Equities
The S&P managed care index has steadily outperformed the S&P 500 over the past six months. Despite this outperformance, relative valuations have barely budged, underscoring that gains remain fundamentally-driven. After surging in late-2016, our managed care cost proxy has plunged in recent months (second panel). Premiums are set on a trailing cost basis, underscoring that there should be a window for upside margin surprises as revenue enjoys a pricing power bump from the previous rise in cost inflation, while current cost inflation melts. Importantly, consumer spending on health care is waning as a share of total spending, signaling fewer claims ahead, and an ongoing reduction in cost pressures. Further, an ACA overhaul, in whatever form it takes, is likely to be less restrictive in coverage for higher-risk, higher-cost members than its previous manifestation, implying ongoing earnings improvement. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.
Highlights Through the 18 years of the euro, growth in 'core' Germany and France and 'periphery' Spain has equalled that in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. But Italy has severely underperformed since 2008. Italy's economic underperformance is due to the uncured malaise in its banks. Fixing Italian banks will fix Italy and reduce euro breakup risk. Euro area equities and periphery bonds do offer long-term relative value on the premise that euro breakup risk does ultimately fade. But for those who can time their entry, await the outcome of the Italian election. Feature The euro recently had its 18th birthday.1 Through the formative, testing and often tempestuous first 18 years of its life, how have the euro area's main economies performed - and how do these performances compare with the developed world's other major economies? The answers might come as a surprise (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekItaly Has Severely Underperformed Since 2008. Why? To allow for the different demographics, we must look at growth in real GDP per head.2 On this metric, the gold medal goes to Japan, with 34% growth. During the euro's lifetime, Japan's real GDP has grown by 18%, but its working age population has shrunk by 12%, resulting in the developed world's best real growth per head.3 The silver medal winner is probably not surprising: Germany, with 28% growth. But the bronze medal winner might surprise you. It is a euro 'periphery' country: Spain, with 26% growth - a medal shared with the U.K. Then come Canada, 24%; the U.S., 22%; and France, 19%. So through the 18 years of the euro, Germany, France and Spain have performed more or less in line with the U.S., U.K. and Canada. Making it very difficult to argue that being in the single currency has penalized the growth of either 'core' Germany and France or 'periphery' Spain. Italy Isn't Partying... But Don't Blame The Euro Unfortunately, there's a problem - Italy. Through the 18 years of the euro, Italy's real GDP per head has grown by just 5%, substantially below any other G10 or G20 economy. If the euro is to blame for the significant underperformance of its third largest economy with 60 million people, then the single currency's long-term viability has to be in serious doubt. However, two pieces of evidence suggest that the euro per se is not to blame for Italy's painful underperformance. First, observe that through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head kept up with many of its G10 peers. Even without a substantial tailwind from a credit-fuelled housing boom - which other economies had - Italian real growth per head performed in line with France, the U.S. and Canada (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Through 1999-2007, Italy Grew In Line With France, The U.S. And Canada Second, in the post-crisis years, there was little to distinguish the economic performance of Italy from Spain until 2013 (Chart I-3). Only after 2013 has a huge gap opened up. While Italy has struggled to grow, Spain has taken off, expanding by more than 12%. This recent strong recovery in Spain makes it hard to attribute Italy's underperformance to membership of the single currency (per se). Chart I-3Post-Crisis, There Was Little To Distinguish Italy and Spain Until 2013 Fix Italian Banks To Fix Italy We believe that Italy's economic underperformance is down to the as yet uncured malaise in its banks. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Crucially, the acute financial crises in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland forced their policymakers to recapitalize the banks, and thereby allowed the bank credit flow channel to function again. For example, Spain's turning point came in 2013, when bank equity capital as a multiple of non-performing loans (NPLs) started to recover (Chart I-4), allowing Spanish banks to operate more normally. Chart I-4Spanish Banks' Solvency Recovered In 2013 But Spanish banks' health did not recover because NPLs declined; indeed, if anything, NPLs continued to increase (Chart I-5). Spanish banks' health improved because of a large injection of bailout equity capital (Chart I-6). By contrast, Italian banks have not yet received the injection of equity capital that is desperately needed to fix Italy's bank credit flow channel. Chart I-5NPLs Continued To Rise Everywhere Chart I-6French And Spanish Banks Have Raised Equity. Italian Banks Have Not. To lift Italian banks' equity capital to NPL multiple to the lowest level that Spanish banks reached before recovery would require €80-100 billion of fresh bank equity capital. Which equates to 5-6% of Italian GDP. The good news is that this is an affordable price if it kick starts long-term growth. The bad news is that Italy's avoidance of outright financial crisis (thus far) has now tied its hands. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the state bailout escape route that Spain and Ireland used. Granted, in a crisis, the BRRD would allow Italian government state intervention to aid a troubled bank. But the overarching aim would be to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. "Other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." Without a crisis, the process to recapitalise Italian banks and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Our concern is that such a protracted nursing to health will keep Italy's bank credit channel dysfunctional, thereby leaving economic growth in a 60 million people economy sub-par for an extended period. Only when the Italian banks are adequately recapitalized, will the danger of a financial or political tail-event - and a euro breakup - be fully exorcised. Unfortunately, the danger may first have to rise before policymakers allow the necessary action. But ultimately they will. Some Investment Thoughts If euro breakup risk does ultimately fade, then euro area equities will receive a tailwind relative to other markets. This is because relative to these other markets, euro area equity prices are discounted to generate a 1.5% excess annual return through the next 10 years - as a risk premium for euro breakup.4 So if this risk premium suddenly and fully vanished, relative prices would have to rise by 15%. Likewise, euro area periphery bond yields can compress further - as the yield premium effectively equals the perceived annual probability of euro breakup multiplied by the expected currency redenomination loss after the breakup. So euro area equities and periphery bonds do offer long-term relative value on the premise that the policy steps needed to boost Italian growth are affordable and relatively minor - and that euro breakup risk does ultimately fade. However, for those who can time their entry, await the outcome of the Italian election due to take place within the next year. Breakup risk may flare up again before it does ultimately fade. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The euro was born on January 1st 1999. 2 Zeal GDP divided by working age (15-64) population 3 1.18/(1-0.12)=1.34 4 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Suspended In Disbelief" published on April 13 2007 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. 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-7 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Communications equipment stocks have diverged negatively from the broad tech sector and now trade broadly in line with telecom carrier stocks - a key end-market, with a slight lag. The latest signal from telecom services stocks is bearish, and we recommend a downgrade to a below-benchmark allocation in the S&P communications equipment group. While valuations look compelling, the risk of further near-term losses and a longer-term value trap remains high; all three key communications equipment end-markets point to additional demand weakness ahead. First, a full blown price war has engulfed the telecom services industry, driving outright deflation. In the absence of revenue growth, telecom capex is unlikely to reaccelerate. Secondly, delays/uncertainty with regard to U.S. fiscal policy and the Trump administration's strict budget control warns that the government's purse strings will remain tight for some time, representing another source of drag. Finally, export markets are unlikely to offset domestic cooling, as soaring Chinese & European telecom equipment exports suggest that U.S. manufacturers are losing competitiveness, and market share. Meanwhile, deflationary industry specific forces such as virtual networking will also contribute to margin pressure. We recommend shifting to underweight. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for this index are: BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, HRS, MSI, JNPR, FFIV.
Highlights This week, we are reprising and updating "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" from our sister service Energy Sector Strategy (NRG), because it so well captures the state of oil production outside the U.S. shales, Middle East OPEC and Russia. "The Other Guys" account for ~ half of global supply. Next week, we'll publish a joint report with NRG analyzing today's OPEC meeting. The aptly named "Other Guys" account for ~ 42mm b/d of production, which they are struggling to maintain at current levels, let alone increase. These producers supply nearly half of global production, and have been stuck in a pattern of slow decline for years despite high oil prices. Beginning in 2019, we expect production declines to accelerate. This will put enormous pressure on the three primary growth regions, which markets likely will start pricing in toward the end of next year. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 is expected to extend its 1.8mm b/d of production cuts to the end of 1Q18 at its meeting in Vienna today. Going into the meeting, markets were being guided to expect even deeper cuts. Our long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short $45/bbl puts, and our long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent positions are up 75.0% and 509.5% respectively, following their initiation on May 11, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Steel and iron-ore prices are getting a boost from China's anti-pollution campaign, which is expected to run through the end of this month. This was launched ahead of the anti-pollution campaign we expected after the Communist Party Congress in the fall. Iron ore delivered to Qingdao is up 3.1% since May 9, when Reuters reported the campaign began.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold was well bid earlier in the week on the back of a weaker USD. Our long gold position is up 1.9%, while our long volatility trade, which we will unwind at tonight's close, is down 98.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The weaker USD takes some pressure off wheat and beans over the short term, and might prompt a short-covering rally. We remain bearish, however, as the USD likely will bottom in the near future.2 Feature U.S. Onshore, Middle East OPEC (ME OPEC), and Russia combine to produce ~43 MMb/d of oil plus another ~11 MMb/d of other liquids (NGLs, biofuels, refinery gains, etc.). Combined, these producers increased crude production by 5 MMb/d plus another 1 MMb/d of other liquids production over the past three years (2014-2016), creating the oversupply that crashed prices. We expect these producers to add another 1.60 MMb/d of oil plus 1.14 MMb/d of other liquids by 2018 (over 2016 levels), dominated by nearly 2.0 MMb/d of oil and NGLs from the U.S. shales. Oil production from the other 100+ global oil producers also represents about ~42 MMb/d, but on balance has been slowly eroding since 2010, failing to grow even when oil prices were $100+/bbl. Despite some 2017 recovery from Libya, we expect total production to continue to fall in both 2017 and 2018. The few recently expanding producers among the Other Guys are running out of growth. Canada, Brazil, North Sea and GOM account for ~13 MMb/d of oil production in 2016, adding ~1.5 MMb/d over the past three years (2014-2016). North Sea production is projected to resume declines starting in 2017; GOM will reach it peak production sometime in 2017 or 2018, then start to ebb; large new Canadian oil sands projects will add ~310k b/d in 2017-2018, but scarce additions are scheduled beyond that; and Brazil's once-lofty growth plans have slowed to a crawl in 2016-2018. Global deepwater drilling activity and exploration spending have collapsed, lowering the reserve base, and undermining the stability of current production levels. Outside Of Just Three Regions, Oil Supply Picture Looks Worrisome Often overlooked in our discussions about world oil markets are the supply contributions of over 100 geographic regions. This collection of suppliers (which we will call the "Other Guys") is defined as all producing regions in the world other than: 1) U.S. Onshore (shales, specifically), 2) OPEC's six Middle East members, and 3) Russia. The Other Guys deliver nearly half of global production, try to maximize production every day (even OPEC nations among the Other Guys have not had production constrained by quotas), and still have endured consistent, albeit modest, production declines over the past six years. Chart 1Outside Of A Very Few Regions,##BR##Oil Production Has Struggled At the end of 1Q17, oilfield-services leader Schlumberger voiced sharp concerns regarding stability of supplies from these ignored producers, warning that aggregate capital expenditures within these regions will sustain an unprecedented third straight year of decline in 2017, with total spending only about half of 2014 levels. Chart 1 shows the divergent production histories of the three growing regions versus the rest of the world. Chart 1 also shows production of the Other Guys excluding the especially dramatic declines/volatility of Libyan production. Even though these producers benefitted from the same incentives and profitability from high oil prices as the three growing regions, as a group, they have been unable to expand production. As oil prices have plunged, drilling activity in these nations has also plummeted, raising concerns that production declines could start accelerating in the near future. Chart 2 shows that oil-directed drilling activity among the international components of the Other Guys (Chart 2 excludes GOM and highly-seasonal Alaska and Canada) has crashed by ~40%, from an average of over 800 rigs during the five-year period of 2010-2014 to under 500 rigs for the past year. Offshore drilling has collapsed even a little more sharply for these producers than overall oil-directed drilling, falling ~43% from an average of over 280 rigs to only 160 today (Chart 3, excludes GOM). Chart 2Other Guys' Drilling##BR##Has Collapsed 40% Chart 3International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%,##BR##Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production Offshore Production Declines To Accelerate Chart 4Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed As a particularly worrisome trend for the Other Guys' production stability, offshore drilling activity has collapsed in some of the most important offshore oil producing regions in the world, including the GOM, North Sea, West Africa, and Brazil (Chart 4). Considering the multi-year lag between drilling activity and the start of oil production, and the large well size and quick declines associated with offshore wells, the oil production impacts of this drilling collapse that started two years ago have not really been felt yet. When these regions get past the wave of new production from 2015-2017 project additions (projects started during 2011-2014), they will face a dearth of new projects maturing in 2018-2022 due to this collapse in drilling, with new production likely to be inadequate to offset the declines of legacy production. Brazil, the North Sea, West Africa, and GOM together account for about 12 MMb/d of oil production (Chart 5). These four offshore regions have benefitted from intense investment from 2010-2015 as shown by the surging rig counts during that period in Chart 4. This investment/drilling drove 1.1 MMb/d of oil production growth in Brazil, the GOM, and the North Sea from 2013 to 2016, without which total production from the Other Guys would have declined by 1.4 MMb/d rather than just 0.3 MMb/d. Despite strong investment, production in West Africa merely held flat outside of Nigeria during 2013-2016 while falling by 0.4 MMb/d within Nigeria (mostly in 2016 due to pipeline disruptions from saboteurs). Chart 5Offshore Production Will Stop Expanding, Then Decline Brazil offshore drilling activity over the past year is less than half of levels during 2010-2013. As a result, production growth will moderate significantly over the next few years, expanding far less (250k b/d in 2018 vs. 2016, based on our balances data) than the rapid 470,000 b/d step-up in production during 2013-2014. While Brazil still has a rich endowment of pre-salt reserves, marshalling capital and the International Oil Companies' (IOCs) focus to resurrect development activity will take years. We expect no growth during 2019-2020. The North Sea has seen production cut in half from the time of peak production in 1999 until 2013. Production declines were briefly halted and re-expanded by ~300,000 b/d during 2014-2016 due to a concerted drilling effort and brownfield maintenance program incentivized and financed by $100/bbl oil prices. Drilling has since declined 35% from average 2010-2014 levels, and production is expected to resume its downward trend in 2017-2018. Overall oil-directed offshore drilling in the GOM has been cut by over 50% from 2013-2014 levels. Based on our field-by-field analysis published in January, we estimate GOM oil production will hit a peak in a year and a half or less and then will succumb to declines due to lack of new drilling. West Africa has suffered production declines for the past several years due to both geologic challenges as well as more recent (2016-2017) political/sabotage related disruptions in Nigeria. With offshore drilling activity plummeting 70%-80%, we expect production declines will accelerate and it will take years of increased drilling to yield new production that can stem the declines. The collapse in Nigerian drilling, from 10 rigs in 2010-2013 to only 2-3 rigs over the past year, likely means that Nigerian production is incapable of returning to 2015 levels even if its recent sabotage issues are resolved. In aggregate, as shown in Chart 5, we expect production from these four offshore regions to stagnate during 2017-2018 (North Sea and West Africa decline while Brazil and GOM expand) before declining by ~0.5 MMb/d in each 2019-2020 due to the dramatic curtailment of investment during 2015-2017. SLB Talks Its Book, But Makes A Strong Point At an industry conference at the end of March, Schlumberger (again) railed against the inadequacy of the cash flow-negative U.S. shale industry to single-handedly supply enough production growth to satisfy continuing global demand growth, especially once the Other Guys start seeing more pronounced negative production effects from the sharply reduced investments over 2015-2017. "The 2017 E&P spend for this part of the global production base...is expected to be down 50% compared to 2014. At no other time in the past 50 years has our industry experienced cuts of this magnitude and this duration." - Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of SLB. SLB highlighted an analysis of depletion rates constructed with data from Energy Aspects. (The March 27 presentation can be found at www.slb.com). Annual depletion rates (annual production/proved developed reserves) in the GOM had spiked to over 20% in 2016 from a long-term level of only ~10% during 2000-2013. Similarly, depletion rates in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea also surged from ~10% to ~15% over the past three years. In both the GOM and the North Sea, oil production had recently been expanded, but proved developed reserves declined. Due to such low drilling investments during 2015-2016, producers have replaced only about half of the oil reserves that they've produced in the GOM and North Sea over the past three years (2014-2016). Eventually, this lack of investment in cultivating tomorrow's resources will catch up to the industry, and production will decline. Investors must take SLB's commentary with a grain of salt, as they could be construed as sour grapes. The immense pull of new capital spending to the U.S. shales has substantially benefitted SLB's primary competitors more than it has benefitted SLB (SLB is much more focused on international and offshore projects). Still, investors are too complacent about the stability of non-U.S. production. SLB's analysis and warnings of accelerating production declines should not be ignored. Bottom Line: Outside of the three regions of sharply growing production (U.S. onshore, ME OPEC and Russia) that investors are focused on, the other half of global production has been stagnant to declining despite high oil prices and high levels of drilling during 2010-2015. Now that drilling and capex in these regions has declined by 40%-50%, production declines should accelerate in coming years. Offshore production, especially, has not seen enough drilling to replace reserves, and is poised to decline within the next 2-3 years. The accelerating declines of the "Other Guys" will allow more room for growth from U.S. shales, ME OPEC and Russia. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President, Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see "China steel hits nine-week peak amid crackdown, lifts iron ore," published by reuters.com May 22, 2017. 2 Please see the feature article in last week's edition of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy entitled "Bloody Potomac," in which our colleague Mathieu Savary lays out the case for an imminent USD rebound. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Upgrade packaged food stocks to overweight. Enough value creation has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Get ready to book profits. Resist the temptation to bottom fish in steel stocks. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues should weigh on steel profits. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods - Upgrade to overweight. S&P Utilities - Downgrade Alert. Table 1 Feature The market waffled last week, but quickly recovered. The upshot is that investors still appear content to look through the circus in Washington, focused instead on the positive reflationary dynamics supporting the corporate sector. Financial conditions have eased considerably ever since the Fed resumed its tightening campaign last December. Equity price gains, narrowing credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar have more than offset the negative impact of the back-up in bond yields. Cheap equity capital also remains easily accessible. While the labor market is tightening, BCA argues that the headline unemployment rate may understate slack given the large number of part-time workers that want to work full-time and prime-age workers that are still out of work. With core inflation surprising to the downside in recent months, there is no urgency for the Fed to slam the brakes. In other words, there is more than enough monetary fuel to sustain the equity overshoot. Easy financial conditions will allow investors to extrapolate the profit recovery (Chart 1), especially since it has been sales driven for the first time in years. It is notable that while consumer price inflation has softened, in aggregate, businesses are not feeling any renewed deflationary pressure. The depreciation in the U.S. dollar has been a critical support for U.S. businesses. Our corporate sector pricing power proxy continues to accelerate (Chart 1), arguing that revenue growth should persist. The combination of muted consumer price inflation yet positive corporate sector inflation is a stock market positive, all else equal. Digging beneath the surface, divergent sector inflation trends are increasingly evident. The commodity-linked energy and materials sectors have lost upward pricing power momentum (Chart 2), courtesy of the cooling in China. Technology sector selling prices are sinking deeper into deflationary territory, albeit the FANG juggernaut pays no attention to sector specific forces. Telecom services pricing power has also taken a header (Chart 2). On the plus side, other defensive sectors, including utilities, are still able to raise prices at a much greater rate than overall inflation. Even the pace of financial sector price hikes is at the top end of its long-term range (Chart 3). Chart 1Sustained Profit Expansion ##br##Requires Easy Financial Conditions Chart 2Some Softness In ##br##Cyclical Pricing Power... Chart 3...But Defensive Selling##br## Prices Are Resilient The upshot is that selectivity remains a critical portfolio input rather than simply tracking the broad S&P 500. These forces should allow the market to continue grinding higher into overshoot territory. The latter means that the market is increasingly vulnerable to minor external shocks. Ergo, we continue to recommend a selective weighting in some 'safe' areas, such as consumer staples, which are undervalued in relative terms and will buffet portfolios should volatility escalate further. This week we are taking advantage of the drubbing in food stocks to augment positions. Packaged Foods: Going Against The Grain After a surge to all-time relative performance highs in mid-2016, the S&P packaged foods index has deflated by roughly 20%. Two key reasons are behind the downdraft: the allure to hold stable cash flow companies has diminished since the November election, and weak industry-specific metrics - in particular pricing power and sales contraction amid private label competition. Despite these negatives, our sense is that enough value destruction has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Relative valuations reflect most of these investor worries. The relative forward P/E ratio has de-rated to below the two-decade average, and our Valuation Indicator (VI) is near one standard deviation below the historical mean. In fact, every time the VI falls to such an undervalued extreme, relative performance stages a sizable comeback (Chart 4). Technical conditions are also washed out. Relative performance momentum has plunged to the lowest level in a decade, and likely fully reflects investor angst. Deeply oversold readings and undervaluation suggest that a full bearish capitulation has occurred, which is contrarily positive. Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Grain price deflation (shown inverted, third panel, Chart 4) suggests that industry input costs are well contained, and will underpin profit margins. It is normal for falling grain prices to coincide with upward revisions to analyst profit estimates (second panel, Chart 4). While industry sales are mired in deflation, there are high odds that top line growth will exit deflation by early 2018. Consumer outlays on food and beverages are brisk, and wholesale food manufacturing prices have recently reaccelerated. Chart 5 shows that industry revenues follow the trend in consumption and pricing power, underscoring that profitability is set to expand anew. True, private label competition and grocery store market share wars have put pressure on industry pricing power. But as long as food manufacturers can keep input costs under control, profit margins should remain wide. A simple industry profit margin gauge (PPI food manufacturing versus PPI crude food) gives us comfort that margins will remain resilient (bottom panel, Chart 5). Importantly, packaged food producers are well positioned to fight back against food retailers' demands for price concessions. Robust consumer outlays on food and beverages are corroborated by real retail sales at food stores, which are bucking the deceleration in overall retail sales (third panel, Chart 6). The hook up in food manufacturing hours worked confirms that industry activity is on the mend, which bodes well for productivity gains. Sell-side analysts have taken notice. Positive earnings revisions will continue to outstrip negative ones. Chart 4Buy Against The Grain Chart 5End Of The Revenue Lull... Chart 6...As Demand Recovers Finally, food and beverage exports have held onto recent double-digit growth gains despite the strong greenback. Now that the U.S. dollar is under some pressure, especially against the euro and emerging market currencies, foreign sales should provide a further relief valve should domestic pricing pressures persist for a little longer than we expect (second panel, Chart 6). In sum, while investors have rushed for the exits in the defensive S&P packaged foods index, a buying opportunity has emerged. Relative valuations have corrected to the lower end of their historic range and already reflect investor profitability worries. Our thesis is that a domestic demand-driven recovery has commenced and strict cost control, along with food commodity deflation, should sustain profit margins. Bottom Line: Start a buy program in the S&P packaged foods index, and boost exposure to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK - MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, MJN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K. Our Utilities Overweight Is Starting To Pay Off Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Importantly, the five factors that drove this decision are starting to play out1, albeit in varying degrees of magnitude. Chart 7 shows that the U.S. economic soft patch has persisted. Hard data have not yet caught up to the surge in 'soft' data, such as sentiment and confidence surveys. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is inversely correlated with the relative share price ratio. Similarly, the ISM manufacturing index has crested. Our analysis shows that forward relative returns are strong after the ISM manufacturing survey hits extremely high levels, given that mean reversion ultimately occurs. The upshot is that utilities relative performance has more upside. The yield curve has also moved favorably for utilities stocks. The 10/2 Treasury curve has flattened since early January, as economic data continue to surprise to the downside, underscoring that the tactical utilities buy signal remains intact. The third reason to augment utilities exposure was the ebbing in inflation expectations. The latter continues unabated (Chart 7). Our recent Special Report highlighted that utilities suffer in times of inflation2. But the opposite is also true: utilities stocks outperform in times of disinflation/deflation. This reflects the stable rate of return regulated utilities enjoy, in addition to the increased appeal of dividend yields and cash flow during times of economic volatility and uncertainty. Finally, natural gas prices are firm. Utilities pricing power moves in lockstep with natural gas prices (middle panel, Chart 8). The latter are the marginal price setter for non-regulated utilities, and the recent price reacceleration could be a positive catalyst (bottom panel, Chart 8). Nevertheless, the utilities share price reaction has been more muted than we had expected, at least so far, perhaps reflecting the ongoing outperformance of stocks vs. bonds, and the weakness in electricity production growth (Chart 9). If the five factors begin to lose momentum, we will recommend booking profits in this tactical overweight position. Chart 7Prepare To Book Profits... Chart 8...When Utilities Turbocharge Chart 9Two Utilities Risks To Monitor Bottom Line: Stick with overweight exposure in the S&P utilities sector for now, but get ready to book profits in the coming weeks. Put utilities on downgrade alert. Rusting Steel Stocks Steel stocks have come full circle. Following the initial euphoria since the Trump election, the relative share price ratio is now roughly where it was in early November. There is more downside ahead. China is tapping the monetary brakes, attempting to contain the shadow banking system. However, it is difficult to target one segment of the economy through monetary policy. Tight policy is starting to backlash onto commodity prices, including steel and iron ore. A number of indicators suggest that China's internal dynamics will further undermine global steel share prices. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the recent Chinese yield curve inversion is pointing toward more pain ahead for U.S. steel producers. Further, the Chinese credit impulse is waning. Historically, BCA's Chinese Credit Impulse Indicator (CII) has an excellent track record forecasting relative performance momentum. The latest grim CII reading warns that U.S. steel stocks have more downside (second panel, Chart 10). Slower Chinese credit creation will continue to weigh on infrastructure spending. Chinese capital expenditure and loan growth are joined at the hip. Feeble loan growth suggests that fewer projects will come to fruition (third panel, Chart 10). Sinking iron ore prices reflect this grim outlook. The implication is that overly optimistic relative profit estimates are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 10). True, Chinese steel exports and domestic production have eased, which suggests that the risk of a steel inventory glut has receded. Nevertheless, U.S. steel imports have climbed anew, despite ongoing steel tariffs. As steel imports command a larger share of U.S. domestic production, price deflation is necessary to resolve this imbalance (Chart 11). This will cast a shadow on steel profit prospects. Steel industry troubles are not endemic to China. Worrisomely, U.S. steel demand dynamics remain unfavorable. Two key domestic end-markets are quickly losing steam. Commercial real estate and automobile excesses are starting to correct. Banks are reining in credit to both loan categories according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (second panel, Chart 12). Simultaneously, within commercial real estate, construction and land development credit demand is also anemic. With regard to consumer loan categories, auto loan demand has registered the worst showing. Chart 10China Macro Weighs On Steel Chart 11Steel Deflation Looms Chart 12Weak Domestic End-Markets Provide No Relief Already, non-residential construction is flirting with contraction and light vehicle sales are sinking like a stone (third panel, Chart 12). As a result the steel industry's new orders-to-inventories ratio has come off the boil, exerting a gravitational pull on scrap steel prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). The implication is that steel price deflation will undermine industry profits. Adding it up, the U.S. steel industry's earnings hurdle is sky-high. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues signal that U.S. steel producers' profits will surprise to the downside. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid steel stocks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 steel index are: BLBG: S15STEL - TMST, ATI, CMC, X, AKS, CRS, HAYN, RS, ZEUS, WOR, SXC, STLD, NUE. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Great Expectations?" dated April 3, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated December 5, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.
Dear Client, In addition to this abbreviated Weekly Report, I am sending you a Special Report discussing the signals being sent from recent movements in commodity prices. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog! - President Harry S. Truman There are no friends in Washington; only enemies and accomplices. Donald Trump has been finding this out the hard way over the past few months. We won't get into the merits (or lack thereof) of the latest allegations of malfeasance against the president. That's for the talking heads on the cable news shows to debate. We will stick with the markets. For now, we are not too concerned about the growing risk that President Trump will be impeached. The U.S. has experienced three impeachment crises over the past 100 years: The Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Only the Watergate crisis was accompanied by a bear market in stocks, and that was largely a function of the fact that the U.S. was going through one of the deepest recessions in the post-war era at the time (Chart 1). Things do not look nearly so grim today. After a weak start to the year, activity has rebounded in the second quarter. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% while the NY Fed's Nowcast is calling for 1.9%. The first quarter earnings season was a strong one. Our model predicts continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 2). As long as corporate earnings are rising, investors will largely overlook the drama in Washington DC. Chart 1Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 2Upbeat U.S. Earnings Model Moreover, we are not convinced that the litany of scandals afflicting the Trump administration will derail large parts of Trump's market-friendly policy agenda. Trump desperately needs a win, and tax reform and deregulation are two key areas where the president and congressional Republicans see eye to eye. We still think that there is a good chance that the contours of an agreement to substantially cut taxes will take shape by the end of the year. The prospect of such a deal should be enough to buoy investor sentiment. Thus, while equities are likely to remain under pressure in the near term, the outlook for the next 9-to-12 months is still reasonably good.1 Our worries are more focused on what happens as next summer approaches. As we discussed last week, U.S. growth may begin to stall out in late-2018 as the economy runs out of spare capacity and the impact of Fed rate hikes becomes more apparent. Politics are also likely to turn even more volatile. A simple majority vote in the House of Representatives is all it takes to impeach a sitting president. There aren't enough votes in the House right now, but there could be if the Democrats make a strong showing in the November 2018 midterm elections - something that current polls suggest is quite likely (Chart 3). If the Democrats end up winning the House, Marko Papic, our chief geopolitical strategist, believes that it is nearly 100% certain that they will vote to begin impeachment proceedings.2 Chart 3Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Chart 4The GOP Base Still Supports Trump The good news for Trump is that even then, it would take a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to oust him from office. Realistically, this cannot happen without significant Republican support. The bad news is that there are plenty of Republican senators who would be more than happy to stick a long sharp dagger into Trump's back and replace him with Mike Pence, Trump's more reliable and less drama-prone vice president. What is preventing them from doing so is the fear of a backlash from the white, working-class voters who got Trump elected. The only way this fear will go away is if the Republican base turns against Trump. So far that hasn't happened: Trump still commands the support of 84% of Republican voters (Chart 4). The risk, however, is that his base will desert him as the administration goes from one scandal to the next. Trump knows this, which is why come next year, he is likely to dial up his populist rhetoric. And unlike in the past, confident promises will not be enough. Trump's voters will be looking for concrete actions on hot-button issues like trade and immigration. At a time when growth is likely be slowing of its own accord, the specter of such measures could be enough to pull the rug out from risk assets. 1 We are currently short the S&P 500 as a tactical hedge, reflecting the bearish near-term signals being sent by our Stock Market Timing model. Cyclically, however, the model still points to slightly above-average returns for U.S. stocks. For further details, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Stock Market Timing Model," dated May 5, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. The recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. Feature Chinese domestic stocks and bonds have taken a beating of late as the authorities ramped up scrutiny to rein in excesses in the country's financial sector. While it is warranted to control accumulated financial risk - especially associated with shadow banking activity - the "campaign" style administrative crackdown has caused widespread confusion and mini-panics among domestic investors. The actions and corresponding reactions illustrate the authorities' primitive control tools, which are increasingly at odds with the rapidly developing financial sector, and how blanket actions can spur undue financial volatility and provoke unintended consequences. For now, we expect the economic fallout to be limited, unless the financial crackdown causes further spikes in interest rates and a sudden halt in credit flows. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher in the absence of a major policy mishap that short-circuits the broad growth improvement and the profit cycle upturn. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless, while the more richly valued bubbly segments of the market will continue to deflate. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. What Do They Want To Achieve? Policymakers' primary focus has been on cracking down on excessive speculation in financial markets and restricting lending activities that are not in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Financial sector deregulation in recent years has increasingly blurred the lines between banks, insurance companies, brokers and trust companies, and regulators are constantly challenged to monitor all the increasingly sophisticated moving parts. From the banking sector's point of view, regulators are concerned that lenders have been aggressively boosting their exposure to other banks and non-bank financial institutions instead of providing credit to the "real economy." Overall commercial banks' claims on other banks and non-bank financial institutions have increased from 12% of their total assets in 2006 to over 25% as of January 2017, while their liabilities to other banks and non-bank financial firms have increased from 7% to 12% (Chart 1). Smaller banks are even more dependent on interbank financing for loanable funds. Interbank transactions and repo activities account for about 14% of smaller lenders' total source of funding, compared with 2% for large banks (Chart 2). Some small banks regularly borrow at lower costs through the interbank market or use negotiable certificate of deposits to purchase "wealth management products" offering higher returns issued by other banks or financial institutions. The duration mismatch leads to constant pressure to roll over these short-term financial instruments. The increasing interdependence among the country's financial institutions also creates the risk of a chain reaction in the financial system should some type of credit event erupt. Chart 1Increasing Interdependence Among Financial Institutions The Chinese authorities have long regarded preventing systemic financial risk as a top priority, and the recent growth improvement has provided a window of opportunity for some housecleaning without a major adverse impact on the economy. Therefore, it is unlikely that regulators will back off from tightening regulatory supervision going forward. Overall, the authorities will continue to discourage overtrading within the financial system, and enforce full disclosure of off-balance-sheet items and shadow lending activities. The saving grace is that tightened macro prudential measures have already begun to curtail banks' aggressive expansion to non-bank financial institutions. Commercial banks' claims to these firms have slowed sharply since last year's peak (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the recent rise in interbank rates should also further discourage the perceived "risk-free" funding arbitrage to play the interest rate gap between long- and short-dated financial assets. All of this reduces the pressure of an escalation in the regulatory crackdown. Chart 2Smaller Banks Depend More On##br## Wholesale Funding Chart 3Banks' Exposure To Non-Bank Financial Firms ##br##Has Been Scaled Back Should Investors Be Concerned? In essence, banks' rising claims to other financial institutions means a lengthening of the credit intermediation channel, in which financing goes from credit providers through multiple layers of intermediaries to reach final borrowers in the real economy. In other words, banks, instead of lending directly to borrowers, channel loans to trust companies or securities brokers, who in turn transfer the funds to the real economy through "shadow banking" activities such as trust loans or various forms of "wealth management products", typically at higher rates. From this perspective, cracking down on lending excesses within the financial system in of itself should not have a material impact on credit flows to final corporate borrowers. In fact, streamlining the financial intermediation channel holds the promise of increasing accessibility to bank credit for the corporate sector and reducing its funding cost, which should benefit the overall economy in the long run. In the near term, liquidity tightening and the regulatory crackdown could push up interest rates and disrupt credit flows, which should be closely monitored to assess near-term negative impact on the economy. So far, the impact does not appear material. Chart 4Regulatory Crackdown ##br## Has Not Interrupted Credit Flows Interbank rates have increased by about 100 basis points across the board since the beginning of this year, and 10-year government bond yields have risen by 50 basis points - both of which pale in comparison to the significant improvement in overall business activity. Nominal GDP growth expanded by 11.8% in the first quarter, compared with 9.6% in Q4, 2016. Furthermore, the central bank early this week re-started its medium-term lending facility (MLF), which was designed to avoid liquidity overkill in the domestic financial sector. Overall, the risk of overtightening of liquidity is not high. The regulatory crackdown since early this year has not had a meaningful impact on credit expansion. Banks' claims to other financial institutions have slowed sharply, but overall loan growth has been rather stable. Importantly, medium- and long-term loans to the corporate sector, pivotal for overall capital spending, have in fact accelerated (Chart 4). In short, increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. We expect the authorities to remain highly vigilant and avoid policy overkill. Reading Market Tea Leaves There have been some notable divergences among different classes of Chinese stocks (Chart 5). Chinext, the domestic small-cap venture board, has suffered heavy losses of late, while large-cap A shares have been much more resilient. Meanwhile, offshore Chinese shares have barely felt any pressure at all. H shares have moved higher of late, while Chinese firms listed in the U.S. have decisively broken out. The divergence between onshore and offshore Chinese stocks' performance confirms the recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Barring major policy mistakes, we expect the Chinese economy to stay buoyant, as discussed in detail in our recent report.1 As such, a few investment conclusions can be drawn. Tighter liquidity will likely continue to place downward pressure on domestic stock prices, but the downside is limited by overall buoyant activity and improving profits. We expect the broad-A share market will remain narrowly range-bound. Overseas-listed Chinese shares are not subject to domestic liquidity constraints, and will likely continue to grind higher supported by growth improvement, profit recovery and low valuation multiples. The small-cap Chinext market has long been viewed as the more speculative segment of the domestic financial market, with higher multiples and greater volatility than large-cap A shares. As such, this market will remain vulnerable to domestic liquidity tightening. Even after the most recent selloff, the bourse's trailing price-to-earnings ratio and price-to-book ratio are still at 38.4 and 4.6, respectively, much higher than for broader onshore and offshore Chinese stocks. The recent selloff in the onshore corporate bond market has also been driven by liquidity pressure, which in our view is overdone. While it's true that economic acceleration justifies higher yields, corporate spreads have also widened sharply, which is at odds with the broad growth acceleration and profit recovery. In addition, after the most recent selloff, Chinese corporate spreads are significantly higher than in most other major markets (Chart 6). In the near term, tighter liquidity may continue to induce more selling pressure in the domestic bond market. Cyclically we expect Chinese corporate bond spreads to narrow. Chart 5Diverging Market Trends Chart 6The Sharp Spike In Chinese Corporate ##br##Spreads Is Overdone Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?" dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights The structural theme of overweighting technology stocks within the overall equity benchmark, and relative to other cyclical sectors such as commodities and machinery stocks, remains intact. However, in absolute terms, EM tech/semi share prices have become overbought and have already priced in a lot of good news. They will likely sell off soon due to the potential slowdown in the pace of semiconductor demand. Continue overweighting EM tech stocks, Taiwanese and Korean bourses within EM equity portfolios. We also reiterate our long-standing long tech / short materials strategy. Feature EM technology stocks have surged to all-time highs (Chart I-1, top panel), contributing significantly to the ongoing EM rally. In fact, excluding tech stocks, EM share prices have not yet surpassed a major technical hurdle, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-1. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team has been recommending that investors overweight tech stocks since June 8, 2010. In our report titled, How To Play EM Growth In The Coming Decade,1 we contended that the structural bull market in commodities was over, and that in the coming decade (2010-2019) the winners would be health care and technology (Chart I-2). We also identified a potential mania candidate - i.e., a segment that was poised for exponential price gains. We reasoned that the fusion between technology and health care - health care equipment stocks - could experience exponential price moves. This strategy has paid off exceptionally well. Consistently, within the EM equity benchmark, we have been overweighting Taiwanese and Korean tech stocks since 2007 and 2010, respectively (Chart I-3). Chart I-1EM Tech Stocks Have ##br##Surged To All Time Highs Chart I-2EMS Strategy Since 2010: ##br##Long Tech / Short Materials Chart I-3Taiwanese & Korean Tech ##br##Stocks Relative To Overall EM After such enormous gains, a relevant question is whether technology share prices will continue to rally in absolute terms, boosting the EM equity benchmark, or whether their absolute performance and/or relative performance will roll over. Chart I-4EM Tech Stocks Are Overbought Before we proceed in laying out our analysis, a caveat is in order: we can offer thematic long-term views on various sectors, but investors should realize the investment calls on many technology, internet and social media companies are driven by bottom-up - not macro - views. From a top-down perspective, we can offer little insight on whether EM internet and social media stocks such as Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu are cheap or expensive, whether their business models are or are not proficient, or what their profit outlooks might be. The reason is that these and other global internet/social media companies' revenues are not driven by business cycle dynamics and top-down analysis is less imperative in forecasting their performance. In this report we will shed some light on the business cycle in the global/Asian semiconductor industry. The latter is subject to both business cycle swings as well as sector-specific factors. Again, sector-unique factors for the semi industry are also beyond our top-down approach. The five largest constituents of the EM MSCI tech sector are Samsung (4.3% of EM MSCI market cap), Tencent (4.0%), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (3.5%), Alibaba (3.0%), and Baidu (1.0%). Chart I-4 shows their share prices. In short, they have become a large part of the EM benchmark and are also extremely overbought, increasing the risk of correction. Technology's Structural Bull Market Is Intact... Even though EM tech prices have skyrocketed in both absolute and relative terms, odds are that the structural bull market has further to run. There are no structural excesses in the technology sector that would warrant a bust for now. Even in China, credit/leverage excesses are concentrated in the old industries, not among the tech and new economy segments. Demand for tech products in general and semiconductors in particular is not very dependent on the credit cycle in EM. In both developed market (DM) and EM economies, spending on many tech gadgets is contingent on income gains rather than credit growth. Our bearish view on EM/China growth is primarily due to our expectations of a credit downturn that will affect spending that is financed by credit. Investment expenditures driven by credit are much more important for commodities and industrial goods than technology products. While the share prices of technology and new economy companies are overbought and may be expensive, global/EM economic demand growth will be skewed toward new industries and technologies rather than commodities. In brief, the outlook for global tech spending remains positive, both cyclically and structurally. Having outperformed all other sectors by a large margin, the EM technology sector presently accounts for 26% of the EM MSCI benchmark, while at its previous structural peak in 2000 its market share stood at 22% (Chart I-5, top panel). During the 1999-2000 tech bubble, the U.S. and DM tech sector’s share of market cap reached 34% and 24% of the U.S. MSCI and DM MSCI benchmark market caps, respectively (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). Despite being stretched, it is possible that the technology sector's market cap will rise further before another structural top transpires. Hence, we are not yet ready to call the top in the tech's share of the overall market cap either in EM or DM. From a very long-term perspective (since 1960), the relative performance of the U.S. technology sector against the S&P 500 has not yet reached two standard deviations above its time trend, as it did in the year 2000 during the tech bubble. Conversely, the same measure for energy, materials and machinery stocks is not yet depressed enough to warrant a mean reversion bet (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Tech Stocks Market Cap Share ##br##Of Overall Equity Benchmarks Chart I-6Relative Performance Of ##br##U.S. Sectors Vs. S&P 500 Finally, secular leadership rotations within global equities typically occur during market downturns. Chart I-7 shows that commodities stocks and tech leadership changed in 2001 and 2008. It is possible that new sectoral leadership will emerge in global equities during the next bear market/severe selloff. However, it is too early to bet on it now. The current character of equity markets - which favors technology over commodities - will persist. Bottom Line: The structural theme of overweighting technology stocks within the overall equity benchmark and relative to other cyclical sectors such as resources/commodities and machinery stocks remains intact. ...But The Semi Cycle Upswing Is Advanced The semiconductors industry is cyclical, and as such business cycle analysis is pertinent here. The rest of the technology sector, however, is not correlated with overall business cycles. Therefore, there is little value that macro analysis can deliver on the outlook for non-semi tech areas. This is why this section is focused on semiconductors rather than the overall tech sector. There is no basis as to why semiconductor/tech cycles should correlate with commodities cycles. However, when they do, the amplitude of global business cycle fluctuations rises. Indeed, Asian exports and global trade tumbled in 2015 and have subsequently improved over the past 12 months for the following reason: the 2015 downturn and the ensuing recovery in the semiconductor cycle overlapped with similar swings in commodities and Chinese capital goods demand (Chart I-8). This has increased the amplitude of the global business cycle's swings in the past two years. Chart I-7Secular Leadership ##br##Rotation: Tech Vs. Energy Chart I-8Chinese Capital Goods Imports & ##br##Global Semiconductor Cycle We remain bearish on Chinese capital spending in general and construction in particular. This entails weaker demand for commodities and industrial goods. Yet we are not bearish on Chinese demand for semiconductors and tech devices. The semiconductor cycle has experienced a mini boom in the past 12-18 months. Demand for electronic products in the U.S. has been exceptionally strong (Chart I-9, top panel). Moreover, European production and sale of overall high-tech products as well as computer and electronic products have been robust (Chart I-9, bottom panel). In China, retail sales of communication appliances have also been extremely healthy (Chart I-10, top panel). By extension, the mainland's production of electronics has also boomed (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Chart I-9DM Demand For Tech Is Strong... Chart I-10...And So Is China's One soft spot for semi demand, however, could emanate from the global auto sector. U.S. auto sales have begun to contract, and auto production will likely shrink as well (Chart I-11, top panel). In addition, the growth rate of auto sales in both China and Europe may have reached a peak (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Annual vehicle sales have reached 25 million units in China, and 17 million vehicles in both the U.S. and euro area. Overall global auto production is set to decelerate and this will weigh on semiconductor demand given that autos consume a lot of electronics. In addition, there are several other indications that suggest a mini-slowdown will likely transpire in the global semiconductor sector later this year: Taiwan's narrow money (M1) growth impulse has historically been correlated with the tech-heavy TSE index and has led export cycles (Chart I-12). This money impulse currently heralds a major top and relapse in both share prices and exports. Chart I-11Global Auto Production Chart I-12Taiwanese M1 Money Impulse Is Signaling A ##br##Growth Slowdown And Risk To Stocks The semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio has peaked in Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). This indicates that the best of the semi upswing may be behind us. Consistently, both global semiconductor producers' and semiconductor equipment stocks' forward EPS net revisions have already surged, and are elevated. This implies that a lot of earnings optimism has been priced in. Historically, when forward earning net revisions have reached these levels, global semi share prices have rolled over or entered a consolidation period (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Korea's & Taiwan's Semi ##br##Cycle Is Topping Out Chart I-14Semiconductors' Forward EPS ##br##Revisions Are Elevated Bottom Line: We expect a moderation in semi demand, but not recession. Semi share prices may react negatively to slower demand growth as the former have become extremely overbought and have already priced in a lot of good news. Investment Conclusions Semiconductor stocks have become overbought and a marginal slowdown in demand might be enough to cause a shake-out. The same is true for the overall tech sector. That said, we continue to recommend that investors overweight EM tech stocks, Taiwanese and Korean bourses within the EM equity portfolios. We also reiterate our long-standing long tech / short materials strategy. Remarkably, the KOSPI and Taiwanese TSE indexes - highly leveraged to semiconductors - have rallied to their previous highs (Chart I-15). In the past, they failed to break above these levels and we expect them to struggle again. If these equity indexes pull back and tech stocks correct, the overall EM stock index will roll over too. The rest of EM equity universe has much poorer fundamentals than tech companies. Financials and commodities sectors make 25% and 7% of the EM MSCI benchmark's market cap, respectively. The former is at risk from credit slowdown in EM and the latter is at a risk from lower commodities prices (Chart I-16). Chart I-15KOSPI & TSE Have Reached ##br##Major Resistances Chart I-16Industrial Metals ##br##Prices To Head Lower On the whole, we believe the recent divergence of EM risk assets from commodities prices and the EM/China credit cycles does not represent a structural regime shift in EM fundamentals, it rather reflects complacency in the marketplace. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "How The Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade", dated June 8, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
We used this year’s underperformance in the financial sector to boost positions to overweight two weeks ago. Similarly, we recommend buying capital markets equities on price weakness. This sub-index thrives when investor risk appetites are healthy and the business sector is moving from retrenchment to expansion mode, and vice versa. The outlook for increased capital formation has improved considerably. The corporate sector financing gap is beginning to widen anew, reflecting the surge in business and consumer confidence since the pro-business U.S. Administration took power. The widening financing gap is particularly notable because it is occurring alongside improving profit growth. In other words, the wider financing gap reflects accelerating capex, not weak corporate cash flows. This is confirmed by BCA’s Capital Spending Indicator. BCA’s loan growth model also signals that demand for external capital should accelerate. With M&A activity starting to reaccelerate, capital markets return on equity is poised to climb further. We recommend shifting to a high-conviction overweight position. Please see yesterday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are BLBG: S5INBK - GS, MS, SCHW, RJF, ETFC.