Sectors

Underweight In mid-2017, we went underweight the S&P pharma index and booked healthy gains roughly a year later when we lifted exposure to neutral. Since then, Big Pharma has enjoyed a reprieve on the back of congressional inaction and the fact that the Trump Administration’s drug pricing wrath was less severe than initially feared. However, the time has come to trim the S&P pharma index to underweight. The top panel shows that pharmaceutical companies have been nearly uninterruptedly raising prices for the past four decades. Higher selling prices have been synonymous with higher profits and thus higher share prices. However, profit margins crested in the midst of the late-1990’s M&A boom and have never reclaimed their previous zenith (middle panel). Neither have relative share prices. Worryingly, pharma prices have hit a wall during the past four years and can barely keep up with overall inflation, despite still being opaque (bottom panel). As both Democrats and Republicans are united to bring down health care costs in general and drug prices in particular, pharma profits will likely suffer a secular downdraft. The implication is that, as pharma revenues erode they will deal a blow to profits. Consequently, the outlook for relative share prices is dim. Bottom Line: We trimmed the S&P pharma index to underweight yesterday; please see our Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR – JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, AGN, MYL, NKTR, PRGO.

Overweight Biotech stocks have been the center of attention recently as the BMY/CELG deal put the whole sector in play, and yesterday we boosted exposure to overweight in the S&P biotech index. We doubt the merger mania is over and we continue to believe that more mega deals are in store, either intra or inter-industry, with Big Pharma hungry and in a hurry to replenish their drug pipeline. In our Weekly Report, we highlight a number of positive catalysts that can propel the S&P biotech index higher but surprisingly, the sell-side community does not share our enthusiasm. Relative profit growth is forecast to be nil in the next year. In the coming five years, biotech stocks are expected to trail the overall market’s profit growth by 4%/annum (second panel, Chart 8). This is extremely pessimistic and a first in the 24-year history of the I/B/E/S data set, and it is contrarily positive. Relative revenue growth forecasts are also grim for the upcoming 12 months and both revenue and profit forecasts present low hurdles to overcome (third panel). Meanwhile, from a valuation perspective, the S&P biotech index trades at a 25% discount to the SPX forward P/E and well below the historical mean (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We lifted the S&P biotech index to overweight yesterday; please see our Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, AMGN, GILD, BIIB, CELG, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The path of least resistance is higher for the broad equity market on the back of a reflationary impulse and a less dogmatic Fed. Now that the SPX forward EPS bar has been lowered to the ground, upward surprises loom, especially if the third catalyst we have been highlighting in recent research materializes: a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade spat. The recent M&A fever, a less dogmatic Fed that has suppressed the 10-year Treasury yield and a pick up in the U.S. credit impulse can serve as catalysts to unlock excellent value in the S&P biotech index. Upgrade to overweight. A profit margin squeeze on the back of soft pharma pricing power, weak operating conditions and a race to buy out biotech stocks to build up drug pipelines warn that the derating phase has just began for the S&P pharma index. Downgrade to underweight. Recent Changes Boost the S&P biotech index to overweight today. Trim the S&P pharma index to underweight today. Table 1 Featured The S&P 500 has been flirting with its 200 day moving average and once it categorically clears this hurdle there are high odds that previous resistance will turn into support. The next important level is 2,800, as we highlighted in recent research, a level where the SPX failed numerous times last year.1 Encouragingly, the character of the market has changed from December’s extreme daily weakness to this year’s significant daily resilience. As we first posited on January 18, while everyone is looking for a retest to re-enter the equity market, we already had the retest in December and are now in a slingshot recovery eerily similar to the 2016 and 1998 episodes.2 Importantly, what has changed since the post-December Fed meeting carnage is that the bond market has completely priced out Fed hikes for 2019 and the 10-year Treasury yield is 15bps lower. Chart 1 highlights this reflationary backdrop for U.S. stocks. Our proprietary Reflation Gauge (RG, comprising oil prices, interest rates and the U.S. dollar) is probing levels last hit in 2012. Historically, our RG and equity momentum have been joined at the hip and the current message is to expect a rebound in the latter. Chart 1Heed The Reflation Message The latest ISM manufacturing survey also corroborates the signal from our RG. The jump in the ISM new orders-to-inventories ratio underscores that the rebound in stocks has further to run (bottom panel, Chart 1). Granted, a lot rests on EPS and in order for stocks to propel to fresh all-time highs later this year, as we expect, profits will have to deliver. On that front, despite recent steep downward EPS revisions across the board, we believe the level of quarterly EPS will hit fresh all-time highs in the back half of the year, carrying stocks into uncharted territory (Chart 2). As a reminder, BCA’s view remains that the U.S. will avoid recession in 2019. Chart 2Joined At The Hip One key profit driver that has put pressure on recent earnings releases and will continue to weigh on internationally-exposed P&Ls is the greenback. With a delayed effect, the first two quarters of this year should bear the brunt of last year’s steep U.S. dollar climb, but that effect will reverse in the back half of 2019. Not only is the greenback inversely correlated with the SPX, but also with the global manufacturing PMI (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted and advanced, Chart 3). Chart 3Dollar The Reflator... Thus, the greenback is a key macro variable that we are closely monitoring. On that front, global U.S. dollar based liquidity is one of the most important determinants/drivers of global growth. The longer U.S. dollar liquidity gets drained, the more downward pressure it will put on SPX momentum and SPX EPS (Chart 4). Once U.S. dollar based liquidity starts to get replenished at the margin, it can serve as a catalyst for a global growth recovery. A Fed tightening cycle pause and recent acknowledgment that the balance sheet asset roll off is important and the Fed stands ready to tweak it, are a net positive for at least a trough in global U.S. dollar liquidity. Chart 4...But Watch Global Dollar Liquidity Adding it up, the path of least resistance is higher for the broad equity market on the back of a reflationary impulse and a less dogmatic Fed. Now that the SPX forward EPS bar has been lowered to the ground, upward surprises loom, especially if the third catalyst we have been highlighting in recent research materializes: a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade spat.3 This week we make a couple of subsurface changes to a defensive sector; these changes do not alter our recommended benchmark allocation to the overall sector. Biotech’s Gain Is... Biotech stocks have been the center of attention recently as the BMY/CELG deal put the whole sector in play, and today we are boosting exposure to overweight in the S&P biotech index. We doubt the merger mania is over and we continue to believe that more mega deals are in store, either intra or inter-industry, with Big Pharma hungry and in a hurry to replenish their drug pipeline. While this is not the sole reason for an above benchmark allocation, 50-60% M&A deal premia are a boon for investors (Chart 5). Chart 5M&A Frenzy From a long-term macro perspective biotech stocks have been the primary beneficiaries of the 35-year bond bull market. In other words, the multi-decade grind lower in the U.S. Treasury yield has been synonymous with biotech outperformance (10-year U.S. Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 6). Chart 6Biotech Equities And Rates Move In Opposite Direction The Fed’s recent monetary policy U-turn is a welcome development and these high growth stocks will benefit from the 55bps fall in the 10-year Treasury yield since the early-November peak. In addition, another macro tailwind is working in the S&P biotech index’s favor. The resurgent U.S. credit impulse is unambiguously bullish for this health care index that excels when margin debt availability is rising and liquidity is plentiful (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Revving Credit Impulse Says Buy Biotech Stocks Surprisingly, the sell-side community does not share our enthusiasm on any of these positive catalysts. Relative profit growth is forecast to be nil in the next year. In the coming five years, biotech stocks are expected to trail the overall market’s profit growth by 4%/annum (middle panel, Chart 8). This is extremely pessimistic and a first in the 24-year history of the I/B/E/S data set, and it is contrarily positive. Relative revenue growth forecasts are also grim for the upcoming 12 months and both revenue and profit forecasts present low hurdles to overcome (fourth panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Analysts Have Thrown In The Towel With regard to technicals and valuations, investors are doubtful that biotech stocks can stage a playable turnaround. Cyclical momentum remains moribund, printing below the zero line. Meanwhile, the S&P biotech index trades at a 25% discount to the SPX forward P/E and well below the historical mean (second & bottom panels, Chart 8). Chart 9 shows that biotech stocks are also cheap on a relative dividend yield basis. The S&P biotech index has been so oversold that it now sports a dividend yield higher than the S&P 500. Nevertheless, there is one key risk we are closely monitoring. Biotech initial public offerings are at all-time highs, with private equity and venture capital funds rushing for the exit doors. This is worrisome as it offsets the supply reduction owing to the M&A fever and has historically coincided with biotech relative share price peaks (Chart 10). Chart 9Compelling Relative Value Chart 10Watch This Risk Netting it all out, the recent M&A fever, a less dogmatic Fed that has suppressed the 10-year Treasury yield and a pick up in the U.S. credit impulse can serve as catalysts to unlock excellent value in the S&P biotech index. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P biotech index to overweight today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, AMGN, GILD, BIIB, CELG, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY. …Pharma’s Pain In mid-2017 we went underweight the S&P pharma index and booked healthy gains roughly a year later when we lifted exposure to neutral. Since then, Big Pharma has enjoyed a reprieve on the back of congressional inaction and the fact that the Trump Administration’s drug pricing wrath was less severe than initially feared. However, the time has come to trim the S&P pharma index to underweight. Chart 11 shows that pharmaceutical companies have been nearly uninterruptedly raising prices for the past four decades. Higher selling prices have been synonymous with higher profits and thus higher share prices. Chart 11Margin Trouble But, something happened in the new millennium. Relative performance peaked as pharma embarked on a mega M&A boom in the late-1990s with the Pfizer/Warner Lambert deal breaking all-time industry M&A records. Why? Because profit margins crested and have never reclaimed their previous zenith (top and middle panels, Chart 11). Neither have relative share prices. Worryingly, pharma prices have hit a wall during the past four years and can barely keep up with overall inflation, despite still being opaque (bottom panel, Chart 11). As both Democrats and Republicans are united to bring down health care costs in general and drug prices in particular, pharma profits will likely suffer a secular downdraft. The implication is that, as pharma revenues erode they will deal a blow to profits. Consequently, the outlook for relative share prices is dim. Importantly, pharma executives have not been frugal enough to offset the soft pricing power backdrop. Headcount has been expanding consistently since 2012 and a wide gap has opened up relative to industry selling price inflation, akin to the one in the mid-2000s that suppressed relative share prices (Chart 12). Chart 12Pricing Power Pressure Similar to the M&A boom of the late-1990s, there has been a global pharma M&A race with multiple deal announcements in the past few months, underscoring that the industry is not standing still. As Big Pharma CEOs compete to outdo their peers and buy drug pipelines mostly in the biotech space (Chart 5), they will continue to degrade the industry balance sheet (third panel, Chart 12). Our strategy is to overweight the hunted (biotech) and avoid the hunters (Big Pharma). On the operating front, a supply check reveals that pharma wholesale and manufacturing inventories are growing, whereas shipments are on the verge of contraction. Pharma industrial production has petered out and industry productivity gains are waning (Chart 13). This deteriorating operating backdrop will weigh on relative profits. Chart 13Deteriorating Operating Metrics... With regard to the macro front, a vibrant U.S. economy – with the ISM manufacturing survey ticking higher and the labor market firing on all cylinders – suggests that defensive pharma relative profits will resume their downtrend (bottom panel, Chart 13). Tack on the U.S. dollar’s reversal since the November peak and defensive pharma equities will remain under pressure (second panel, Chart 14). Chart 14...But EPS Bar Is On The Floor Nevertheless, there are three risks to our negative S&P pharma view. First, the M&A fever dies down and there are no additional purchases of biotech outfits. Second, Congress and the President drag their feet and fail to agree on new hawkish pharma pricing legislation. Finally, sell-side analysts have thrown in the towel and maybe most of the bad news is reflected in bombed out relative profit and sales growth estimates (third & fourth panels, Chart 14). In sum, a profit margin squeeze on the back of soft pharma pricing power, weak operating conditions and a race to buy out biotech stocks to build up drug pipelines warn that the derating phase (bottom panel, Chart 14) has just began for the S&P pharma index. Downgrade to underweight. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P pharma index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR – JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, AGN, MYL, NKTR, PRGO. Health Care Remains In The Neutral Column Despite these two subsurface health care sector moves, our overall exposure to the S&P health care sector remains intact at neutral. Please look forward to reading our upcoming research where we will be updating the S&P managed health care, S&P health care facilities and S&P health care equipment subsectors.   Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Trader’s Paradise” dated January 28, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Don’t Bet On A Retest” dated January 18, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

  Neutral The S&P health care facilities index was an exceptionally solid performer last year as investors sought safe harbor from the headwinds to global trade in wholly domestic stocks. This outperformance belied some deeper issues on the operating front. Hospitals’ pricing power is currently accelerating at the slowest rate since the GFC, which bodes ill for revenue growth (second panel). Tack on spiking labor costs (third panel) and the EPS growth prospects of this defensive sector appear at serious risk. However, there are a number of potential offsets to this weak picture. The first is the much lower write-offs that hospitals can expect given the generationally low unemployment rate. A second lies in declining hospital construction (bottom panel) which could serve to both bolster free cash flow despite weakening operating earnings as well as reverse the fall in pricing power if supply is constrained. Regardless of the operating picture, the S&P health care facilities index is unlikely to move dramatically in either direction without a resolution to the current trade war, either positive or negative. Net, we reiterate our neutral stance on the S&P health care facilities index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HCFA - UHS, HCA.

Special Report

Highlights In their current form and size, perpetual bonds issuance and the central bank bills swap program are unlikely game-changers for the banking system in China. However, this mechanism constitutes monetization of banks’ capital and bad assets, i.e., recapitalization of banks, by the PBoC via quantitative easing. Hence, this scheme can be presently viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. If the authorities pursue this program on a large scale without forcing banks to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Nevertheless, the growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably leads to falling productivity growth and rising inflation. Therefore, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation, which is profoundly bearish for the currency. Feature The Chinese authorities recently launched a Central Bank Bills Swap (CBS) program to boost liquidity and facilitate issuance of commercial banks’ perpetual bonds. Box I-1 on pages 12-13 elaborates on the scheme and provides more detail about the program. Under the CBS program, Chinese banks can buy each other’s perpetual bonds, then exchange these bonds for central bank bills and pledge those bills at the People Bank of China (PBoC) to receive funding. Insurance companies are also allowed to purchase perpetual bonds, but they cannot pledge them with the central bank for funding. What are the macro implications of this program? Can the government use this scheme to recapitalize the banking system? Does the CBS program amount to quantitative easing? Will it be sufficient to boost credit growth in China in 2019? We have conditional answers to these questions – i.e., they all depend on the extent to which the scheme is actually utilized by the authorities. On the one hand, the CBS program could potentially become a proverbial bazooka used by the government to recapitalize the banking system via the PBoC monetizing banks’ bad assets. By doing so, the PBoC would be expanding its balance sheet by injecting excess reserves into the banking system – i.e., quantitative easing. Consequently, it could help banks accelerate credit and money growth, in turn helping the economy. The long-run collateral damage in this scenario, however, would be an RMB depreciation. On the other hand, the authorities could limit the usage of the scheme via various regulatory approvals and norms. In such a case, the impact of the program on money/credit growth and the real economy as well as on the exchange rate would be limited. In other words, it might end up being no more than a tool to help the four large banks meet BIS's TLAC requirements. At the moment, there is not enough information to determine whether the program will be a game changer for the banking system in China, leading to a surge in credit and broader economic recovery. Both total assets and broad credit growth among banks remain very weak for now (Chart I-1). In other words, it is a bazooka that has not been loaded, and may never be loaded because of the potential for seriously negative ramifications over the long term. Chart I-1Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Consequently, we maintain our view that China’s growth will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2019, and that China-related plays, including many emerging markets (EM), remain at risk of a renewed selloff. Bank Recapitalization? In theory, the issuance of perpetual bonds along with the CBS program can be used to recapitalize the banking system. Each bank can buy perpetual bonds issued by other banks up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. These banks can get cheap financing from the PBoC by swapping these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledging those bills at the central bank to get funding. Hence, under this scheme, the PBoC will be financing purchases of perpetual bonds, which means the monetary authorities will indirectly be funding banks’ recapitalization. It is an “open secret” that Chinese banks would be considerably undercapitalized if they were forced to recognize non-performing assets. The non-performing loan (NPL) ratio currently stands at 1.9%, and the special-mention loans ratio is at 3.2%; and the sum of both is at 5.1% of total loans (Chart I-2, top panel). NPL provisions presently amount to 3.4% of total loans. Chart I-2Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned When expressed as a share of total risk-weighted assets, the aggregate NPLs and special-mention loans are equal to 4.2% (Chart I-2, bottom panel). At 2.8% of risk-weighted assets, NPL provisions are extremely inadequate. Assuming non-performing assets turn out to be 10% of total risk-weighted assets, some 40% of banks' capital would be wiped out, according to our simulation presented in Table I-1. This is after accounting for existing provisions and assuming a 20% recovery rate of non-performing assets. Provided that risk-weighting assigns a zero weight to banks’ claims on the government, a 50% risk weight to claims on households and a 100% weight to claims on companies, the assumption of 10% of non-performing assets in total risk-weighted assets is reasonable. This is especially the case when the enormous credit boom of the past 10 years is taken into consideration. As a result, in this scenario the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) will drop from its current level of 13.8% to 9.4%. This will bring the CAR below the regulatory minimum of 11%. To raise the CAR to the regulatory minimum of 11%, the banking system would require RMB 2 trillion of capital. This is greater than the maximum potential demand for perpetual bonds that we estimate to be up to RMB 1.4 trillion. To estimate this number, we assumed all banks purchase perpetual bonds in amounts equal to 5% of their core Tier-1 capital and all insurance companies buy perpetual bonds in an amount equal to 5% of assets. This is not an underestimation of potential demand for perpetual bonds since there are currently limitations on banks’ ability to issue and purchase these bonds as elaborated in Box I-1 on pages 12-13. In short, it is not clear if perpetual bond issuance and the CBS will be sufficient to undertake full recapitalization of the banking system and allow banks to accelerate their balance sheet expansion to finance an economic recovery. Bottom Line: In their current form and shape, perpetual bonds and the CBS program are unlikely to be a game-changer for the banking system in China. However, if the authorities eliminate limitations and change regulatory norms, the scheme could potentially be used to recapitalize China’s banking system. This is why this scheme can presently be viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. Does CBS Represent QE? Its Impact On Liquidity And Money Supply The CBS program is a form of quantitative easing (QE). It will expand the PBoC’s balance sheet and banking system liquidity (excess reserves at the central bank), as elaborated in Box I-1 and Diagram I-1 on pages 12-14. If pursued on a large scale, this scheme would constitute monetization of banks’ capital and their bad assets by the central bank. The mechanism is already in place, but the extent to which authorities will use it to recapitalize banks remains unclear. Even though the CBS program will expand banking system liquidity – i.e., excess reserves at the central bank – it will not – however - affect broad money supply. The basis is simple: Banks’ excess reserves at the central bank are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Banks use excess reserves to settle payments between one another and with the central bank. Banks do not lend out excess reserves. Further, only a central bank can create excess reserves, and it does so “out of thin air.” In brief, excess reserves rather than corporate and individual deposits constitute genuine banking system liquidity. Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of QE programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits.1 Money/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings.2 Having adequate capital and liquidity as well as positive risk appetite, banks can expand their balance sheets, i.e., originate loans and buy various securities. When banks make loans or purchase assets from non-banks, they simultaneously create deposits and new purchasing power. Chart I-3 demonstrates that in recent years, excess reserves in China’s banking system have been flat, yet banks’ assets and the supply of money has expanded tremendously. The opposite can also occur: Banks’ excess reserves can mushroom, but banks may actually be reluctant to grow their balance sheets. This was the case after the Lehman crisis with U.S. banks and in the wake of the European debt crisis with euro area banks. Chart I-3China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money Finally, we have elaborated at great length in our past reports that China’s money and credit excesses do not stem from its high household savings rate. Rather, like any credit bubble in any country, China’s leverage is due to the creation of credit/money “out of thin air.”2 Bottom Line: Perpetual bond issuance and the CBS program will expand the banking system’s excess reserves, but not broad money supply. Besides, it is not certain that excess reserves will accelerate loan growth. Credit origination by banks depends on many other factors such as banks’ willingness to expand their risk assets, loan demand and the regulatory regime and norms. Deleveraging Has Not Yet Started One cannot discuss the potential for a monetary bazooka in China without an update on the status of deleveraging. The fact is that deleveraging in China has not even begun: Credit is still expanding faster than nominal GDP growth. The most common way to measure leverage/debt is to compare it with the cash flow that is used to service debt. Nominal GDP is a measure of cash flow in an economy from a macro perspective. The debt-to-asset ratio is a poor measure of leverage because asset valuations are often subjective: Assets are valued by debtors themselves. Besides, apart from distressed credit investors, one does not want to be a creditor to a country or company that has to sell assets to service its debt. Stock and bond prices of debtor countries or companies tailspin when the latter have to sell assets to service debt. The top panel of Chart I-4 illustrates that China’s enterprise and household domestic credit/debt is still expanding at an annual rate of close to 10% at a time when nominal GDP growth has slowed to 8%. Chart I-4China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun Consistently, the debt to GDP ratio has not declined at all (Chart I-4, bottom panel). In this context, a rhetorical question is in order: Should China ramp up money/credit growth and monetize banks’ NPLs, given that deleveraging has yet to take place? Economic Ramifications Of Deploying The Bazooka What would be the economic ramifications if the Chinese authorities once again promote and allow unrelenting money/credit expansion “out of thin air” to bail out zombie banks and companies? Cyclically: If the authorities compel banks to acknowledge NPLs and write them off as and when the PBoC finances their recapitalization, banks may not be in a position to accelerate loan growth. This scenario entails that credit growth and hence cyclical sectors in China would remain weak for a while. In contrast, if the authorities pursue recapitalization of banks without forcing them to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain their power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Structurally (in the long term): The growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably breeds economic inefficiencies, falling productivity growth and rising inflation. In short, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation. Chart I-5 illustrates that China’s ICOR (incremental capital-to-output ratio) is rising, or inversely that the output-to-capital ratio is falling. This entails worsening economic efficiency and slowing productivity growth. Chart I-5Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Chart I-6 shows a potential stylized roadmap for the Chinese economy in the years ahead if the credit and money bubbles are inflated further without corporate restructuring, bankruptcies, the imposition of hard budget constraints and meaningfully improved capital/credit allocation. The red line represents potential GDP growth, and the dotted red line is our projection. In any economy, the potential growth rate is equal to the sum of growth rates of the labor force and productivity. China’s labor force is no longer expanding and will begin shrinking in the coming years (Chart I-7). Hence, going forward, the sole source of potential GDP growth in China will be productivity growth. Productivity growth has been slowing and will continue to do so if structural market-oriented reforms are not implemented (Chart I-8, top panel). Besides, the industrialization ratio has already risen a lot (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: No Tailwind From Labor Force Chart I-8China: Productivity Is Slowing With the potential GDP growth rate in China declining, future fiscal and credit stimulus may lead to higher nominal – but not real – growth. The latter will be constrained by a slowing rate of potential real GDP growth. Higher nominal but weaker potential (real) growth entails rising inflation. The combination of higher inflation along with the need to maintain very low nominal interest rates to assist debtors is bearish for the currency. In such a scenario, there will be intensifying depreciation pressure on the yuan from the tremendous overhang of RMBs in the banking system (Chart I-9). The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion will not be sufficient to backstop the enormous amount of RMB (money) supply of RMB 210 trillion – which is equivalent to US$30 trillion (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Helicopter Money In China Chart I-10PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply If broad money supply continues to expand at an annual rate of close to 9-10% or above, downward pressure on the yuan will escalate immensely, and the Chinese authorities will have no choice but to close the capital account completely and also heavily regulate current account transactions. Bottom Line: If the authorities do not restrain the PBoC’s financing of perpetual bond issuance via the CBS and in the interim do not force banks to write off bad assets, the upshot will be the monetization of banks’ bad assets by the PBoC. This will constitute the ultimate socialist put for banks and zombie debtors, as well as for the entire economy. Business cycle swings, bankruptcies and deflation are inherent features of a market-driven/capitalist economy. A socialist put via promoting unlimited money and credit creation entails long-term stagflation – lower productivity growth and rising inflation. This is very bearish for the currency. Investment Conclusions To be sure, the above analysis suggests that the bazooka has not been loaded and the Chinese economy is not about to stage an imminent recovery. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains its bearish stance on China-related plays worldwide. We are closely monitoring China’s money and credit aggregates as well as indicators from the real economy to gauge when China’s business cycle will revive. So far, these indicators continue to point south. EM risk assets and currencies have recently been boosted by the Federal Reserve’s dovish turn. But as we argued in last week’s report, this will prove short-lived. Global trade, China’s growth and commodities prices are the key drivers of EM financial markets, not the Fed. Provided our negative outlook for these three factors due to the ongoing slowdown in China, we continue to recommend a negative stance on EM in absolute terms, and underweighting EM stocks and credit versus their U.S. peers. The dollar’s weakness stemming from the downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations is running out of steam. Chart I-11 shows that the broad trade-weighted dollar is trying to find support at its 200-day moving average. Conversely, the EM stocks index and copper prices are struggling to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-11Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images We believe the dollar is poised for a breakout, and EM and copper are due for a breakdown. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Issuance Of Perpetual Bonds And CBS Program The authorities are promoting the issuance of perpetual bonds and the CBS program as a scheme for the country’s big-four banks to raise capital to meet BIS ’s Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements for globally systemically important banks. Limitations and other details on the perpetual bonds issuance and CBS program: 24 out of 30 banks listed on the A-share market are presently qualified to issue perpetual bonds as their assets exceed RMB 200 billion, a threshold established by the PBoC. Perpetual bonds will boost the Tier-1 capital of issuing banks. Banks are allowed to purchase perpetual bonds issued by other banks in amounts up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. Only primary dealers (46 banks and 2 brokers) can exchange qualified perpetual bonds they hold for PBoC bills, with a maximum exchange period of three years. The incentive for banks to purchase perpetual bonds will for now be low because these bonds consume large amounts of capital. The risk weights for these perpetual bonds ranges between 150-250%. How Does It Work? As Diagram I-1 on page 14 illustrates, when Bank B purchases perpetual bonds from Bank A, the former transfers excess reserves to the latter. The amount of outstanding deposits, i.e., money supply, is not affected at all. Hence, there is no direct impact on the broad money supply. Banks do not require deposits to make loans and buy securities. Banks need excess reserves at the central bank to pay for or settle payments with other banks. When Bank B transfers excess reserves to Bank A, the aggregate amount of excess reserves in the banking system does not change. Bank B can swap these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledge these bills at the PBoC to get excess reserves. As it does so, Bank B will replenish its excess reserves. Consequently, the amount of excess reserves in the banking system will expand, as will the PBoC’s balance sheet. Overall, the issuance of perpetual bonds and CBS swaps lead to both bank recapitalization and banking system liquidity (excess reserves) expansion. Why has the PBoC decided to fund the issuance of perpetual bonds? Without PBoC funding, demand for perpetual bonds might be very low, and yields on them could spike. Higher yields could lure away capital from other corporate bonds, producing higher borrowing costs in credit markets. On the positive side, the monetary authorities will not only recapitalize a number of large banks but will also do so by capping borrowing costs in the credit markets and injecting more liquidity into the banking system. On the negative side, yields of these perpetual bonds will not be determined by the market. Rather they will be artificially suppressed by potential open-ended PBoC funding. This will preserve China’s inefficient credit allocation system and misallocation of capital in general. In a market economy, the authorities will typically force banks to raise capital in securities markets or privately. More issuance, especially when it comes from many banks simultaneously, typically pushes down the prices of bank stocks and bonds. The basis is securities issuance often dilutes existing shareholders and is also negative for bondholders. This threat of dilution and losing money incentivizes existing shareholders and bondholders of a bank to impose discipline on the bank’s management. Consequently, banks would be better run and capital allocation would be more efficient than it would otherwise be in a system where such oversight and incentives are absent. In brief, the market mechanism deters banks from risky and speculative behavior and contributes to the long-term health of the banking system, as well as the efficiency of capital allocation in the real economy. By allowing banks to purchase each other’s bonds, and with the PBoC financing it, China is not imposing the much-needed market discipline on bank shareholders, bondholders and by extension, bank management. This does not promote efficient capital allocation and higher productivity growth in the long run. Footnotes 1      Money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system. Hence, we use terms money and deposits interchangeably. 2      Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses”, dated October 26, 2016, Special Report “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB?”, dated November 23, 2016, Special Report “Do Credit Bubbles Originate From HIgh National Savings?”, dated January 18, 2017, Special Report “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings Wall'”, dated December 20, 2017 Special Report “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China and Brazil”, dated March 22, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Stay tactically overweight to equities for the time being. Close the overweight to industrial commodities versus equities. The financials, basic resources, and industrials equity sectors can continue to outperform for a few months longer. EM can also continue to outperform DM for a few months longer. Overweight Germany’s DAX versus German bunds. The second half of the year is going to be much tougher than the first half. Feature Chart of the WeekPessimism Was Overdone: The Classical Cyclicals And EM Are Rebounding Locked In An Intimate Embrace Last week, we highlighted a frustrating truth: for the past 16 months the broad equity market has been on a journey to nowhere. Yet the journey has been far from boring. There have been exciting detours of 10-15 percent in both directions, albeit these moves have been short-lived, lasting no more than three months at a time. The same truth applies to the broad bond market: for the past sixteen months the global long bond yield – defined here as the average of the yields on the 30-year German bund yield and 30-year T-bond – has also ended up going nowhere. On this journey too, there have been exciting detours of up to 50 basis points in both directions, but these moves have also lasted no more than three months before retracing. It follows that for the past 16 months, the strategic allocation to equities, bonds and cash has had zero impact on investment performance, but the tactical allocation to the asset classes has had a huge impact. Yet here’s the thing: the sharp tactical moves in the bond market and in the stock market have been intimately embraced. When the global long bond yield has approached the top of its range, it has catalysed a sharp sell-off in equities; and when the bond yield has approached the bottom of its range, it has catalysed a sharp rally in equities (Chart I-2). In fact, over the past 16 months, asset allocation has boiled down to a very simple trading rule based on the global long bond yield: above 2.2 percent, sell equities; below 1.95 percent, buy equities. Today, the yield stands at 1.85 percent, suggesting a tactically overweight stance to equities. Chart I-2The Sharp Tactical Moves In The Bond Market And Stock Market Are Intimately Connected The Persistent Trends Are In Sectors Some investors cannot shift their portfolios quickly enough to exploit the tactical opportunities in the markets. They need trends that persist for at least six months to a year. The good news is that these more persistent trends do exist, but to find them you have to look at equity sectors, and specifically the classically cyclical sectors (Chart of the Week). The financials and basic resources sectors were in strong relative downtrends through most of 2018; but for the last four months these classically cyclical sectors have flipped into very clear uptrends (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The same is true for industrials, albeit the end of the downtrend has happened more recently (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Financials Are Rebounding Chart I-4Basic Resources Are Rebounding Chart I-5Industrials Are Rebounding For the avoidance of doubt, technology is not a classically cyclical sector because the sales of technology products – particularly to consumers – are relatively insensitive to short-term fluctuations in the economy. In fact, the relative performance of technology is an almost perfect mirror-image of financials (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Technology Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical Neither is the chemicals sector a classical cyclical. Given that raw material prices are an input cost for chemical manufacturers, the chemicals sector can underperform when raw material prices are rising in a cyclical up-oscillation (Chart I-7). It follows that the three true classically cyclical sectors are: financials, basic resources and industrials. Chart I-7The Chemicals Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical What if your investment process does not allow you to invest in sectors and benefit from their well-defined and longer trends? The good news is that you can play these same trends through regional and country stock market indexes. We refer readers to previous reports for the details, but the crucial message is that regional and country relative performances stem from nothing more than the stock markets’ defining sector skews combined with sector relative performances.1 This revelation of what truly drives regional and country relative performance is bittersweet. It is sweet because it simplifies an investment process that can be very complicated. But it is also bitter because it highlights that the investment industry is still replete with unnecessary layers of complexity. Still, just to drive home the point, we would like the charts to do the talking. The relative performance of financials, the relative performance of Italy’s MIB, and the relative performance of Emerging Markets (EM) versus Developed Markets (DM) are all effectively one and the same story (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8One And The Same Story: Financials And Italy... Chart I-9...And Financials And EM Versus DM What Are The Markets Telling Us, And Do We Agree? Another very common question we get is: what is our forecast for economic growth and profits growth? For example, two questions on everyone’s lips right now are: can Germany avoid a technical recession, and what is our forecast for Germany’s growth from here? These are indeed important questions, but for investors they are not the most important questions. Financial markets are a discounting mechanism. So for investors, the most important question should always be: what is discounted in the current market price, and is that too optimistic or too pessimistic? Over-optimism and over-pessimism on the economy are especially important for the classically cyclical sectors because their profits have a very high operational gearing to their sales: a small change in the sales outcome has a huge impact on the profit outcome and, therefore, the price.  If the price is discounting a booming economy and what actually transpires is that the economy grows modestly, then a seemingly benign outcome of respectable growth will paradoxically cause the price to slump. Conversely, if the price is discounting a very pessimistic outcome and what actually transpires is anything better than the ultra-pessimism, then even a bad outcome will paradoxically cause the price to soar. In this regard, the recent underperformance of Germany’s DAX versus German bunds is at an extreme not far from that during the euro sovereign debt crisis in 2011-12 (Chart I-10). So the important question for investors is: will the actual economic outcome transpire to be as extreme as that? Our answer is that the extreme underperformance of the DAX versus bunds is discounting an overly pessimistic outcome, and on that basis the correct stance is to be overweight the DAX versus bunds.   Chart I-10Overly Pessimistic: The DAX Versus Bunds Turning to the classical cyclicals, these sectors have rebounded because their embedded assumptions for growth reached peak pessimism in October. Since then, the pessimism has abated at the margin because of improving short-term impulses from Chinese stimulus, lower global bond yields, and sharply lower energy prices. Given that positive (and negative) impulse phases reliably tend to last for six to eight months, our expectation is that this tailwind for the classical cyclical sectors – financials, basic resources, and industrials – can continue for a few months longer. Which means that the outperformance of EM versus DM can also continue for a few months longer. In terms of asset allocation, long industrial commodities versus equities worked very powerfully at the end of last year, but the relative merits of the two asset classes are now more evenly balanced. Hence, we are now closing this position in profit. Finally, our major concern is for later in the year when the aforementioned improving short-term impulses will inevitably fade, and even potentially reverse. Bear in mind that the impulses arise from the short-term changes in credit flows, bond yields, and the oil price. It follows that to recreate these positive impulses for later in the year, bond yields and/or the oil price have to keep falling. This is not our base case, so enjoy the positive impulses while they last! As the year progresses the investment environment is going to get much tougher. Fractal Trading System* The sharp underperformance of the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng is at the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled all of the recent trend reversals in this relative position. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng. Set a profit target of 4.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. We now have seven 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-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Oil, Banks, And Bonds: The Oddities Of 2018”, dated November 29, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Overweight The S&P containers & packaging index has been outperforming so far this year after its largest constituent stocks handily beat earnings estimates in this past quarter. Encouragingly, relative performance has bounced off long-term support (top panel). Revenue growth was a common theme in the Q4 print which is corroborated by the resilience in consumer spending on food & beverage (middle panel), the key source of end-demand for the sector. With input costs well under control (bottom panel), earnings estimates have understandably leaped higher. Importantly, changes in consumer spending and the relative valuation of containers & packaging stocks have typically moved in lockstep (middle panel), though this relationship broke down somewhat in the past three years as bullish investor sentiment has rewarded other sectors at the expense of this niche materials index. Still, with recovering profitability and relative valuations at a 30% discount to the broad market (roughly at GFC levels), the S&P containers & packaging index is due for a rerating; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, PKG, SEE, AVY.

Special Report

Highlights China’s recently released pro-auto-consumption policy will lead to a moderate 5-8% recovery in auto sales/production this year. However, the impact from the stimulus will be much less than the previous two episodes in 2009 and 2016. The value of Chinese auto sales is likely to increase by RMB 200 billion to 350 billion, which is about 0.2-0.4% of the country’s nominal GDP in 2018. New-energy cars will continue to gain market share with supportive policies. Meanwhile, domestic brand car manufacturers will likely benefit most from the upcoming recovery in the Chinese auto market, while American car producers will benefit the least. We recommend preparing to go long Chinese auto stocks in the domestic market in absolute terms, subject to the terms of a trade agreement with the U.S. In addition, we continue to overweight domestic consumer discretionary stocks versus the benchmark, and versus domestic consumer staples. Feature China is the world’s largest car producer and consumer – its domestic sales account for about 30% of global auto sales (Chart 1, top panel). The country experienced a 3% contraction in auto sales and production through last year, the first year of negative annual growth in 28 years. The contraction rapidly accelerated into the double digits over the past few months (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 1Chinese Auto Industry: Policy Stimulus = Recovery In 2019 As the auto sector is an important driver of China’s economic growth, whenever the industry has shown signs of weakness, the central government has typically implemented a series of supportive policies designed to stimulate the domestic auto market. The authorities successfully did this in 2009-2010 and 2016-2017. Late last month, they again announced a set of pro-auto-consumption policies. The question going forward is how effective these measures will be in boosting auto sales. We believe the recovery will be rather moderate compared with the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 episodes. Chances are that the growth of auto sales and production will recover to 5-8% in 2019. As a result, we recommend preparing to go long Chinese auto stocks in absolute terms, subject to the terms of a trade agreement with the U.S. Cyclical And Secular Forces Shaping Auto Sales A comparison of the current auto market to the one that prevailed in 2009 and 2016 is helpful to gauge the extent of the strength of the pending auto sales recovery expected this year. Box 1 shows the recently released pro-auto-consumption plan by the Chinese government, which focuses on six aspects, including promoting auto replacement, NEV sales, auto sales in rural areas, pick-up truck sales, development of the second-hand car market, and auto sales in cities that have restricted auto sales policies.   BOX 1: China’s Stimulus Package For Domestic Auto Industry The recently released pro-auto-consumption plan by the Chinese government includes: Promoting auto replacement: Providing subsidies to consumers who scrap their older, higher-polluting cars for new, lower-emission or zero-emission cars; Encouraging NEV sales: Providing subsidies to advanced NEV sales and giving more privileges to new energy trucks; Promoting auto sales in rural areas: Providing subsidies to rural residents who scrap their tricycles to buy a truck with cylinder capacity equal or less than 3.5 tons, or a passenger car with cylinder capacity equal or less than 1.6L; Promoting pick-up truck sales: Widening access areas within cities for pick-up trucks; Accelerating the development of the second-hand car market: Allowing second-hand car trades across different cities and provinces; Loosening auto sales restrictions in cities that have restricted auto sales policies. Regarding the amount of subsidies, the government did not provide details.   Putting it all together, we believe that this time the impact from the stimulus will be much more muted than the previous two episodes in 2009 and 2016. First, there is no sales tax reduction measure in this round of stimulus. The most important driver for the auto market recovery in 2009 and 2016 was a sales tax reduction in passenger cars with cylinder capacity equal to or less than 1.6L from 10% to 5% (Chart 2). However, this time, there is no such cut. While the government is maintaining zero sales tax on new energy vehicles (NEV), the sales tax on all automobiles remains at 10% this year. Chart 2The Lessons From The 2009 And 2016 Episodes Second, domestic pent-up demand for automobiles is much lower than it was in both 2009 and 2016. The car ownership rate, defined as the number of passenger cars per 1000 households, has risen significantly to 453 in 2018 (Chart 3). This means that nearly half of Chinese households already own at least one car as of 2018. In comparison, the car ownership rate was only 91 in 2008 and 318 in 2015. Chart 3Less Pent-Up Demand For Autos In 2019 Than Before Third, Chinese households’ debt levels have surged in the past few decades, constraining their ability to purchase cars and other goods (Chart 4, top panel). While many investors compare the cross-country household debt burden relative to GDP, Chinese household debt has already risen to nearly 120% of households’ disposable income, surpassing the U.S. (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Increasing Households' Debt Burden Constrains Ability To Buy A Car Fourth, while the recent stimulus packages aim to promote auto sales in rural areas, the difficulty of getting auto loans is much higher for the average rural household than for the average urban household, as the former generally have much lower income levels. In addition, peer-to-peer lending, which has become a major source of auto loans in recent years due to lower lending standards compared with banks, has collapsed since last year (Chart 5). With tightening regulations, the difficulty of acquiring auto loans through peer-to-peer lending is currently higher than before. Chart 5Rising Difficulty To Get An Auto Loan Lastly, there has been a structural decline in consumers’ willingness to buy cars due to increasing traffic congestion, limited parking space and more advanced public transportation. Moreover, more mature car rental markets and the rising use of car-sharing services have also helped reduce the need to buy a car, to some extent. This is a major difference from 2009-2010 and 2016. In Chart 6, both falling households’ marginal propensity to consume and declining consumption loan growth suggest a decreasing willingness to consume among Chinese consumers. Chart 6Chinese Consumers: Falling Willingness To Consume With all the aforementioned cyclical and structural forces in place, the impact on domestic auto sales from the recent stimulus package will be smaller in 2019 than in 2009 and 2016. That said, these policies will still be supportive, and likely sufficient to lift auto sales from contraction back to positive growth this year. Estimating the magnitude of the impact remains challenging, however, due to lingering uncertainty about the size of government subsidies. Based on all six measures listed in Box 1, the scale of subsidies provided by the government will be the major determinant for auto sales growth in China in 2019. In general, the bigger the subsidies, the stronger the push on auto sales. In 2009, both the central government and local government provided subsidies for stimulating auto sales. This time, while the financing sources could still be both central and local governments, local governments’ ability to finance auto consumption stimulus is diminishing due to their much higher debt levels and weaker revenues from land sales than in the past. For now, our view is that the impact from the stimulus will be much less significant than the previous two episodes in 2009 and 2016. Auto sales growth was 4.7% and 3% in 2015 and 2017, respectively. With recently announced stimulus, we expect the growth will be higher than in those years. Bottom Line: We expect that the growth of Chinese auto sales/production volumes will rebound to 5-8% this year, much slower than the 45% growth seen in 2009 and 14% growth in 2016. With a similar growth rate in value terms, Chinese auto sales are likely to increase by RMB 200 to 350 billion, which is about 0.2-0.4% of the country’s 2018 nominal GDP. The Winners And Losers At 5-8%, growth will be equivalent to a 1.5-2 million-unit increase in domestic auto sales. This will lead to a similar increase in auto production, as most cars are domestically produced. In terms of fuel use, automobiles can be classified as gasoline cars, diesel cars and new-energy cars. Chart 7 shows that gasoline cars currently hold 84% market share. In terms of brand, automobiles can be categorized as Chinese brands, Japanese brands, German brands, American brands, Korean brands and others. Chart 8 shows their market structure, with Chinese brands currently accounting for 42% of total market share. As the Chinese auto market is set to have a moderate recovery this year, which kinds of cars will benefit most, and which will benefit least? Even though China plans to gradually reduce its subsidies on NEVs to zero in 2021, several factors suggest that NEVs will still be the biggest winner, taking more market share from both gasoline and diesel cars. The government is aiming to increase the NEV market share from 4.5% currently to 20% by 2025. Assuming total sales rise to 32 million units in 2025 from current levels of 28 million (about 2% annual growth), this would imply that NEV sales will surge to 6.4 million units from 1.3 million currently, which is equal to 26% annual growth over the next seven years (Chart 9). Chart 9NEV Sales: Plenty Of Upside In addition to governments continuing subsidies, the sales tax on NEVs will be held at zero until the end of 2020, a big advantage over non-NEV vehicles, which carry the 10% sales tax. In addition, in cities that have license restrictions on car sales or have time or area restrictions on on-road autos, NEVs are not constrained by such policies, which is an attractive privilege for car buyers to consider. For example, in Shanghai, it costs over 80,000 RMB to buy a license plate for a non-NEV car if the potential buyer is lucky enough to be selected by random draw. In comparison, buying a NEV allows the buyer to have a free license plate. Current NEVs can achieve recharge mileage of 300-450 kilometers, with a price of RMB 100,000 to RMB 150,000 per unit. While the recharge mileage is sufficient for most daily use, prices are no longer substantially higher than prices for traditional gasoline or diesel cars. Major global and local NEV producers are expanding their production in China. For example, Tesla last month started building its mega electric car manufacturing plant in Shanghai, which will initially produce 250,000 cars per year, and eventually ramp up to half a million. This will be about five times the number of vehicles the company currently produces in the U.S. Most NEVs that have been sold in China are Chinese-brand NEVs. However, with China further opening up its auto sector and allowing more foreign NEV producers to invest and produce cars in China, Chinese NEV producers will face increasing competition and may lose some market share to foreign NEV producers. Meanwhile, Chinese NEV-related supportive policies will likely benefit both local and foreign NEV producers as the government is determined to develop the domestic NEV market and encourage NEV sales. That said, local producers will still enjoy slightly more favorable policies than foreign ones. Given that the government is promoting smaller-engine passenger car sales in rural areas and encouraging the replacement of old diesel cars with NEVs, sales and production of gasoline cars may also increase slightly, while diesel cars are likely to rise the least. In terms of brand, Chinese and American brands lost share to Japanese and German brands last year. We believe Chinese brands will benefit most from this year’s government-led auto market recovery for two reasons (Chart 10, top panel): Chart 10Chinese Brands Will Benefit Most From This Year’s Policy Stimulus The authorities will likely favor local brand producers in terms of benefitting from the subsidies they give to car buyers. In addition, local brand cars in general have lower prices than foreign brands, which could be the most attractive feature for price-sensitive rural residents. In the meantime, as the government encourages local auto replacement, this may benefit Japanese and German brands (Chart 10, second and third panels), as buyers with replacement needs will likely upgrade their cars to ones of higher quality and better reputation. Among American cars, while we are positive on American NEV car sales in China, we still expect American cars to continue to lose market share due to weakening sales of American non-NEV car sales (Chart 10, bottom panel). American cars are generally more expensive than Chinese-brand cars, and they are often perceived as slightly lower quality than either Japanese or German brands. Moreover, the ongoing trade dispute may bias Chinese buyers against buying an American car. Bottom Line: We believe NEV producers and Chinese-brand car producers will benefit most from this year’s government-led auto market recovery. Investment Implications There are several important conclusions that stem from our research. First, while rebounding auto production will likely lift demand for many metals, housing construction is artificially supporting demand and is set to decelerate over the coming year (Chart 11). Consequently, we do not believe that accelerating auto production alone is a license to be long industrial metals over the coming year. Chart 11Weakening Property Market Weighs More On Commodity Market Second, within the equity space, we recommend that global investors prepare to go long domestic auto stocks on an absolute basis after the outcome of the U.S.-China trade talks emerges later this month. Rebounding auto production will likely lead to a cyclical improvement in auto producer earnings, which in combination with deeply oversold conditions bodes well for the 6-12 month outlook (Chart 12). Chart 12Look To Long Domestic Auto Stocks In An Absolute Term U.S. negotiators are seeking increased access to the Chinese auto market, which implies that the outcome of the negotiations carries some event risk for domestic producers (particularly if China’s concessions on this front turn out to be large). But our sense is that we are likely to recommend an outright long position favoring domestic automakers barring a trade deal with deeply negative implications for domestic producer market share. Third, our bullish bias towards Chinese auto producers and our constructive outlook for the home appliance market supports two of our existing trades favoring consumer discretionary stocks. Chart 13 highlights that production and sales volume for several home appliance products is depressed, and stands to benefit from a flurry of policy announcements late last month that were intended to support the industry. Chart 13Home Appliances: Rebound Soon On Stimulus As Well Both auto producers and home appliance manufacturers belong to the consumer discretionary sector, and we recommend maintaining a long domestic consumer discretionary position versus both the domestic benchmark and relative to consumer staples (both trades were initiated on November 141). While domestic consumer discretionary stocks are expensive vs. the domestic benchmark on a P/B basis (Chart 14), the sector’s relative P/E ratio is trading at the very low end of its historical range and the trade has eked out modest positive gains since initiation. Chart 14Remain Overweighting Consumer Discretionary Sector Our long discretionary / short staples trade has faired much worse, down 11% since initiation due to a significant rally in consumer staples stocks (rather than losses in the discretionary sector). We recommend that investors stick with the trade over the coming 6-12 months despite the loss, as Chart 15 highlights that the discretionary / staples trade could not be more extreme in terms of relative performance or valuation. Our bet is that this trade will reverse course in 2019, for a meaningful period, in response to a cyclical tailwind from policy. Chart 15Stay Long Discretionary / Short Staples   Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Household Consumption: Full Steam Ahead?”, published November 14, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations