bottom panel, Chart 6). As the early-May announced increase in Chinese tariffs begin to take a toll, we doubt global growth can have a sustainable recovery for the rest of 2019, despite Chinese credit growth picking up. Now, even Japan and Korea are fighting it out and are erecting barriers to trade, dealing a further blow to these economically hyper-sensitive export-oriented economies. Netting it all out, the odds of recession by mid-2020 continue to tick higher according to the NY Fed’s model (NY Fed’s probability of recession shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5) at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we are upgrading a consumer staples subgroup to overweight and initiating an intra-commodity market neutral trade. Time To Buy The Hype The tide is shifting and we are upgrading the S&P hypermarkets index to an above benchmark allocation. While valuations are stretched, trading at a 50% premium to the overall market on a 12-month forward P/E basis (not shown), our thesis is that these Big Box retailers will grow into their pricey valuations in the coming months.  The macro landscape is aligned perfectly with these defensive retailers. Consumer confidence has been falling all year long and now cracks are spreading to the labor market (confidence shown inverted, top panel, Chart 7). ADP small business payrolls declined for the second month in a row. Similarly, the NFIB survey shows that small business hiring plans are cooling (hiring plans shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, 2/3 of all new hiring typically occurs in the small and medium enterprise space. In the residential real estate market, the drop in interest rates that is now in its eighth month has yet to be felt, and house price inflation has ground to a halt. Historically, Costco membership growth has been inversely correlated with house prices (house price inflation shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Deteriorating Macro Backdrop … Chart 8…Is A Boon To Hypermarkets… Chart 8 shows three additional macro variables that signal brighter times ahead for the relative share price ratio. The drubbing in the 10-year U.S. treasury yield reflects a souring macro backdrop, melting inflation and a steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises. The ISM manufacturing index that continues to decelerate and is now closing in on the boom/bust line corroborates the bond market’s grim message. Tack on the Fed’s expected four cuts in the coming 12 months, and factors are falling into place for a durable rally in relative share prices. This disinflationary backdrop along with the Fed’s looming easing interest rate cycle have put a solid bid under gold prices. Hypermarket equities and bullion traditionally move in lockstep, and the current message is to expect more gains in the former (top panel, Chart 9). On the trade front specifically, these Big Box retailers do source consumer goods from China, but up to now these imports have been nearly immune to the U.S./China trade dispute as prices have been deflating (import prices shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 9). However, this does pose a risk going forward and we will be closely monitoring it for two reasons: First, because downward pressures may intensify on the greenback and second, President Trump may impose additional tariffs, both of which are negative for industry pricing power. Chart 9Profit Margins… Chart 10…Will Likely Expand Meanwhile, industry demand is on the rise and will likely offset the potential trade and U.S. dollar induced margin pressures. Hypermarket retail sales are climbing at a healthy clip outpacing overall retail sales (bottom panel, Chart 10). Already non-discretionary retail sales are outshining discretionary ones, which is a precursor to recession at a time when overall consumer outlays have sunk below 1% (real PCE growth shown inverted, top panel, Chart 10). The implication is that hypermarkets will continue to garner a larger slice of consumer outlays as the going gets tough. In sum, the souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HYPC – WMT, COST. Initiate A Long Global Gold Miners/Short S&P Oil & Gas E&P Pair Trade One way to benefit from the global growth soft-patch and looming global liquidity injection is to go long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P stocks on a tactical three-to-six month basis. While this market neutral and intra-commodity pair trade has already enjoyed an impressive run, there is more upside owing to a favorable macro backdrop. The key determinant of this share price ratio is the relative move in the underlying commodities that serve as pricing power proxies (top panel, Chart 11). Given the massive currency debasement potential that has gripped Central Banks the world over, such a flush liquidity backdrop will boost the allure of the shiny metal more so than crude oil. Global manufacturing PMIs are foreshadowing recession and our diffusion index has plummeted to the lowest level since 2011 (diffusion shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 11). In the U.S. specifically there is a growth-to-liquidity handoff and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new order versus prices paid subcomponents confirms that global gold miners have the upper hand compared with E&P equities (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Global Soft-Patch… Chart 12…Disinflation… As a result of this growth scare that can easily morph into recession especially if the U.S./China trade war continues into next year, inflation is nowhere to be found. Unit labor costs are slumping (top panel, Chart 12), the NY Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over decisively (not shown),4 and the GDP deflator is slipping (middle panel, Chart 12).      Parts of the yield curve first inverted in early-December and the 10-year/fed funds rate slope is still inverted, signaling that gold miners will continue to outperform oil producers (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 13). The near 100bps dive in real interest rates since late-December ties everything together and is a boon to bullion (and gold producers) that yields nothing (TIPS yield shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). Meanwhile, bond volatility has spiked of late and the bottom panel of Chart 14 shows that historically the MOVE index has been joined at the hip with relative share prices. Chart 13…Melting Real Yields And… Chart 14…The Spike In Bond Vol, All Favor Gold Miners Over Oil Producers On the relative demand front, we peer over to China to take a pulse of the marginal moves in these commodity markets. China (and Russia) has been aggressively shifting their currency reserves into gold, and bullion holdings are rising both in volume terms and as a percentage of total FX reserves. In marked contrast, oil demand is feeble and Chinese apparent diesel consumption that is closely correlated with infrastructure and manufacturing activity has tumbled. Taken together, the message is to expect additional gain in relative share prices (middle & bottom panels, Chart 15). Adding it all up, the global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a tactical long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade on a three-to-six month time horizon with a stop at the -10% mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: GDX:US and BLBG – S5OILP – COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, FANG, HES, DVN, MRO, NBL, COG, APA, XEC, respectively. Chart 15Upbeat Relative Demand Backdrop   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Beware Profit Recession” dated July 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge   Current Recommendations Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Special Report

Highlights Our intermediate-term timing models are not sending any strong signals at the moment. That means the balance of forces could tilt the greenback in either way, in what appears to be a stalemate for the U.S. dollar so far.  We are maintaining a pro-cyclical currency stance, but have a few portfolio hedges in the event we are caught offside in what could be a volatile summer. Stay long petrocurrencies versus the euro. Remain short USD/JPY. Also hold a short basket of gold bullion versus the yen. Feature Chart 1Major Peak In The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Regular readers of our publication are well aware that we have maintained a pro-cyclical stance over the past few months, a view that has been underpinned by a few tectonic forces moving against the U.S. dollar. The reality is that the DXY index has been stuck in a broad range of 96 to 98 for most of this year, failing to decisively breakout or breakdown in what has largely been an extremely frustrating stalemate for traders. Our rationale for a breakdown in the dollar was outlined in a Special Report 1 we penned in March, and the arguments still hold true today (Chart 1).    Over the next few weeks, we will be going back to the drawing board to see if and where we could be offside in this view. We start this week with a review of our intermediate-term timing models. Back in 2016, we developed a set of currency indicators to help global portfolio managers increase their Sharpe ratio in managing currency exposure. The idea was quite simple: For every developed-world country, there were three key variables that influenced the near-term path of its exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar. Interest Rate Differentials: Under the lens of interest rate parity, if one country is expected to have lower interest rates versus another one, the incumbent’s currency will fall today so as to gradually appreciate in the future and nullify the interest rate advantage. This sounds vaguely familiar for the U.S. dollar. Inflation Differentials:  Assuming no transactional costs, the price of sandals cannot be relatively high and rising in Mumbai versus Auckland. Either the Indian rupee needs to fall, the kiwi rise, or a combination of the two has to occur to equalize prices across borders. This concept originated from the School Of Salamanca in 16th century Spain, and still applies to this day in the form of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Risk factor: Exchange rates are not government bonds in that few treasury departments and central banks can guarantee a par value on them. Ergo, the ebb and flow of risk aversion will have an impact on the Norwegian krone as well as the yen. Gauging the balance of forces for this risk is important. For all countries, the variables are highly statistically significant and of the expected signs. These models help us understand in which direction fundamentals are pushing the currency. We hereto refer to these as Fundamental Intermediate-Term Models (FITM). Including the momentum variable helps fine-tune the models. Real rate differentials, junk spreads and commodity prices remain statistically significant and of the correct sign.  A final adjustment is one for momentum. Including a 52-week moving average for each cross helps fine-tune the models for trend. Real rate differentials, junk spreads and commodity prices remain statistically very significant and of the correct sign. They are therefore trend- and risk-appetite adjusted UIP-deviation models. These models are more useful as timing indicators on a three- to nine-month basis, as their error terms revert to zero much faster. We refer to these as Intermediate-Term Timing Models (ITTM). For the most part, our models have worked like a charm. On a risk-adjusted return basis, a dynamic hedging strategy based on our ITTMs has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001.2 Even in the very long run of 41 years – from August 1976 – a simple momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy outperforms static ones for investors with five home currencies, with only the AUD portfolio being worse off. These results give us confidence to continue running these models as a sanity check for our ever-shifting currency biases. The U.S. Dollar Chart 2No Major Mispricing In The U.S. Dollar Chart 3More Upside Is Possible The approach for modelling the U.S. dollar was twofold. First, we estimated the fair value of each of the DXY constituents, and reconstructed an index based on DXY weights – a bottom-up fair-value DXY, if you will. Second, we ran our three variables against the DXY index. Averaging both approaches gave us similar results to begin with. The dollar is currently sitting in a neutral zone, with two opposing forces holding it in stalemate. The Federal Reserve’s dovish shift is moving real interest rate differentials against the dollar, but budding risk aversion judging from the combination of junk bond spreads and commodity prices are keeping the dollar bid. The call on the dollar will be critical for currency strategy, and our bias is that a breakdown is imminent based on the bond-to-gold ratio. That said, the breakdown will require the final pillars of dollar support to crack, which would come from a nascent rebound in global growth and/or an easing in the dollar liquidity shortage. We will be watching these developments like hawks. The Euro Chart 4No Major Mispricing In The Euro Chart 5EUR/USD Is Not Particularly Cheap The model results for the euro are the mirror image of the dollar, with no evidence of mispricing. What is interesting about the euro, however, is that the biggest buy signal was generated in 2015, and since then the fair value has exhibited a series of higher-lows and higher-highs. In short, it appears the euro has been in a low-conviction bull market since 2015. The Treasury-bund spread is the widest it has been in decades, and it is fair to say that some measure of mean reversion is due. The standard dilemma for the euro zone is that interest rates have always been too low for the most productive nation, Germany, but too expensive for others such as Spain and Italy. As such, the euro has typically been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising equilibrium rate of interest for Germany, but a very low neutral rate for the peripheral countries. The silver lining is that the European Central Bank has now finally lowered domestic interest rates and eased policy to the point where they are accommodative for almost all euro zone countries. The drop in the euro since 2018 has also eased financial conditions and made euro zone companies more competitive. This is a tailwind for European stocks. Fortunately for investors, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, given they are trading at some of the cheapest cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings multiples in the developed world. Earlier this year, analysts began aggressively revising up their earnings estimates for euro zone equities relative to the U.S. If they are right, this could lead to powerful inflows into the euro over the next nine to 12 months.  The Japanese Yen Chart 6Rate Differentials Have Helped The Yen Chart 7JPY Is Slightly Expensive The yen’s fair value has benefitted tremendously from the plunge in global bond yields, which made rock-bottom Japanese rates relatively attractive from a momentum standpoint. That said, relatively subdued risk aversion has constrained upside in the fair value. The message from our ITTM is a moderate sell on the yen, which stands in contrast to our tactically short USD/JPY position. With the BoJ owning 46% of outstanding JGBs, about 75% of ETFs and almost 5% of JREITs, the supply side obviously puts a serious limitation on how much more stimulus the central bank can provide. Total annual asset purchases by the Bank of Japan are currently running at under ¥30 trillion, while JGB purchases are running at ¥20 trillion. This is a far cry from the central bank’s soft target of ¥80 trillion, and unlikely to change anytime soon, given 10-year government bond yields are six points away from the 20 basis-point floor. It looks like the end of the Heisei era has brought forward a well-known quandary for the central bank, which is that additional monetary policy options are hard to come by, since there have been diminishing economic returns to additional stimulus. This puts short USD/JPY bets in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position.  The British Pound Chart 8Cable Is At Equilibrium Chart 9Political Risk Could Lead To An Undershoot The selloff in the pound since 2015 has been quick and violent, and triggered our stop loss at 1.25 this week. Interestingly, our ITTM does not show any mispricing in the pound’s fair value at the moment, suggesting momentum could shift either way rather quickly. For longer-term investors, there is fundamental support for holding the pound. For one, the pound is below where it was after the 2016 referendum results, yet more people are now in favor of staying in the union. Yes, incoming data in the U.K. has softened, but employment growth has been holding up very well, wages are inflecting higher and the average U.K. consumer appears in decent shape. This suggests that gilt yields should be higher than current levels, solely on the basis of domestic fundamentals. Our bulletin last week3 provided an ERM roadmap for the pound, and the conclusion is that we could be quite close to a floor. That said, valuation confirmation from our ITTM would have been a nice catalyst, which is not currently the case. As such, we are standing aside on the pound for now. The Canadian Dollar Chart 10Loonie Is Trading At A Discount Chart 11A Rise In Crude Oil Will Be Bullish USD/CAD is slightly overvalued from a fundamental perspective, but our ITTM is squarely sitting close to neutral. Going forward, movements in the Canadian dollar will be largely dictated by interest rate differentials and crude oil prices, which for now remain supportive. Canadian data has been firing on all cylinders of late, so it was no surprise that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz decided to keep interest rates on hold this week. Risks from the slowdown in global trade remain elevated, but easier monetary policy around the world should help. Developments in the oil patch should also be increasingly favorable as mandatory production curtailments in Alberta are eased. Notably, Canadian exports to the U.S. are near record highs. Housing developments have been uneven, with Halifax, Montreal and Ottawa seeing robust housing markets versus softer data elsewhere. That said, solid gains in labor income should sustain housing investment and growth. As for the loonie, the tailwinds remain favorable because 1) the Fed is expected to be more dovish over the next 12 months, which should tilt interest rate differentials in favor of the loonie, and 2) crude oil prices should remain well anchored in the near term on the back of geopolitical tensions, which will favor the loonie. The caveat is of course that global (and Canadian) growth bounces back by 2020 into 2021 as the BoC expects. The Swiss Franc Chart 12The Franc Value Is Fair Chart 13The Franc Has Been A Dormant Currency For most of the past decade, the Swiss franc has tended to be a dormant currency, interspersed by short bouts of intense volatility. That is reflected in the ITTM, which has not deviated much from zero over this time. The current message is that USD/CHF is slightly undervalued, a deviation that remains within the margin of error. A unifying theme for the franc is that it has tended to stage big moves near market riot points. That makes it attractive as a portfolio hedge, given no major evidence of mispricing today. With Swiss bond yields at already low levels, any downward pressure on global rates will boost the franc’s fair value. Meanwhile, Swiss prices are rising at a 0.6% annual rate, while U.S. prices are rising at a 1.6% clip, suggesting the franc is getting incrementally cheaper relative to its fair value. The message from Swiss National Bank Chair Thomas Jordan has been very clear: Interest rates could be lowered further, along with powerful intervention in the foreign exchange market, if necessary. This suggests that in the near term, the preference for the SNB is for a stable exchange rate. The issue is that market forces have occasionally dictated otherwise, especially during riot points. With the S&P 500 at record highs and corporate spreads both in the U.S. and euro area historically low, we may be approaching such a riot point soon, which will support the franc.  The Australian Dollar Chart 14AUD Trading Tightly With Fundamentals Chart 15No Major Mispricing In AUD Our ITTM for the Australian dollar sits notoriously close to fair value at most times, making opportunistic buys or sells in the Aussie rather difficult. The current message is that the AUD/USD is sitting squarely at fair value, meaning a move in either direction is fair game.  On the surface, most data points appear negative for the Aussie dollar. Typical reflation indicators such as commodity prices and industrial share prices are soft after a nascent upturn earlier this year. This suggests that so far, policy stimulus in China has not been sufficient to lift global growth, and/or the transmission mechanism towards higher growth is not working. That said, the latest Reserve Bank of Australia interest rate cut might be the ultimate insurance backstop needed to jumpstart the Australian economy. More importantly, fiscal policy is set to become decisively loose this year. The new government introduced income tax cuts this month. This is skewed towards lower-income households, meaning the fiscal multiplier may be larger than what the Australian economy is normally accustomed to. Infrastructure spending will also remain high, which will be very stimulative for growth in the short term. One bright spot for the Aussie dollar has been rising terms of trade. In recent months, both steel and iron ore prices have been soaring. Many commentators have attributed these increases to supply bottlenecks and/or seasonal demand. However, it is evident from both Chinese manufacturing data and the trend in prices that demand is also playing a role. We remain long AUD/USD with a tight stop at 68 cents.  The New Zealand Dollar Chart 16NZD Fair Value Has Been##br## Falling Chart 17NZD Cross Reflects Deteriorating Fundamentals Like the AUD, our ITTM for the NZD is sitting squarely at fair value. That said, we believe fundamentals are likely to shift against the NZD in the near-term. This warrants holding long AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD positions. Our bias is that failure to cut interest rates at the last policy meeting might have been a mistake by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand – one that will be reversed with more interest rate cuts down the line. Since 2015, the market has been significantly more dovish on Australia relative to New Zealand, in part due to a more accelerated downturn in house prices and a significant slowdown in China. The reality is that the downturn in Australia has allowed some cleansing of sorts, and brought it far along the adjustment path relative to New Zealand. We may now be entering a window where economic data in New Zealand converges to the downside relative to Australia, the catalyst being a foreign ban on domestic home purchases. The Norwegian Krone Chart 18NOK Is Cheap Chart 19A Rise In Crude Oil Will Be Bullish Our fundamental model for the Norwegian krone shows it as squarely undervalued. This favors long NOK positions, which we have implemented via multiple crosses in our bulletins. The Norges Bank is the most hawkish G10 central bank, which means interest rate differentials are likely to continue moving in favor of the krone. And with oil prices slated to rise towards year-end, this will also underpin NOK valuations. The Norwegian economy remains closely tied to oil, with the bottom in oil prices in 2016 having jumpstarted employment growth, business confidence and wage growth. With inflation near the central bank’s target and our expectation for oil prices to grind higher, we agree with the central bank’s assessment that the future path of interest rates is likely higher. Near $20/bbl, the discount between Western Canadian Select crude oil and Brent has narrowed, but remains wide. This has typically pinned the CAD/NOK lower. The NOK also tends to outperform the SEK when oil prices are rising, in addition to the benefit from a positive carry. The Swedish Krona Chart 20SEK Is Cheap Chart 21A Bounce In Global Growth Will Be Bullish Both our ITTM and FITM for the Swedish krona show the cross as cheap. Our high-conviction view is that the Swedish krona will be the biggest beneficiary from a rebound in global growth. For now, we are long SEK/NZD but are looking to add on to SEK positions once more evidence emerges that global growth has bottomed. The USD/SEK and NZD/SEK crosses tend to be highly correlated, since the SEK has a higher beta to global growth than the kiwi (Sweden exports 45% of its GDP versus 27% in New Zealand). On a relative basis, the Swedish economy appears to have bottomed relative to that of the U.S., making the SEK/NZD an attractive way to play USD downside. Meanwhile, the carry cost of being short NZD is lower compared to being short the U.S. dollar.    Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Tug Of War, With Gold As Umpire", dated March 29, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report titled, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? – A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors (Part II)", dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading", dated July 5, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Rising lumber prices, melting interest rates and profit-augmenting industry productivity gains all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index. Poor revenue growth prospects, the ongoing global manufacturing contraction and downbeat financial variables all indicate that high-beta semi equipment stocks have ample downside. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P semi equipment index to underweight on a tactical three-to-six month time horizon, today. Upgrade the S&P home improvement retail index to neutral and remove from the high-conviction underweight list, today. Put the S&P consumer discretionary sector on upgrade alert and remove from the high-conviction underweight list, today. Table 1 Feature July 10 marks the two year anniversary of our seminal “SPX 3,000?” report.1 We were very early both compared with the sell and buy side (to our knowledge the great Byron Wien is the only other strategist that had such a target) and as a reminder, at the time, the S&P 500 was trading near 2,400. A number of BCA peers and BCA clients alike confronted our über bullishness with disbelief, but our 3,000 target – based on our dividend discount model, an EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and an equilibrium equity risk premium analysis – proved a prescient call. Throughout this period (we had actually been bullish since Brexit, when our profit growth models hooked up) we maintained our cyclical bullishness and never wavered (top panel, Chart 1). Now that SPX futures hit our 2019 target, we want to remain ahead of the curve, as Stan Druckenmiller once mused: “…you have to visualize the situation 18 months from now, and whatever that is, that's where the price will be, not where it is today”. Chart 1Rally Running On Fumes In early June we shaved our 2021 EPS to $140 and our end-2020 SPX target fell to a range of 1,890-2,310. We posited that the easy gains in equities were behind us and we are not willing to play 100-200 points to the upside for a potential 1,000 point drawdown, owing to a souring macro backdrop (five key reasons underpin our cautious broad equity market stance that we outline in our recent webcast). On the eve of earnings season, investors have been obsessing with the “Fed put”, but neglecting the looming profit recession (bottom panel, Chart 1). Moreover, while markets cheered the trade truce following the recent G20 meeting, odds are high that manufacturing will remain in the doldrums as the tariff rate on $200bn of Chinese imports went up from 10% to 25% on May 10, and no tariff rollback was agreed. As a result, highly-cyclical global trade and manufacturing will likely continue to weigh on the economy for the remainder of the year. A simple liquidity indicator points to profit growth trouble into early-2020, which stands in marked contract with sell-side analysts who anticipate 10% EPS growth. Chart 2 shows the gulf gap between industrial production and broad money growth. Since 1960, this liquidity indicator has been an excellent leading indicator of SPX profit momentum and the current message is to expect a sustained deceleration in the latter. Chart 2Earnings… BCA U.S. Equity Strategy’s four-factor macro S&P 500 profit growth model corroborates this signal and warns that a profit contraction is nearing (Chart 3). Chart 3…Trouble… Following up from last week, Goldman Sachs’ U.S. Current Activity Indicator is also flashing red for SPX profit growth. Similarly, our corporate pricing power gauge is sinking steadily and underscores that a profit recession is a high probability outcome (Chart 4). Meanwhile, a longtime friend that I call “the smartest man in California” brought a slight variation of Chart 5 to my attention recently and highlighted that: “Historically, periods of falling manufacturing PMI result in larger negative earnings growth surprises as market forecasters rarely anticipate the breadth and depth of slowdowns. Profit growth trends are set to weaken further in the coming six months. Without profit growth, equity markets lack the necessary ‘oxygen’ for a durable high-quality rally, and until there is an upturn in growth momentum, rallies should be faded.” Chart 4…Proliferating   Chart 5Expect Downward… Even net EPS revisions have taken a turn for the worse and are probing recent lows (Chart 6). Drilling beneath the surface is revealing. Trade-exposed sectors bear the brunt of the EPS downgrades. Tech (60% foreign sales exposure), materials, industrials, and energy are deeply in negative territory (Chart 7). On the flip side, defensive sectors are offsetting some of the cyclical sectors' weakness with health care, real estate, utilities and consumer staples hovering close to zero (Chart 8). Chart 6…Profit Surprises Chart 7Net Earnings Revisions… Chart 8…Sectorial Breakdown With regard to the contribution to profit growth for calendar 2019, the divergences have widened significantly since our last update in early-April, with the financials sector solely holding the broad market’s profit fate in its hands. In more detail, Chart 9 shows that financials are responsible for 79% of the overall anticipated profit growth, up from 45% in early-April, whereas technology, energy and materials each have a negative profit growth contribution north of 30%. Table 2 puts all these figures in perspective, and also updates the sector market capitalization and profit weights. Table 2S&P 500 Earnings Analysis In sum, the SPX profit growth backdrop remains anemic and absent a pickup in growth momentum the risk/reward tradeoff is skewed to the down side. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we are making a subsurface change in an early-cyclical subgroup, and trimming a highly cyclical tech subindex. Put Consumer Discretionary Stocks On Upgrade Alert, And… Consumer discretionary stocks have marked time over the past year. But, now that the Fed is ready to ease monetary policy it will no longer pay to be bearish (Chart 10). This early-cyclical sector benefits the most from lower interest rates, and vice versa. Thus, we are putting this sector on our upgrade watch list and removing it from our high-conviction underweight list. We anticipate to execute this upgrade in coming weeks via boosting the S&P internet retail index to overweight. This subgroup is already on upgrade alert. Before triggering these upgrades, however, today we recommend a subsurface consumer discretionary move. Chart 10Lower Interest Rate Beneficiary …Lift The Home Improvement Retailers To Neutral We are compelled to upgrade the S&P HIR index to a benchmark allocation and remove it from our high-conviction underweight list for a small relative loss. Similar to the parent GICS1 sector, HIR stocks are inversely correlated with interest rates (fed funds rate discounter shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 11), given the close residential real estate market links they enjoy (top panel, Chart 12). Now that the bond market forecasts that the Fed will cut rates four times by next July, home improvement retailers should be cheering this news. Chart 11Two Profit Boosters Chart 12Resilient Pricing Power Jumping lumber prices should be a boon to HIR same-store sales. Recent steep production curtailments in lumber yards have been a tonic to prices that have rebounded $100/tbf in a little over a month. Keep in mind, that building materials & construction supplies stores make a set margin on lumber sales and thus higher selling prices translate straight into higher profits; the opposite is also true (bottom panel, Chart 11). Home improvement retailers have been flexing their pricing power muscles recently and this represents another boost to their top line growth prospects (middle panel, Chart 12). While the recent tariff rate increase related input cost inflation has yet to hit the industry’s bottom line, it remains to be seen if HIR margins will take a hit or retailers will pass it on through further price hikes. Importantly, industry labor restraint is a welcome offset and has been a profit booster as measured by our expanding productivity gauge (bottom panel, Chart 12). Our HIR model captures all these positive forces and has likely put in a durable trough recently, signaling that a brightening backdrop looms for the S&P HIR index (Chart 13). Chart 13Model Says It No Longer Pays To Be Bearish But prior to getting carried away up the bullish lane, these Big Box retailers have to contend with some key headwinds, and prevent us from boosting exposure to an above benchmark allocation. Residential fixed investment has been contracting for five consecutive quarters and remains a far cry from the 2006 peak as a share of output (Chart 14). Similarly, existing home sales, a key HIR demand driver, have softened recently at a time when home inventories have jumped (inventories shown inverted, top panel, Chart 15).  Chart 14But, Some Headwinds… Chart 15…Persist As a result, remodeling activity has taken a backseat, at the margin, weighing on industry same-store sales growth (bottom panel, Chart 15). Home owners have avoided dipping into their currently rebuilt home equity to undertake renovation projects. Until the reflationary wave of lower mortgage rates rekindles single family home sales and thus remodeling activity, only a neutral weighting is warranted in the S&P HIR index. All of this has led to a sustained deterioration in HIR operating metrics with the sales-to-inventories ratio contracting at an accelerating pace. The implication is that before long, home improvement retailers may have to resort to margin-denting price concessions to clear the inventory overhang (middle panel, Chart 15). Netting it all out, rising lumber prices, melting interest rates and profit-augmenting industry productivity gains all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P HIR index.   Bottom Line: Lift the S&P HIR index to neutral and remove from the high-conviction underweight list for a relative loss of 5.9% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOMI – HD, LOW. Downgrade Semi Equipment To Underweight     While the post G-20 trade related entente should have boosted semi equipment stocks that garner a large slice of their revenues in China, relative share prices are below Friday’s June 28 close. A tactical trading opportunity has re-emerged, and today we recommend trimming the S&P semi equipment index to underweight on a three-to-six month time horizon, but with a tight stop at the -7% relative return mark.  But before proceeding with our analysis, a brief recap of the recent history of our moves in this hyper-cyclical tech sub-index is in order. In late-November 2017 we recommended a high-conviction underweight position in the S&P semi equipment index at the height of the bitcoin fever.2 In mid-December 2018 we swung for the fences and upgraded this niche semi index to overweight as the street had finally capitulated and became extremely bearish on semi equipment stocks.3 Finally in early-March 2019 we booked handsome profits in this trade and moved to the sidelines (vertical lines denote recommendation changes, Chart 16).4 Semi equipment stocks are capital intensive, require precision manufacturing and their sales cycle is a carbon copy of the broad manufacturing cycle. The middle panel of Chart 17 shows this tight positive correlation with the ISM manufacturing index and sends a grim message for semi equipment manufacturers. Chart 16Time To Fade Semi Equipment Stocks Chart 17Chip Equipment Equities Follow The Manufacturing Cycle Global trade and manufacturing continue to contract and, specifically, the EM manufacturing PMI is below the 50 boom/bust line (second panel, Chart 18). Tack on elevated policy uncertainty, and the implication is that investors should sell semi equipment stock strength (top panel, Chart 18). Growth-sensitive financial variables also signal a challenging backdrop for relative share prices. Not only are emerging market stocks trailing their global peers year-to-date, but EM Asian currencies are also exerting downward pull on the relative share price ratio (third & bottom panels, Chart 18). Finally, with regard to industry operating metrics, the news is equally glum. Global semi cycles typically last four-to-five quarters and we only just passed the half way mark. Thus, there is more downside to industry sales momentum and we would lean against recent analyst relative revenue euphoria (middle panel, Chart 19). Asian DRAM prices are deflating, and this semi equipment industry pricing power proxy emits a similarly weak signal for top line growth (bottom panel, Chart 19). Chart 18Financial Variables Say Sell Chart 19Lean Against Recovering Top Line Growth Estimates Summing it all up, poor revenue growth prospects, the ongoing global manufacturing contraction and downbeat financial variables all indicate that semi equipment stocks have ample downside. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P semiconductor equipment index to underweight on a tactical basis (three-to-six month horizon), but set a tight stop at the -7% relative return mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ– AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes: 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “SPX 3,000?” dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “2018 High-Conviction Calls” dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      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. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Special Report

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps. Modest deterioration in credit quality, weakening prospects for loan growth and falling inflation expectations, compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Recent Changes We got stopped out on the long S&P managed health care/short S&P semis trade on June 10 for a gain of 10% since inception. We got stopped out on the long S&P homebuilders/short S&P home improvement retailers trade on June 14 for a gain of 10% since inception. Table 1 Feature Equities surged to all-time highs last week, as investors cheered the Fed’s dovish stance and increasing likelihood of a late-July interest rate cut. The addiction to low interest rates and global dependence on QE are evident and simultaneously very worrisome signs. We are nervous that the U.S. economy is in a soft-patch, thus vulnerable to a shock (maybe sustained trade hawkishness is the negative catalyst) that can tilt the economy in recession. The risk/reward tradeoff on the overall equity market remains to the downside on a cyclical (3-12 month) time horizon as we first posited two weeks ago (this is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view and is going against BCA’s cyclically constructive equity market House View). In fact, using the NY Fed’s probability of a recession in the coming 12 months data series signals that there’s ample downside for stocks from current levels (recession probability shown inverted, Chart 1).1 We heed this message and reiterate our cautious equity market stance. Chart 1Watch Out Down Below Importantly, drilling deeper with regard to the excesses we are witnessing this cycle, Chart 2 is instructive and an unintended consequence of QE and zero interest rate policy. In previous research we highlighted the cumulative equity buybacks corporations have completed this cycle near the $5tn mark. Chart 2Financial Engineering What is worrying is that this “accomplishment” has come about at a great cost: a massive change in the capital structure of the firm. In other words, all of the buybacks are reflected in debt origination from the non-financial business sector (using the Fed’s flow of funds data), confirming our claim that the excesses this cycle are not in the financial or household sectors, but rather in the non-financial business sector (please refer to Chart 4A from the June 10 Weekly Report). One likely trigger of a jumpstart to a default cycle, other than a U.S./China trade dispute re-escalation, is dwindling demand. On that front, we are bemused on how much weight market participants place on the Fed’s shoulders bailing out the economy and the stock market. Chart 3 is a vivid reminder of this narrative. On the one side of the seesaw is the mighty Fed with its forecast interest rate cuts and on the other a slew of slipping indicators. Our sense is that these eighteen indicators will more than offset the Fed’s about-to-commence easing cycle and eventually tilt the U.S. economy in recession, especially if the Sino-American trade talks falter. S&P 500 quarterly earnings are contracting on a year-over-year basis and the semi down-cycle points to additional profit pain for the rest of the year (top panel, Chart 4). On the trade front, exports are below the zero line and imports are flirting with the boom/bust line (second panel, Chart 4). Overall rail freight, including intermodal (retail segment) freight is plunging and so is the CASS freight shipments index at a time when the broad commodity complex is also deflating (third & bottom panels, Chart 4). The latest Q2 update of CEO confidence was disconcerting, weighing on the broad equity market’s prospects (top panel, Chart 5). Non-residential capital outlays have petered out and private construction is sinking like a stone. In fact, the latter have never contracted at such a steep rate during expansions over the past five decades (second panel, Chart 5). Real residential investment has clocked its fifth consecutive quarter of negative growth during an expansion, for the first time since the mid-1950s. Single family housing starts and permits are contracting (third panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Cracks… Chart 5…Are… Light vehicle sales are ailing (bottom panel, Chart 5) and the latest senior loan officer survey continued to show that there is feeble demand for credit across nearly all the categories the Fed tracks (bottom panel, Chart 6). Non-farm payrolls fell to 75K on a month-over-month basis last month and layoff announcements are gaining steam signaling that the labor market, a notoriously lagging indicator, is also showing some signs of strain (layoffs shown inverted, third panel, Chart 6). The latest update of the U.S. Equity Strategy’s corporate pricing power gauge is contracting (please look forward to reading a more in-depth analysis on our quarterly update on July 2) following down the path of the market’s dwindling inflation expectations. Finally, the yield curve remains inverted (top and second panels, Chart 6). Chart 6…Forming Chart 7The “Hope" RallyAdding it all up, we deem that the equity market remains divorced from the economic reality and too much faith is placed on the Fed’s shoulders to save the day. Thus, we refrain from positioning the portfolio on “three hopes”: first that the Fed will engineer a soft landing, second that the U.S./China trade tussle will get resolved swiftly, and finally that the Chinese authorities will inject massive amounts of liquidity and reflate their economy (Chart 7). This week we are putting a key financials sub-sector on downgrade alert and update our view on the size bias. Large Cap Refuge While small caps shielded investors from the U.S./China trade dispute that heated up in 2018 (owing to their domestic focus), this year small caps have failed to live up to their trade war-proof expectations and have lagged their large cap brethren by the widest of margins. In fact, the relative share price ratio sits at multi-year lows giving back all the gains since the Trump election, and then some (Chart 8). Chart 8Stick With A Large Cap Bias As a reminder, our large cap preference has netted our portfolio 14% gains since the May 10 2018 cyclical inception and this size bias is also up 9% since our high-conviction call inclusion in early December 2018. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. Bearishness toward small vs. large caps has been pervasive raising the question: does it still pay to prefer large caps to small caps? The short answer is yes. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. First, melting inflation expectations have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio, and the current message is to expect more downside (Chart 8). While the SPX has a higher energy weight than the S&P 600, financials and industrials dominate small cap indexes and likely explain the tight positive correlation with inflation expectations (Table 2). Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table Second, relative indebtedness has been widening. Debt saddled small caps have been issuing debt at an accelerating pace at a time when cash flow growth has not been forthcoming. Small cap net debt-to-EBITDA is now almost three times as high as large cap net debt-to-EBITDA. Investors have finally realized that rising indebtedness is worrisome, especially at the late stages of the business cycle, and that is why small caps have failed to insulate investors from the re-escalating trade dispute (top & middle panels, Chart 9). Third, a large number of small cap companies (100 in the S&P 600 and 600 in the Russell 2000) have no forward EPS. Very few S&P 500 companies have negative projected profits. Thus, while, relative valuations have been receding, the relative forward P/E trading at par is masking the relative value proposition of the indexes. Were the S&P or Russell to adjust for this, small caps would trade at a significant forward P/E premium to large caps (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9Mind The Debt Gap Fourth, a small cap margin squeeze has been underway since the 2012 cyclical peak and the relative margin outlook is even grimmer. Simply put, small business labor costs are rising at a faster clip than overall wage inflation, warning that small cap profit margins have further to fall compared with large caps margins (Chart 10). Finally, small cap stocks are higher beta stocks and typically rise when volatility gets suppressed. As such, they also tend to outperform large caps when emerging markets outperform the SPX and vice versa. Tack on the recent yield curve inversion, and the odds are high that the size bias has entered a prolonged period of sustained small cap underperformance. Netting it all out, melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps (Chart 11). Chart 10Relative Margin Trouble Chart 11Shay Away From Small Caps Bottom Line: Small cap underperformance has staying power. Continue to prefer large/mega caps to their small cap brethren. Put Banks On Downgrade Alert In the context of de-risking our portfolio we are taking the step and adding the S&P banks index on our downgrade watch list. The Fed’s signal of a cut in the upcoming July meeting steepened the yield curve last week. While the yield curve has put in higher lows in the past eight months, relative bank performance has been facing stiff resistance and has failed to follow the yield curve’s lead (Chart 12). One of the reasons for the Fed’s dovishness is melting inflation expectations. The latter are joined at the hip with relative bank performance and signal that downside risks are rising especially if the Fed fails to arrest the lower anchoring of inflation expectations (Chart 13). Chart 12Banks Are Not Participating Chart 13Melting Inflation Expectations Are Anchoring Banks With regard to credit demand, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey remained subdued confirming the anemic reading from our Economic Impulse Indicator (a second derivative gauge of six parts of the U.S. economy, bottom panel, Chart 14). Lack of credit demand translates into lack of credit growth, despite the fact that bankers are, for the most part, willing extenders of credit. U.S. Equity Strategy’s overall loans & leases growth model has crested (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Anemic Loan Demand… Chart 15…Will Weigh On Loan Origination Similarly, the recent softness in a number of manufacturing surveys signal that C&I loan growth in particular – the largest credit category in bank loan books – is at risk of flirting with the contraction zone (third panel, Chart 15). Worrisomely, not only is the overall U.S. credit impulse contracting, but also U.S. Equity Strategy’s bank credit diffusion index is collapsing (second panel, Chart 16). Such broad breadth of loan growth deterioration warns that loan growth and thus bank earnings are at risk of underwhelming still optimistic sell-side analysts’ expectations (not shown). On the credit quality front there are now two loan categories that are starting to show some modest signs of stress. Credit card net chargeoffs and non-current loans are spiking and now C&I delinquent loans have ticked up for the first time since the manufacturing recession (third & bottom panel, Chart 16). Our bank EPS growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these forces and signals that bank EPS euphoria is misplaced (bottom panel, Chart 15). Nevertheless, despite these softening bank sector drivers there are four significant offsets. First the drubbing in the 10-year yield has been reflected nearly one-to-one on the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the recent surge in mortgage applications signals that residential real estate loans (second largest bank loan category) may reaccelerate in the back half of the year (top panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Deteriorating Credit Quality Chart 17Some Significant… Second, while there have been credit card and C&I loan credit quality issues, as a percentage of total loans they just ticked higher and remain near cyclical lows, at a time when banks have been putting more money aside to cover for these potential loan losses (bottom panel, Chart 17). Third, bank source of funding remains very cheap as depositors have not been enjoying higher short term interest rates, at least not at the big money center banks. In other words, banks have not been passing higher interest rates to depositors sustaining relatively high NIMs (not shown). Finally, banks are one of the few sectors with pent up equity buyback demand. The upcoming release of the Fed’s stress test will likely continue to allow banks to pursue shareholder friendly activities, that they have been deprived from for so long, and raise dividend payments and increase share buybacks (Chart 18). Chart 18…Offsets In sum, melting inflation expectations, modest deterioration in credit quality, and weakening prospects for loan growth compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We remain overweight the S&P banks index, but have put it on downgrade alert and are looking for an opportunity to downgrade to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BaAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/capital_markets/ycfaq.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights As long as the global long bond yield stays near 2 percent or below, European equities will end the year at broadly the same level as now… …but they will experience a dip of at least 4-5 percent along the way. All central banks have pivoted to dovish but the Fed has more easing armoury than the ECB. This means that the recent outperformance of 10-year U.S. T-bonds versus 10-year German bunds can continue. It also means that the euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. Feature At the start of this year we explained Why 2019 Is A Pivotal Year For Monetary Policy. Today we want to elaborate on that report, and its key observations: Since 2008, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then reverse course. The current vulnerability to tightening emanates from the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to rate hikes, rather than from the direct impact on rate-sensitive sectors in the economy. Since October 2017, no stock market rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months or so (Chart Of The Week). These observations are as relevant – or more relevant – now, as they were at the time of our original report.1 Since the Global Financial Crisis, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent. Chart Of The WeekSince October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months A 2 Percent Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit Since the Global Financial Crisis, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before having to reverse course (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2A 2 Percent Sequential Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit Chart I-3A 2 Percent Sequential Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit     In 2008, Swedish interest rates peaked near 5 percent before collapsing to the zero bound in the financial crisis. But when the Riksbank started its so-called ‘policy normalisation’ in 2010, the interest rate could only reach 2 percent before the central bank had to backtrack; Norway could manage just 1 percent of tightening before its volte-face. Though admittedly, both Sweden and Norway were caught in the maelstrom of the euro debt crisis in 2011-12. However, on the other side of the world and relatively immune to the crisis in Europe, New Zealand could achieve a tightening also of only 1 percent; Korea could manage just 1.25 percent; the Reserve Bank of Australia marched interest rates up by 1.75 percent before taking a breather… and then marched them down again. The consensus was taking far too rosy a view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates sequentially by 2 percent through December 2016 to December 2018, and guess what – it is now on the cusp of reversing course. The ultimate course will have a huge bearing on investment strategy for European equities, bonds and currencies. The Neutral Real Rate Of Interest Is Zero Many economists and strategists expected the Fed to continue hiking through 2019, but this publication pushed back hard. The consensus was taking far too rosy a view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. Central to this publication’s resistance was, and is, a high-conviction view that the so-called ‘neutral’ real rate of interest – the real interest rate that is neither accommodative nor restrictive, the real interest rate consistent with an economy maintaining full employment while keeping inflation constant – is zero. The neutral rate of interest is very low. In our Special Report Why The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is Zero we proposed that the neutral rate is global rather than region-specific, that it refers to the bond yield rather than to the policy rate, and that it is extremely low. As it happens, the Fed broadly concurs. With the policy rate, bond yield, and inflation all at around 2 percent, the real policy rate and real bond yield are both near zero. At this level the central bank claims that “the policy stance is now in the Committee’s estimates of neutral… and when you get to that range we have to let the data speak to us.”2  However, the data that is speaking most loudly is not necessarily the economic data, it is the financial market data. Jay Powell has said that if there is a sustained change in financial conditions through any one or more of its components then “that has to play into our thinking.” We think it has (Chart I-4). Comparing Today’s Rich Valuations With 2007 In the aftermath of the dot com bubble burst in 2000, policy interest rates collapsed to very low levels but, crucially, long bond yields did not. This contrasts with the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, during which both policy interest rates and bond yields have plunged to all-time lows (Charts I-5 - I-7). Funny things happen when the long bond yield gets to, and remains, at ultra-low nominal levels. Chart I-5In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did Chart I-6In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did   Chart I-7In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did The difference between the post-2000 and post-2008 policy responses can be summarized in two letters: QE. For all its apparent complexity, QE is actually a very simple monetary policy tool. It is just a mechanism for signalling that the policy interest rate will remain low for an extended period. Thereby, QE pulls down the long-term interest rate, which is to say the long bond yield. The double-digit rally over the past six months is technically extended. But as we have consistently pointed out on these pages, funny things happen when the long bond yield gets to, and remains, at ultra-low nominal levels. We refer readers to our other reports for the details, but in a nutshell the risk of owning bonds converges to the risk of owning equities and other so-called ‘risk-assets’. The upshot of this risk convergence is that investors price these risk-assets to deliver the same ultra-low nominal return as bonds, meaning that the valuation of the risk-assets soars.3   Chart I-8Since 2015, The Global Long Bond Yield Has Been Unable To Remain Above 2.5 Percent All of which brings us to the crucial point. The post-2000 extreme policy easing distorted the real economy. It engineered a credit boom. So the fragility to the subsequent policy tightening emanated from the real economy, and particularly the most rate-sensitive sectors in the economy such as mortgage lending and housing. In contrast, the post-2008 extreme policy easing – driven by QE – has distorted the valuation of risk-assets. Moreover, the value of global risk-assets, at $400 trillion dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. So the current fragility to policy tightening does not emanate from the real economy, it emanates from the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to higher bond yields (Chart 8). Some European Investment Implications The integration of global capital markets means that the valuation anchor for European – and all regional – stock markets now comes from the global long bond yield, which we define as the simple average of the 10-year yields in the euro area, U.S., and China. Through the past five years, the inability of the global long bond yield to remain above 2.5 percent confirms the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to higher interest rates. And it suggests that the ‘neutral’ rate on this measure is around 2 percent. The good news is that this measure now stands slightly below neutral at 1.9 percent. The euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. At around this level of the global long bond yield, the rich valuation of European equities has some support. That said, the double-digit rally over the past six months is technically extended, as most of the things that could go right did go right – central banks pivoted to dovish, euro area growth rebounded, and, until recently, geopolitical risks were easing. Hence, as long as the global long bond yield stays near 2 percent or below, we expect European equities to end the year at broadly the same level as now, though our technical signals do strongly suggest a dip of at least 4-5 percent along the way (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Double-Digit Rally In Stock Markets Over The Past Six Months Is Technically Extended Chart I-10The Fed Has More Easing Armoury Than The ECB As regards bonds and currencies, all central banks have pivoted to dovish but the Fed has more easing armoury than the ECB (Chart I-10). This means that the recent outperformance of 10-year U.S. T-bonds versus 10-year German bunds can continue. It also means that the euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. However, this structural underpinning also applies to the yen, and until we get some clarity on Brexit we prefer the yen over the euro.   Fractal Trading System* In line with the main body of this report and Chart 9, we see evidence that the double-digit rally in stock markets over the past six months is technically extended. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All-Country World index, setting the profit target at 4 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. This leaves us with four open positions.  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. *      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.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Why 2019 Is A Pivotal Year For Monetary Policy’ February 7, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘Why The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is Zero’ June 6, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance’ October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations