Consumer Discretionary

  Underweight The S&P restaurants index has had an exceptional month, following surprisingly healthy results from both McDonalds and Starbucks, which collectively represent approximately 80% of the index. We think the move is short-sighted and we would be sellers into the strength. The positive results at these restauranteurs would typically be reflected in outsized forward earnings growth estimates. However, this is not the case; as shown in the second panel, estimates for the S&P restaurants index are falling behind the broad market. Given the index’s rise without a corresponding earnings lift, the valuation multiple has soared and is now at a level 50% higher than the market (third panel). Meanwhile, the index has been dining out on an unhealthy diet of debt and balance sheets are stretched to extreme levels (bottom panel). In the absence of an unlikely surge of cash flow, particularly given the headwinds an appreciating U.S. dollar represents, a painful cycle of belt-tightening lies ahead. Bottom Line: Tepid earnings growth, high valuations and bulging leverage are a recipe for stock price declines in the S&P restaurants index; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5REST - MCD, SBUX, YUM, DRI, CMG.

Feature Asset Allocation Amid Late-Cycle Turbulence BCA today published its 2019 Outlook, Late-Cycle Turbulence,1 our annual discussion with long-time clients Mr X and his daughter, Ms X. Recommendations This note is simply to update the Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service’s recommended portfolio in the light of our expectations for the next 12 months, as detailed in the 2019 Outlook. The table on the right summarizes our key views, with the full details of recommended weights for a standard portfolio on page 3 of our PDF. Our overall view of markets has not changed significantly. We remain concerned about late-cycle pressures that will ultimately undermine asset prices. However, it is hard to put precise timing on when the U.S. economy will peak. For the next few quarters, it will continue to benefit from loose fiscal policy and still accommodative monetary policy. Although global growth is slowing, a recession is not on the immediate horizon. Therefore, we think it is premature to move underweight on equities. A further sell-off might even present a buying opportunity. Accordingly, we remain neutral on global equities, with a preference for the U.S., underweight global bonds, and overweight cash. The only significant change we make to GAA’s recommended portfolio is to reduce Japanese equities to neutral. Profit margins are at record highs but are vulnerable to narrowing as wage growth picks up and sales to emerging markets come under further pressure. Our model suggests that Japanese profit growth will turn negative in year-on-year terms by the second half of 2019. Barring evidence of more reflationary stimulus from China, Japan will be challenged to outperform global equities. We have used the funds taken from Japan to increase our overweight in U.S. equities. We make two minor changes to our equity sector recommendations, lowering Industrials to underweight and raising Consumer Discretionary to neutral. This is in line with our generally defensive sector tilts. We expect to see a further slowdown in China and, in the U.S. too, capex growth has probably peaked for this cycle. These factors should be negative for capital goods producers. Consumer Discretionary should benefit from a late-cycle rise in wages in developed economies, and contains some structural growth companies in the online commerce space, which are now more attractively valued after the recent sell-off. We will publish our next Monthly Portfolio Update on January 2.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnote 1 Please see BCA Outlook titled “Late-Cycle Turbulence” dated November 26, 2018 available at bca.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights U.S. housing's immediate past will not repeat, ... : It is understandable that investors who lived through the financial crisis are acutely sensitive to any sign of trouble in housing, but none of the factors that helped precipitate the crisis are in place now. ... and its older history will only rhyme: Home construction slowdowns have a good record of signaling recessions, but residential investment's steadily waning share of GDP has chipped away at its influence. The current housing soft patch is not over, but it's unlikely to get much worse, ... : The rapid rise in mortgage rates sharply reduced affordability, but it still remains at a very comfortable level relative to history. Inventories of new and existing homes are very low, and the pace of new construction continues to run slightly behind household formation. Most importantly for the expansion, there were no construction excesses in this cycle that need to be worked off. ... so we don't think it's sending any broader signal about the economy: A tiny contraction in residential investment is not a harbinger of recession, nor is it an indication that monetary policy is already tight. Feature Desynchronization has been the name of the game in 2018. The U.S. economy, already ahead of its peers in putting the crisis in its rear-view mirror, has gotten an additional fillip from the fiscal stimulus package. Global growth, on the other hand, has been slipping. As Fed chair Jay Powell put it last week, the rest of the world is "gradual[ly] chipping away" at the U.S., but there "is not a terrible slowdown" in the global ex-U.S. economy. Global conditions have not slowed enough to get the Fed to interrupt its tightening campaign, but signs of softness outside of the U.S.'s borders have been popping up like mushrooms after the rain. With disappointments having been few and far between in the U.S., any pockets of weakness that do appear attract immediate attention. Against this backdrop, the slowing in housing - residential investment has now contracted for three consecutive quarters - is making some investors a little uneasy. We have spent a good deal of time within BCA debating housing's recent softness, its outlook, and its implications for financial assets and the economy, and clients are increasingly inquiring about our views. Housing's Recent Past Housing is top of mind for many investors because it was at the center of the financial crisis. Residential mortgages were ground zero of the credit bubble that systemically threatened the banking system. Wobbles in housing bring back unpleasant memories of the searing trauma that unfolded just ten years ago. With the dot-com mania and the financial crisis having occurred just a decade apart, the financial media, and many strategists, analysts and investors are on high alert for the next crash. The concerns are understandable, but conditions today are nearly the polar opposite of conditions in 2005 and 2006. There is nothing even remotely bubble-like about the current housing market. The critical weakness back then was the shunning of time-tested underwriting standards, as revealed by the homeownership rate. An average of just over 64% of households owned their own homes for the first three decades of the ownership series in a remarkably steady pattern,1 but a steady debauching of standards pushed the rate to above 69% at its peak (Chart 1, top panel). Chart 1Too-Easy Lending Standards ... The homeownership rate was built on a foundation of increasingly unserviceable mortgages (Chart 1, bottom panel). Prices surged (Chart 2, top panel), flippers flooded the market, and homebuilders ramped up production to meet the ensuing demand (Chart 2, second panel). When the music stopped, the housing market was left with unprecedentedly large inventories of unsold homes (Chart 2, third panel); the banking system's primary source of collateral was poised to suffer a body blow; and a hiring surge that played out over a decade and a half was unwound in just two years (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2... Made Housing Unstable Housing In The Current Cycle Current conditions are much more stable. The homeownership rate is back to its time-tested levels. New housing supply has generally undershot the smoothed trend in household formations ever since the crisis ended (Chart 3, top panel). Inventories are strikingly low when adjusted for the overall size of the housing stock (Chart 3, middle panel). The vacancy rate is low (Chart 3, bottom panel), and there is no construction employment cliff. Most importantly from a stability perspective, the Basel III/Dodd-Frank regulatory framework makes it very difficult to replicate the reckless credit conditions that enabled the housing bubble. This cycle has been devoid of housing excesses. Chart 3Plenty Of Room For More Homes A broader historical context reveals that housing has been exerting steadily less influence on the economy across the entire postwar era. We have a good deal of sympathy for the argument that the postwar business cycle has been a consumption cycle, largely led by housing,2 but it's possible that the crisis marked housing's last hurrah as a driver of recessions. Residential investment's share of GDP exploded when pent-up demand was released upon the return of servicemen and women needing homes for their burgeoning families (Chart 4). The construction of the interstate system, and the network of subsidiary roads that sprang up to connect to it, facilitated the creation of the suburbs, and Levittown-style tract housing communities had to be built from scratch to meet the demand. Chart 4The Incredible Shrinking Impact Of Housing Activity The baby boom kept demand for more, and larger, houses going strong. Once grown themselves, the baby boomers helped keep household formation growth flush. The baby boomers are now net sellers, however, and will be at an increasing rate across the next couple of decades. The time trend of residential investment's share of GDP is stark, and demographics are poised to keep it going as long as the baby boomers are divesting their holdings. The bottom line is that we do not think housing is the business cycle this time around. It is a highly cyclical part of the economy, and its fluctuations will still be felt, but its influence on the overall economy has been steadily waning for 70 years, and it is not currently in a position to exert a powerful drag. It would be overstating matters to say that housing booms cause recessions, but they've been observed at the scene of the crime in every recession of the last 60 years except for the dot-com bust. In this cycle, the barely visible white area above the trend line in Chart 4 is nowhere near large enough to give rise to a big swing below the trend line, and inspire a patch of gray shading on its own. The ratio of housing starts to the existing stock of homes (Chart 5) reinforces the message of residential investment's declining contribution to overall output. The United States has been augmenting and/or replacing the existing stock of homes at a steadily diminishing rate for 60 years. Assuming that the rate of obsolescence has remained roughly constant, it seems that there has simply been less to build once the suburban frontier was settled. Even against the declining time trend, however, residential construction activity in this cycle has not revived enough to require a correction. Chart 5Tinkering Around The Edges We attribute the current softness to the backup in mortgage rates over the last twelve months. 100 basis points may not seem like the end of the world, but the rise in interest rates has been sudden, and it is entirely plausible to think that it has sent some marginal first-time buyers to the sidelines. The Housing Affordability Index is way below its 2013 peak, but remains quite high relative to its pre-ZIRP history (Chart 6, top panel). The sudden drop in the index has been a function of mortgage payments (Chart 6, second panel) as sudden moves almost always are - the median home price (Chart 6, third panel) and the median income series (Chart 6, bottom panel) are much less variable. Chart 6Mortgage Rates Drive Affordability We expect that rates will go still higher, but our bond strategists don't think it will happen any time soon. They see rates consolidating for a while as the economy digests the sharp move higher, and favorable year-over-year comparisons cool off inflation's upward momentum over the coming months. Our above-consensus view on the terminal fed funds rate is not housing friendly. Housing will have to contend with ongoing bond-market headwinds, but we don't expect another move of this magnitude will recur in such a concentrated time frame. Bottom Line: Housing may face a headwind from higher rates for at least another year, but a big drop-off in activity is not in the cards. There are no current cycle excesses that need to be unwound, and housing has become too small a part of the economy to induce a recession on its own. Housing Demand And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The notion that mortgage rates are to blame for the housing soft patch raises some questions about our assessment of the monetary policy backdrop. Is it possible that a funds rate that's proximally related to a slowdown in housing demand is not impacting consumer demand for other goods or services, or corporate demand? Could there be multiple equilibrium fed funds rates? If not, is the housing soft patch a sign that the economy is actually in Phase II of the cycle, and not Phase I? We are unperturbed by the three-quarter contraction in residential investment, which one has to squint to see (Chart 7). We do not believe that housing demand has reached an inflection point; we simply think that prospective monthly mortgage payments have moved so fast that some buyers have temporarily stepped aside. Given that buying a home still looks quite inviting by the historical standards of the affordability index, conditions are not yet restrictive. Ex-the ZIRP era, the index had not exceeded 140 for more than three decades (Chart 6, top panel). If homes are still affordable relative to history, then housing would seem to support our equilibrium fed funds rate model's assessment that monetary policy remains accommodative. Chart 7Not Much Of A Downturn Yet We view the state of policy as binary for the economy as a whole, even if some activity is necessarily more rate-sensitive. While some marginal investment projects cease to generate positive prospective net present value any time interest rates rise, encouraging or discouraging activity is a universal condition. The broader investment-relevant question is whether or not our assessment that the fed funds rate cycle has not yet transited from Phase I to Phase II is correct (Chart 8). If the economy is still in Phase I, and will remain there for a year, our constructive take on the economy and financial markets still applies. If it's shifted to Phase II, however, the empirical record says investors should be paring back risk. Chart 8The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The preponderance of evidence supports the idea that we remain in Phase I. Real-time measures of activity remain robust. Credit performance remains very good, so banks are still eager lenders. Employment is surging, and a follow-up dose of fiscal stimulus in 2019 should keep all the plates spinning for another year. As macro investors, and students of cycles, we are as eager as anyone to recognize the inflection point as swiftly as possible, but the data series we follow do not indicate that it is approaching. We continue to abide by our equilibrium fed funds rate model's benign conclusion. Investment Implications Although housing's direct impact on GDP has steadily waned, it remains an important part of the economy, given how it feeds into several other elements of consumer demand. Three consecutive quarters of contraction in residential investment are worthy of notice, but such a run has occurred before without provoking a recession, and the contraction to date has been awfully modest in any event. We do not view the slowdown as the beginning of the end for the expansion. We also do not view it as a sign that monetary policy is tighter than we originally judged. We expect that the ongoing surprise over the rest of this cycle will be that the neutral fed funds rate is considerably higher than the market consensus expects. We therefore think that investors should continue to maintain benchmark exposure to risk assets while remaining underweight Treasuries and holding all bond exposure below benchmark duration. Since we think the expansion remains in place, supported by accommodative monetary policy, we view the recurring mini-scares provoked by data points like housing's soft patch as potential opportunities to put our cash overweight to work. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Over the 120 quarters through the end of 1994, a mean 64.3% of households owned a home, with a standard deviation of 0.6%. Only 22% of the quarterly observations were more than a standard deviation away from the mean, as opposed to the 32% predicted by the normal distribution. 2 Leamer, Edward E., "Housing IS the Business Cycle," NBER Working Paper No. 13428, September 2007. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13428

Special Report

Highlights Chinese pro-consumption policy stimulus will likely stabilize Chinese household consumption growth at 8-10% over the next 12-15 months, with service consumption continuing to be the key driver. Our research shows that Chinese nominal retail sales of consumer goods are currently growing at only 3-4%, significantly lower than the 9-10% pace that the Chinese government has reported, and that the market has commonly quoted. We expect it to rebound moderately to 4-6% in 2019 on the government's pro-consumption stimulus. The services sector including healthcare, education, travel, entertainment, sports, high-tech, daycare for kids, nursing homes for the elderly, and so on will likely experience strong growth. In the consumer discretionary space, car sales will also likely rebound as the country may soon release stimulus measures supporting the auto industry. For now, we advise overweighting consumer discretionary stocks versus the benchmark. We also recommend going long consumer discretionary versus consumer staples. Feature The Chinese economy is in transition from investment- and export-led growth to consumer-led growth. With faltering investment growth and escalating China-U.S. trade tensions, the strength and durability of Chinese household consumption has become all the more important to the country's economic growth. To address increasing challenges facing the economy, the government over the past several months has released a slew of policies aimed at stimulating domestic consumption. Our focus in this week's report is to outline these policies and in turn gauge what the strength of Chinese household consumption will be over the next 12-15 months. In order to do this, some key questions need to be addressed, including: What is the current growth rate of household consumption? What pro-consumption policies have already been implemented, and what additional policies are likely on the way? How effective will stimulus be on Chinese household consumption this time around? One of our key findings is that Chinese nominal retail sales of consumer goods - a common proxy for Chinese household spending - is currently growing at only 3-4%, significantly lower than the 9-10% pace the Chinese government has reported, and that the market has commonly quoted (Chart 1). Chart Retail Sales Growth Measure: Which One Is Accurate? Another important finding is that recent pro-consumption policy stimulus will likely increase household income levels by 400-500 billion RMB. In addition, we expect more pro-consumption policies from the Chinese government later this year or early 2019 - i.e., cutting car sales taxes or giving out subsidies to encourage households' purchases of automobiles, especially in rural areas, and/or lowering the policy rate to spur spending by reducing households' borrowing costs. This will stabilize Chinese household consumption growth at 8-10% over the next 12-15 months, with service consumption continuing to be the key driver. Making Sense Of The Data According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data, Chinese nominal household consumption accounted for about 40% of GDP last year, and grew 8.2% year-on-year (about 9-10% in 2015 and 2016). We estimate that currently about 65-70% of Chinese household consumption is consumer goods, with the remainder going to services. Goods consumption Chinese retail sales figures are probably the most-often-used among market participants as a proxy for Chinese household consumption, despite the fact that the data only provide a partial picture of Chinese household spending: spending on consumer goods. Based on the NBS's definition, Chinese total retail sales of consumer goods refer to the sum of retail sales of commodities sold to urban and rural households for household consumption, and to social institutions for public consumption for non-production purposes. Chinese total retail sales also include online goods sales but do not include online service sales. They also do not include many service sectors including education, medical care, travel, entertainment, eldercare and childcare. In short, while Chinese retail sales cannot represent the full picture of Chinese household consumption, they can indeed reveal the strength of Chinese household consumption on consumer goods. The most quoted retail sales growth data by the majority of market participants is from the NBS - a straight growth number that the bureau reported every month - which recently decelerated to 9% (the dotted line in Chart 1). The bureau does not give out information about how to calculate this growth data. The NBS also reports the level data of retail sales every month, from which the year-on-year growth actually plunged to 3.8% (the solid line in Chart 1). Which one is more accurate? All of the findings below suggest the validity of the growth estimates we calculated from the level of NBS retail sales. For major consuming discretionary goods like cars, washing machines, air conditioners, refrigerators and TVs, all products excluding TVs exhibited a sharp drop in sales volume growth this year (Chart 2). Chart 2Falling Sales Volume Nearly Across The Board From Discretionary Goods... Some major consumer staples such as dairy products, soft drinks and liquor - also experienced a sharp decline in sales-volume terms (Chart 3). Chart 3...To Major Consumer Staples The sub-categories of total nominal retail sales in value terms also showed a significant slowdown in terms of urban and rural, and in terms of commodity goods and catering (Chart 4). Chart 4Weakness In Retail Sales From Urban To Rural Meanwhile, 26 out of 31 provinces experienced retail sales growth slower than 6% for the first six months, with three provinces - Shandong, Jilin and Guizhou - in contraction. Why did Chinese retail sales experience such a significant drop this year? We believe it is because households' sentiment and willingness to consume has diminished considerably (Chart 5). Chart 5Falling Marginal Propensity To Consume The cracking down of peer-to-peer lending, falling stock prices and high mortgage payments this year have all reduced household wealth. Mortgage interest payments currently account for nearly 50% of the nation's household disposable income, higher than 45% a year ago.1 In addition, rising China-U.S. trade tensions have also increased uncertainty on future income growth and affected confidence. Service consumption If our estimate of Chinese retail sales growth can correctly capture the strength of consumer goods consumption, what data can be used to measure services consumption. Chart 6 can at least provide some sense in gauging the strength of household service consumption, as tourism, medical services and entertainment services (i.e., movie box office receipts) are all major household service consumption components. In the meantime, online services sales can also somewhat reflect the overall strength of Chinese household services consumption. Chart 6Services Consumption Still Growing At A Double Digit Pace Chart 6 clearly shows that despite the growth deceleration, nominal services consumption growth is currently still quite strong - in the range of 10-15% - considerably higher than the 3-4% growth in nominal consumer goods consumption. To gauge how Chinese nominal household consumption growth will be going forward, we need to assess the pro-consumption policies that have already been implemented. Consumption Stimulus A flurry of pro-consumption policies has been announced over the past several months, aiming at spurring consumer spending to support the country's underlying economic growth. Personal tax cuts and tax exemptions will increase households' ability to spend, while improvements in the quality of goods and services supplied and more availability of high-quality products will also encourage consumption. On October 21, China unveiled a new income tax law to boost consumption. The law increases the tax-free threshold from 3,000 RMB per month to 5,000 RMB per month and expands the lower tax brackets, effective October 1, 2018. It also adds new itemized tax deductions related to education, housing, eldercare, childcare and medical care, which will come into effect on January 1, 2019. Additional details of the new itemized deductions have so far not been released. The Ministry of Finance estimates that the tax changes will collectively lift household incomes by approximately 320 billion RMB. This is equivalent to about 1% of household consumption expenditures, or about 0.4% of GDP. Given that the total amount of personal income tax was 1.2 trillion RMB last year, the total tax deduction from the new income law and new itemized tax deductions should be much smaller than the amount of total personal income tax. Assuming 40-50% of the 1.2 trillion RMB personal tax will be deducted in 2019, this will be equal to about 500-600 billion RMB in household incomes (1.6-1.9% of household consumption expenditures, and about 0.6-0.7% of GDP). On September 20, the government released a policy guideline: "New measures to spur residential consumption." Two weeks later, on October 11, the government announced a "three-year (2018-2020) action plan to stimulate domestic consumption." The government's plan is geared to facilitating a virtuous cycle in which boosting consumption leads to supply innovation, and subsequently improvement in new consumption growth. According to the plan, the authority will widen the openness of seven key service sectors for private and / or overseas companies to enter in sectors such as tourism, culture, sports, healthcare, eldercare, home services and education/training. The country aims to develop rental markets, promote new-energy automobiles, support high-tech products (VR, robots, etc.), encourage green consumption and upgrade the quality of existing goods and services. Insufficient high-quality supply in these service sectors have in the past curbed consumption growth to some extent. By boosting the supply of high-quality services, the government expects to increase consumption in these sectors. Starting on July 1, China reduced import tariffs on 1449 imported items, resulting in a decline in average import tariffs from 15.7% to 6.9%. Starting on November 1, the government further lowered tariffs with most-favored nations on an additional 1585 items with the average tax rate falling from 10.5% to 7.8%. Clearly, there are two trends from these policies. First, the services sector including healthcare, education, travel, entertainment, sports, high-tech, childcare, eldercare, and so on will benefit most, as households in general have high demand for these services and are willing to spend more on these sectors (Chart 7). Chart 7Service Consumption Vs. Consumer Staples Consumption: Higher Growth For example, while China's aging population will have increasing demands for medical and eldercare service, the termination of the one-child policy will continue to boost demand for childcare and education services. Food and clothing accounts for about 35% of total Chinese household consumption expenditures (Chart 8), significantly higher than the 21% proportion in South Korea. Meanwhile, Chinese consumers spend 11% of their disposable income on education, culture and recreation, lower than the 17% figure in South Korea. Chart 8Chinese Household Consumption Structure Second, the supply of high-quality consumer goods and high-quality services will strongly increase in response to rising demand of wealthier Chinese consumers. This increase in supply will be met by both domestic production of goods and services and overseas imports. What additional policies could be implemented in the remainder of 2018 and 2019? The government may release more supportive policies to promote car sales - i.e., reducing the sales tax on cars with a capacity of 1.6L or lower, or providing subsidies on car purchases. They have implemented similar stimulus measures since 2008. If recent pro-consumption policies and supportive policies for the auto industry still cannot revive household consumption strongly enough, the authorities may cut the policy rate to spur additional spending. After knowing the probable scale of the pro-consumption stimulus, we can now put everything together to see what Chinese household consumption growth could be in 2019. How Strong Will Household Consumption Be? Structurally, we believe growth in Chinese household consumption is facing strong headwinds, including lower household income growth in real terms (inflation-adjusted) because of slowing productivity growth and rising household debt levels (Chart 9). Chart 9Structural Headwinds For Chinese Household Consumption Growth However, over the next 12-15 months, we still expect the government's pro-consumption policies to be able to stabilize domestic household consumption growth at 8-10%. We estimated in the first section that the new income law and itemized tax deduction policy will likely release about 500-600 billion RMB of income available for spending. The ratio of marginal propensity to consume gauges the proportion of one additional unit of disposable income spent on consumption. We estimated that the marginal propensity to consume for Chinese households is currently at about 50%. This will result in 250-300 billion RMB spending on household consumption, equaling about 0.7-0.8% of 2017 Chinese retail sales of consumer goods (36.6 trillion RMB), or 0.8-0.9% of household consumption expenditures. Autos will be another major potential driver of overall household consumption growth. China has stimulated the car industry by slashing the auto sales tax from 10% to 5% in 2009-2010 and again in 2015-2016. As a result, the volume of passenger car sales jumped 50% in 2009 and 15% in 2016, respectively (Chart 10). While car sales have dropped each time the stimulus measures have expired, a temporary growth rebound in auto sales in 2019 is still possible. Chart 10The Government May Stimulate The Auto Market Again As car sales volumes are currently in double-digit contraction, the Chinese government is likely to implement similar stimulus measures in late 2018 or early 2019. If so, Chinese car sales in volume terms may rebound by 5-10% in 2019. By the end of last year, the measure of urban households with cars was about 37.5 out of 100. There is still plenty of upside, with the rural areas having much bigger potential for car sales than urban areas. The value of Chinese auto sales was 4.2 trillion RMB last year. It increased 280 billion RMB in 2016 and 220 billion in 2017, but decreased 220 billion for the first nine months of this year. Assuming a 5% growth in the auto sales value next year because of the stimulus, it will be about 200 billion RMB increase, equivalent to 0.2% of 2017 GDP or 0.6% of household consumption expenditures. Although households have already taken out much more in the way of consumer loans for purchases of homes and other day-to-day expenses, with plenty of consumption-related stimulus policy in place, consumer loan growth will likely continue to grow in the double digits in 2019 (Chart 11). In September, household loans for short-term consumption (non-mortgage) grew at 28% year-on-year. Chart 11Consumer Loan Growth May Remain Strong In 2019 Chart 12 shows that the breakdown of household borrowing - medium- and long-term consumption loans (mostly mortgage loans) accounted for 60% of total household borrowing. Chart 12Most Of Consumption Loans Are Mortgage With the property market now slowing down and a gradual decline in the Chinese central bank's PSL lending,2 property sold has been decelerating (Chart 13). This may lead to less mortgage borrowing, leaving more loans available for short-term spending. Chart 13Household Borrowing In 2019: Less For Mortgage And More For Consumption? How different is this round of stimulus versus the previous two episodes? First, the strength of household consumption growth due to recent policy stimuli will be much weaker than the 2009-2010 and 2015-2016 episodes (Chart 14). Chart 14Stimulus Impact On Household Consumption Growth In 2019: Less Than Previous Episodes Home appliance markets like TVs, air conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators have already entered a mature phase. On average, as of the end of 2017 there were already 133 TVs, 100.3 air conditioners, 97.1 washing machines and 97.2 refrigerators for every 100 urban households (Chart 15, top panel). Even in rural areas, as of the end of last year there were 120 TVs, 52.6 air conditioners, 86.3 washing machines and 91.7 refrigerators for every 100 households, significantly higher than 2008 levels (Chart 15, bottom panel). Chart 15Home Appliance Markets: More Mature Than The Auto Market Second, this time the stimulus is focusing more on the services sector, while the previous two episodes were more on consumer goods. As result, this time the stimulus will have much less impact on commodities than the previous two episodes, in which major commodity goods sales and production experienced significant growth. Overall, China's pro-consumption policies will likely stabilize Chinese household consumption growth at 8-10% over the next 12-15 months, with services consumption remaining the key driver. We expect household service consumption to continue to grow at 10-15%, and retail sales growth to rebound to 4-6% from 3-4%. Investment Implications Chinese pro-consumption policy will likely benefit services and the automobile industry more than consumer staples. Meanwhile, commodity sectors may not benefit much. For now, we recommend overweighting the domestic consumer discretionary sector versus the Chinese CSI300 benchmark, a trade that we are initiating as of today (Chart 16, top panel). The sector's relative P/E and P/B valuations versus the benchmark also suggest its relative attractiveness (Chart 16, middle and bottom panels). Chart 16Overweight Consumer Discretionary Versus Benchmark China's pro-consumption stimulus also warrants the opposite position of what was one of our most successful trades over the past year (long investable staples / short investable discretionary), which we closed at the end of September for a profit of 48%.3 Within the domestic market, investors should go long consumer discretionary versus consumer staples, a trade that we are also initiating as of today (Chart 17). In addition to the cyclical tailwind from policy, relative valuation ratios suggest that the former is likely to outperform the later. Chart 17Go Long Consumer Discretionary Versus Consumer Staples Finally, our conclusion that policymakers are likely to succeed at stabilizing household consumption growth has implications beyond the relative performance of consumer stocks. Our outlook for a stable consumer over the coming year supports the argument that China will not push for a significant reacceleration in credit growth as a response to ongoing economic weakness, and argues in favor of our view that the "strike price" of the China put option has fallen. As we have noted in previous reports, we have no doubt that Chinese policymakers will eventually move to a maximum reflationary stance if they feel that the existing slowdown will lead to deep, threatening economic instability. But it will be impossible for investors and policymakers to make a judgement about the true odds of such an outcome without hard evidence of the magnitude of the tariff-induced export shock, which for now remains obscured by trade front-running (which may persist until the new year). This means that it is too soon to bottom fish deeply oversold Chinese financial assets (such as A-shares), and China-related plays more generally. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease refer to Table 1 in the China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here? ", dated September 13, and Table 1 in the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?", dated April 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "GICS Sector Changes: The Implications For China", dated September 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Neutral When we downgraded the S&P home improvement retail index (HIR) to neutral in September, the core of our thesis was that fixed residential investment as a percentage of GDP appeared to have peaked, up 50% from trough to the recent highs, whereas relative HIR performance is up 170% in the same time frame (top and second panels).1 Such euphoria, both among investors and the sell side community (bottom panel), leaves the index prone to fall, should a disappointment occur. Yesterday's results from index giant Home Depot reinforce this point. The company exceeded earnings expectations and raised their guidance (albeit for only one quarter) and the stock still underperformed the market. Considering the cautious guidance from management on the housing market, cost pressures from tariffs and a much-reduced price of lumber, it is of little wonder the company failed to live up to expectations. Net, while we remain constructive on the overall housing market, we continue to think the positivity is fully baked in to the S&P HIR index; stay neutral. Clients seeking housing exposure should consider the compellingly valued S&P homebuilding index that we are overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Indurated," dated September 24, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Despite a stellar Q3 earnings print, the S&P 500 had a terrible October as EPS continues to do the hard work in lifting the market (Chart 1). Chart 1EPS Doing The Heavy Lifting We bought the dip,1 consistent with our view of deploying longer term oriented capital were a 10% pullback to occur, given our view of no recession for the next 9 to 12 months.2 Financials and industrials should lead the next leg up and we believe a rotation into these beaten up stocks is going to materialize in the coming months. On the flip side, as volatility is making a comeback and the fed is on a path to lift rates to 3% by June of next year, fixed income proxies and consumer discretionary stocks should be avoided and a preference for large caps over small caps should be maintained (Chart 2). Chart 2The Return Of Vol May Spoil The Party Further, a valuation reset has taken hold, pushed by the surprising rise of the equity risk premium over the course of the past two years, representing a surge in negative sentiment from investors, despite the usually tight inverse correlation with the ISM, the core sentiment indicator of the manufacturing economy (Chart 3). Chart 3ERP And The Economy Are Inversely Correlated Nevertheless, while everyone is focusing on the euphoric above trend growth of the U.S. economy, a risk lurking beneath the surface is a domestic economic soft patch.3 We have likely stolen demand from the future and brought consumption forward especially with the stock market related fiscal easing that is front loaded to 2018 and less so for next year. On that front our Economic Impulse Indicator is warning that the U.S. economy cannot grow at such a pace, unless a bipartisan divide can be crossed to deliver enough firepower to rekindle GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Economic Impulse Yellow Flag Further, at least part of the blame for higher volatility rests with increasing trade uncertainty as the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive trade policy. Still, the evidence so far indicates that any trade weakness has been borne disproportionately by the rest of the world, to the U.S.' benefit (Charts 5 & 6). Chart 5U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Chart 6U.S. Has The Upper Hand We remain cognizant of a few key risks to our sanguine U.S. equity view. Principal among these is the rising U.S. dollar and its eventual infiltration into S&P 500 earnings, which has thus far been muted (Chart 7). Chart 7Watch The U.S. Dollar Further, a softening housing market bodes ill for U.S. economic growth. This is the first time since the GFC that residential investment's contribution to real GDP growth turned negative for three consecutive quarters (Chart 8). Chart 8Peak Housing Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Daily Insight, "Time To Bargain Hunt," dated October 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "The "FIT" Market," dated October 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Critical Reset," dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. S&P Financials (Overweight) Unchanged from its trajectory when we updated our cyclical indicators earlier this year, the S&P financials CMI has continued to accelerate. A historically low unemployment rate, combined with unusually resilient economic growth, underpin the surge in the CMI to its highest levels post-GFC. Further goosing the indicator, particularly with respect to the core banks sub-sector, is the recent rise in Treasury yields and a modest steepening in the yield curve both of which bode well for bank profits. However, financials have not responded to this exceptionally bullish data the way we expected, with worries over future loan growth fully offsetting the positive backdrop; financials have been falling throughout 2018. Still, inflation is threatening to rise (albeit gradually) and a selloff looms in the bond market. We highlighted earlier this fall that sectors who benefit from rising interest rates while serving as inflation hedges should outperform against this backdrop. Cue the return of S&P financials. As shown in Chart 10, the S&P financials index has shown a historically strong positive correlation with interest rates and inflation expectations and we expect the recent divergence to be closed via a catch-up in the former. As noted above, bearishness has reigned in 2018 and the result has been a steep fall in our valuation indicator (VI) to more than one standard deviation below normal while our technical indicator (TI) is deep in oversold territory. Chart 9S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 10Financials Are Trailing Rates S&P Industrials (Overweight) S&P industrials, much like their cyclical brethren S&P financials, benefit from higher interest rates and also serve as hedges against rising inflation. As we have noted in recent research, industrials are levered to the commodity cycle and thus represent an indirect inflation hedge. This hedge only becomes problematic when industrials stocks are unable to pass these rising commodity costs through to the consumer. As shown in Chart 12, pricing power is not yet an issue for these deep cyclicals. Given the positive macro backdrop for S&P industrials, the CMI has risen to new cyclical highs. Despite the forgoing, fears over trade wars and tariff-driven higher input costs, combined with slowing global demand for capital goods, have weighed on the index. The result is that S&P industrials remain deeply oversold on a technical basis while hovering around the neutral line from a valuation perspective. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. Chart 11S&P Industrials (Overweight) Cjart 12Resilient Industrials Pricing Power S&P Energy (Overweight, High-Conviction) Our energy CMI has moved horizontally since our last update of the cyclical macro indicators. However, this followed a snap-back recovery from the extremely depressed levels of 2016 and 2017. Nevertheless, the S&P energy index has moved sideways in line with the CMI. Energy stocks have significantly trailed crude oil prices since the latter broke out roughly a year ago (Chart 14). Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on the index, along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. There are high odds that a catch up phase looms, especially if BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view of a looming oil price spike materializes, and we reiterate our overweight recommendation. Our VI has been hovering at one standard deviation below fair value, while our TI trending into oversold territory. Chart 13S&P Energy (Overweight, High-Conviction) Chart 14Crude Prices Are Still Leading The Way S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Unchanged from our previous update, our consumer staples CMI has moved sideways, near a depressed level. However, share prices have finally been staging the recovery we have anticipated for several years on the back of firm consumer data, solid sector profitability and an overall cyclical rotation into staples. Despite the recent outperformance, both from an earnings and market perspective, consumer staples remain a deeply unloved sector. With respect to the former, earnings growth has outstripped the market's reaction by a wide margin. This is reflected on our VI which only recently rose from one standard deviation below fair value while our TI has only just begun a retreat from oversold territory. Staples' share of retail sales have arrested their steep declines from 2014-2016, which we view as a precursor to a rebound in weak industry sales (top panel, Chart 16). Exports of consumer staples have already been staging a comeback, despite the strengthening of the U.S. dollar which has historically presaged a relative earnings outperformance (middle panel, Chart 16). Considering the already-strong industry return on equity, any relative earnings gains should result in a valuation rerating (third panel, Chart 16). We reiterate our outperform rating on this cyclically defensive index. Chart 15S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 16Staples Are Making A Comback S&P Health Care (Neutral) In a mid-summer report , we upgraded the S&P pharma and biotech indexes to neutral which, considering their ~50% weight of the S&P health care index, took our overall recommendation on S&P health care to neutral. In the report, we proffered five reasons why the S&P pharma and biotech indexes were set for a rebound following their precipitous decline from 2016 onwards. These were: firming operating metrics, late cycle dynamics, likelihood of pricing power regulatory relief, the rising U.S. dollar and investor and analyst capitulation. Our timing has proved prescient as the S&P pharma index has been dramatically outperforming since the upgrade (top panel, Chart 18). With respect to pharma's operating metrics, our pharma productivity proxy (industrial production / employment) has been soaring, implying that earnings should surge (second panel, Chart 18). This seems particularly likely as the pace of improvement in drug shipments exceeds inventory growth by a fairly wide margin (third and bottom panels, Chart 18). Despite the upbeat backdrop for pharma, our health care CMI has declined modestly, though remains at a neutral level relative to history. Further, the pharma recovery has taken our VI from undervalued to a neutral position, a reading which is echoed by our TI. Chart 17S&P Health Care (Neutral) Chart 18Pharma Strength Is Lifting Health Care S&P Technology (Neutral) The stratospheric rise of tech profits, particularly in the past two years, have done most of the heavy lifting in pulling the S&P 500's profit margin ever higher (second panel, Chart 20) as well as pushing the index itself to new all-time highs in September. The San Francisco Fed's tech pulse index - an index of coincident indicators of technology sector activity - suggests more profit growth is in the offing (third panel, Chart 20), an intimation repeated by our technology CMI. However, we remain cognizant of three material risks to bullishness in tech. First, the tech sector garners 60% of its revenues from abroad and thus the appreciating U.S. dollar is a significant profit headwind (bottom panel, Chart 20). Second, a rising U.S. inflation backdrop along with the related looming selloff in the bond market should knock the wind out of the tech sector's sails. Third, leading indicators of emerging Asian demand are souring rapidly and were the trade war to re-escalate, EM economic data would retrench further. Lastly, neither our VI nor our TI send particularly compelling messages, as both are on the expensive side of neutral, despite the recent tech selloff. We sustain a barbell portfolio within the sector by recommending an overweight position in the late-cyclical and capex-driven technology hardware, storage & peripherals and software indexes while recommending an underweight position in the early-cyclical semi and semi equipment indexes. Chart 19S&P Technology (Neutral) Chart 20Tech Is King But Beware The U.S. Dollar S&P Materials (Neutral) Our materials CMI has recently plumbed new lows, a result of tightening monetary policy and the accompanying selloff in the bond market. As a reminder, the heavyweight chemicals component of the materials index typically sees earnings (and hence stock prices) underperform as real interest rates are moving higher. Despite this negative backdrop, chemicals fundamentals have remained surprisingly resilient. Pricing power has stayed in its multi-year uptrend (second panel, Chart 22) while productivity gains have accelerated, coinciding with an erosion of sell-side bearishness (third panel, Chart 22). Still, chemical production has clearly rolled over (bottom panel, Chart 22) which could lead to a quick reversal of the gains in our productivity proxy and a faltering in rebounding EPS estimates. Combined with BCA's view of rising real interest rates for the next year, this is enough to keep us on the fence. Our VI too shows a neutral reading, though our TI has declined steeply into an oversold position. Chart 21S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 22Fundamentals In Chemicals Have Improved S&P Utilities (Underweight) Our utilities CMI is at a 25-year low, driven down by the ongoing backup in interest rates. Such a move is predictable, given that utilities stocks are the closest to perfect fixed income proxies in the equity space. The S&P utilities sector has been enjoying a relative resurgence recently, driven by spiking natural gas prices and a supportive electricity demand backdrop from a roaring economy (ISM survey shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 24) and, more than anything, a general market retreat into safe haven assets. We recently trimmed our exposure to the sector from neutral to underweight because the S&P utilities sector was yielding 3.5% and the competing risk free asset was near 3.2% and investors would prefer to shed, at the margin, riskier high-yielding equities and park the proceeds in U.S. Treasurys (top panel, Chart 24). Since the run up in S&P utilities without a corresponding decline in Treasury yields, that spread has narrowed. Neither our VI nor our TI send compelling messages as both are in neutral territory, though our bearish thesis on utilities has less to do with their valuation relative to themselves or other equities than to bonds. Chart 23S&P Utilities (Underweight) Chart 24Utilities Should Still Be Avoided S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Our real estate CMI has reversed a recent recovery to set a new decade low; the only time it has shown a lower reading was during the Great Financial Crisis. Excluding the inflating of the property bubble in advance of the GFC, REITs have had a very tight inverse correlation with UST yields; the resulting downward pressure on the S&P REITs index is thus very predictable (top panel, Chart 26). Much like the S&P utilities sector in the previous section, and in the context of BCA's higher interest rate view, we continue to avoid this sector. The rate-driven downward pressure could be overlooked if all was well on an operating basis but this is not the case. Non-residential construction continues to rise (albeit more slowly than last year) in the face of higher borrowing rates (second panel, Chart 26). Further, demand looks slack as occupancy rates clearly crested at the beginning of last year (bottom panel, Chart 26). As well, on the residential front, multi-family housing starts remain elevated which should prove deflationary to rents. Our VI suggests that REITs are fairly valued, which is somewhat surprising given the negative backdrop, while our TI echoes a neutral view. Chart 25S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Chart 26A Bearish Backdrop For REITs S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) While we remain constructive on financials that benefit from higher rates, we continue to recommend investors avoid the consumer discretionary sector - the other early cyclical - that suffers when interest rates rise. The second panel of Chart 28 depicts this inverse correlation consumer discretionary equities have with interest rates, especially the fed funds rate. Most discretionary equites are levered off of floating rates and thus any increase in the fed funds rates gets reflected immediately in banks' prime lending rate. Also, most consumer debt is floating rate debt and thus tighter monetary conditions, at the margin, dampen consumer debt uptake and as a knock off on effect, weigh on discretionary consumer outlays. Not only are higher interest rates anchoring consumer discretionary stocks but rising energy prices are also dealing a blow to this sector. We show our Consumer Drag Indicator (CDI, comprising mortgage rates and energy prices) in the bottom panel of Chart 28. Historically, our CDI has been an excellent leading indicator of relative share price momentum. Currently, the message is clear: the sinking CDI signals that a bear market in consumer discretionary stocks has likely commenced. All of this is captured by our CMI which has been sinking since the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, our VI has broken out to nearly its highest level ever which we believe is largely a function of the decreasing diversification of the S&P consumer discretionary index as AMZN now represents more than 30% of its market value following the redistribution of the media indexed to the new S&P communication services index. Our TI has been falling from overbought territory recently and now sends a neutral message. Chart 27S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Chart 28Higher Rates Spell Declines For Consumer Discretionary S&P Communication Services (Underweight) As the newly-minted communication services has little more than a month of existence, we do not have adequate history to create a cyclical macro indicator. However, we have created Chart 29 below with a number of valuation indicators, though we caution that they too are less reliable than the other indicators presented in the preceding pages, owing to a dearth of history. Rather, we refer readers to our still-fresh initiation of coverage on the sector and look forward to being able to deliver something more substantive in the future. Chart 29S&P Communication Services (Underweight) Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Our size CMI has been hovering near the boom/bust line, as it has for most of the last two years. Despite the neutral CMI reading, we downgraded small caps earlier this year , and moved to a large cap preference, based on the diverging (and unsustainable) debt levels of small caps vs. their large cap peers (top and second panels, Chart 31). We expect the divergence in leverage and stock price to be rationalized as it usually has: via a fall in the latter. Considering the dramatic valuation gap that has opened between large and small caps, particularly on a Shiller P/E (or cyclically adjusted P/E, CAPE) basis (bottom panel, Chart 31), no space remains for any small cap profit mishaps. Our VI is trending towards small caps being undervalued, though without conviction while our TI is hovering in the neutral zone. Chart 30Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Chart 31Too Much Debt And High Valuations Should Hurt Small Caps

Underweight Marriott International, the hotel heavyweight of the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index reported results on Monday and the company's outlook was grim, calling for revenue growth below analyst forecasts on the back of higher room growth. This is confirmed by our leading data which shows capacity growth accelerating, leading us to be concerned that a recent resurgence in pricing power is primed for a collapse (second panel). Meanwhile, labor costs, which are a relatively greater part of overall industry costs, have visibly shifted higher (third panel). A top line squeeze combined with ballooning costs does not bode well for profit growth. Thus while the valuation multiple has significantly contracted (bottom panel), we remain afraid of falling into a value trap. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, WYN, NCLH.

Underweight While we remain constructive on financials that benefit from higher rates, we continue to recommend investors avoid the consumer discretionary sector - the other early cyclical - that suffers when interest rates rise. The second panel of our chart depicts this inverse correlation consumer discretionary equities have with interest rates, especially the fed funds rate. Most discretionary equites are levered off of floating rates and thus any increase in the fed funds rate gets reflected immediately in banks' prime lending rate. Also, most consumer debt is floating rate debt and thus tighter monetary conditions, at the margin, dampen consumer debt uptake and, as a knock-on effect, weigh on discretionary consumer outlays. Not only are higher interest rates anchoring consumer discretionary stocks but rising energy prices are also dealing a blow to this sector. Our Consumer Drag Indicator (CDI, comprising mortgage rates and energy prices) has been an excellent leading indicator of relative share price momentum and currently, the message is clear: the sinking CDI signals that a bear market in consumer discretionary stocks has likely commenced (bottom panel). Bottom Line: The path of least resistance is lower for the S&P consumer discretionary index, stay underweight. Please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.