Sectors

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a tradeable reversal in yields. The trade-weighted euro has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. We have a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Feature Entering the fifth month of the year, one puzzle for investors is the conflicting messages coming from banks and bonds. While banks' relative performance is close to its 2018 low, bond yields are not far from their year-to-date high (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekBanks Or Bonds: Which One Is Right? This poses a puzzle because the performances of banks and bond yields are usually joined at the hip. The underperformance of the economically sensitive banks would suggest that global growth is decelerating, whereas the performance of bond yields would suggest that global activity is holding up well. Which one is right? The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Looking at the other classically cyclical sectors, the mystery seems to deepen. Industrials and basic materials are also in very clear downtrends this year, which corroborates the message from the banks. But the oil and gas sector is close to a year high, which corroborates the message from bond yields (Charts I-2-I-4). Chart I-2Industrials Have Underperformed... Chart I-3...And Basic Materials Have Underperformed Chart I-4...But Oil And Gas Has Outperformed... The conflicting messages from banks, basic materials and industrials on one side and bond yields and oil and gas equities on the other side reflect the disconnect between non-oil commodity prices which have drifted lower this year and oil prices which have moved sharply higher (Chart I-5). This disconnect, resulting from differing supply dynamics in the different commodity markets, points us to a likely solution to our puzzle. Chart I-5...Because Oil Has Disconnected ##br##From Other Commodities The classically cyclical sectors are taking their cue from global growth and industrial activity, which does appear to be losing momentum. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. In contrast, bond yields are taking their cue from the oil price, given its major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and thereby on central bank reaction functions. Based on previous mini-cycles, we can confidently say that mini-downswing phases last at least six to eight months and that the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. In this regard, the apparent disconnect between decelerating activity and un-budging bond yields risks extending this mini-downswing phase. Therefore, for the next few months, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. This sector strategy necessarily impacts regional allocation as explained in the next section. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Even More Investment Reductionism Imagine a world in which all the global commodity firms decided to get their stock market listings in London; all the global financials decided to list on euro area bourses; all the major tech companies listed in New York; and all the industrials listed in Tokyo. Clearly, each major stock market would just be a play on its underlying global sector and nothing more. Our imagined world is an exaggeration, but it does illustrate an important truth. A quarter of the market capitalisation of each major stock market is in one dominant sector, and this gives each equity index its defining fingerprint: for the FTSE100 it is commodity firms; for the Eurostoxx50 it is financials; for the S&P500 it is technology; and for the Nikkei225 it is industrials (Table I-1). Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Defining Fingerprint There is another important factor to consider: the currency. A global oil company like BP receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, BP's global business is currency neutral. But BP's stock price is quoted in pounds. This means that if the pound strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. So the currency is the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market, albeit it is an inverse relationship: a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak currency helps it. The upshot is that the defining fingerprints for the major indexes turn out to be: FTSE100: global commodity shares expressed in pounds. Eurostoxx50: global banks expressed in euros. S&P500: global technology expressed in dollars. Nikkei225: global industrials expressed in yen. And that's pretty much all you need to know for regional equity allocation! The charts in this report should leave you in no doubt. True to our Investment Reductionism philosophy, the relative performance of the regional equity indexes just reduces to their defining fingerprints: FTSE100 versus S&P500 reduces to global commodity companies in pounds versus global tech companies in dollars, Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 reduces to global banks in euros versus global industrials in yen. And so on (Charts I-6-I-11). Chart I-6FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-7FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Commodity ##br##Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-8FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In ##br##Euros Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-10Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In##br## Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-11S&P 500 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Tech In ##br##Dollars Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Right Way To Invest In The 21st Century One important implication of Investment Reductionism is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, banks and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer better value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, currency effects, and step changes in sector valuations, we offer some strong advice on how to sequence the investment process: 1. Make your asset class decision at a global level. This is because asset classes tend to move as global entities, not regional entities. And also because at a global level, asset class valuation comparisons are less distorted by sector and currency effects. 2. Make your sector decisions. Given that the companies that dominate European (and all major) indexes are multinationals, the sector decision should be based on the direction of the global economy. 3. Make your currency decisions. 4. You do not need to make any more major decisions! The main regional equity allocation, country allocation and value/growth allocation just drop out from the sector and currency decision. With the global 6-month credit impulse now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase (Chart I-12), the classically cyclical sectors are likely to continue underperforming for the next few months; the rise in bond yields faces resistance; and the euro - at least on a trade-weighted basis - has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. Chart I-12The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Finally, in terms of regional equity allocation, Investment Reductionism implies a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* In addition to the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, fractal analysis finds that the outperformance of Oil and Gas relative to other commodity equities is technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to underweight euro area Oil and Gas versus global Basic Materials. Set a profit target of 5%, with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long USD/ZAR hit its 6% profit target, and is now closed. This leaves us with five 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. Chart I-13 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Underweight The S&P cable & satellite index was under intense pressure last week as the quarterly release of subscriber churn numbers for the constituent companies came out worse than expected. In particular, CHTR saw its stock fall by nearly 12% when it reported a subscriber loss nearly triple what analysts had forecast. Cord cutting is far from a new theme and investors have grown accustomed to subscriber losses, though the trend clearly appears to be accelerating. This is in spite of price inflation, which had been the savior of cable & satellite P&L's last year, falling off a cliff (bottom panel). The logical conclusion is to expect continued top line declines and margin contraction amplifying the downward trend for sector earnings. With the broad market posting prime time earnings, the S&P cable & satellite index should be moving to an unappealing slot; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the cable & satellite index are BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.

Highlights Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform than the market, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight Taiwan within Greater China bourses. Feature Chart 1Ex-Tech Stocks Edging Closer##BR##To A Breakdown Vs Global Chinese ex-technology stock prices edged closer to a technical breakdown in April (Chart 1), as ongoing concerns about the impact of a trade war with the U.S. weighed further on investor sentiment. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared particularly poorly, as President Xi's pledge to open up the auto sector (which is negative for the market share of domestic firms) underscores that car producers are facing a losing scenario even if a further escalation in trade tension with the U.S. is avoided. Panel 2 of Chart 1 shows that recent decline has brought consumer discretionary stocks back to early-2017 levels relative to the broad market. The selloff in the consumer discretionary sector has significantly benefitted one of China Investment Strategy's open trades: long investable consumer staples / short investable consumer discretionary, initiated on November 16. The trade had already been outperforming prior to Xi's pledge in response to the original basis that we articulated (negative impact on autos from environmental reforms), but the news of a likely deterioration in market share has helped the trade earn a whopping 20% in less than 6 months. We recommend that investors stick with the call for now, until greater clarity emerges about the ultimate impact of trade negotiations with the U.S. But we have also recommended that investors place Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch for Q2 (while maintaining an overweight stance versus global equities), and that technical measures should be watched closely to determine whether a downgrade is indeed warranted. Within this framework, the recent deterioration in performance is worrying, raising the question of whether it is time for investors to reduce their exposure to ex-tech shares. Stay Overweight, For Now... Three factors point to "no" as the answer: Chart 2A Pro-Cyclical Allocation Is Consistent##BR##With A China Overweight Despite the weakness of Chinese stock prices over the past few weeks, they have not yet broken down technically: Chart 1 highlighted that their relative performance versus global stocks remains above its 200-day moving average. For now, this is consistent with a worsening in sentiment rather than full-fledged expectations of a sharp deterioration in equity fundamentals. Investors are clearly reacting to the negative potential effect of trade protectionism on ex-tech earnings, the ultimate impact of which remains subject to negotiation. We singled out consumer discretionary stocks as being likely to fare poorly under any realistic trade outcome, but the decline in Chinese relative performance since mid-April has occurred across all sectors, suggesting that a reversal may occur outside of the discretionary sector if a trade deal is struck with the U.S. Talks in China between high level U.S. and Chinese officials tomorrow and Friday are a hopeful sign that a relatively beneficial deal for both sides may be possible, suggesting that it is too early to cut exposure. Over a 1-year time horizon, BCA continues to recommend that investors remain overweight global equities within an overall balanced portfolio. We have highlighted in previous reports that the Chinese investable stock market is now a decidedly high-beta equity market versus the global benchmark (even in ex-tech terms),1 meaning that an overweight stance is justified barring a significantly negative alpha. Since Chart 2 illustrates that Chinese ex-tech stocks have in fact generated a modestly positive alpha over the past year, a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance continues to favor an above-benchmark weight to Chinese equities ex-technology. For now, our investment recommendations remain unchanged: investors should stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector over the coming 6-12 months. But as highlighted below, the risks to China are clearly to the downside, which supports our decision to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2. This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S./China trade dispute as well as the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Bottom Line: Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. ...But The Risks Are To The Downside Table 1 updates our macro data monitor that we have published in a few previous reports. The monitor tracks the data series that we found to have the most reliable leading properties when predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI),2 which we have defined as the most relevant proxy of China's business cycle. Table 1No Convincing Signs Of An##BR##Impending Upturn In China's Economy Chart 3Lower Inventories =##BR##A Rise In Housing Construction? The table now shows a March datapoint for all of the series that we track, and continues to argue that the trend in Chinese industrial activity is down. In particular, it appears to confirm that the elevated January/February levels in Bloomberg's calculation of the LKI were likely noise, and not a signal of an impending uptrend. The table highlights that none of the components of our leading indicator for the LKI are above their 12-month moving average, and 5 out of the 6 components fell in March. While the April update of the Caixin manufacturing PMI is being released as we go to press, the official manufacturing PMI also fell in April. On the housing front, floor space sold, one of the most important leading indicators for residential construction activity in China, has also decelerated over the past two months. In last week's joint Special Report with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, my colleague Ellen JingYuan He noted that steel prices are at risk not only because of a likely increase in supply, but from weaker demand due to a potential slowdown in the property market. BCA's China Investment Strategy service has actually taken a cautiously optimistic stance towards the housing market, and noted in an early-February report that there were a few signs of a pickup in activity.3 Chart 3 presents the most hopeful case, which is that the multi-year downtrend in residential construction relative to sales may be over given the significant reduction in housing inventories that has occurred over the past two years. Still, the level of inventories remains quite elevated by conventional standards, and it is difficult to see growth in residential construction sustainably rise if floor space sold remains weak, as it has been for the past two months. Given the recent evolution of the important macro data from China, our view is that the downside risk to the industrial sector should be clear to most investors. However, the potential for monetary policy easing and the extent of the tailwind for China from global growth remain two areas where we see more downside risk than some in the market. On the policy front, China's recent cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) was greeted by some analysts as a sign of easing monetary policy, with others pointing to the recent decline in government bond yields as a clear sign that China's monetary policy is about to become less restrictive. However, we explained in a recent Special Report why the 3-month repo rate is currently the de-facto policy rate,4 and Chart 4 highlights that it appears to lead yields at the short-end. The recent tick down in the latter appears to be a delayed response to the sharp decline in the former, which preceded the RRR cut. Specifically, the repo rate slide was triggered by news reports in late-March that the deadline for new rules to be imposed on China's asset management industry would be extended, which is consistent with our argument that roughly 3/4ths of the tightening in monetary policy that has occurred since late-2016 has actually been regulatory/macro-prudential in nature. Given that the 3-month repo rate has since rebounded back to its post-2017 average following the announcement, we see no indication of any intension by the PBOC to ease monetary policy. Concerning trade, while the threat to China's export growth from U.S. protectionism is obvious, some investors have argued that global demand may be strong enough to overwhelm this negative effect and that it will buoy Chinese export growth (and, by extension, imports). This line of reasoning has a strong basis; Chart 5 shows that our BCA Global LEI is forecasting solid industrial production (IP) growth over the coming few months, and we have noted in past reports that there is a strong link between global IP and Chinese export growth. Chart 4No Convincing Signs Of Monetary Easing Chart 5Global Demand Likely To Remain Solid But Chart 6 presents a problem with this argument, which is that China's reform pain threshold is very likely positively correlated with global growth. In short, BCA has written extensively about how China has embarked on a multi-year reform effort that will likely weigh on growth in its early stages. We have made it clear that the pace of these reform efforts is likely to be responsive to the pace of economic growth (i.e. policymakers will set the pace to avoid a major growth slowdown), but the other side of this coin is that policymakers are likely to take advantage of a stronger export sector by increasing the pace of reforms. So while some investors view the external sector of China's economy as having some potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector if major protectionist action can be avoided, our sense is that ramped up reform efforts will offset and possibly overwhelm this positive factor, were it to occur. As a final point, in the context of Chart 6, material easing in either policy rates or the pace of reform efforts may occur over the coming 6-12 months, but it would likely be in response to a more serious slowdown in the economy than we are currently observing. As we noted in our April 18 Weekly Report,5 the possibility that Chinese authorities will need to stimulate the economy over the coming year is interesting because it raises the prospect of another economic mini-cycle in China, potentially leading to another meaningful acceleration. But the economic and financial market circumstances that would precede such an event are unlikely to be happy ones for investors, raising the risk of a serious selloff in China-related assets before policy eases sufficiently to return to an overweight stance. Chart 6If Demand For Chinese Exports Stays Strong,##BR##Reform Efforts Will Intensify Bottom Line: Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk than many investors from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. An Update On Taiwanese Equities We last wrote about Taiwanese stocks in our December 14 Weekly Report,6 and argued that investors stick with our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China trade and our underweight stance towards Taiwan vs Greater China bourses, despite extended technical conditions. Our recommendation was based on the argument that Taiwanese tech sector underperformance had been driven by material strength in the trade-weighted Taiwanese dollar (TWD), and that a lasting depreciation in the currency would be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating. Since our report in December, the relative performance of Taiwanese stocks has been volatile. After a period of underperformance versus Greater China stock prices, Taiwanese stocks then rose sharply in relative terms from late-February to early-April. The magnitude of the rise was sufficiently large to cause the relative price index to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7). However, Taiwanese relative performance has reversed course over the past month, retracing over half of the February to April surge. Chart 8 highlights that these confusing moves in Taiwanese stock prices versus Greater China have largely reflected passive outperformance in two sectors: tech sector outperformance versus China, and banking industry group outperformance versus global banks. On the tech front, Chinese tech stocks have been under pressure over the past month due to the tech-focused nature of U.S. import tariffs, and global investors appear to believe that Taiwanese tech stocks would not be as impacted by these tariffs as their Chinese peers. We disagree, as the export intensity of Taiwan's tech sector to China is quite high: exports to China account for 15% of Taiwan's GDP, and electronic components (i.e. semiconductors) account for nearly half of exports to China. This suggests that the tariff impact on Taiwan's tech sector will be sizeable even if it is indirect. Chart 7A Volatile Relative##BR##Performance Trend Chart 8Tech And Banks Have Driven Recent##BR##Developments In Relative Performance On the banking front, Chart 9 highlights that the outperformance of Taiwanese banks versus their global peers has occurred due to a failure of the former to selloff with the latter over the past few months. Global banks appear to be reacting to the recent flattening in the global yield curve caused by a rise at the short-end, whereas there is no sign of upcoming monetary policy tightening in Taiwan and Taiwanese banks have historically been low-beta versus their global peers (Chart 10). Chart 9Taiwanese Banks Have Passively##BR##Outperformed Global Banks Chart 10Continued Bank Outperformance Not##BR##Likely Barring A Decline In Global Equities We doubt that Taiwan's banks will continue to outperform global banks over the coming 6-12 months without a generalized selloff in global stock prices. As we noted earlier, BCA's house view is overweight global equities (and financials) over the cyclical horizon on the basis of still-strong global growth, stimulative U.S. fiscal policy, and the view that global monetary policy will not reach restrictive territory over the coming year. As such, we are inclined to lean against the recent outperformance of Taiwanese banks and, by extension, the trend in ex-tech relative performance. Bottom Line: Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight within Greater China bourses. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market," published January 11, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," published November 30, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?," published February 8, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," published February 22, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Question That Won't Go Away," published April 18, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst," published December 14, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2018. There are no significant changes in the model's allocation this month, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD, %) As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 20 bps in April, largely driven by the Level 2 model which outperformed by 44 bps while the Level 1 model outperformed only by 2 bps. Since going live, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World by 156 bps, due to the 493 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model which allocates funds among 11 non-U.S. countries. The Level 1 model (which allocates funds between U.S. and the non-U.S.) is on par with the MSCI world benchmark.Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Text below For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2018. For the third consecutive month, the model maintains a defensive positioning generating an alpha of 60 bps for the month of April. Following the end of trade threats (for now), the growth component of the model has stabilized. But, overall the model maintains the same weights from last month with an aggregate tilt of 1.3% towards defensive sectors. Energy remains the only cyclical sector with an overweight on the back of favorable valuations and improving momentum. Among defensive sectors, utilities maintains a large overweight of 5% on the back of better momentum. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle, are the key pillars of our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The current macro backdrop is unforgiving for defensive insurance stocks. Leading indicators of pricing power warn that softening prices coupled with expanding headcount will weigh on insurance profits in the coming quarters. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities moved laterally last week and continued to consolidate the early-February tremor, unimpressed by better than expected profit growth across the board. The SPX has been oscillating in a 10% range over the past three months and has been a trader's (and bank's) paradise. There are high odds that this trading range will stay in place and the market will churn until the summer before breaking out (Chart 1). Chart 1Breakout Looming? Nevertheless, the anemic equity market response to solid earnings is slightly unnerving. Soft EPS guidance and perky input cost inflation are two thorny issues revealed this earnings season. With that in mind, we have identified three key brewing equity market headwinds: EPS growth deceleration toward 10%. Rising interest rates. U.S. dollar reflex rebound. Chart 2Monitoring The Correlation 20% profit growth is this cycle's peak rate, and we have been flagging in recent research1 that, beneath the surface, investors are slowly starting to revise expectations lower toward the 10% growth projection for calendar 2019 EPS. Simultaneously, interest rates continue their ascent and may cause some consternation in stocks. Not only does a higher discount rate weigh on valuations, but also the Fed's tightening cycle will eventually slam the brakes on the economy, with housing and the consumer feeling the higher interest rate knock-on effects most intensely. As we highlighted recently,2 we are closely monitoring the correlation between stocks and the 10-year Treasury yield and looking out for a collapse into negative territory to signal an economic (and market) choke point (Chart 2). Finally, recent ECB and BoJ chatter of easy monetary policies for as far as the eye can see, may have put a floor on the greenback, at least temporarily, with the Fed going it alone and lifting the fed funds rate into 2019 and beyond. While all three headwinds suggest that the market may have trouble breaking out of its funk in the next few months, on a cyclical 9-12 month horizon we remain upbeat on equity return prospects. Any U.S. dollar advance is likely a bear market rally and will take time to filter negatively through to earnings. Rising interest rates are also a consequence of higher economic growth which is a positive, i.e. real rates are rising alongside inflation expectations. And, if the SPX attains 10% EPS growth in 2019 as we expect, that is an above trend EPS growth rate and twice as high as nominal GDP growth, an impressive feat at this stage of the cycle. This week we are updating our SPX target to 3,200. We first came up with our SPX end-of-cycle target last July using three different methods:3 a traditional dividend discount model (DDM), EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and forward equilibrium equity risk premium (ERP) analysis. As a reminder, this 3,200 SPX level is a peak number before the next recession hits and Table 2 summarizes our updated results (if you would like to receive the excel spreadsheet with the three models so you can tweak our inputs/assumptions please click here). In our DDM, our discount rate assumptions remain intact and very conservative. We use an up-to-date annual dividend per share number and back out dividends in U.S. dollars via the updated SPX divisor and make a conservative assumption of no buybacks in the coming years. The recession-related 10% dividend cut has moved to 2020, in line with BCA's view. Finally, we rolled over our estimates to 2023 resulting in a roughly 3,200 SPX peak value estimate. Our EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis starting point is $191 EPS in 2020 (this is in line with the sell-side bottom up estimate according to IBES data) and a 16.5 multiple. That equates to an SPX ending value of near 3200. Table 2SPX Target Using Three Different Methods With regard to the ERP analysis (Chart 3), our forward ERP equilibrium remains at 200bps. 2020 EPS come in at $191, and we also pencil in 100bps selloff in the bond market, resulting in an SPX 3,200 estimate. Chart 3ERP Has Room To Fall This week we are updating a high-conviction overweight call in a deep cyclical index, and reiterate a below benchmark allocation in a financials sub-index. The CAT Is Roaring, Is The Market Listening? Early last October we upgraded the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck (CMHT) index to overweight, and two months later we added it to the high-conviction overweight call list. On January 29th, right after the broad market hit its all-time highs, we managed to book impressive 10% relative gains as we introduced a risk management tool and instituted trailing stops to the high-conviction calls that cleared the 10% relative return mark. Subsequently, we reinstated the S&P CMHT index to the high-conviction overweight call list, at a deflated price point, as our constructive cyclical backdrop never wavered. Currently, our thesis remains intact: reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle are a harbinger of sustained profit outperformance. While some leading indicators of global growth have recently crested, global output will remain brisk and above trend. When global growth is expanding, machinery demand typically demonstrates its high beta characteristics. Our global machinery exports proxy is firing on all cylinders rising to multi-year highs and sell side analysts have taken notice: S&P CMHT net earnings revisions are as good as they get (bottom panel, Chart 4). Encouragingly, the softening dollar suggests that U.S. exports have the upper hand and are grabbing market share. BCA's global machinery new orders proxy corroborates the trade data and underscores that machinery profits will overwhelm (middle panel, Chart 4). Dissecting global machinery demand is revealing. Importantly, previously moribund Chinese loan demand has reversed course and is now gaining traction. Tack on the recent steep fall in interest rates and factors are falling into place for a durable pick up in Chinese machinery consumption. Indeed, hypersensitive Chinese excavator sales continue to expand at a breakneck pace (Chart 5). Elsewhere in Asia, highly-cyclical Japanese machine tool orders likewise defy gravity vaulting to fresh all-time highs (Chart 5). The commodity complex also confirms the enticing global machinery end-demand backdrop. The broad commodity index in general and crude oil prices in particular have been reaccelerating of late. The energy space is a key end-customer for the machinery industry and $75/bbl global oil prices have reignited a fresh drilling cycle (Chart 6). Chart 4Global Machinery End-Demand Is Upbeat... Chart 5...And Asia Is Leading The Pack Chart 6Commodities Give The All Clear Sign Even the U.S. machinery demand backdrop is vibrant. The V-shaped recovery in U.S. machinery order books remains intact. Fiscal easing is reviving animal spirits and CEOs are voting with their feet: overall capital outlays are rising at a healthy clip, positively contributing to GDP growth, with machinery fixed capital formation growth recently clearing the 20%/annum hurdle (Chart 7). Capex intentions according to the regional Fed surveys are also holding near recent cyclical highs, and were Congress to pass an infrastructure bill that would be an additional boon to machinery top and bottom line growth (Chart 7). On the domestic operating front, machinery factories are humming and given that capacity is contracting, the industry is regaining its pricing power footing (Chart 8). The upshot is that this high-operating leverage industry should continue to enjoy outsized profit gains. Chart 7Even U.S. Machinery Demand Is Firming Chart 8Operating Metrics Flashing Green Nevertheless, there are two key risks to our otherwise bullish machinery thesis that we are closely monitoring. First, input costs are on the rise both in terms of labor and raw commodities (bottom panel, Chart 9). If the industry fails to pass this input cost inflation down the supply chain, then a margin squeeze is likely. Second, and most importantly, a hard landing in China would put our constructive machinery view offside, but we assign low odds to a gap down in Chinese economic activity (middle panel, Chart 9). Finally, given the recent consolidation phase, the S&P CMHT index has a valuation cushion as per the neutral reading in our relative valuation indicator. Similarly overbought conditions have been worked out and our technical indicator is also hovering near the neutral zone offering a compelling entry point to commit fresh capital (Chart 10). Chart 9Two Risks To Bullish View Chart 10Compelling Entry Point Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF - CAT, CMI, PCAR. Insurance Expiry Notice While we continue to recommend a core portfolio overweight in the S&P financials index via the banks (high-conviction), asset managers and investment banks sub-indexes, the S&P insurance index remains our sole underweight. Unlike its financials brethren, the insurance industry is defensive rather than cyclical and thrives when the economy is slowing. Fairly stable, recurring and, most of the time, predictable revenue streams are sought after attributes when economic growth is scarce. Currently, the U.S. and global economies are expanding above trend, the global capex upcycle is running at full steam and CEOs and consumers alike exude confidence. Under such a backdrop, investors have historically avoided insurance equities. Chart 11 drives this point home. Over the past four decades the greenback and relative share prices have been positively correlated. The U.S. dollar peaked in December 2016 and since then it has been goosing global output, and simultaneously weighing on insurance stocks. Similarly, a rising 10-year Treasury yield reflecting improving economic growth also anchors insurance stocks (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 12). While higher interest rates are positive for investment portfolio income, they also imply mark-to-market losses on bond portfolios. Higher interest rates also incent insurers to underwrite at a faster pace with more lenient standards, which is often a precursor to increased competition and diminishing pricing power, eventually sapping profits. Chart 11Insurance Is Defensive Chart 12Higher Yields Hurt More Than Help On the pricing front, there seems to be a bifurcated market. Auto insurance pricing is hardening, but home insurance is moving in the opposite direction (Chart 13). The slingshot recovery in auto loans versus residential real estate loans partially explains the big delta in pricing as subprime auto loans excesses have, at the margin, boosted new and used vehicle sales. This is not sustainable and there are high odds that this extra demand will level off in the coming months as the subprime auto credit screws inevitably tighten, eventually dampening car insurance prices. Worrisomely, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that not only is demand for auto loans waning, but also bankers are no longer willing extenders of auto related credit. Taken together, momentum in housing and auto sales is nil, warning that insurance top line growth will trail the broad market (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, relative consumer outlays on insurance remain moribund, and a far cry from the previous cyclical peak, warning that it is premature to expect a valuation re-rating (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 13Margin Trouble? Chart 14Softening Demand Chart 15Insurance Indicator Message: Shy Away With regard to input costs, insurance labor additions continue unabated, trumping overall non-farm payrolls and the broad financial services industry since the GFC trough. Our insurance wage bill proxy is closing in on 4%/annum (bottom panel, Chart 13), warning that a margin squeeze looms. Our Insurance Indicator does an excellent job encapsulating all of these different signals and has recently taken a turn for the worse (third panel, Chart 15), underscoring that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P insurance index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INSU - AIG, CB, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, AIZ, RE, BHF. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert)

Underweight As recently as three months ago, the U.S. legacy air carriers were being feted for not diving headfirst into fuel hedges, as they had done in earlier cycles to mixed results. Now, with jet fuel prices hitting 3 year highs, the shine has come off the market (top panel). AAL, who saw spectacular benefits as the price of fuel was falling, reduced their full year earnings guidance by 10% yesterday as pricing has failed to keep pace with the rising costs. Even LUV, who still maintain a modest hedge portfolio, lowered expectations, though they have some fairly specific challenges following a fatal engine incident. Rising jet fuel prices are coming at an inopportune time; the industry is binging on new capacity which has spurred a price war. Predictably, such a strategy has been stretching balance sheets (second panel). At a time when valuations have appeared to turn a corner (bottom panel), we think an excellent selling opportunity has emerged. We reiterate our underweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.

Overweight Defense stocks were battered this week as, despite earnings exceeding expectations and both guidance and forecasts moving higher, the market sold off. It appears a softer tone from President Trump with respect to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, combined with the latter's announcement that North Korea would no longer test nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, has eased geopolitical fears enough to lower defense expectations. We think this matters relatively little with respect to the top line growth of defense firms. Domestic defense spending is set to take off to unprecedented levels as the Trump administration appears committed to rearmament. Moreover, this is a global trend; the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) noted late last year that global arms sales (as measured by the revenues of the largest 100 defense companies) had arrested their 6-year long decline last year, rising by 1.9% in 2017. As fears of a global trade war are receding, we think the relatively soft U.S. dollar should be supportive of international orders while domestic demand remains resilient; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA Defense index are: LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL

Special Report

Highlights The scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. Sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. We project this will boost steel and coal output by 5.2% and 4.7% respectively, this year at a time when demand is set to slow. Steel, coal, iron ore and coke prices are all vulnerable to the downside. Share prices of the companies and currencies of countries that supply these commodities to China are most at risk. Feature Last November, our report titled, "China's "De-Capacity" Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," painted a negative picture for steel and coal prices over 2018 and 2019.1 Since then, after having peaked in December and February respectively, both steel and thermal coal prices have so far declined by about 20% from their respective tops (Chart 1). In the meantime, iron ore and coking coal have also exhibited meaningful weakness (Chart 2). Chart 1More Downside In Steel And Coal Prices Chart 2Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices Are Also At Risk In this report, we revisit the topic of de-capacity reforms and examine how Chinese supply side reforms in 2018 will affect steel and coal prices. The key message is as follows: Having implemented aggressive capacity reduction over the past two years, the authorities are shifting the focus of supply side reforms from "de-capacity" to "replacement" of already removed capacity with technologically advanced capacity. This means the scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. In addition, sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. From an investing standpoint, this means both steel and coal prices are still vulnerable to the downside. Both could drop by more than 15% from current levels over the course of 2018. Diminishing Scale Of "De-Capacity" Reforms Reducing capacity (also called "de-capacity") in the oversupplied steel and coal markets has been a key priority within China's structural supply side reforms over the past two years. Steel Table 1 shows that the capacity reduction target for steel in 2018 is 30 million tons, which is much lower than the 45 million tons in 2016 and 50 million tons in 2017. Table 1Capacity Reduction: Target And Actual Achievement In addition, between May and September 2017, the "Ditiaogang"2 removal policy eliminated about 120 million tons of steel capacity, and sharply reduced steel products production. Most of Ditiaogang capacity was completely dismantled last year. Therefore, there is not much downside to steel production from Ditiaogang output cutbacks going forward. Furthermore, between October and December 2017, environmental policies aimed at fighting against winter smog also cut steel products output substantially, which pushed steel prices to six-year highs in December (Chart 3). Chart 3Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector In particular, in the last quarter of 2017, to ensure fewer smog days around the Beijing area, Tianjin's steel products output was reduced by 50% from a year earlier. The second biggest contribution to total steel output decline occurred in Hebei - the largest steel-producing province in China - where steel output plummeted by 7%. Excluding Tianjin and Hebei, national steel products output fell only by 3.9% from a year ago. As a long-term solution to ameliorate ecology and air quality around Beijing, the government is aiming to reduce the heavy concentration of steel production in Tianjin and Hebei by shifting a considerable portion of steel capacity to other regions in 2018 and following years. These two provinces together accounted for about 30.6% of the nation's steel products output in 2016; their share dipped to 27.6% in 2017. As a result, next winter the required production reduction from these regions to achieve the air quality targets in Beijing will be smaller. In short, the scale of specific policy driven steel output reduction in 2018 will be meaningfully lower than last year. Coal For coal, despite the same target as last year (150 million tons), the actual capacity cut this year will be much less than last year's actual reduction of 250 million tons, which exceeded the 150 million-ton target. Amid still-high coal prices, the authorities will be more tolerant of producers not cutting too much capacity. Plus, with nearly two-thirds of the 2016-2020 target for capacity cuts having already been achieved in the past two years, there is much less outdated capacity in the industry (Table 1 above). In addition, the government's environment-related policies also led to a decline in total national coal output between October-December 2017 (Chart 4), with Hebei posting the biggest cut in coal output among all provinces. Chart 4Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector However, the authorities shortly thereafter relaxed restrictions on coal output, as the country was severely lacking gas supply for heating. In January and February of this year, the authorities reversed course, demanding that producers accelerate new advanced capacity replacement and increase coal production. Bottom Line: The scale of China's "de-capacity" reforms are diminishing, resulting in a lessening production cuts. Installing Technologically Advanced Capacity China's supply side reforms have included two major components - reducing inefficient capacity and low-quality supply that damaged the environment while boosting medium-to-high-quality production that is economically efficient and ecologically friendly. In brief, having removed significant obsolete capacity in the past two years, the policy focus is now shifting to capacity replacement. The latter enables China to upgrade its steel and coal industries to become more efficient and competitive worldwide, as well as ecologically safer. To guard against excessive production capacity of steel and coal, the authorities are reinforcing the following replacement principle: the ratio of newly installed-to-removed capacity should be less or equal to one. Two important points need to be noted: First and most important, the zero or negative growth of total capacity of steel and coal does not necessarily mean zero or negative growth in steel and coal output. For example, while total capacity for crude steel and steel products declined 4.8% and 1.8% year-on-year in 2016 respectively, output actually increased 0.5% and 1%. Despite falling total capacity, rising operational capacity could still contribute to an increase in final output. Total capacity (measured in tons) for steel and coal production includes both operational capacity and non-operational capacity, the latter representing obsolete/non-profitable capacity. As more technologically advanced capacity is installed to replace the already-removed one, both the size of operational capacity and the capacity utilization rate (CUR) will rise. Typically, advanced technologies have a higher CUR - consequently, production will grow. Second, an increase in the CUR of existing operational capacity will also result in rising output. In 2018, odds are that both the steel and coal industries in China will have non-trivial output increases as a result of new advanced capacity coming on stream. Steel Since late 2015, in environmentally sensitive areas of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta, steel plants have been required to add no more than 0.8 tons of new capacity for every 1 ton of outdated capacity removed. For other areas, the same ratio is 1 or less. Electric furnace (EF) steel-producing technology - which is cleaner, more advanced and used to produce high-quality specialized steel products - has become the major type of new capacity addition. This technology is favored by both the government and steel producers. Chinese EF-based steel production accounted for only 6.4% of the nation's total steel output in 2016, far lower than the world average of 25.7% (Chart 5). The EF technology uses scrap steel as raw materials, graphite electrodes and electricity to produce crude steel. Graphite electrodes, which have high levels of electrical conductivity and the capability of sustaining extremely high levels of heat, are consumed primarily in electric furnace steel production. Chart 6 demonstrates that prices of both graphite electrode and scrap steel have surged since mid-2017. This signifies that considerable new EF production capacity has been coming on stream. Chart 5Chinese Electric Furnace Crude Steel ##br##Production Will Go Up Chart 6Considerable New Addition Of##br## Chinese Electric Furnace Capacity Indeed, in 2017 alone, 44 units of EF were installed. In comparison, between 2014 and 2016, only 47 units of EF were installed. As the completion of a new EF installation in general takes eight to 10 months, all of EF capacity installed in 2017 - about 31 million tons of crude steel production capacity - will be operational in 2018. In addition, a report from China's Natural Resource Department indicates that as of mid-December there have been 54 replacement projects with total new steel production capacity of 91 million tons (including new EF capacity, new traditional capacity and recovered capacity). This compares to 120 million tons of capacity removed in 2016-'17. Assuming 60% of this 91 million tons capacity will be operating throughout 2018 at a utilization rate of 80% (the NBS 2017 CUR for the ferrous smelting and pressing industry was 75.8%), this alone will result in 43.6 million tons more output in 2018 from a year ago (5.2% growth from 2017 output) (Table 2). Table 2Strong Profit Margins Will Encourage Steel Production At the same time, strong profit margins will encourage steel makers to produce as much as possible to maximize profits (Chart 7). This will be especially true if the incumbent companies have to absorb liabilities of firms that were shutdown (please refer to page 14 for the discussion on this point). Facing more debt from shutdowns of other companies, steel incumbent producers would have an incentive to ramp up their production to generate more cash. Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing steel capacity. Hence, crude steel output growth in 2018 will likely be around 5.2%, higher than the 3% growth in 2017. This is in line with the top 10 Chinese steel producers' projected crude steel output growth in 2018 of 5.5%, based on their published production guidance data. The Ditiaogang and environmental policy caused a significant contraction in steel products growth in 2017, but will have limited impact in 2018 as discussed above. Eventually, increasing crude steel output will translate into strong growth in steel products output3 (Chart 8). Chart 7Strong Profit Margins ##br##Will Encourage Steel Production Chart 8Steel Products Production ##br##Will Rebound In 2018 Coal China's current coal capacity is about 5310 million tons, with 4780 million tons as operational capacity and the remaining 530 million tons as non-operational capacity, which has not produced coal for some time. As in general it takes roughly three to five years to build a coal mine, it will take a long time to replace the obsolete capacity. Yet there is hidden coal capacity in China. The China Coal Industry Association estimated last year that there was about 700 million tons of new technologically advanced capacity that has already been built and is ready to use, but has not yet received government approval. This is greater than the 530 million tons of coal production removed in the past two years by de-capacity reforms - equivalent to about 20% of China's total 2017 coal output. This hidden capacity originated from the fact that coal producers in China historically began building mines before applying for approval. However, since 2015, all applications for new coal mines have been halted. Consequently, in the past three years a lot of capacity has already been built but has not been put into operation. Some 70% of this hidden capacity includes large-scale coal mines, each with annual capacity of above 5 million tons. In comparison, China has about 126 million tons of small mines with annual capacity of 90,000 tons that will be forced to exit the market this year as they are non-competitive due to their small scale and inferior technology. Why do we expect this hidden capacity to become operational going forward? The authorities now allows trading in the replacement quota for coal across regions. Producers having these ready-to-use high-quality mines can buy the replacement quota from the producers who have eliminated the outdated capacity. The government wants to accelerate the process of allowing the advanced capacity to be in operation as fast as possible. The following policy initiative supports this: A new policy directive released this past February does not even require coal producers with advanced capacity to pay the quota first in order to apply for approval - they can apply for approval to start the replacement process first, and then have one year to pay for it. Economically, quotas trading makes sense. The mines with advanced technology that have lower costs and higher profit margins should be able to pay a reasonably high (attractive) price for quotas to companies with inferior technologies, so that the latter will be better off selling their quotas than continuing operations. The proceeds from the selling quotas will be used to settle termination benefits for employees of low-quality coal mines. Regarding our projections for coal output in 2018, assuming 30% of the 700 million tons of capacity among high-quality mines will be operational this year at a CUR of 78% (the NBS 2017 coal industry CUR was 68.2%), this alone will bring a 164 million-ton increase in coal output (4.7% of the 2017 coal output) (Table 3). Table 3Chinese Coal Output Will Rise By 4.7% In 2018 In addition, still-high profit margins could encourage existing coal producers to increase their CUR this year (Chart 9). Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing coal mining capacity. In total, Chinese coal output may increase 4.7% this year, higher than last year's 3.2% growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Strong Profit Margins Will Boost Coal Production Chart 10Coal Output Is Already Rising Bottom Line: Sizable technologically advanced new capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal. This will boost both steel and coal output by about 5.2% and 4.7%, respectively, this year. Impact On Global Steel And Coal Prices In addition to diminishing capacity cuts and new technologically advanced capacity additions, the following factors will also weigh on steel prices: Relatively high steel product inventories (Chart 11, top panel) Weakening steel demand, mainly due to a potential slowdown in the property market4 Declining infrastructure investment growth (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chinese net steel product exports contracted 30% last year as steel producers opted to sell steel products domestically on higher domestic steel prices (Chart 12). Chart 11Elevated Steel Product Inventory##br## And Weakening Demand Chart 12China's Steel Product Exports ##br##Will Rebound Falling domestic steel prices may lead steel producers to ship their products overseas. In addition, the government has reduced steel products export tariffs starting January 1, 2018, which may also help increase Chinese steel product exports this year. This will pass falling Chinese domestic steel prices on to lower global steel prices. Between 2015 and 2017, about 1.6% of all Chinese steel exports were shipped to the U.S. Even if U.S. tariffs dampen its purchases of steel from China, mainland producers will try to sell their products to other countries. In a nutshell, U.S. tariffs will not prevent the transmission of lower steel prices in China to the global steel market. With respect to coal, in early April the Chinese government placed restrictions on Chinese coal imports at major ports in major imported-coal consuming provinces including Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong (Chart 13). The government demanded thermal power plants in those areas to limit their consumption of imported coal and use domestically produced coal. Clearly the government is trying to avoid cheaper imports flooding into the domestic coal market amid still elevated prices. This will help prevent a big drop in domestic coal prices but will be bearish for global coal prices. For example, 40% and 30% of Chinese coal imports are from Indonesia and Australia, respectively (Chart 14). These economies and their currencies are at risk from diminishing Chinese coal imports. Chart 13Chinese Coal Imports Will Decline Chart 14Indonesia and Australia May Face Falling ##br##Coal Demand From China For the demand side, continuing strong growth in non-thermal power supplies such as nuclear, wind and solar will curb thermal power growth in the long run and thus limit thermal coal consumption growth in China. This may also weigh on domestic coal prices and discourage coal imports. Bottom Line: The downtrend in domestic steel and coal prices will weigh on the global steel and coal markets. What About Iron Ore And Coking Coal? Iron ore and coking coal prices are also at risk: Chart 15Record High Chinese Iron Ore Inventory Given about 40% of newly installed steel capacity is advanced electric furnace (EF) based - which requires significant amounts of scrap steel rather than iron ore and coke - rising steel output will increase demand for iron ore and coke disproportionally less. As more Chinese steel producers shift to EF technology, mainland demand for iron ore and coke will diminish structurally in the years to come. Despite weakness in both domestic iron ore production and iron ore imports, Chinese iron ore inventories at major ports, expressed in number of months of consumption, have still reached record highs (Chart 15). This suggests rising EF capacity has indeed been constraining demand for iron ore. Increasing coal output will bring more coking coal and a corresponding rise in coke supply, thereby further depressing coke prices. Bottom Line: Global iron ore and coking coal prices are also vulnerable to the downside. Investment Implications From a macro perspective, investors can capitalize on these themes via a number of strategies: Shorting iron ore and coal prices, or these commodities producers' stocks. Chart 16Chinese Steel And Coal Shares:##br## Puzzling Drop Amid High Profit Going short the Indonesian rupiah (and possibly the Australian dollar) versus the U.S. dollar. Australia and Indonesia are large exporters of coal and industrial metals to China - they account for 30% and 40% of Chinese coal imports, respectively, so their currencies are vulnerable. Notably, although steel and coal prices are still well above their 2015 levels and producers' profit margins are very elevated, share prices of Chinese steel makers and coal producers have dropped almost to their 2015 levels (Chart 16). From a top-down standpoint, it is hard to explain such poor share price performance among Chinese steel and coal companies when their profits have been booming. Our hunch is that these companies have been forced by the government to shoulder the debt of the peer companies that were shut down. This is an example of how the government can force shareholders of profitable companies to bear losses from restructuring by merging zombie companies into profitable ones. On a more granular level, rapidly expanding EF steel-making capacity in China will lead to outperformance of stocks related to EF makers, graphite electrode producers and domestic scrap steel collecting companies. First, demand for graphite electrodes continues to rise, as EF steel production expands. Prices of graphite electrodes may stay high for quite some time (Chart 6 above, top panel). Second, scrap steel prices may go higher or stay high to encourage more domestic scrap steel collection. Companies who collect domestic scrap steel may soon have beneficial policy support, which will create huge potential for expansion (Chart 6 above, bottom panel). Third, EF makers will also benefit due to strong sales of electric furnaces. As a final note, equity investors should consider going long thermal power producers versus coal producers as thermal power producers will benefit from falling coal prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Frontier Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed", dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality, and also lead to environmental degradation. 3 The big divergence between crude steel production expansion and steel products output contraction last year was due to both the removal of "Ditiaogang" and statistical issues. "Ditiaogang" is often converted into steel products like rebar and wire rods. As steel produced this way is illegal, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?", dated April 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Underweight (High Conviction) Telecom services stocks had a good day yesterday on the back of reasonably healthy earnings from VZ; fewer monthly subscribers were lost than had been expected and, while that is not necessarily a bullish report, much fear has been baked in to telecom services valuations. Some of the fear is due to news earlier this week that the Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into T and VZ as to whether they are suppressing technology that would facilitate switching between carriers; the stocks had traded down accordingly. We think there are better reasons to be underweight than the headline risk. As shown in the top panel of the chart, the high dividend yielding telecom services stocks and the 10-year Treasury yield share an exceptionally tight inverse correlation. In the context of BCA's key theme for 2018 of rising interest rates, a bearish view on the telecom services sector is still warranted. Beyond the weak macro backdrop, relative consumer outlays on telecom services have been on an unbroken path downward (second panel) and selling prices, while recovering on a rate-of-change basis, are still deeply deflating (third panel). All in all, it is improbable that profit growth will manage to keep up with the broad market. We reiterate our high-conviction underweight recommendation on the telecom services index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5TELS - T, VZ, CTL.

Underweight Real estate stocks are behaving like fixed income proxied equities, given that, by construction, REITs are high dividend yielding. Thus, a tightening monetary backdrop serves as a noose around their necks (top panel). Not only is the Fed slated to raise interest rates two or three more times this year, but FOMC median projections also assume an additional two to three hikes in 2019. At the margin, competing higher yielding risk free assets will eat into demand for REITs. On the operating front, a number of indicators we track are sending an outright bearish signal for the commercial real estate (CRE) sector. The occupancy rate has crested just shy of 90% or 160bps below the previous cycle's peak. Rising vacancies are emblematic of decreasing rents and thus CRE related cash flows (second panel). While CRE credit quality shows no signs of deterioration, at this stage of the cycle and given weak industry profit fundamentals we would caution against extrapolating such good times far into the future (third panel). Adding it all up, our S&P real estate profit growth model does an excellent job encapsulating all of these forces, and it is currently sending an unambiguous sell signal (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Downgrade the niche S&P real estate index to a below benchmark allocation; see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.