Consumer Discretionary

The S&P advertising index broke down after a tough Q2 earnings season that saw caution, particularly from consumer goods clients holding back advertising budgets. However, management teams maintained their full-year guidance with expectations of a second half recovery; the analyst community concurred and earnings estimates barely budged (bottom panel). The market appears to have much less faith, driving valuation multiples to their lowest level since the GFC (second panel). We think this capitulation has created a significant buying opportunity. This mostly variable cost industry has a proven ability to downshift its cost base in line with a pullback in revenues; a steep decline in wages has been underway since the start of the year (third panel). This is driving a steep divergence between our vibrant industry margin proxy and muted EPS growth expectations (bottom panel). If management forecasts pan out, an EPS recovery should follow; more patient investors will be rewarded. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ADVT - IPG, OMC.

Special Report

Feature This is the second of three Special Reports on Electric Vehicles. In the first report published two weeks ago,1 we looked at the current costs of ownership of a typical mass-market EV, including and excluding subsidies, versus a similar Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV). Based on current manufacturing costs and battery capabilities, EVs carry a significantly higher total cost per mile, even including current subsidies. In this second report, we determine that EV-specific manufacturers (specifically, TSLA) do not hold any material manufacturing advantage over conventional auto manufacturers, and lack their financial resources and intellectual experiences managing mass production operations. In addition to the risks from increased mass-market competition, the EV market faces risks of today's EV subsidies morphing into tomorrow's EV taxes, retarding the exponential growth of adoption many EV enthusiasts are betting on today. In our forthcoming third report, we will look at the potential regional and global impacts EV adoption will have on energy, power, and commodity markets. Despite the current cost and utility disadvantages of EVs, we expect governments (especially Europe and China) will continue to provide subsidies (carrots) and mandates (sticks) to further the adoption of EVs for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions and tailpipe particulate pollution. The longer-term hope is that by forcing the EV market to expand, meaningful technological breakthroughs on batteries will eventually enable EVs to exceed ICEVs on a cost and utility basis. In this report, we conclude that: EV-specific manufacturers (TSLA) will face increasingly stiff competition from conventional auto manufacturers, who may enjoy lower manufacturing, distribution, and service costs and have ICEV profits to subsidize near-term EV losses. Access to chargers will be a growing problem for widespread EV adoption, especially for EVs to penetrate apartment-dwellers. Government EV subsidies will become fiscally difficult to continue as adoption increases and gasoline taxes are lost (especially in Europe). The small amount of carbon saved by EVs does not justify the subsidies, further increasing the risk subsidies are reduced or allowed to phase out (especially in the U.S.). EVs: Winners And Losers Investor interest in EVs tends to focus on the only publicly traded play in the space, Tesla Motors (TSLA, Q). Tesla has an enthusiastic fan base, which seems to extend well beyond the rather modest number of people who actually own the vehicles (Chart 1). That enthusiasm is probably somewhat responsible for favorable media coverage and the company's speculatively-high market cap (Chart 2), which is currently on a par with General Motors (GM, N), despite the fact that Tesla has never made a profit. (Chart 3 and Chart 4).When we read media and analyst coverage of Tesla, we often wonder if those writing the articles know anything about automobiles besides how to drive them. An example is this Forbes article regarding Tesla as uniquely visionary, building up a big lead on its sleepy competition. Chart 1Tesla's EV Sales Are Modest Chart 2Tesla's Market Cap Surpasses GM's Chart 3Tesla: Financial Performance Chart 4GM: Financial Performance "[Manufacturer] complacency about electric vehicle (EV) technology is worse than perceived. Despite more talk of developing EVs for mass-market adoption, a lack of real action and strategic commitments betray their underlying conviction, with no clear pathway to high-volume EV production before the mid-2020s"2 Setting aside for a moment the question as to whether Tesla, as a serial destroyer of capital (to date), will have access to the financial resources needed to become itself a "high-volume" producer of EVs, most commentators ignore the fact that building an EV is far less complicated than building an ICEV, and the conventional car companies are likely to have cost advantages (not to mention the benefits of decades of experience with mass production) once they do commit to the EV. What's The Difference Between An EV And An ICEV? In a general sense, an automobile consists of two main components: the drivetrain and the rest of the vehicle. What differentiates an EV from an ICEV is almost entirely the drivetrain and battery pack. Although the shape and weight of the battery pack requires some alteration to the body frame of the vehicle, and many EVs include regenerative brakes, substantially everything else in the rest of the EV is very similar. Drivetrain The drivetrain of an ICEV is where the vast majority of precision parts are located. A typical ICEV has hundreds of precision parts and must be manufactured and assembled to exact tolerances in order to last beyond the typically expected 100,000+ mile trouble-free life. Engines are also subject to extremes in temperatures ranging from -40°C (-40°F) at start up in a cold winter to close to 90°C (190°F) under operation. Transmissions are similarly complicated. In contrast, the drivetrain of an EV is extremely simple, consisting essentially of an electric motor and a transmission, which is also greatly simplified due to the nature of the torque curve of electric motors (Illustration 1). Illustration 1Key Components Of A Bolt EV Drive Unit Unlike an ICEV which has numerous reciprocating parts (which are hard to engineer), all parts of an EV drivetrain rotate (which are much easier to engineer). Similarly, while there are numerous parts on an ICEV which require precision machining, friction bearings, and pressurized lubrication and cooling, analogous parts on an EV drivetrain are much fewer in number, can use ball bearings, and are lubricated for life. The fact that an EV drivetrain does not require pressurized lubrication and has a much simpler cooling system further simplifies the design and reduces the number of parts. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the drivetrain of an EV has an order of magnitude fewer parts than an ICEV of similar size. Any automotive company capable of designing and manufacturing an ICEV drivetrain should be capable of producing an EV drivetrain or outsourcing one if necessary. Battery Pack And Electronics Similarly, the battery pack of an EV is a mechanically simple thing to make. Battery cells are assembled into modules and the modules are assembled into the final battery pack (Illustration 2). The major challenge and potential differentiator is in the battery cells, which are effectively commodities (see below), and not in the manufacture or design of the battery pack. EV battery packs can produce a lot of heat when running or charging, and the battery packs tend to have simple cooling systems which vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.3 Illustration 2Battery Packs Are Battery Cells Assembled In Groups An EV requires a significant amount of power electronics for the control of the motor, charging, and so on. Such power systems have been designed and made for decades, and, besides some unusual requirements due to the need to operate at extreme temperatures, there is no great technical challenge inherent in such systems. Indeed, while the operating life of an ICEV is typically on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 hours (100,000-200,000 miles), power electronics are often designed to operate for 100,000 hours or more. The drivetrain will not be the limiting factor on the longevity of an EV. Most likely, the cost of an EV's drivetrain (excluding the battery pack) and typical features such as regenerative brakes, a more robust suspension (due to the greater weight of the EV on account of the heavy battery), and accommodation for the battery pack, is somewhat less than that of an equivalent ICEV. Although the EV drivetrain is simpler to build, high-output electric motors and related control electronics are not cheap to manufacture due to the requirement for materials such as copper and exotic alloys. The reason for the substantially higher cost of EVs is the battery pack. And The Winners Are ... Despite investor enthusiasm for the "technological revolution" EVs represent, it is actually far more complicated and technologically difficult to design and manufacture an ICEV than an EV. The EV has far fewer precision-made parts, and few such components are truly proprietary. Electric motors have been made for over a century, and their design and manufacture are not complicated - at least when compared to the vastly more complicated and precision-made ICEV. Similarly, an EV transmission is significantly simpler than the transmissions found in all ICEVs. We conclude that the design and manufacture of an EV drivetrain should be simple for a company accustomed to making ICEVs. Even the power and charging electronics are similar to the sorts of things electrical engineers have been making for a long time. Similarly, the assembly of a battery pack from commodity cells should be a relatively straightforward process for any company used to volume manufacturing. As we predicted, battery production appears to be scaling up, and sourcing commodity batteries should not be difficult if demand for EVs emerges as some predict. Although we have largely skipped over a discussion of the non-drivetrain components of an automobile, traditional manufacturers have been manufacturing these for a very long time and are capable of producing them at a reasonable cost and in vast numbers. The major difference between the non-drivetrain components of an EV and ICEV is accommodation for the shape and weight of the battery pack, which, again, should not be a substantial engineering challenge for any large auto manufacturer. For many years, auto manufacturers have developed "platforms" that allow them to mass produce standardized components that are used on what are apparently very different vehicles. Most likely, traditional vendors will produce a platform which can be used for both ICEVs and EVs, meaning that they can reuse parts produced for their ICEVs in EVs, saving money in terms of design, tooling, and volume manufacturing. Obviously, an EV-only vendor does not have that option. Finally, large automobile manufacturers have a global distribution channel as well as nearly omnipresent parts and service networks, including parts and service available from an assortment of third party providers. Developing this support system is particularly important for EVs to enter the mainstream: it is false to assume the simpler drivetrain of an EV will mean the vehicles never need repairs, as there are many failure modes. Beyond wealthy early-adopting EV enthusiasts who purchase EVs as a second or third auto, the typical consumer owns only a single vehicle, making prompt and affordable repairs critical to the utility of a mass-market vehicle, regardless of whether that vehicle is an EV or an ICEV. In summary, we conclude that there is no particular engineering challenge for existing large automakers to enter and dominate the EV business (Tables 1 and 2). Most likely, profit margins on EVs will be low or negative for some time (see Part 1), and large vendors will be in a position to use their profitable ICEV sales to subsidize their market share in the EV business. The main competitive uncertainty for EV manufacturing is how much battery performance and price can be improved from current levels. The battery cells themselves are rather commoditized, making it difficult for any single auto company to develop a substantial lead on the field in battery pack performance. Table 1Conventional Auto Manufacturers Are Ramping Up EV Penetration Table 2TSLA Will Lose Market Share As Mass-Market Competition Expands Rate Of Adoption As we showed in Part 1, costs of ownership of EVs are quite high compared to ICEVs over the EV's assumed 100,000 mile life. Although we believe accelerated depreciation of the EV will significantly increase the differential, most consumers are unaware of that likelihood. Governments and EV manufacturers heavily subsidize EVs; without such subsidies, consumers' costs of ownership would be materially higher. If EVs become a significant share of the vehicle market, such subsidies will have to be reduced, and high taxes would have to be applied to either the vehicle or the fuel (electricity) to make up for the loss of massive government revenues from today's gasoline taxes. The most expensive item in an EV is the battery pack (Chart 5). It appears to be an article of faith among EV advocates that existing batteries will somehow see cost reductions to below their current materials costs, and/or that revolutionary battery technology will emerge in (rapid) due course. It is interesting to speculate as to what might occur in the future. However, we prefer to be data driven. After all, why confine speculation on technological advancements only to things battery-related? Rapid technological advancements in oil production have cut gasoline prices dramatically in the past few years, while continued improvements of conventional engines can raise fuel efficiency and dramatically lower pollution/CO2 emissions of ICEVs, stiffening the competition against the rise of EVs. Chart 5As The Battery Pack Increases In Size,##BR##It Commands A Larger Share Of The Total Cost Of The EV Besides cost, there are numerous compromises associated with an EV which may temper adoption. These include the limited range and slow refueling times, which are important if the owner regularly--or even occasionally--makes long trips; degraded performance in temperature extremes, and so on. An important consideration for many buyers is the size of the car: a soccer mom is not likely to find a Bolt a suitable replacement for a minivan. Larger EVs require disproportionally larger batteries: the Tesla Model S 85 has a 40% larger battery but only a 10% greater range compared to the Bolt. EVs More Likely To Be Popular In The EU Than In North America Europeans tend to drive fewer kilometers and take fewer long trips than North Americans. The average distance traveled by car is 14,000 km4 (8,700 miles) in Europe compared to 20,000 km (12,000 miles) in the U.S., so a European would likely get a few more years out an EV - though not many more kilometers. Similarly, most of the population of Europe lives in areas where temperature extremes are less severe than they are in certain areas of the U.S. and Canada, meaning some of the compromises associated with operating an EV would be less significant. Europe has a much higher population density than the U.S., making particulate pollution a larger issue, and Europeans have more concerns regarding climate change. Much higher gasoline taxes and narrow roads in Europe also incentivize drivers to own smaller vehicles, similar to the Bolt. Due to these factors and the "carrot and stick" approach of subsidies and mandates favored by some EU countries, we conclude EVs are likely to be much more popular in the EU than in the U.S. (Chart 6) Chart 6European EV Sales Are Outpacing U.S. Sales Regardless, even EV adoption in the EU is bound to be constrained by: Higher costs of EVs compared to ICEVs; Driving habits which may preclude ownership by some people; Access to both private and public chargers; Long lives of ICEVs; and Availability of EVs for purchase. In Part 1 of our EV analysis, we break down the substantially higher cost of ownership for an EV compared to an ICEV. Driving habits boil down to the question of standard deviation: although the average EU driver may travel about 70 km (43 miles) per work day, a sizeable minority may travel much more than that or regularly make round trips beyond the range of their EVs. Alternatively, some may want to pull a trailer (caravan), etc... These drivers would be less likely to purchase an EV except perhaps as a second vehicle. Access to private chargers depends on the nature of the buyer's housing: somebody living in a house with a driveway can pay to have a slow charger installed, whereby somebody who relies on street parking or a nearby parking lot does not have that option. Due to the far greater population density of Europe, access to public chargers may be more of a constraint in the EU than in the U.S. In Part 1, we explained why we believe that ICEVs will outlast EVs for the foreseeable future due to degradation inherent with all battery technologies. There may be a dramatic breakthrough in battery technology, but batteries have numerous parameters which must be acceptable before they can be used in an EV. Most likely, an EV will be scrapped rather than have its battery replaced after about 160,000 km, whereas many ICEVs are routinely kept on the road for double that range. Consumers will eventually realize this and incorporate accelerated depreciation into their costs of ownership calculation. Not only that, but many will choose to keep their ICEVs on the road as long as possible simply to save the expense of purchasing a new vehicle, especially if the inherent limitations of EVs mean they are not suitable for that particular driver. Despite still-generous government subsidies, GM is believed to lose $9,000 for every Bolt it sells. Similarly, the CEO of Fiat lamented some time ago the company was losing $14,000 for every Fiat 500 EV it sold,5 and Tesla loses money despite selling into a premium segment. There is no reason to believe any EV vendor will actually make money on EVs for many years. After all, they all have the same problems with respect to the cost of batteries. We believe auto vendors are likely to limit sales of EVs through rationing or high prices in order to limit their own losses. EVs Are Unlikely To Replace All ICEVs The compromises/deficiencies associated with EVs mean that they will not be suitable for many consumers unless a massive battery breakthrough is achieved. The limited range is an obvious issue: a consumer might, for example, travel an average of 12,000 miles (20,000 km) per year but may regularly take a drive of a few hundred miles, which would require one or more recharging stops. It is all well and good to speak of rapid charging, but even this would quickly lose its allure after long trips, especially given the issues noted in "EVs Will Require a Sizeable Charging Infrastructure" below. Almost 3 million pickup trucks are sold in the U.S. every year, out of 17.5 million vehicle sales. Light trucks, including SUVs and Crossovers, make up another 10.5 million sales. Whether or not the trucks are actually used for hauling, the battery size, and therefore cost of ownership, would have to be particularly large for a pickup truck. A 120 kWh battery would add about 1,600 pounds (720 kg) to the vehicle, which is about half the cargo capacity of a Ford F-150 full size pickup truck. Many pickup trucks have significantly oversized engines in order to tow heavy loads. It is questionable an EV pickup truck would have the range or towing capacity required by many buyers. EVs Will Require A Sizeable Charging Infrastructure First-time EV owners will either have to invest in a charging station for their homes or somehow get access to one. Charging stations come in different types. In the case of the Bolt, a typical home charger delivers 4 miles (6.5 km) of range/hour of charge or about 32 miles (52 km) of range for 8 hours. What GM calls "Fast Charging" delivers almost a full charge over 8 hours. What GM refers to as "Super Fast Charging", or true fast charging, delivers 90 miles (145 km) of range in 30 minutes or 160 miles (258 km) in 1 hour, but is only available in public locations6 and requires a special option on the vehicle. "Super Fast Charging" means that a customer planning a trip of over 238 miles will have to plan for at least one 30 minute stop for every 90 miles of additional travel. Of course, this is when the vehicle is new and under ideal conditions without any temperature extremes, etc. An older EV may require a 30 minute stop after the first 150 miles and a subsequent 30 minute stop for every hour of travel (60-70 miles) after that. Private Chargers Unless they are satisfied with multi-day charging, new EV buyers have to pay an electrician to install a high current charger outlet which is accessible to the vehicle. Not all homes have ample parking, nor is it easy to install a high current port accessible to a vehicle in all homes. A typical high current charging port required for a "slow charger" requires a 40, 50, or 60 amp outlet. Many homes have only a 100 amp service, which may pose issues if the vehicle is charging and, for example, an air conditioner starts up. Similarly, apartment/condo dwellers with access to parking may have access to EV chargers provided by the building, though the electric service to the building/parking lot may require upgrading in the event a significant number of owners buy EVs. Publicly Available Chargers The largest challenge might be for would-be EV buyers who park on the street, as is fairly common in many urban areas. The cost of installing EV chargers is not trivial, and it is hard to believe cities will accept the costs of installing a large number of chargers to ensure EV owners can charge their vehicles. This doesn't even account for the fact that somebody has to pay for the electricity, and street-side chargers are both expensive and dangerous, require maintenance and snow removal, and may be subject to vandalism. Additionally, some parking lots feature a couple of EV chargers, and most EV vendors provide access to a rather sparse assortment of chargers. On the surface, a 6:1 ratio of global EVs to publicly available chargers may not appear to be as much of a concern, however, the ratio is about 16:1 for slow chargers and 105:1 for fast chargers in the U.S., and 6:1 and 68:1 in the EU, respectively (Charts 7 and 8). Recall that the Bolt's "Fast charger" only supplies about 25 miles of range for every hour of charging, so public units would only be useful as a "top-up". Public chargers will have to become far more common as the number of EVs increases or owners risk planning a trip which assumes access to a charger only to discover the unit is in use and the EV owner who is using it is off shopping. Chart 7Globally, There Is One Public Charger ##br##Per Six EVs Chart 8Fast Chargers Are Much More Scarce ##br##Than Slow Chargers Fast chargers are of particular significance in the event an EV owner wishes to make a trip in excess of the vehicle's fully-charged range. "Fast charge" times - whether with a Bolt or any other EV - assume a charging station is available when the EV arrives. This may be the case on typical days, but less likely during holiday or vacation season: "A video shot yesterday at the Supercharger in Barstow, CA shows a line at the station of Teslas waiting to juice up. The driver who shot the video was number 21 in the queue, and with wait times upwards of two hours just to get to the charger, Tesla's going to have some unhappy customers on its hands."7 One can only imagine how frustrated the owner of an aged Bolt would be if they had to wait 2 hours every 60 miles. Impact Of EV Adoption On Pollution And Greenhouse Gas Emissions The production and operation of any product leaves an environmental impact in terms of pollution and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The environmental impact associated with vehicles arises from the production of the commodities used to make the components, the manufacture of the vehicle components, the assembly of the vehicle itself, and the operation of the vehicle. EVs are not "zero emission vehicles" in any meaningful sense. It is true that they do not discharge particulate or CO2 emissions from the tailpipe, but emissions arise from the production of the vehicle platform, the battery pack, and the production of electricity used to charge the battery. The fuel mix of power generation in a particular region has a significant impact on the GHG emissions associated with electric power: countries with significant hydroelectric or nuclear power sources will have lower GHG emissions per kW than those which burn coal, oil, or natural gas. Similarly, the GHG emissions associated with the manufacture of a vehicle and its components depend on the power mix in the country in which those components are manufactured. As previously noted, an EV is very similar to an ICEV except for the drivetrain and battery. The EV's drivetrain is simpler than an ICEV's, but total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing an EV and equivalent ICEV are estimated to be quite similar, excluding the battery pack. GHG emissions associated with the manufacture and recycling of a battery pack are quite hard to pin down. The best and most recent example we found comes from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, and notes: "Based on our review, greenhouse gas emissions of 150-200 kg CO2-eq/kWh battery looks to correspond to the greenhouse gas burden of current battery production."8 To put things in perspective, the GHG burden associated with the lifecycle of a 60 kWh Bolt battery pack is between 9,000 and 12,000 kg, or 9 to 12 metric tons. Because the battery pack is likely larger than advertised to limit degradation, the actual figure is probably at least 20% more, or 10.8 to 14.4 metric tons. At just 9 metric tons, assuming a 160,000 km life, the GHG burden associated manufacture and recycling of a Bolt battery pack is about 56 g CO2/km, and at 14.4 metric tons the burden is about 88 g CO2/km. To be as favorable as possible to the Bolt's potential to reduce GHG emissions, we have used the lower bound of the estimated CO2 burden of the Bolt's 60 kWh battery, 9 metric tons, in our GHG analysis in Table 3. The actual CO2 burden could be as much as 5.4 metric tons more. Note that the above calculations do not include the GHG emissions associated with recharging the battery. Recall that in Part 1, we estimated the power consumption associated with a Bolt operating for 160,000 km would be about 31,250 kWh, or ~0.20 kWh/km (0.3125 kWh/mile). The GHG burden of recharging the battery varies considerably depending on the regional mix of power generation. As shown in Table 3: Table 3EVs Will Reduce Carbon Emissions Only If Power Grid Is Green In France, where power is primarily generated via carbon-free nuclear energy, recharging the Bolt will release just 2 metric tons of CO2 during its 160,000KM life (11g/km). In coal-heavy Germany (40+% coal), recharging the Bolt will generate ~18 metric tons of CO2 (109g/km), slightly more carbon than the fuel-efficient gasoline-powered ICEV Opel Astra (104g/km). In the U.S., with the current diversified mix of power generated by natural gas (34%), coal (30%), nuclear (20%), hydro (7%), wind (6%) and solar (1%), CO2 emissions from recharging the Bolt would be only 13 metric tons (83g/km), 60% lower than the 32 tons of CO2 emitted by the ICEV Chevy Sonic. As shown, despite the higher CO2 footprint associated with manufacturing the EV's battery pack, an EV may indeed lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions in a region where electricity generation is already low-carbon; however, the EV actually emits more CO2 in Germany, a coal-heavy country (40% coal) with fuel-efficient ICEVs. This implies EVs would create even greater CO2 increases in countries like China or India, which both generate over 70% of power from coal. The carbon intensity of U.S. power generation has been reduced by roughly 23% over the past decade due to the increased displacement of coal with natural gas (~70% of the carbon reduction) and renewables. As the U.S. and other countries continue to de-carbonize their power grids, the emissions to recharge EVs will further decline. However, even where reductions are achieved, the lifecycle emissions of the EV is nothing close to what is implied by the term "Zero Emission Vehicle." Using our generous assumptions for the carbon footprint of the EV's battery, we calculate the approximate lifecycle CO2 reductions for an EV are ~9 metric tons in the U.S., and ~6 metric tons in France. In Germany, the EV actually emits ~10 metric tons more CO2 than a comparable ICEV. EVs in coal-heavy China and India would also be expected to emit more lifecycle CO2 than a fuel-efficient ICEV. Even if power generation were 100% carbon-free in the EU and in the U.S., the CO2 savings would be only 23 tons per vehicle in the U.S and 8 tons per vehicle in the EU (lower savings in the EU due to the higher fuel efficiency of the European ICEV). One area where the EV is bound to come out ahead is in reducing particulates, NOx, and other non-GHG related pollutants, at least in the areas where the vehicles are operated, which provides cleaner air in highly populated areas. EV Subsidies Are Not Justified By Carbon Emissions In order to simplify the cost/benefit debate over legislation and regulation aimed at reducing carbon emissions, the U.S. EPA and other various U.S. agencies have calculated/estimated a "Social Cost of Carbon," i.e., the estimated economic damage created by emitting a ton of CO2 in a given year.9 In the base case, the social cost of carbon was pegged at $36/metric ton in 2015, with expectations that it would rise to $50/metric ton in 2030 and $69/metric ton in 2050 as climate issues became more severe. By comparison, the "market value" for a ton of CO2 on traded exchanges in California and in the E.U. is between $5-$15/ton. Assuming an average value of $50/metric ton, the current CO2 savings of the EV will yield about an economic benefit per vehicle of ~$450 in the U.S, and ~$300 benefit in France. In Germany, where CO2 emissions for the EV are higher than the ICEV, it adds another ~$500 to the economic cost of the EV. At a value of $50/ton, the value of CO2 savings in each region are only ~4-5% of the value of the public subsidies of $7,200-$9,500/vehicle in the U.S. and France, and only 1-2% of the total ~$22,000-$27,000 total extra societal costs of the vehicles (Table 4). In other words, the subsidies alone cost 20x more than the economic benefit of the CO2 reductions, while the total extra costs of the EV are 55-75x higher than the economic value of the CO2 reductions. Germany is offering subsidies for vehicles that increase CO2 emissions. Table 4EV Carbon Reductions Are Way Too Expensive Of course, industry may be able to lower emissions associated with battery manufacturing and recycling, and power generation may continue to be de-carbonized as well, leading to lower GHG emissions associated with EVs in the future. However, the same might be said regarding continuing improvements in ICEVs as well. For example: If U.S. drivers changed preferences to drive European-style cars with smaller engines and greater fuel efficiency (that is, wider adoption of technology that already exists today), that alone could save ~17 tons of carbon per vehicle in the U.S., dwarfing the ~10 tons of carbon savings achieved by owning an EV, at a much lower economic cost. Again, one area where the EV is bound to come out ahead is in reducing particulates, NOx, and other non-GHG related pollutants, at least in the areas where the vehicles are operated, which provides cleaner air in highly populated areas. This reduction/transfer of pollution from the city center to the power generation stations has a real health/quality of life value that we have not included in the above analysis, as the overwhelming amount of EV interest we read and receive is specifically based on EVs' (overestimated) ability to reduce global carbon emissions.10 Bottom Line: TSLA does not have an insurmountable technological lead on conventional car producers in the mass-production EV market, and is likely to lose market share to larger competitors that have better costs, infrastructure, and experience supporting a global fleet of mass-produced vehicles. Near-term adoption of EVs will be forced higher by governmental carrot and stick incentives, but these will become too expensive to continue as EVs' market share increases. Today's EV subsidies will turn into tomorrow's EV taxes as gasoline taxes are diminished, weighing on the longer-term arc of commonly-forecasted EV adoption. Finally, EVs do not necessarily reduce CO2 emissions, and when they do, the value of those CO2 reductions is exceedingly small compared to the added cost of the vehicles to producers, consumers, and government coffers. A modest ICEV only emits ~$2,000 worth of CO2 over 100,000 miles in the first place, elucidating how difficult it will be for an EV to reduce GHG emissions on a cost-competitive basis. For mass-market EVs to successfully displace ICEVs in the eyes of cost-conscious consumers and taxpayers, EV battery technology needs to improve massively, not incrementally. The batteries need to provide multiples of today's energy storage capacity with lower weight, lower cost, faster recharge abilities, and a lower carbon footprint. Furthermore, since an EV's battery recharging is only as green as the power source behind it, continued (expensive) greening and expansion of global power generation would also be necessary for EVs to demonstrate a positive impact on GHG emissions, as will be discussed more in Part 3 of this report series. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Michael Commisso, Research Analyst michaelc@bcaresearch.com Johanna El-Hayek, Research Assistant johannah@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "Electric Vehicles Part 1: Costs of Ownership", dated August 1, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2017/06/29/tesla-focus-means-victory-versus-complacent-mainstream-in-electric-car-market-report/#4d0d4684577e 3 http://www.hybridcars.com/2017-chevy-bolt-battery-cooling-and-gearbox-details/ 4 http://www.acea.be/publications/article/cars-trucks-and-the-environment 5 http://jalopnik.com/sergio-marchionne-doesnt-want-you-to-buy-a-fiat-500e-1579578914 6 https://www.chevyevlife.com/bolt-ev-charging-guide 7 http://bgr.com/2016/12/27/tesla-supercharger-wait-times-lines-california/ 8 http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046218976/C243+The+life+cycle+energy+consumption+and+CO2+emissions+from+lithium+ion+batteries+.pdf (page 42) 9 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf 10 It is worth pointing out that if the incentive structure is such that entrepreneurs are rewarded for finding ways to economically reduce carbon emissions in ICEVs in a way that is cost-competitive with EVs, the principal advantage of EVs would be challenged. There is no ironclad rule of physics we are aware of that precludes such a development. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Overweight Amidst a slew of weak retail earnings reports in Q2, HD surprised with a positive result as it benefited from a surge in remodeling activity. Existing home prices are pushing against highs, which benefits home improvement retailers (HIR) in two ways. First, high prices drive a shift toward renovation versus buying a new home as the latter becomes relatively more expensive. Second, existing owners can use their higher home equity as a source of funds for a renovation. Net, existing home prices and HIR sales move in lockstep (second panel). At the same time as sales are pressing upward, the HIRs are delivering productivity gains (third panel). This should amplify the operating leverage of a surge in same-store sales, driving margins higher. Relative valuations are lagging the solid operating performance (bottom panel). In fact, HIR stocks have not been this cheap since the GFC. This looks like an excellent buying opportunity; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Leisure product stocks have taken a beating this summer to nearly their lowest level since the GFC (top panel). The slide followed a tough Q2 earnings season that saw the industry miss top line and margin estimates. Unsurprisingly, forward earnings estimates have fallen off a cliff (second panel). We think there is cause to remain optimistic. Consumer spending on toys and games has been firmly in expansion mode since the '09 trough and industry sales have been growing steadily for the past four years (third panel). The result has been leisure gaining a growing slice of the retail pie (fourth panel). The collapse in forward earnings has caused a valuation spike (bottom panel). If higher outlays translate into increasing EPS as we expect, then a playable recovery rally is likely, similar to early 2015. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5LEPR - MAT, HAS.

Special Report

Feature This is the first of two Special Reports on Electric Vehicles. In this report, we will look at the current costs of ownership of a typical mass-market EV, including and excluding subsidies, versus a similar Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV). Based on current manufacturing costs and battery capabilities, EVs carry a significantly higher total cost per mile, even including current subsidies. Electric Vehicles have galvanized the interest of consumers, investors, and governments for several years now. We touched on the subject in our Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", published September 20, 2016, where we noted that there were many misconceptions regarding batteries in general and EV batteries in particular. Despite the current cost and utility disadvantages of EVs, we expect governments (especially Europe and China) will continue to provide subsidies (carrots) and mandates (sticks) to further the adoption of EVs for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions and tailpipe particulate pollution. The longer-term hope is that by forcing the EV market to expand, meaningful technological breakthroughs on batteries will eventually enable EVs to exceed ICEVs on a cost and utility basis. In our second report, we will look at the potential issues associated with adoption of EVs and the investment implications for the auto industry and energy markets. Cost Comparison: EV Vs. ICEV We estimated the difference in cost of ownership of a Chevy Bolt EV (known as the Opel Ampera-e in Europe) and two equivalent Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs), the Chevy Sonic and the Opel Astra, over 160,000 km or 100,000 miles (Table 1). Depreciation is an important consideration in cost of ownership, and we expect EVs to depreciate much more rapidly than ICEVs, a cost that many consumers either ignore or simply fail to incorporate into their purchase decisions. Table 1Comparison Of Costs Of Ownership Between EV And ICEV Automobiles There are many unknowns, such as actual selling price, actual manufacturing cost, etc., in this exercise which may add or subtract a thousand dollars or more to the net results. Under realistic assumptions, those probably cancel out. In summary, EVs are more expensive than ICEVs: Excluding subsidies, the net difference is about $16,100 in the U.S., $18,500 in Germany, and $13,200 in France. After subsidies, the difference is about $6,600 in New York State, $13,900 in Germany, and $6,000 in France. Even if electricity were free, after subsidies, the difference in cost of ownership in the U.S. (NY) would be $3,400, $3,200 in Germany, and $600 in France. The U.S. Federal subsidy of $7,500 is designed to be phased out once a manufacturer sells 200,000 vehicles, which would happen quickly if EVs are to become main stream. Therefore, the total premium cost of ownership of an EV over a comparable ICEV in the U.S. should be assumed to be $16,100 less state subsidy, if any. European subsidies are probably more politically acceptable, even though they will become quite costly if EV sales accelerate as many predict. GM is believed to be losing $9,000 with every Bolt it sells. If so, and if GM changed its pricing to deliver the company's average Gross Margin of around 13%, assuming it currently allows a 10% markup by dealers and discounts the vehicle by 10%, the price of the car would need to be raised to around $48,300 from its current MSRP of $37,500. This would increase the cost of ownership by nearly $11,000 (Table 2), or $0.11 per mile. To make the Bolt's ownership costs - after subsidies - competitive with GM's Opel Astra in France, the Bolt's manufacturing costs would need to be cut by about $14,750 or 34%. Table 2Comparison Of Costs Of Ownership Between EV And ICEV Automobiles, ##br##If GM Sold Bolt At Average Corporate Profitability Note that although we have focused on the Bolt, the common denominator for all EVs is the cost of batteries, which are a commodity. As such, our estimates probably hold for similarly sized vehicles and the differential costs of ownership are likely larger for larger EVs. As we will show in Part 2, integrated auto manufacturers probably have a significant cost advantage over "pure play" EV vendors such as Tesla, because outside of the drive train, they are able to use many of the same components they manufacture for ICEVs. Batteries: A Review All assumptions regarding EV technology are predicated on continued improvements in the cost, durability, and performance of batteries. The leading battery technology for EVs is a Lithium Ion technology (Illustration 1), and there really are no proven near-term alternatives worth discussing. Illustration 1Lithium Ion Technology In our Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", we concluded that: Although the consensus view is that EV battery prices have experienced rapid (8 - 14% per annum) price declines over the past few years, we found no evidence to support that position; Battery durability is at least as important as price, and batteries will not likely last much more than 100,000 miles (160,000 km); Planned expansion of EV battery manufacturing capacity may significantly exceed demand by 2020, resulting in the collapse of EV battery prices and heavy losses for battery manufacturers. We continue to stand by those conclusions, and would like to stress that recent stories such as "China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries"1 and "10 Battery Gigafactories Are Now in the Works and Elon Musk May Add 4 More"2 are more or less consistent with our comment that "even though there is no reason to expect significant price improvements due to technological shifts, battery prices might drop due to oversupply - at least as long as manufacturers are willing to sell batteries at a loss."3 It seems likely now that China may follow the path it took to the solar industry and mass produce batteries, likely at a loss. The exact motivation for them to do so is uncertain, but this would be moot from the perspective of a western auto manufacturer or consumer. Finally A Reliable Battery Price Data Point! As we will demonstrate in Part 2 of our EV report, excluding the cost of the battery, it should be slightly cheaper to manufacture an EV than a similar ICEV. The EV drive train is much simpler and should be less expensive than that of an ICEV (Illustration 2), offset slightly by the need for a somewhat more robust chassis and suspension due to the weight of the battery, the requirement for electric powered air conditioning, and regenerative braking. Illustration 2Key Components Of A Bolt EV Drive Unit The battery is the most expensive part of an EV and responsible for the higher vehicle prices, and that is likely to remain the case even as manufacturing efficiencies allow EV prices to decline. Unfortunately, the cost of EV batteries is subject to much more speculation than should be the case: many articles cite speculative forecasts, projections, anecdotes, and so on, but without hard data backing them up. Fortunately, we finally have a data point: GM lists the cost of the Bolt EV battery pack as $15,734 for a 60 kWh unit, or $262/kWh.4 Some reports claim the battery cells cost $145/kWh,5 however, battery cells are not the same thing as a battery pack, which is a fully assembled unit complete with wiring, electronics, and a cooling system. Peer reviewed research suggests the cost of the battery pack is about 50% greater than the cost of the battery cells,6 however, we note the same article suggests that ratio will remain the same as battery prices drop. This is unlikely as there is no reason to believe the largely mechanical battery pack will decline proportionately any more than the cost of an engine or transmission will decline. Most likely, the battery pack assembly, excluding the cells, will decline only slightly. EV vendors likely oversize their battery pack in order to limit stress on the batteries (Illustration 3). In other words, the actual capacity of the battery is likely somewhat larger than the rated or useable capacity. If GM is indeed paying $145/kWh for its cells and its pack costs are 50% more than its cell costs and it is oversizing its pack by 20%, the cost of the pack works out to $261/kWh. Illustration 3Oversizing Battery To Account For Capacity Fade The reports which cite a $145/kWh cell price further suggest GM believes cells will cost $100/kWh in 2022, which implies a potential battery cost reduction of $2,700 (assuming the packs are not oversized) over the next 5 years (Table 3). The aforementioned research paper states: "The pure material costs for the VDA-type batteries are estimated to be currently about 50 EUR/kWh ($67.50), which seems to be the lower possible limit at long term." Even if the difference between materials cost and selling price is only 20%, that implies a lower limit of $81/kWh for the cells, meaning savings of $64/kWh are possible. This has not prevented some commentators from suggesting batteries will decline in price by 77% (or $112, implying $33/kWh pricing) by 2030.7 Regardless, savings of $64/kWh work out to $3,840 assuming a 60 kWh pack, or $4,680 assuming the pack is 20% oversized. Even if the pack cost were to decline a similar amount, the cost savings (assuming 50% for the pack, 20% oversized) would only be $7,000. Table 3GM Aims To Cut The Battery Cost By $2,700 By 2022 According to press reports, at the onset GM will lose $9,000 for every Bolt it sells.8 Since the major difference in costs between an EV and an ICEV is the battery pack, the $262 price cited above is probably not representative of the true cost. It may be that part of GM's commercial strategy is to show EV buyers that a replacement battery pack is not overwhelmingly expensive, and it is therefore willing to offer them at a loss. After all, the vehicle comes with a 100,000-mile, 8-year warranty on the battery, and we doubt many consumers would spend $15,734 (plus labor) to replace the battery on an 8-year-old EV. Therefore, GM is probably not going to sell that many replacements, so they won't suffer many losses by offering a replacement battery below its cost. The price differential between a Bolt and a Chevy Sonic, which is a similar vehicle manufactured in the same factory, is about $22,300. If we include the reported $9,000 expected loss, the "true" difference in price is $31,300. We believe that most likely the actual cost of the battery pack of the Bolt is much higher than $15,734. GM Confirms That Batteries Get Used Up Although the Bolt battery pack is covered by an 8-year 100,000-mile warranty, that warranty considers the potential for degradation of up to 40%: "Like all batteries, the amount of energy that the high voltage 'propulsion' battery can store will decrease with time and miles driven. Depending on use, the battery may degrade as little as 10% to as much as 40% of capacity over the warranty period."9 We highlight "all batteries" because this is the fate of all existing battery technologies. We further note that the amount of degradation will depend on the driving habits of the user: if the car is "lightly used" (i.e. traveled much less than 12,000 miles/year), chances are the battery degradation will be at the low end of the scale, whereas if the car is used a lot, chances are it will be at the high end of the scale. The average U.S. driver travels ~13,500 miles (22,000 km) per year,10 meaning the average driver with a single car would exceed the warranty on the Bolt in less than 8 years and, most likely, battery degradation would be closer to 40% than to 10%. Assuming a normal distribution, half of drivers would likely exceed the average annual miles driven, and as a result, their battery degradation would be even greater and happen even sooner, since they would be stressing the battery system through deeper and more frequent charging. Of course, if you were to travel 100,000 miles in 5 years, your battery warranty would expire. A major motivation for buying an EV is the expectation that it will save money on gasoline, which is true as shown in Table 1. However, the more you drive, the faster you use up the battery, and the sooner you would be faced with buying an expensive replacement battery. As such, drivers who drive a lot would be best to be cautious about purchasing an EV, as their costs of ownership due to battery degradation/replacement would be even higher. The Bolt has a purported range of 238 miles, but that range is achieved only when the battery is new and likely measured under ideal circumstances. Use of air conditioning, extreme temperatures (i.e. winter), etc., would probably trim the range significantly, likely to well below 200 miles. Assuming a reasonable usage for the vehicle, an 8-year-old Bolt would probably have a range closer to 100 miles than to 200 miles. This would significantly affect resale value as a vehicle with a range of 100 miles has much less utility than one with 200 miles. Difference In Cost Of Ownership: Chevy Bolt Vs. ICEV Calculating costs of ownership is subject to numerous assumptions, and this is especially the case with respect to an emerging technology such as EVs. Because we have a significant amount of information from GM on the cost and operating characteristics of the Bolt, and because GM makes "mass market" ICEVs which are roughly comparable to the Bolt, we thought it would be a uniquely useful benchmark for a cost of ownership analysis. We are neither making a claim that the Bolt or any EV will be commercially successful, nor are we endorsing it in any way; we are simply identifying the Bolt as representative of a typical mass-market EV. In our analysis we assume: The Chevy Bolt is a typical mass market EV; The sales price of the Bolt is roughly the same in the U.S.11 and Europe12 at $37,495; The Bolt is comparable to the Sonic in North America and the Opel Astra in Europe (Table 4); There are no direct financial subsidies associated with EVs; and After 100,000 miles, both the EV and the comparable ICEV have a similar residual value. Table 4The Bolt Is Much More Expensive Than Similarly-Sized GM ICEVs As we noted above, GM is believed to be taking a $9,000 loss associated with each Bolt sold. This is not sustainable if the firm expects to sell a lot of them. Most likely, either the company sees a path to significant cost reduction over the life of the product, or the company will artificially limit supply and use profits from its other products to subsidize the sales of Bolts. For the purpose of this analysis, we will assume the company and its rivals believe they can sell such vehicles at a reasonable profit in the future. The difference in the cost of ownership for similar vehicles is mainly associated with purchase cost, fuel costs, repair costs, and resale value. Insurance, parking, and so on would be a wash and annual repair and maintenance bills on most new cars are quite modest, so it would not significantly tilt the balance. Although EV enthusiasts tend to highlight the fact EVs do not require oil changes, the significantly increased weight of the battery means EVs require more frequent tire replacement than an equivalent ICEV.13 For example, modern ICEVs require an oil change every 10,000 miles. At $70/oil change this works out to $700, similar in price to a set of tires. Furthermore, the repair experience with EVs is extremely limited, and if we are to take Tesla as an example, they do not fare as well as many had hoped.14 We address the likely higher depreciation rates of EVs below. Estimating Electric Power Costs For An EV Charging a battery is not 100% efficient as losses occur in the charger and at the battery. Batteries get warm as they are charged, and that is a sign of inefficiencies in the charging process. As smartphone and notebook owners are aware, aged batteries produce a lot more heat when they are charged because the charging becomes less efficient as the batteries age. A new EV with a "slow" charger (see below) is about 85% efficient,15,16 while the figure is almost certainly lower for an aged battery. Assuming the system were 100% efficient, the Bolt vehicle goes 238 miles on 60 kWh, averaging about 0.25 kWh/mile, or approximately 25,000 kWh for 100,000 miles. Assuming lifetime average efficiency of 80% (85% when new, 75% when old), lifetime power consumption would be about 31,250 kWh. EV advocates note there are numerous "free" public charging stations. This is true, but there are far fewer public charging stations than there are EVs, which means the average EV owner pays for her electricity (Chart 1). Regardless, somebody has to pay for the electricity, and it is unreasonable to assume that "free charging" will persist if EVs gain significant market share, which apparently they have been doing in the past few years, especially in the U.S. and the EU (Chart 2). Chart 1Globally, EVs Outnumber Charging Stations By 6 To 1 Chart 2EV Market Share Is Increasing, Especially In Europe Furthermore, although many utilities have "time of use" utility rates which are lower in the evening when an EV is being charged, there is reason to question whether those can coexist with significant EV market penetration, a subject we will address in Part 2. Regardless, average power rates incorporate discounted time of use power to some extent, so that is the figure we use. Net Operating Costs: U.S. The Bolt17 is roughly comparable to a Chevy Sonic18 in terms of size, and the vehicles are made in the same factory. The difference in price is about $22,300. At 25/33 mpg, fuel use of the Sonic over 100,000 miles would be about 3,600 gallons (13,627 liters), costing about $9,000, assuming a gasoline price of $2.50 per gallon ($0.66/liter), which is slightly higher than the current nationwide average of ~$2.30/gallon. Assuming lifetime power consumption of 31,250 kWh and an average electricity price in the U.S. of $0.104/kWh,19 electric power costs for the Bolt would be around $3,250, for a net "fuel costs savings" of $5,700 in favor of the Bolt. However, the substantially higher initial purchase price and faster depreciation still results in the Sonic costing about $16,100 less over the duration of the vehicles' 100,000 miles (160,000 km). Put another way, the Bolt's total operating costs would average about $0.38 per mile, 73% higher than the $0.22/mile cost of the Sonic. Net Operating Costs: Europe In Europe, both fuel and electricity costs are typically much higher than in the U.S., but ICEVs also tend to be more fuel efficient. The Bolt is roughly equivalent to an Opel Astra, which costs €16,700 ($19,160) in France and consumes 4.4 litres/100 km20 (53 MPG). The difference in price between the Bolt and the Astra is about $18,300, a smaller premium than in the U.S. comparison. However, even though gasoline prices are more than twice as expensive in Europe than in the U.S., fuel costs for the Astra are moderated by the car's higher fuel efficiency, approximating $10,500 for the first 100,000 miles. Energy costs and EV subsidies vary widely across the EU. Because the economic impact of EVs would be roughly proportional to GDP, we decided to look at the largest EU economies excluding the UK. It happens that EV sales in Italy are negligible, with total market share less than 0.1%,21 and EV subsidies in the country are somewhat opaque. Therefore, we confined our analysis to Germany and France. Assuming lifetime power consumption of 31,250 kWh, the electric power costs of the Bolt would be around $5,350 in France, which has low power prices, for net energy savings of $5,100. In Germany, where power prices of $0.34/kWh are considerably higher, the Bolt and the Astra would have energy costs that are roughly equal. In France, EVs' ownership costs would be $13,200 (49%) higher than the ICEV; in Germany, EV ownership costs would be $18,500 (68%) higher. Bolt Vs Sonic Cost Of Ownership: Impact Of Subsidies In the U.S., there is a federal subsidy of $7,500 and some states also have an EV incentive. In New York State, the subsidy is $2,000, meaning the net increased cost of owning the Bolt instead of a Sonic drops to around $6,600. Note that the federal subsidy is designed to "phase out" once a manufacturer sells 200,000 vehicles. GM hopes to sell 30,000 EVs in 2017 despite only launching U.S.-wide in summer 2017. Combined with prior Volt sales of over 150,000 units, GM should exhaust its federal subsidies in early 2018. Subsidies vary considerably across the EU.22 In France, there is a subsidy of €6,300 ($7,200)23 associated with the purchase of an EV, while Germany24 has a €4,000 ($4,600) incentive. Besides subsidies, there are other benefits of owning an EV including reserved or even free parking spaces, often including free charging. These are offset to some extent by the limited range of EVs which may disqualify them from purchase by some. It remains to be seen how long EV subsidies will persist. They may be affordable to governments as long as the number of vehicles sold remains small, but they would become very costly if EV sales accelerate. For example, about 2 million new passenger cars are registered in France every year. If only half of those were EVs, subsides would total $7.2B. Money for roads, infrastructure maintenance, policing, and so on have to come from somewhere, and if ICEV sales decline substantially, European governments' huge gasoline tax revenues would also deteriorate; in such an environment, it is reasonable to assume that EV subsidies would eventually disappear and be replaced by taxes. It seems highly unlikely to us that a massive subsidy program would be a politically acceptable solution in the U.S. auto market; however, it may very well be that over the near term subsidies persist in the EU where concerns over climate change have greater political weight. Cost Of Ownership: Depreciation Depreciation of the EV is almost certainly going to be much higher than the ICEV, which accounts for some of the higher cost of ownership. We believe that most EV batteries will be substantially degraded after 160,000 km (100,000 miles), and we doubt there will be many EVs on the road past about 200,000 km or 15 years of operation. In contrast, the average age of a vehicle in the EU is over 10.5 years,25 while the average age of a vehicle in the U.S. is 11.6 years.26 The overwhelming majority of EVs on the road today are still under warranty and, in either event, relatively new, which means consumers lack the information to understand the inherent issues of battery degradation. As more consumers have experience with EVs, the problems of degradation and replacement cost (i.e. the high cost of depreciation) will likely temper demand. This would be the case even if battery costs drop significantly: few consumers would invest even $5,000 into repairing a 10-year-old vehicle, and an EV with a 100 mile (160 km) range is significantly less useful than one with a 200 mile (320 km) range. Rapid depreciation has been the experience of Nissan Leaf owners who are discovering their vehicles have lost 80% of their value after only 3 years.27 EV advocates suggest that degradation is not an issue and that, in any event, batteries are getting better and better. This flies in the face of what essentially every consumer has experienced with mobile phones, notebook computers, or any other cordless device. We believe GM has better insights into the issue than EV advocates do and, in any event, we see no evidence for significant improvements in battery life. If, indeed, significant improvements are made to batteries, prior-generation EVs (including today's Bolt) will plummet in value. That said, consumer understanding of battery degradation is not likely to be a factor for EV adoption over the near term. Conclusion: Costs Of Ownership Assuming similar depreciation and excluding subsidies, the net difference in cost of ownership over 160,000 km (100,000 miles) between a Bolt and an equivalent ICEV is about $16,100 in the U.S., $13,200 in France, and $18,500 in Germany, in favor of the ICEV. After subsidies, an optimistic analysis suggests the difference in cost of ownership to travel 100,000 miles (160,000 km) between a Bolt EV and a roughly similar ICEV is about $6,600 in the U.S. (New York), $6,000 in France, and $13,900 in Germany, in favor of the ICEV. Electric power costs for the Bolt are around $3,250 in the U.S., $10,600 in Germany, and around $5,350 in France. Even if electricity were free, after subsidies, the difference in cost of ownership would be $3,400 in the U.S. (NY), $3,200 in Germany, and $600 in France. GM is believed to be losing $9,000 with every Bolt it sells. If so, and it wanted to sell the vehicle at its average Gross Margin of around 13%, it would sell for closer to $48,300, which would increase cost of ownership by about $11,000. In other words it would take a cost reduction of around $14,750 (about 34%) of likely manufacturing cost before the cost of ownership would favor the Bolt in France after subsidies. As noted above in our discussion of battery costs, GM expects a $2,700 cost saving associated with battery cells by 2022. Given that it is losing money on the vehicle, it is hard to believe they will immediately pass these savings on to the consumer. Even if they did, cost of ownership would still favor the ICEVs. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Johanna El-Hayek, Research Assistant johannah@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries 2 https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10-battery-gigafactories-are-now-in-progress-and-musk-may-add-4-more 3 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", dated September 20, 2016. 4 http://insideevs.com/heres-how-much-a-chevrolet-bolt-replacement-battery-costs/ 5 http://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/ 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260339436_An_Overview_of_Costs_for_Vehicle_Components_Fuels_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions 7 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade 8 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom 9 https://electrek.co/2016/12/07/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-battery-degradation-up-to-40-warranty/ 10 http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/average-miles-driven-per-year-by-state.aspx 11 http://www.chevrolet.com/byo-vc/client/en/US/chevrolet/bolt-ev/2017/bolt-ev/features/trims/?section=Highlights§ion=Fuel%20Efficiency§ion=Dimensions&styleOne=388584 12 https://electrek.co/2016/12/15/chevy-bolt-ev-europe-june-2017-opel-ampera-e-gm/ 13 The Bolt weighs almost 800 pounds (360 kg) more than a similar sized Chevrolet Sonic. 14 http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt-match-its-high-performance/ 15 https://www.veic.org/docs/Transportation/20130320-EVT-NRA-Final-Report.pdf 16 http://teslaliving.net/2014/07/07/measuring-ev-charging-efficiency/ 17 http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle 18 http://www.chevrolet.com/sonic-small-car 19 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ 20 http://www.opel.fr/vehicules/gamme-astra/astra-5-portes/points-forts.html#trim-edition 21 http://www.eafo.eu/content/italy 22 https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf pages 53-55 23 http://insideevs.com/overview-incentives-buying-electric-vehicles-eu/ 24 https://electrek.co/2016/04/27/germany-electric-vehicle-incentive-4000/ 25 http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/average-vehicle-age 26 http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years 27 http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-electric-cars-are-still-tanking/ Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Overweight The cable & satellite index heavyweights Comcast and Charter Communications both reported their results last week, announcing that they had churned 34,000 and 90,000 of the traditional video customers, respectively. Still, neither company saw a decline in video revenue, reflecting still-strong sector pricing (second panel) and an unabated willingness of the consumer to purchase their content (third panel). The dominant theme from cable & satellite earnings was a transition to high-speed internet (unchanged from the past number of years), a lower revenue but higher margin business. This drove both of the aforementioned companies to each grow their customer relationships by mid-single digits in the quarter. Importantly, the customer additions were made without significantly increasing capital outlays (bottom panel) that, when combined with an overall higher margin business, implies more efficient returns on capital. This should ultimately drive more free cash flow, higher valuation multiples and ongoing share price increases. We reiterate our overweight recommendation for cable & satellite. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P cable & satellite index are: BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.

Special Report

Dear Client, Over the next three weeks, much of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team will be traveling in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. As such, we are taking this week off from publication and will return to our regular schedule next week. In lieu of our regular missive, we are sending you the following Special Report, penned by our colleagues in the BCA Technology Sector Strategy. The report, originally published on May 16, tackles “The Coming Robotics Revolution” in an innovative way that aligns with our own views. Clients often ask us what will be the political consequences of the revolution in artificial intelligence and robotics. Our answers are controversial because we strongly disagree with the conventional, Terminator-inspired, doom and gloom. Brian Piccioni and Paul Kantorovich agree with us, which is reassuring given that they understand the technology behind robotics far better than we do. I hope you enjoy the enclosed report and encourage you to seek out the insights of our Technology Sector Strategy. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Feature "The amount of technology coming at us in the next five years is probably more than we've seen in the last 50" Mark Franks, Director Of Global Automation at General Motors, Bloomberg News, April 2017 There is good reason to believe we are at the cusp of a Robot Revolution which will have a dramatic impact on our economy. Robots have been around for decades or centuries, depending on the definition. Past robots were either fixed in place, as in the case of factory robots, or supervised by operators that are near the robot, or connected through telemetry. In contrast, the robots that are coming will not be fixed in place, and will be able to perform their functions without a human operator. This opens up massive markets for robots in industry (cutting lawns, cleaning windows, delivering parcels, etc.) and, most significantly, consumer applications. Part 1: Robots - Industrial Revolution To Early 21st Century The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks,"1 a definition which encompasses a broad range of machines: from the Jacquard Loom,2 which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. For much of history, most of the labor force was involved with the production of food: over 50% of the U.S. labor force was involved in agriculture until the late 1800s (Chart 1). Agriculture has benefitted immensely from automation as inventions such as the McCormick Reaper (a wheat cutting machine pulled by horses), the cotton gin, and other mechanical systems displaced human effort. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," accelerated the process, as engines delivered much more power more cost effectively than mechanical devices (Chart 2). This massively improved productivity: within 20 years from 1830 to 1850, the labor to produce 100 bushels of wheat dropped from 250-300 to 75-90 hours, and by 1955 it only took 6 ½ hours of labor for a net reduction of 97.5% in 125 years.3 Chart 1Farm Workers Were Disrupted In The Late 19th Century Chart 2...And So Were Horses In other words there is nothing new about automation displacing workers while improving productivity, nor is a rapid displacement unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (i.e. machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing, and maintaining the machinery. Automation Frightens People Although automation is nothing new, it has always engendered anxiety among workers. The anxiety boils down to concern for continued employment as well as fear of the technology itself. We discuss below why Artificial Intelligence (AI) does not present the sort of threat to humanity or even employment that seems to be the consensus view at the moment. Will Robots Become Self-Aware? We have covered the topic of Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning as it relates to sentient/self-aware machines in some detail in our October 18, 2016 Special Report on Artificial Intelligence. In summary, most of the discussion surrounding AI is misinformation. Although AI uses algorithms called "artificial neural networks," which are extremely useful for solving certain classes of problems, these are nothing like biological neural networks. There is no reason whatsoever to believe AI technology in its current form can become sentient, or even meaningfully intelligent, and that will not change with increased computing power. Furthermore, whether or not AI can arise to the level of a threat, there is no current or imagined power source which could keep a rampaging robot active for more than a few hours. The Terminator would have been much less threatening if he required frequent recharging. Will Robots Make Human Workers Irrelevant? Automation in agriculture occurred rapidly enough to be felt by workers at the time - and yet there were no marauding hordes of unemployed hay cutters or cowboys. Improved productivity meant markets were opened which did not previously exist, and unemployed agricultural workers moved to factory work. Media coverage of automation tends to focus on the potential job losses without mentioning the fact that the economy and its workers adapt, and overall living standards generally improve (Chart 3). Technology has displaced entire classes of jobs very rapidly in the recent past, and many products such as smartphones would be extremely difficult to assemble if the work was done by hand. Box 1 provides several other examples. Yet as is usual for many things that have happened multiple times in the past, we are told "this time is different." Chart 3The Industrial Revolution Led To A Vast Improvement In Living Standards Box 1 Automation Displaced Entire Classes Of Jobs In The Recent Past, But Brought Enormous Benefits Before calculators and word processors were available, writing and mathematical calculations were done manually. Machines such as calculators and type writers enhanced productivity, eliminating many such jobs. Software applications such as Microsoft Word and Excel further accelerated this process. Not that long ago, welding was entirely a manual job but now most welding in factories is done by robots: you can usually tell a human weld on a mass produced product by its poor quality. Robots in the modern factory have freed up workers for other roles in the economy just as the massive loss of agricultural jobs in the 20th century did. Many modern electronic products such as smartphones would be extremely difficult to assemble if the work was done by hand, as the components are so small they require microscopes to manipulate. Even if it were possible to hand assemble a smartphone, it would take hours of manual labor to produce, and the quality would be very poor. The use of automation means that smartphones cost a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand dollars and are affordable enough to be a mass market item. Some of the anxiety around automation-related job losses centers on the possibility that this time, robots will displace workers from the service and white-collar sectors. BCA's European Investment Strategy service has written about the potential for AI to replace jobs involving tasks that require specialized education and training, such as calculating credit scores or insurance premiums, or managing stock portfolios.4 Recent developments in AI (specifically deep learning algorithms) have allowed computers to solve pattern recognition problems that they could not previously solve. However, we do not believe AI in its current form poses a widespread risk to white collar employment for the following reasons: Both service-sector and white collar employees have been subject to replacement through automation already, and the economy has adapted: ATMs are robot bank tellers, self-checkout lanes are robot checkout kiosks, and "smart" gas and electric meters that can be read remotely replace human meter readers. The legal profession has been transformed by Google searches and the accounting business by accounting software. These tools allow certain clients to avoid the use of a lawyer or accountant altogether (for example in setting up a corporation or doing bookkeeping), or allow a firm to employ less skilled workers for the task. We can offer numerous other examples of white collar jobs which have been fully or partially automated over the past couple decades. In addition, recall that AI produces high probability answers which turn out to be wrong, and it requires a lot of subject specific training. Both of these are intrinsic to the implementation of the algorithm. In contrast, humans generally are much better at assigning confidence to decisions and train very rapidly because they have cross-expertise AI lacks. An implementation of AI has to meet BOTH of the following conditions to be successful: There has to be a lot of subject-specific data available A high probability assigned to a wrong answer is either inconsequential or can be easily overruled by a human It is also important to note that although AI may reduce the demand for accountants, insurance agents, credit analysts and other skilled professionals, these are exactly the sort of people that can handle retraining. Part 2: What Makes Upcoming Robots Revolutionary Upcoming robots will be different because they will not be confined to the factory floor. We believe this is a key transition point, and that the next 20 years or so will see as dramatic a change from robotics as was caused by the Internet. Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. Early robots performed very specific operations under carefully controlled conditions -an assembly robot which encountered a misaligned component would simply install it that way, resulting in a defective product. Eventually vision systems were developed which allowed robots to adjust to varying conditions. As camera and computing costs continue to decline, vision systems are becoming more elaborate and useful, as they gather and process more information to make increasingly complex decisions. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Mobile robots will likely rely on AI to make many decisions. In order to be cost effective, for many years AI will likely be hosted in cloud data centers. This is especially the case for consumer robots, which will have to be highly capable and yet cost effective. We discuss the implications for cloud services providers in more detail in Part 3: Investment Implications. We May Be Entering A 'Virtuous Cycle' In Robotics Improvements to one domain of robotic applications can be generally applied to others. Robotics technology is concurrently moving forward on many fronts ranging from the aforementioned vacuum cleaners, lawnmowers, and logistics robots, to medical orderlies,5 farm tractors,6 mining equipment,7 transport trucks,8 and cargo ships.9 Despite enormous differences in cost and value added, all of these applications are solving essentially the same problem. As with any other technological revolution, advances between different fields in robotics will be adapted, borrowed, extended and enhanced. This, in turn, creates opportunities for ever more applications, creating a virtuous cycle (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Robotics Will Enter Into A Virtuous Cycle There are few tasks which cannot be automated, but there is a definite cost-benefit tradeoff for each one. For example, a golf course may consider spending $25,000 for a robotic lawnmower, however costs were closer to $70 - $90,000 in 2015,10 and installed cost is even higher.11 Because the incremental cost of the machines is comprised of electronics, which will drop in price rapidly, it is probably a matter of another 2 or 3 years before the price moves to the point where mass adoption by groundskeepers begins. The same improvements to industrial lawnmowers will lead to more useable, albeit still pricy, consumer models which will probably enter mass market adoption 5 to 10 years from now. The same argument can be made for almost any manual chore ranging from cleaning the carpet to delivering parcels. We predict the virtuous cycle for robots will span several decades. As the cost of automation drops, better solutions will be developed, resulting in 'early retirement' of dated but otherwise fully functional robotic systems. This is the opposite of the Feature Saturation phenomenon currently present in the smartphone and PC industries - though feature saturation will eventually hit robots as well. A Self-Driving Car Is A Robot The most important robotics technology, from a macroeconomic perspective, is the rapidly advancing field of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). The automobile industry is a significant part of the global economy, so changes in this industry will have profound implications. We covered AVs in detail in our April 8, 2016 Special Report. Due to technical and legal obstacles that must be overcome, a vehicle which can safely travel from point to point on major roads and city streets without driver intervention is probably 20 years away, +/- 5 years. The macro impact, however, will occur much sooner than that, due to the technologies developed on the way to full AVs. Vehicles are already offering features such as forward collision warning, autobrake, lane departure warning, lane departure prevention, adaptive headlights, and blind spot detection.12 Although we have only touched the surface, robotics are being applied across many industries, making even seemingly modest advances significant when measured in aggregate, as small changes in one industry are quickly adapted by other industries. It is noteworthy that this transition will likely occur during a period where demographic shifts, in particular in the most developed economies, signal the potential for labor shortages, or at least increasing cost of labor (Chart 4).13, 14 Robots may be showing up in the nick of time to improve both the economy and quality of life in the developed world. Chart 4Advances In Robotics Will Counter Adverse##br## Demographic Trends Part 3: Investment Implications The semiconductor industry has stagnated as the PC and smartphone markets entered a largely replacement-driven era (Chart 5). Although it may not be evident until the virtuous cycle is fully engaged, robotics represents another up-leg in demand for semiconductors and therefore should result in a significant improvement to industry growth rates. There is little opportunity for startup semiconductor companies nowadays due to the high costs of developing a new chip. Well positioned, established, semiconductor companies will be the primary beneficiaries of the robotics revolution. Large firms that attempt to fit their existing product offering into the industry (e.g. by remaining PC or mobile-phone centric) will fall behind. Winners System on a Chip (SoC) Vendors: Robotics hardware will more likely be implemented as "System on a Chip" (SoC) as this provides the greatest functionality with lowest cost and power consumption. SoCs generally consist of a variety of Intellectual Property (IP) "cores" which may be licensed from third parties. Typically, IP cores consist of a microprocessor and various specialized subsystems, depending on the application. Robotics SoCs are likely to include Digital Signal Processing (DSP) or Image Processing cores to process sensor data. SoC vendors who target or encourage robot development, such as Overweight-rated Texas Instruments, are likely to be favored by early movers in the space.15 We believe it is a matter of time before Graphics Processors (GPUs) currently used in AI/Deep Learning are replaced by processors specifically designed for AI, which will be cheaper and more power efficient.16 This is one of the reasons for our Underweight rating on Nvidia. Semiconductor Foundries, Mixed Signal and Automotive Semiconductor Vendors: This environment will favor the merchant semiconductor foundries which manufacture most SoCs. In addition, firms with "mixed signal" expertise will experience increased demand for motor controls, sensor interfaces, etc. As robotics features are added to automobiles, demand for automotive semiconductors should outpace that in other sectors. A significant degree of commonality in the parts and systems used in advanced automobiles will be used in other mobile robots, so "automotive" semiconductor demand should significantly outpace automobile sales. Sensor Vendors: Robots need a variety of sensors, depending on the application. Unlike factory floor robots which can make do with cameras, mobile robots will require advanced radar, ultrasound, laser scanning and other sensor types in order to provide redundancy and cope with weather and other related issues. Important sensors on prototype AVs are currently made in low volumes and are extremely expensive. Due to the number of sensors involved, we believe there is significant opportunity for companies offering aggressive cost reduction in sensor technology. Wireless Equipment and Service Providers: Most robotic systems will include some degree of wireless connectivity and participate in the "Internet of Things" (IoT). This will present challenges and opportunities for wireless equipment and service providers,17, 18 as networks will have to adapt to increased upload bandwidth (from robot to carrier) as well as novel billing schemes. Coverage will also have to be expanded to accommodate AVs as it is non-existent or spotty in large stretches of North American roadways. Not being able to check Facebook between two cities is one thing, losing your robot driver is much more serious. Our recent downgrade of Cisco to Underweight19 may appear inconsistent with the analysis above. However, the company's valuation is extremely elevated and revenues are declining (Chart 6). Any benefit Cisco will derive from investment into wireless infrastructure is several years out, and open-source hardware initiatives are gaining momentum.20 For that reason, we see the risks as outweighing the opportunities at the moment for the company. Chart 5Long Replacement Cycles Mean Slower ##br##Semiconductor Sales Chart 6Cisco's Stock Price Is Close To Tech Bubble##br## Levels Despite Declining Revenue Cloud Service Providers: Most robots will be on line and some will likely use cloud services to offload computational effort and minimize cost. A relatively "dumb" robotic lawnmower which offloads control to a shared computational resource in the cloud would probably be cheaper than a much more capable fully autonomous system. This will increase demand for cloud services, however the challenge of declining margins (due to increased competition in the space) will offset cloud services revenue growth somewhat in the long term. On balance, Overweight-rated Microsoft and Alphabet/Google, as well as Amazon, stand to benefit. Chart 7Eastman Kodak Tried To Ignore The Shift ##br##To Digital Cameras Losers We believe companies who ignore the robotics revolution will find themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage. This is not unprecedented in the technology sector: Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and Kodak vanished because their business models could not accommodate an obvious shift in their core markets (Chart 7). Similarly Intel and Microsoft completely missed the smartphone revolution. As we noted in our April 8, 2016 Special Report on AVs, the frequency and severity of crashes will decrease dramatically which will lead to reduced insurance rates, fewer repairs, and less money spent on accident related healthcare and rehabilitation. The economic losses of automobile crashes were estimated $871 billion in the US in 201021 and even a modest reduction in the frequency and severity of collisions due to partial automation would have a significant economic impact. "Dumb" Auto Parts Manufacturers: Fewer collisions will result in fewer repairs to people or vehicles. Auto parts manufacturers will fall into two camps: those with significant expertise in robotics will prosper, while those without such expertise will fall behind as the demand for replacement components (fenders, bumpers, doors, windshields, etc.) will decline. AVs are also likely to include advanced diagnostic and service reminder systems which will result in more timely service, reducing wear and tear on internal components as well. The Auto Insurance Industry: While it is doubtful robotics will ever eliminate auto accidents, the rate might be reduced to such a level that the auto-insurance industry, worth $157 billion in the US alone,22 will be much smaller in 20 years than it is today. This will be offset to a degree by greater demands for product liability insurance for AVs and robots in general. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Paul Kantorovich, Research Analyst paulk@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot 2 http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HistoryPt2.htm 3 https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm 4 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Female Participation: Another Mega-Trend," dated April 6, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 5 http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Forth-Valley-Royal-Robots-Serco-Medicine,news-7124.html 6 http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/this-tractor-drives-itself/ 7 http://www.asirobots.com/mining/ 8 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/powering-australia/rio-rolls-out-the-robot-trucks/story-fnnnpqpy-1227090421535 9 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/rolls-royce-drone-ships-challenge-375-billion-industry-freight 10 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20141210/393619/ 11 http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/do-robotic-mowers-dream-of-electric-turf/ 12 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/crash-avoidance-technologies/topicoverview 13 http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/preparing-for-a-future-labor-shortage/ 14 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2013/06/das.htm 15 http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/engineeringChange/robotics.html 16 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Google - AI And Cloud Strategy," dated April 25, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com. 17 http://www.fiercemobileit.com/press-releases/gartner-says-internet-things-will-transform-data-center 18 http://www.computerworld.com/article/2886316/mobile-networks-prep-for-the-internet-of-things.html 19 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Networking Equipment Update ," dated March 28, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com. 20 http://www.businessinsider.com/att-white-box-test-should-scare-cisco-juniper-2017-4 21 http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2014/NHTSA-study-shows-vehicle-crashes-have-$871-billion-impact-on-U.S.-economy,-society 22 http://www.bloomberg.c/bw/articles/2014-09-10/why-self-driving-cars-could-doom-the-auto-insurance-industry

In what is becoming a familiar refrain, Amazon announced they were entering an established business and the existing competitors saw their share prices tumble. This time it was appliance retail and manufacturers with the deployment of Sears' Kenmore brand and the victims were HD and LOW. We think the stock price declines are an overreaction. First, appliances do not fit the Amazon mold; unit costs are relatively high and features often matter more than price. Second, appliances typically require installation which, in the case of Amazon, would likely be fulfilled by Sears; we think Sears is unlikely to displace HD or LOW and their well-earned installation reputations. Third, appliance sales were 8% and 11% of HD and LOW's 2016 sales, respectively; Kenmore's market share gains would need to be very significant to have a material impact. A more important metric when looking at home improvement retail is lumber prices. Higher prices tend to boost profit margins, given that retailers typically earn a fixed spread such that a high dollar value sold will boost profitability. With lumber pushing against the key $400/1000 board-feet level, we think investors should be treating the Amazon fall as an unexpectedly cheap entry point (middle and bottom panels). Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Our Consumer Discretionary Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) has snapped back after a tough year, driven by improving real wage growth. Higher home prices, a tighter labor market and increasing disposable income have consumers feeling flush, which should boost discretionary outlays. Importantly, consumer deleveraging is far advanced with the debt service ratio hovering near decade lows. Further, our Consumer Drag Indicator remains near its modern high, suggesting EPS gains will prove resilient. Although somewhat expensive from a historical perspective, our Valuation Indicator (shown in this week's Cyclical Indicator Update) remains close to the neutral zone, underscoring that profits will be the primary sector price driver. Our Technical Indicator (shown in this week's Cyclical Indicator Update) has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is flirting with the buy zone, underscoring additional recovery potential. We continue to recommend an overweight position, favoring the media-oriented sub-indices.

Highlights Key Portfolio Updates Synchronized global economic growth is driving real yields higher and boosting equities (Chart 1). Meantime, core inflation remains muted which will ensure that Fed policy stays sufficiently accommodative (Chart 2). Outside of the U.S., monetary tightening cycles are kicking into high gear, and this will sustain downward pressure on the greenback for now (Chart 3). Easy financial conditions are a boon for S&P 500 profit margins, and a slow moving Fed suggests that investors will extrapolate this goldilocks equity scenario for a while longer (Chart 4). Almost all of the S&P 500's advance year-to-date has been earnings driven (Chart 5). Buoyant EPS breadth bodes well for additional gains, a message in line with our SPX profit model. In terms of how far the broad market can advance from current levels before the next recession hits, we posit three ways to SPX 3,000 (Table 1). The ongoing sector rotation is a healthy development, and is not a precursor to a more viscous and widespread correction (Chart 6). Historically, receding sector correlations represent fertile ground for the overall equity market (Chart 7). Our macro models are signaling that investors should position for a sustained rebound in economic growth. Our interest rate-sensitive models are coming out on top, deep cyclicals are attempting to trough, while defensives took a turn for the worse (Chart 8). Deep cyclical sectors are the most overvalued followed by early cyclicals, while defensives remain in undervalued territory. Interest rate sensitives have recently become overbought, while both deep cyclicals and defensives are in the oversold zone (Charts 9 & 10). The most attractive combination of macro, valuation and technical readings are in the financials and consumer discretionary sectors. The least attractive combinations are in materials, technology and utilities sectors. Prospects for a durable synchronized global economic growth, a coordinated tightening G10 central bank backdrop and cheapened U.S. currency warrant an early cyclical portfolio tilt, with the defensive/deep cyclical stance shifting to a more neutral setting. Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth Chart 2Muted Core Inflation Chart 3G10 Central Banks Map Chart 4Easy Financial Conditions Boost Margins Chart 5Buoyant Breadth Bodes Well Table 1SPX Dividend Discount Model SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity ERP Analysis Chart 6Healthy Rotation Chart 7Falling Correlations Boost The S&P 500 Chart 8Interest Rate Sensitives Come Out On Top Chart 9Underowned... Chart 10...And Undervalued Defensives Chart 11Earnings Growth Set To Accelerate Chart 12Consumers Are Feeling Flush Chart 13Improving Fundamentals Signal A Trough Chart 14Staples Remain The Household's Choice Chart 15Weaker Rents And Higher Vacancies Bode Ill Chart 16Profits Look Set To Downshift Chart 17Cyclical Recovery Driving Backlogs Lower Chart 18Margin Recovery Appears Priced In Chart 19Pricing Collapse Driving Earnings Decline Chart 20Productivity Declines Will##br## Keep A Cap On Valuations Chart 21Valuations At Risk##br## When Inflation Returns Feature S&P Financials (Overweight) Our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI) has climbed to new cyclical highs, supported by broad-based improvement among its components. Firming employment data, historically a precursor to credit growth and capital formation, has been a primary contributor to the lift in the CMI. Importantly, a tight labor market has not yet driven sector costs higher, which bodes well for near term profits (Chart 11 on page 8). A budding revival in loan demand is corroborated by our bank loan growth model, which points to the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years. Soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival underpin our loans and leases model (Chart 11 on page 8). Expanding housing prices, increased housing turnover and rebounding mortgage purchase applications support household capital formation (Chart 11 on page 8). A recent lift in share prices partially reflects this much-improved cyclical outlook. Still, the message from our valuation indicator (VI) is that there is significant running room. Our technical indicator (TI) has retreated from overbought levels, but remains solidly in the buy zone, setting the stage for the next leg up in the budding relative bull market. We expect sentiment to steadily improve, buoyed by deregulation moving closer to reality as a partial Dodd-Frank replacement passed the House. Chart 22 S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Our CMI has snapped back after a tough year, driven by improving real wage growth. Higher home prices, a tighter labor market and increasing disposable income have consumers feeling flush, which should boost discretionary outlays. Importantly, consumer deleveraging is far advanced with the debt service ratio hovering near decade lows (Chart 12 on page 9). Further, our Consumer Drag Indicator remains near its modern high, suggesting EPS gains will prove resilient (Chart 12 on page 9). Although somewhat expensive from a historical perspective, our VI remains close to the neutral zone, underscoring that profits will be the primary sector price driver. Our TI has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is flirting with the buy zone, underscoring additional recovery potential. We continue to recommend an overweight position, favoring the media-oriented sub-indices. Chart 23 S&P Energy (Overweight) Our CMI has recently ticked up from its all-time lows, and is now diverging positively from the share price ratio. Ongoing gains in domestic production, partially offset by a still-high sector wage bill, underlie the recent CMI uptick. The steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing some signs of fatigue. Baker Hughes reported the first weekly decline in 24 weeks in the oil rig count for the week ending June 30th. At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely. Encouragingly, U.S. crude oil inventories are contracting, which could presage a renormalization of domestic inventories, market share gains for domestic production and at least a modest rally in energy shares (Chart 13 on page 9). Our S&P energy sector relative EPS model echoes this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop, indicating a burgeoning recovery in sector earnings (Chart 13 on page 9). The TI has returned to deeply oversold levels, suggesting that an oversold bounce could soon occur at a time when valuations are gravitating back to earth. Chart 24 S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) The consumer staples CMI has turned lower recently, held back by healthy economic data, particularly among confidence indicators. That should drive a preference for spending over saving after a long period of thrift, although a relative switch from staples into discretionary consumption has not yet taken firm hold. The savings rate has also stayed resilient, despite consumer euphoria (Chart 14 on page 10). The good news is that tamed commodity prices and a soft U.S. dollar should provide bullish offsets for this global-exposed (Chart 14 on page 10) and commodity-input dependent sector. A modestly weaker outlook for staples is more than reflected in our VI, which is still parked in undervalued territory. Technical conditions are completely washed out, signaling widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 25 S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Ongoing improvements in commercial & residential real estate prices continues to push our real estate CMI higher. However, the outlook for REITs has darkened; rents have crested while the vacancy rate found its nadir in 2016, suggesting further rent weakness on the horizon (Chart 15 on page 10). Further, bankers appear less willing to extend commercial real estate credit; declines in credit availability will directly impact REIT valuations. Our VI is consistent with our Treasury bond indicator, indicating that both are at fair value. Our TI is starting to firm from extremely oversold levels, a positive indication for both 12- and 24-month relative performance. Chart 26 S&P Health Care (Neutral) Our CMI has rolled over, driven by a steep decline in pharma pricing power (Chart 16 on page 11). In fact, the breadth of sector pricing power softness has spread, just as the majority of the industries we cover is enjoying a selling price revival. The divergence between the CMI and recent sector relative performance suggests that the latter has been mostly politically motivated, and may lack staying power. Worrisomely, the sector wage bill has spiked; in combination with a weaker top line, the earnings resilience of the sector could be at risk. Relative valuations remain appealing, but technical conditions are shaky, as our TI has bounced from oversold levels but is still in negative territory. Taken altogether, we would lean against the recent advance in relative performance. Chart 27 S&P Industrials (Neutral) The CMI has recovered smartly in the past couple of quarters, lifted mostly by a weaker U.S. dollar. The sector has moved laterally since the U.S. election. The improved export outlook is a positive, but a lack of response in hard economic data to the surge in confidence is a sizable offset. An inventory imbalance has largely unwound over the past six months, as durable goods orders are easily outpacing inventories, coinciding with a return of some pricing power to the sector (Chart 17 on page 11). Still, years of capacity growth in excess of production and the resulting low utilization rates mean that pricing gains may stay muted unless demand picks up substantially. Our valuation gauge is near the neutral zone, but there is a wide discrepancy beneath the surface, with construction & engineering trading cheaply and railroads and machinery commanding premium valuation multiples. Our TI has returned close to overbought levels, potentially setting the stage for another move higher. Chart 28 S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our CMI for the utilities sector remains in a long-term downtrend, albeit one with periodic countertrend moves. Most of the weakness in the CMI relates to external factors, such as robust leading indicators of global economic growth (Chart 18 on page 12). Encouragingly, the sector's wage bill has slowed from punitively high levels, and combined with improving pricing power should allow for some margin recovery (Chart 18 on page 12). Utilities have outperformed other defensive sectors, likely due to the expectation that the new U.S. administration's long-awaited tax reform will have outsized benefits to this domestic-focused industry. As a result, valuations have been creeping up, though not sufficiently enough to warrant an underweight position. Our TI has reversed its steep fall over the past year, but is unlikely to bounce through neutral levels in the absence of a negative economic shock. Ergo, our preferred strategy is to remain at benchmark, but look for tradable rally opportunities. Chart 29 S&P Telecom Services (Underweight) Our CMI for telecom services has moved laterally, as much-reduced wage inflation is fully offset by the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet and extremely deflationary conditions (Chart 19 on page 12). Our sales model paints a much darker picture, pointing to double-digit topline declines for at least the next few quarters, owing to the plunge in pricing power deep into negative territory (Chart 19 on page 12). The sector remains chronically cheap, and has all the hallmarks of a value trap, as relative forward earnings remain in a relentless secular downtrend. It would take a recession to trigger a valuation re-rating. Our Technical Indicator has nosedived but, like the VI, cycles deep in the sell zone have not proven reliable indicators that a relative bounce is in the offing. Chart 30 S&P Materials (Underweight) Recent Fed rate hikes have driven down the CMI close to all-time lows. The sector has historically performed very poorly in tightening cycles owing to U.S. dollar appreciation and the ensuing strains on the emerging world. Weak signals from China have also helped take the steam out of what looked like a recovery in the CMI last year. Commodity-currencies have rallied, but not by enough to offset a relapse in pricing power and weak sector productivity (Chart 20 on page 13). The heavyweight chemicals group (comprising more than 73% of the index) continues to suffer; earnings growth relies heavily on global reflation, an elusive ingredient in the era of a globally synchronized tightening cycle. Sagging productivity warns that profitability will remain under pressure. Valuations have now spent some time in overvalued territory; without a recovery in earnings growth, a derating is a high probability outcome. Our TI has dipped into the sell zone, indicating a loss of momentum and downside relative performance risks. It would be highly unusual for the sector to stay resilient in the face of a negative TI reading. Chart 31 S&P Technology (Underweight) The technology CMI is in full retreat, driven by ongoing relative pricing power declines and new order weakness. However, the sector had been resilient, until recently, as a mini-mania in a handful of stocks and the previously red-hot semiconductor group have provided resilient support. That reflected persistently low inflation and a belief that interest rates would still low forever. After all, tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods (Chart 21 on page 13). Nevertheless, a recovering economy from the first quarter's lull and tight labor market suggest that an aggressive de-rating in sky-high valuations in previous juggernauts is a serious threat, especially if recent disinflation proves transitory. Our relative EPS model signals a profit slide this year. In the context of analyst estimates of double-digit earnings growth, sector downside risk is elevated. Our VI is not overdone, but that partly reflects the massive overshoot during the bubble years. Our TI is extremely overbought, suggesting that profit-taking is likely to persist. Chart 32 Size Indicator (Overweight Small Vs. Large Caps) Our size CMI has retraced some of its 2016 climb, but remains firmly above the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator. Small company business optimism is near modern highs, as pricing and consumption vigor push domestic revenues higher. A smaller government footprint, i.e. fewer regulatory hurdles, and tax relief will disproportionately benefit SMEs. The prospect of trade barriers clearly favors the domestically focused small cap universe and underlie part of the post-election euphoria. Top line growth will need to persist if small businesses are to offset a higher wage bill, as labor looks more difficult to import and the economy pushes against full employment. Valuations have improved and the share price ratio has fully unwound previously overbought conditions. We expect the recent rally to gain steam.\ Chart 33 Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com