Developed Countries

Highlights Equities had a wild ride in October, ... : The S&P 500 has bounced smartly off of its October 29th lows, but the decline that preceded the bounce was unusually severe. ... that unsettled a lot of investors, and made us reconsider our constructive take on risk assets: To judge by the November 5th Barron's, and some client conversations, several technically-minded investors are unconvinced by the bounce. Nothing has changed with our equity downgrade checklist, however, ... : The fundamental picture hasn't changed at all - neither corporate revenues nor margins appear to be in any immediate difficulty; though we still expect inflation to surprise to the upside, the latest data will not push the Fed to speed up its gradual rate-hike pace; and the combination of blockbuster third-quarter earnings and October's selloff made valuations more reasonable. ... so we see no reason to downgrade equities now, though we do have the admonition of a Wall Street legend ringing in our ears: If the fundamental backdrop remained unchanged, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if the S&P 500 got back to the 2,600-2,640 range, even though we are operating with a heightened sense of vigilance befitting the lateness of the hour. Feature It has been just four weeks since we rolled out our equity downgrade checklist. We would not ordinarily devote an entire Weekly Report to reviewing all of its components, but the last four weeks have hardly been ordinary. The swiftness of the decline, and the apparent lateness of the cycle, have unsettled investors enough to make several of them reconsider just how long they want to stay at the bull-market party. At times when market action provokes emotional gut checks, it is essential for investors to have a process to fall back on. Process provides a rational, objective haven from noise and emotion, and should help foster better decision-making. Our commitment to process underpins our fondness for checklists. They will never be comprehensive - as usual, we have our minds on other important inputs - but they help to ground our thinking, and we're happy to have them when markets make wild swings. Has The Recession Timetable Speeded Up? We are not interested in recessions for their own sake - we'll let the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee tell us when recessions begin and end, several months after the fact - but they're poison for risk assets. Any asset allocator who can recognize them in a timely fashion has a leg up on outperforming the competition. We therefore have been repeatedly monitoring the individual components of our recession indicator (Table 1). They do not betray any more concern than they did four weeks ago. Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist The yield curve is clearly flattening, just as one would expect as the Fed gets further into a rate-hiking campaign, but it is still a comfortable distance from inverting (Chart 1). We think yields at the long end have a way to go before they stop rising, so we expect the fed funds rate will have to get well into the 3's before the 3-month bill rate can overtake the 10-year Treasury yield. The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator is still expanding at a robust clip (Chart 2). Finally, we estimate the fed funds rate is about a year away from exceeding the equilibrium rate, thus signaling that policy has turned restrictive. Chart 1The Yield Curve Is Flattening, But It's Not About To Invert ... Chart 2... And Leading Economic Indicators Are Still Surging The unemployment rate continues to fall. Reversing the trend so that the three-month moving average could back up by the third of a percentage point that has unfailingly accompanied recessions (Chart 3) would require net monthly payroll additions to crater. Assuming annual population growth of 1%, and a constant labor force participation rate, net monthly job gains would have to fall to 100,000 for the three-month moving average to back up to 4% in 2020; if the pace of gains merely held at 120,000, the unemployment recession signal wouldn't be issued until 2021 (Chart 4). We applied the same conditions to the Atlanta Fed's online unemployment calculator to see what it would take for the unemployment rate to cross into the danger zone in 2019 (Table 2). Since the seven-year trend of 200,000 monthly net payroll additions would have to reverse on a dime for unemployment to issue a near-term warning, we do not foresee checking this box anytime soon. Chart 3Investors Should Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate ... Chart 4... But None Is Forthcoming ... Table 2... Unless Hiring Falls Off A Cliff Are Corporate Earnings Coming Under Pressure? As we mentioned last week, we view the labor market as tight and getting tighter. We thereby expect that wages are on their way to rising enough to crimp corporate margins, albeit slowly. The composite employment cost index has been in an uptrend since 2016, but it ticked lower last month, and remains well below its cyclical highs ahead of the last two recessions (Chart 5). Chart 5Snails, Godot, Molasses And Wages October's global upheaval was good for the safe-haven dollar, which surged to a new year-to-date high (Chart 6). The DXY dollar index is now within 3% of the 100 level that would lead us to check the dollar strength box. Even though we're not checking the box yet, the dollar's 10% advance since mid-February will exert a modest drag on S&P 500 earnings for the next few quarters. Triple-B corporate yields have ticked a little higher since we rolled out the checklist, extending their six-year highs (Chart 7), though we still view them as manageable. Chart 6A Gentle Headwind (For Now) Chart 7Higher Yields Aren't Biting Yet A rising savings rate would cancel out some of the top-line benefits from employment gains. It fell pretty sharply in the third quarter, however, amplifying the self-reinforcing effect of new hiring. It's at the bottom of the range that's prevailed since 2014 (Chart 8), but could go still lower if consumption tracks the robust consumer confidence readings, as it consistently has in the past. Chart 8Consumers Are Well-Fortified EM economies have become considerably more indebted since the crisis, as developed-world savings sought an outlet; corporate profits are falling; and a stronger dollar makes it harder for EM borrowers to service their USD-denominated debt. A credit crisis (or multiple credit crises) could slow global activity enough to pressure multinationals' earnings, even if the U.S. economy is mostly insulated from EM wobbles. EM equities have gotten a respite since global equities put in their year-to-date lows, and Chinese stimulus could extend EM economies a lifeline, though BCA expects that Beijing will disappoint investors hoping for a meaningful boost. We remain bearish on emerging markets as a firm, but EM distress is not anywhere near acute enough to justify ticking the box. Is Inflation Starting To Make The Fed Uneasy? There are two channels by which inflation could pose a problem for equities. The first is the Fed: if it is discomfited by what it sees in realized inflation, or perceives that inflation expectations could become unanchored, it is likely to move forcefully to quash upward pressure on prices. A forceful pace is considerably faster than a gradual pace, and would bring forward a monetary policy inflection. If policy flips from accommodative to restrictive sooner than we expect, the window for risk-asset outperformance will shrink. With all of its talk about symmetric inflation targets, the FOMC has made it clear that it will not make any attempt to defend its 2% core PCE inflation target. It is comfortable with an overshoot, and has indeed openly wished for one for much of the post-crisis era. There are limits to its indulgence, however, and we suspect that the Fed would not be comfortable if core PCE inflation were to make a new 20-year high above 2.5%. With that red line far off (Chart 9), inflation is not yet likely to encourage the Fed to quicken the pace at which it removes accommodation. Chart 9Turtles, Sloths And Inflation Inflation expectations aren't yet pressing the Fed to speed things up, either. Long-maturity TIPS break-evens have retreated slightly since mid-October, and have yet to enter the range consistent with the 2% inflation target (Chart 10). The media and the broad mass of investors don't bother with symmetric targets, or implied break-evens; they take their cues from consumer prices. A multiple haircut driven by popular inflation fears is the second channel by which inflation could halt the equity advance, but CPI remains well below the mid-3% levels that would provoke concern (Chart 11). Chart 10Stubbornly Well-Anchored Chart 11No Reason To Trim Multiples Yet So What's To Worry About? Irrational exuberance is always a concern after an extended period of gains, but there's no sign of it in broad market measures right now. Blockbuster earnings gains have pulled the S&P 500's forward P/E multiple back down to the 15s from its January peak above 18. Secondary measures like price-to-sales, price-to-book, and price-to-cash-flow are well below extreme levels in the aggregate. If the S&P 500 is going to get silly, it will have to surge first. That said, the latter stages of bull markets and expansions can be perilous, and we are on high alert. We continue to actively seek out any evidence that challenges our broadly constructive take on risk assets and the U.S. economy. Though we have yet to find anything compelling, an admonition from legendary technical analyst and strategist Bob Farrell has lodged in our mind. Rule number nine of Farrell's ten market rules to remember states, "When all the experts and forecasts agree - something else is going to happen." It's much more fun to bring novel views and analysis to our clients, but we don't get overly concerned about agreeing with investor consensus. It's inevitable that a lot of people will agree in the middle of extended cycles; we simply strive to be among the first to recognize the major macro inflection points and determine the optimal asset-allocation framework to benefit from them. We get a little antsy, though, when everyone knows that something is either certain to happen, or cannot happen by any stretch of the imagination. The near-unanimity with which the investment community believes that a recession cannot begin in 2019 is increasingly eating at us. We have been checking and re-checking the data, and checking and re-checking our colleagues' various models, in search of trouble, but to no avail. Even though recessions begin at economic peaks, and the economy nearly always appears to be in fine fettle when the downturn asserts itself, the sizable fiscal thrust on tap for 2019 seems to obviate the possibility of a contraction. When discussing potential risks in face-to-face meetings with clients this week, we most often cited trade tensions, as any material rollback of globalization would erode corporate profit margins and would strike at global trade, on which much of the rest of world's economies rely. A dramatic worsening of the trade picture is not our base case, but we do expect upside surprises in inflation, and an attendant upside surprise in the terminal fed funds rate. We have been considering that view mainly from the perspective of fixed-income positioning: underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark duration. We also have been assuming that the FOMC would lift the fed funds rate to 3.5% at the end of 2019 via four quarter-point rate hikes, and possibly take it all the way to 4% in the first half of 2020. If it were to speed up its pace, and take the fed funds rate to 3.5% by the middle of next year, and 4% by the end, we believe financial conditions would tighten enough to choke off the expansion. Monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag, so a recession may still not begin until 2020 in that scenario, but we'd bet that an equity bear market would begin in 2019. Investment Implications Balanced investors should maintain at least an equal weight position in equities. Although our checklist is a downgrade checklist, we're alert to opportunities to upgrade as well as downgrade. As we first wrote one week before the October selloff ended, we would look to overweight equities if the S&P 500 were to dip back into the 2,600-2,640 range (Chart 12). If U.S. equities wobble again in line with our Global Investment Strategy team's MacroQuant model's near-term discomfort, investors may get another opportunity before the year is out. Chart 12Only One Chance To Upgrade So Far, But There May Be More Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of participating in the Affin Hwang Capital conference in Kuala Lumpur on November 8th. In addition to sharing my views on today's macro environment, I discussed BCA's recent successes in developing quant-based solutions for bottom-up stock picking and market timing. I have transcribed my remarks on the latter topic below. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature The Arithmetic Of Active Management Every active investor wants to outperform the market. Unfortunately, just like everyone cannot be above-average in height, beauty, or intelligence, not every investor can outperform their benchmark. I think very few people in the audience would dispute this assertion. What could be more surprising to some of you is the following claim, which is that active investors as a group will always underperform the market. I say this not because I have any ill will towards active investors. I'm an active investor myself. I say this simply because it is a mathematical tautology. As Bill Sharpe has emphasized, the market return is simply the weighted average of the returns that passive and active investors earn before fees.1 The passive return must, by definition, equal the market return. This necessarily implies that the average active return must also equal the market return. Since active investors incur higher costs than passive investors, the former group will always underperform the latter group on average. That's the bad news. The good news is that not all active investors are the same. Some are better than others, and while it is not easy, it is possible to isolate certain strategies that active managers employ that help them outperform the market. Before I discuss these strategies, let me make a generic point, which is that most so-called active investors are not particularly active. In fact, according to one academic paper, the fraction of truly active investors - those whose returns deviate significantly from the market benchmark - shrank from 60% in 1980 to less than 20% in 2009 (Chart 1). In contrast to active investors whose portfolio returns broadly mimic the market's, genuinely active investors typically outperform their benchmarks (Chart 2).2 Chart 1How Active Are Active Investors? Chart 2Active Stock Pickers Outperform What are successful active investors doing to beat their benchmark? Well, first of all, let me tell you what they are not doing: They are not taking on more risk. Don't Bet On Beta Chart 3 shows that there is no clear relationship between a stock's beta and its expected return.3 To those familiar with the CAPM model, this may be surprising. The CAPM model predicts that higher-beta stocks will earn superior returns because they are riskier. High-beta stocks outperform the market when the market is going up, but underperform the market when it is going down. Since the market tends to go up more often than it goes down, the expected return to high-beta stocks should exceed the expected return to low-beta stocks. Chart 3Don't Bet On Beta As I will discuss, the reason this theoretical prediction is refuted by the empirical evidence is because the market is rife with inefficiencies. What is more, these inefficiencies reflect pervasive institutional and behavioral biases that are engrained within the market's very own DNA. Active managers who understand these biases can exploit them to outperform their benchmarks. Let me start with the former: institutional biases. The investment industry often encourages a "heads I win, tails you lose" mentality: If a fund manager takes on a lot of risk and gets lucky, he or she will be well remunerated; if the manager is unlucky, he or she may have to look for a new job, but the primary losers will be the clients of the fund. Such an incentive structure encourages managers to take on excessive risk by purchasing, among other things, high-beta stocks. This bids up the price of these stocks to the point where they no longer offer enough additional return to compensate for their higher risk. Size And Value If buying high-beta stocks simply adds more risk without generating more reward, what types of stocks do outperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis? Much of the early academic literature focused on two factors: size and value. Historically, it has been the case that small caps and value stocks have outperformed large caps and growth stocks. Some academics have offered risk-based explanations for the size and value effects. Personally, I find these explanations unconvincing, especially in the case of value stocks. The main problem with risk-based arguments is that they fail to convincingly identify the nature of the risk that investors who purchase value stocks are being compensated for. It is certainly not market risk - value stocks tend to be low beta (Chart 4). Revealingly, companies that do face greater existential risks - those that have high levels of debt relative to equity, for example - tend to underperform the market.4 This is exactly the opposite of what risk-based arguments would predict. Chart 4Value Tends To Outperform Growth When The Stock Market Is Falling The presence of market inefficiencies provides a more compelling explanation for why small caps and value stocks outperform. Consider two companies, identical in every way except that one has a lower market capitalization than the other. Since the only difference between the two companies is the price of their shares, the "cheaper" company will generate higher returns for shareholders over the long haul. The cheaper, smaller capitalization company will also initially trade at a lower price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratio. In other words, it will look more like a small cap value stock. Thus, it is not necessary to invoke complex, risk-based explanations for why small caps and value stock outperform. It is exactly what one would expect if markets are not perfectly efficient. Ignore The Analysts? Of course, some stocks are cheap for a reason. How can we distinguish between hidden gems and fool's gold? Wall Street is populated with thousands of analysts paid to make that determination. But are they any good? For the most part, the answer is no. Chart 5 shows analysts' published earnings forecasts versus realized earnings growth. Analysts have had some success at predicting earnings growth over a one-to-two year horizon, but are almost useless over a five-year horizon.5 In fact, large cap companies favoured by analysts tend to underperform companies that analysts pan. Chart 5A Mug's Game There are two exceptions to this rule. The first applies to small caps. Since many smaller companies are not widely followed, analysts that do follow them often add significant value. Unlike their large cap brethren, small cap stocks with buy recommendations tend to outperform stocks with sell recommendations. Second, changes in analyst recommendations do predict returns. Stocks that have recently been upgraded tend to outperform those that have recently been downgraded.6 Insiders And Short Interest How about insiders? Here, the data suggests that insiders know what they are doing. The shares of companies with a lot of insider buying tend to rise more than those that have experienced insider selling. Short interest also predicts returns. Heavily-shorted companies tend to underperform companies that have attracted few short sellers. Combining data on insider activity and short interest can help supercharge returns. Chart 6 shows the highest returns are earned when insiders are buying and short interest is decreasing.7 The worst-performing stocks end up belonging to companies where insiders are heavy sellers and short interest has risen over the prior 12 months. Chart 6Prefer Stocks Where Insiders Are Buying And Short Interest Is Falling Mo' Money What about technical analysis? The academic literature on this topic is a mixed bag, with some studies deeming it useless and others suggesting it can be useful in certain situations. For most technical indicators, the noise-to-signal ratio is very high. Nevertheless, some technical indicators are worth following. Momentum is one of them (Chart 7). Over short-term horizons of about one month, mean reversion prevails - stocks that did well over the prior month tend to do poorly during the subsequent month. In contrast, over medium-term horizons of about 12 months, return continuation is the name of the game - stocks that have done well over the last 12 months tend to do well during the subsequent month. Interestingly, at very long time horizons of three-to-five years, mean reversion takes over again: Stocks that have done well over the last five years tend to do poorly over the subsequent month. The implication is that the best stocks are those that have underperformed the market over the past one month and over the past three years, but have outperformed the market over the past 12 months. Chart 7The Three Phases Of Momentum Putting aside the short-term reversal effect which, in practice, is hard to exploit due to trading costs, what are the drivers of the medium-term return continuation effect and the longer-term return reversal effect? I think three factors explain the medium-term return continuation effect. The first is institutional inertia. A large money manager cannot instantly jump in and out of a position. It may take many months to build a position to its desired size and just as much time to liquidate it. Persistent buying and selling generates momentum in equity returns. The second factor is imperfect information. A lot of the return continuation effect occurs around the time of earnings reports. If a company reports better-than-expected earnings, its stock goes up. As others hear about and process the good news, the stock usually continues to advance over the subsequent days. The third factor is behavioral biases. People tend to be quite eager to lock in gains but are usually reluctant to realize losses. When a company reports good news, investors are too quick to sell. This premature selling prevents the stock price from rising to its fair value instantaneously. During the time it takes the stock to reach fair value, the share price displays upward momentum. Conversely, when the company reports bad news, investors avoid taking losses, hoping instead that some miracle will bail them out. The lack of willing sellers prevents the stock from falling to its fair value immediately. In the time it takes investors to come to terms with the fact that a miracle is not forthcoming, the share price displays downward momentum. What about the longer-term return-reversal effect? Ironically, it is probably a function of the medium-term return continuation effect. Upward momentum attracts interest from trend-following investors. People who sold too early or never got in from the beginning kick themselves and look for the slightest dip to buy. All this buying interest eventually pushes the stock price above its fair value, setting the stage for a prolonged period of subpar returns. Anomalies Abound Let me briefly mention a few other factors that predict equity returns. Share turnover is one of them. Investors often presume that high turnover is intrinsically a good thing. Terms such as "healthy volume" abound. The truth is that companies with low rates of share turnover actually outperform the market, all things equal.8 Part of this outperformance reflects a liquidity premium. Part of it may also simply reflect the fact that undervalued companies often hide in the shadows of the market, away from the spotlight. There are also balance sheet and earnings quality factors that are worth highlighting. I already mentioned that companies with high debt-to-equity ratios tend to underperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis. It is also true that companies with high accruals - firms that fail to convert most of their earnings into cash flow - underperform the market. More surprisingly, companies whose assets have been growing very quickly also tend to underperform the market. Such asset growth often ends up reflecting empire building rather than prudent corporate management. Relatedly, a significant dispersion in analyst earnings estimates is often a red flag.9 Companies with something good to say usually say it. Companies that do not have much good to say often clam up, leading to greater uncertainty about their earnings prospects. When analysts have little visibility on what earnings a company is poised to deliver, be careful. Picking Stocks With ETS I have discussed a variety of factors that help predict the performance of individual stocks. There are dozens of others that I could have mentioned but did not. Clearly, successful bottom-up investing requires that one sort through a lot of information. What one would like is a system that distills all this information into a single score that ranks stocks from best to worst. The ideal system should dynamically adjust factor weightings to account for the fact that there is momentum in factor returns. For example, if value stocks have recently been doing well, they are likely to continue to do well. At BCA Research, we have constructed our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) to do just that.10 Chart 8 shows the backtested returns of the ETS model. As you can see, they are quite impressive. Chart 8ETS Model Back Tested Performance To Date I have been personally trading a variant of the ETS model for the past 18 years and once wrote a blog chronicling the journey.11 I have added a line in the chart that shows my own personal performance on a pre-tax basis inclusive of brokerage commissions and other trading costs. I typically hold about 30 to 50 stocks. Except in very rare cases, I don't let any single stock exceed five percent of my portfolio. I normally hold a cash cushion of about 10%-to-15%, although occasionally, as in late 2008/early 2009, I have bought stocks on margin. I have lost a lot of money shorting stocks, so I rarely do it. I am not sure how lucky I have been over the years or how scalable my results are - I generally invest only in small cap companies that most money managers would not touch. But it does give you a sense of what is possible with this system. Market Timing With MacroQuant Of course, stock selection is only one half of a successful investment formula. The other half is market-timing - knowing when to scale back or increase exposure to the stock market. That's where our soon-to-be-released MacroQuant model comes in. The model uses over 100 variables on the economy, financial and monetary conditions, sentiment, and valuations to predict the direction of the stock market. Chart 9 shows the back-tested performance of the model. Chart 9MacroQuant* Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted What is MacroQuant saying today? The signal from the model moved into bearish territory in the lead up to October's correction and continues to flag downside risks to stocks. This is mainly because the leading economic data has softened outside the United States, and more recently, in the U.S. itself. Financial conditions have also tightened on the back of rising bond yields, wider credit spreads, and a stronger dollar. Sentiment enters our model in both level and directional terms. We have found that the best configuration for stocks is when sentiment is bearish but improving while the worst configuration is when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. Going into October, sentiment began to slip from very bullish levels, which was a warning sign for stocks. Valuations have improved over the past month, but still remain somewhat stretched by historic standards. We do not believe that we are at the beginning of a bear market in stocks. However, our model does suggest that the correction may have further to run. With that, let me conclude my formal remarks, and open it up to questions. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 William F. Sharpe, "The Arithmetic of Active Management," The Financial Analysts Journal 47:1 (January/February 1991): 7-9. 2 Antti Petajisto, "Active Share And Mutual Fund Performance," Financial Analysts Journal 69:4 (July/August 2013): 73-93. 3 Andrea Frazzini And Lasse Heje Pedersen, "Betting Against Beta," Journal Of Financial Economics 111:1 (January 2014): 1-25. 4 John Y. Campbell, Jens Hilscher, and Jan Szilagy, "In Search Of Distress Risk," The Journal of Finance 63:6, (December 2008): 2899-2939. 5 Louis K. C. Chan, Jason Karceski, And Josef Lakonishok, "The Level And Persistence Of Growth Rates," The Journal Of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2 (2003): 643-684. 6 Ireneus Stanislawek, "Are Stock Recomemndations Useful?"1741 Asset Management Ltd Research Note Series, (IV 2012). 7 Amiyatosh K. Purnanandam, And H. Nejat Seyhun, "Do Short Sellers Trade On Private Information Or False Information?"Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.53, 3 (2018): 997-1023. 8 Vinay T. Datar, Naik Y. Narayan, and Robert Radcliffe, "Liquidity And Stock Returns: An Alternative Test," Journal of Financial Markets 1:2, (1998): pp. 203-219; and Charles M.C. Lee and Bhaskaran Swaminathan, "Price Momentum And Trading Volume," The Journal of Finance 55:5, (October 2000): 2017-2069. 9 David Veenman and Patrick Verwijmeren, "Earnings Expectations And The Dispersion Anomaly," (January 2015). 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy and Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach To Bottom-Up Stock Picking," dated December 3, 2015. 11 My now-defunct blog, stockcoach.blogspot.com, discussed my real-time trading progress between 2004 and 2007. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Overweight The S&P consumer finance index, much like their larger financials peers in the S&P banks index, have mostly not participated in the rise in Treasury yields, a relationship that has heretofore been relatively tight (top panel). This is despite credit card interest rate spreads that are pushing close to their post-GFC highs; such moves in the spread have typically heralded bullish sell-side sentiment changes and the current message is no different as earnings estimates have soared (second panel). While rate-driven revenues are climbing, the cost picture remains stable. The credit card delinquency rate has ticked up modestly but remains at severely depressed levels, driven by historically low unemployment (bottom panel). We continue to expect a sector rotation with financials and industrials leading the next phase of the market advance, a result of the bond market selloff gaining steam into year-end and beyond.1 Accordingly, we reiterate our overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CFINX - AXP, DFS, SYF, COF. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "The "FIT" Market," dated October 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Neutral As a wholly domestic industry, the S&P health care facilities index is well insulated from trade tremors that have been shaking the broad market this year. It is thus understandable that the index has been rallying in 2018. Still, as a particularly labor-intensive industry, rising wages pose a significant risk. On that front, investors have reason to be wary; the employment cost index for hospitals has jumped dramatically in its most recent reading, rising faster than at any point since the financial crisis, now keeping pace with overall payrolls (second panel). Further, job openings are soaring, having doubled in the last five years (third panel) which suggests hospital employment costs have much further to rise. Still, the picture is not all bad. Other input costs, such as the cost of medical equipment and supplies, have fallen steeply and now hover close to the deflation line (bottom panel). This could be enough to sustain margins, everything else being equal. Net, we reiterate our neutral stance on the S&P health care facilities index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HCFA - UHS, HCA.

As is tradition, during client visits in Europe last week, I had the pleasure of reconnecting with Ms. Mea, a long-term BCA client.1 It was our third encounter and, as always, Ms. Mea was eager to delve into our reasoning, challenge our views and strategy, as well as gauge our conviction level. We devote this week's report to key parts of our dialogue. I hope clients find it insightful and beneficial. Ms. Mea: Isn't the EM selloff and underperformance already overextended? I am afraid you will overstay your negative view on EM risk assets as happened in 2016. What are you watching to ensure you alter your stance as and when appropriate? Answer: I am very cognizant of not overstaying my negative stance on EM. I viewed the EM/China rally from their 2016 lows as a mid-cycle outperformance in a structural downtrend.2 Consequently, I argued the rally was not sustainable and that it was a matter of time before EMs and China-plays entered into a new bear market. Barring perfect timing, it was difficult to make money during that rally. Investors who averaged in EM stocks and local bonds over the past three years (including late 2015/early 2016 lows) and did not sell early this year have not made money. The current down-leg in EM financial markets may be the last phase of the bear market/underperformance that began in 2011, and it will eventually create a major buying opportunity. That said, this bear market will likely last much longer and be larger in magnitude than many investors expect. In the recent report titled EMs Are In A Bear Market, I elaborated on why this is a bear market and not just a correction. We also discussed how much further it might go.3 Big-picture macro themes - such as China/EM credit excesses and misallocation of capital - have informed my core views in recent years. Notwithstanding, I am watching various market signals that often lead economic data and are typically early in signaling a reversal in financial markets. Just a few examples of market signals and indicators I am following closely: Turns in EM corporate bond yields often coincide with reversals in EM stocks. For now, EM corporate bond yields are rising, and hence they do not signal a bottom in EM share prices (Chart I-1, top panel). Chart I-1EM/Asian Corporate Bonds Signal Downside Risks To Share Prices The same holds true for Emerging Asian markets: surging corporate bond yields are heralding further declines in Asian share prices (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven (RSH) currency ratio positively correlates with EM equity prices. The RSH ratio has recently rebounded but has not broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Hence, there is no meaningful buy signal as of yet. Chart I-2Our Market Risk Indicator The annual rate of change of this indicator leads the global trade cycles and entails further slowdown in global trade (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Trade Slowdown Is Not Over Finally, a number of EM equity indexes - small-caps and an equal-weighted index - have broken below their 3-year moving averages (Chart I-4). This entails that the selloff in EM stocks is very broad-based. It could also entail that the overall EM index will likely break below its 3-year moving average as well (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Equity Selloff Has Been Broad-Based Apart from market signals, I am also monitoring economic data, and so far, there are few signs of a revival in global trade or EM growth. The EM manufacturing PMI is falling (Chart I-5, top panel). Manufacturing output growth in Asia and Germany are decelerating sharply (Chart I-5, bottom panel). When global trade growth underwhelms, EM risk assets and currencies fare poorly. Chart I-5Global Growth And EM Credit Spreads Remarkably, both panels of Chart I-5 corroborate that the key reason for the EM selloff this year has not been the Federal Reserve tightening but the deceleration in global trade. We do not foresee a reversal in global trade and China/EM growth deceleration in the coming months. This heralds maintaining our negative view on EM risk assets and currencies for now. Ms. Mea: It is true that China is slowing, but policymakers are also stimulating and a lot of bad news may already be priced into China-related markets. Why do you believe there is more downside in China-related markets and EM risk assets from today's levels? Answer: Indeed, China is easing policy, but policy stimulus has so far been limited. It also works with a time lag. First, the bottoms in the money and the combined credit and fiscal spending impulses preceded the trough in EM and commodities by 6 months at the bottom in 2015 and by about 15 months at the top in 2017 (Chart I-6). Even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Chart I-6China: Money, Credit And Fiscal Impulses And Financial Markets Second, the stimulus has so far been limited. The recently increased issuance of special bonds by local governments was already part of this year's budget. Simply, it was delayed early this year and has been pushed into the third quarter. In addition, there are reports that 42% of this recent special bond issuance will be used for rural land purchases rather than infrastructure spending.4 The former will not boost economic activity and demand for raw materials and industrial goods. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report5 that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). On both accounts, odds are that the transmission mechanism will be slower and somewhat impaired this time around than in the past. Chart I-7 illustrates that the marginal propensity to spend/invest by companies is diminishing, and it has historically defined the primary trend in industrial metals prices. Chart I-7China: Companies Are Turning More Cautious On Capex Third, most of the fiscal stimulus - tax cuts and income tax deductions - are designed to raise household incomes. This will primarily help spending on some consumer goods and services. Yet, there will be little help for property sales, construction and infrastructure spending. These three types of spending drive most of the demand for commodities, materials and industrial goods. In turn, industrial goods, machinery, commodities and materials account for about 80% of total Chinese imports. Hence, the channels by which China affects the rest of the world are via imports of capital goods, materials and commodities. Overall, China's tax reforms will have little bearing on its imports from other countries. The latter are heavily exposed to the mainland's construction and infrastructure spending, which in turn are driven by the Chinese credit cycle. This is why we spend so much time analyzing mainland money and credit cycles. Finally, the significance of U.S. import tariffs for the Chinese economy should be put into perspective. China's exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of its GDP. This compares with the mainland's total exports of 20% and capital spending of 42% of GDP (Chart I-8). Chart I-8What Drives China's Growth Consequently, capital spending is much more important to the Middle Kingdom's growth than its shipments to the U.S. That said, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China is likely already negatively affecting overall business and consumer confidence in China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9China: Service Sector Is Moderating In addition, Chart I-10 illustrates that China's manufacturing PMI for export orders have plunged, signifying an imminent slump in its exports. This could be due to its shipments not only to the U.S. but also to developing economies, which account for a larger share of total exports than shipments to the U.S. and EU combined. Considerable depreciation in EM currencies has made their imports more expensive, dampening their capacity to import. Chart I-10Chinese Exports Are At Risk In brief, China's growth will continue to disappoint, weighing on China plays in financial markets. Ms. Mea: Why has strong U.S. growth not helped global trade, China and EM in general? How do U.S. economic and financial markets enter into your analysis about the world and EM? Answer: One common mistake that many commentators make is to form a view on the U.S. growth outlook and then extrapolate it to the rest of the world. The U.S. economy is still the largest, but it is no longer the sole dominant force in the global economy. Chart I-11 shows that U.S. and EU annual imports are equal to $2.5 and $2.2 trillion, respectively. Combined annual imports of China and the rest of EM amount to $6 trillion - hence, they are much larger than the aggregate imports of U.S. and EU. This is why global trade can deviate from time to time from U.S. domestic demand cycles. Chart I-11EM Imports Are Larger Than U.S. And EU Imports Together That said, due to their sheer size, U.S. financial markets have a much larger impact on global markets than U.S. imports do on global trade. EM financial markets are greatly influenced by their counterparts in the U.S. In this respect, we have a few observations: U.S. growth is robust, the labor market is tight and core inflation is rising. Barring a major deflation shock from EM, the path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields and the fed funds rate is up. Continued rate hikes by the Fed constitute a major menace to EM risk assets. For now, the growth divergence between the U.S. and rest of the world will continue to be manifested in a stronger U.S. dollar. This is a bad omen for EMs. Chart I-12A Risk To U.S. Share Prices Rising U.S. corporate bond yields have historically been associated with lower U.S. share prices, and presently portend a further drop in American equities (Chart I-12). Finally, the surge in equity market leaders - specifically, new economy stocks - has been on par with previous bubbles, as shown in Chart I-13. Chart I-13History Of Financial Bubbles It is impossible to know whether or not this is a bubble that has already reached its top. But the magnitude and speed of the rally, at minimum, warrant a consolidation phase. On the whole, Fed tightening, rising corporate bond yields, a strong dollar and elevated valuations warrant further correction in U.S. share prices. This will reinforce the downtrend in EM risk assets. Ms. Mea: Are fundamentals in many EM countries not better today than they were amid the taper tantrum in 2013? Specifically, current account balances in many developing nations have improved and their currencies have cheapened. Answer: Your observation is correct - current account deficits have improved and currencies have become much cheaper than before. Nevertheless, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions to turn bullish: First, marginal shifts in balance of payments drive exchange rates. Even though current account deficits are currently smaller and currencies are moderately cheap in many EMs, a deterioration in their current accounts due to weakening exports in general and falling commodities prices in particular will depress their currencies. In this context, China's imports are critical. As they decelerate, EM ex-China's current account balances will deteriorate and their exchange rates will depreciate. Second, current account surpluses do not always preclude currency depreciation. Chart I-14 shows that the Korean won, the Taiwanese dollar and the Malaysian ringgit experienced bouts of depreciation, despite running current account surpluses. Chart I-14Current Account Surpluses And Exchange Rates Third, emerging Asian currencies are at a risk from another spell of RMB depreciation. Chart I-15 illustrates that CNY/USD exchange rate correlates with the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. As the Fed hikes rates further and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) keep interest rates stable, the yuan will likely depreciate against the greenback. Chart I-15CNY/USD And Interest Rates Despite capital controls, it seems the interest rate differential affects the exchange rate in China too. Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. If the authorities push up interest rates to make the yuan attractive to hold, it will hurt the already overleveraged and weak economy. If the PBoC reduces interest rates further to help the real economy, the RMB will come under depreciation pressure. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-worst outcome for the nation. Yet, this will rattle Asian currencies and risk assets. Finally, EM currency valuations are but particularly cheap, except Argentina, Turkey and Mexico as depicted in Chart I-16A & Chart I-16B. When currency valuations are not at an extreme, they usually do not matter for the medium-term outlook. Chart I-16AEM Currency Valuations Chart I-16BEM Currency Valuations As to the EM fixed-income market, exchange rates are the key driver of their performance. Currencies depreciation causes a selloff in high-yielding local currency bonds and typically leads to credit spread widening. The latter occurs because U.S. dollar debt becomes more difficult to service when the value of local currency declines. Besides, EM currencies usually weaken amid a global trade slowdown and falling commodities prices. The latter two undermine issuers' revenues and their capacity to service debt, warranting wider credit spreads. Ms. Mea: What about equity valuations? Aren't they cheap? Chart I-17EM Equity Multiples Answer: EM stocks are not very cheap. Our composite valuation indicator based on a 20% trimmed mean of trailing and forward P/Es, PBV, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios denotes a slightly attractive valuation (Chart I-17). According to our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM equities are also moderately cheap (Chart I-18). Chart I-18EM Equities: Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio In short, EM equity valuations are modestly cheap. As with currencies, however, unless valuations are at an extreme (say, one or two-standard deviations from their mean), they may not matter for a while. Barring extreme over- or undervaluation, share prices are typically driven by profit cycles. Importantly, EM corporate earnings are set to decelerate further and probably contract in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-19). If this scenario transpires, share prices will drop further, regardless of valuations. Chart I-19EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk Ms. Mea: Why don't you write about risks to your view? And, I would like to use this opportunity to ask what are the risks to your view presently? Answer: The basis of why I do not write about the risks to my view is as follows: The risks to a view are often the cases when the key pillars of analysis do not play out. It follows that in these cases, the risks to the view are obvious and there is no need to write about them. To sum up our discussion today, the key pillars of my view are: China's policy stimulus has so far been moderate and the stimulus usually works with a time lag. Additionally, the combination of the regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial organizations and the lingering credit and property market excesses in China will generate a growth slowdown that will be longer and deeper than the markets currently expect. The Fed will continue ratcheting up rates as U.S. core inflation is grinding higher. The combination of the above three will produce weaker global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar, and lower commodities prices. All in all, these are bearish for EM risk assets. It is evident that if these themes and assumptions are incorrect, the view will be wrong. Hence, writing that the risks to my view are that my assumptions and themes are mistaken is nothing other than tautology. That said, there are seldom cases when the underlying economic themes and the assumptions are valid, yet the investment recommendations are amiss. These are, in fact, true risks to the view and they are worthy of discussion. Yet, identifying in advance what could go wrong when the analysis and assumption are accurate is very difficult. Presently, I can think of one reason why my investment recommendations could be erroneous even if my economic themes end up being largely valid: It is the shortage of investable assets worldwide relative to capital that is looking to be invested. Quantitative easing programs in the advanced economies have shrunk the size of investable assets. As a result, too much money is chasing too few assets. Consequently, the risk to my view is that EM assets never become sufficiently cheap and that fundamentals do not matter that much. In other words, investors could rush back into EM risk assets despite the poor growth backdrop and not-so-cheap valuations. This is akin to a game of musical chairs where the number of participants is greater than the number of chairs. To complicate things, some chairs are broken, i.e., some assets are of bad quality. As a result, game participants (i.e., investors) are now facing a tough choice between (1) being somewhat prudent and risking being left without a chair; or (2) rushing in and getting either a good chair or a broken chair (depending on luck). Applying this musical chairs analogy, buying EM risk assets at the current juncture is similar to rushing in and hoping to get a good chair. It is a very high-risk bet and success is contingent on luck. In my subjective assessment, there is about a 30% chance that this strategy - buying EM risk now - will be successful with 70% odds favoring being risk averse for the time being. The latter entails staying with a defensive strategy in EM and underweighting/shorting EM versus DM. Ms. Mea: What is your recommended country allocation currently? Answer: In the EM equity space, our overweights are Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Russia, and central Europe. Our underweights, on the other hand, are India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, South Africa and Peru. Chart I-20 demonstrates the performance of our fully invested EM equity portfolio versus the EM MSCI benchmark. This portfolio is constructed based on our country recommendations. Hence, it is a measure of alpha that clients could derive from our country calls and geographical equity allocations. Chart I-20EMS's Fully-Invested Model Equity Portfolio Performance This fully invested equity model portfolio has outperformed the MSCI EM equity benchmark by about 65% with very low volatility since its initiation in May 2008. This translates into 500-basis-points of compounded outperformance per year. In the currency space, we continue recommending shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, KRW and CLP. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, local fixed-income, credit and currency markets are available below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?" dated May 3, 2018 and "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Feature In the late 1980s, half of the global stock market capitalization resided in Japan Furthermore, almost a third of the Japanese stock market capitalization resided in banks. It followed that to have a view on the global stock market you had to have a view on Japanese banks. Indeed, in 1988, five of the ten largest companies in the world were Japanese banks. Less than ten years later, the weighting of Japanese banks in the global stock market had collapsed to less than one percent, rendering Japanese banks a largely irrelevant part of a global equity portfolio. In the new millennium, it was the turn of European banks to step into the limelight. By 2007, the proportion of the euro area's stock market capitalization in banks had ballooned to a quarter. And then, Europe followed in Japan's footsteps. Today, the weighting of banks in the Euro Stoxx has plunged to around a tenth. Could European banks now become a global investment irrelevance too (Feature Chart)? Feature ChartAre Europe's Banks Following In Japan's Footsteps? European banks have performed very poorly. From their peak in 2007, a one dollar investment in euro area banks relative to the world index would now be worth just 15 cents. But Japanese banks have performed abysmally: from their peak in the late 1980s, a one dollar investment in Japanese banks relative to the world index would now be worth a pitiful 3 cents (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3).1 Chart 2Japan Dominated The Global Stock Market In The Late 1980s Chart 3Banks Have Performed Abysmally What turned Japanese bank shares from heroes to zeroes? Some people point to sky-high valuations: in the late 80s, Japanese bank dividend yields dropped below 0.5 percent (Chart I-4), and these high valuations clearly contributed to their subsequent poor investment performance. But this was not the main reason. Chart 4Japanese Banks Offered Miserly Dividend Yields Banks' Lifeblood Is Credit Creation The main reason for the severe underperformance of Japanese banks was that they lost their lifeblood: credit creation. Put simply, if bank assets stop growing structurally, then it is impossible for bank revenues to grow structurally. But in Japan, it was worse: from the 1990s through the mid noughties, private sector indebtedness actually shrank from 220 percent to 160 percent of GDP, and this explains the bulk of the abysmal performance of bank equities (Chart I-5). Chart 5Banks' Lifeblood Is Credit Creation The important lesson is that the structural outlook for bank equities depends first and foremost on the structural outlook for bank credit creation. This is especially true in Europe because the majority of credit intermediation occurs via the banking system rather than via the bond market. So how can we assess the structural outlook for bank credit creation? Basically by noting that there appears to be an upper limit at which all the good lending has been done. Additional bank credit then generates misallocation of capital and mal-investments. At which point, the economy and bank asset quality start to suffer, limiting any further increase in profitable lending. The precise point at which this happens is not set in stone, because high levels of public indebtedness, through 'crowding out', can pull down the limit of productive private indebtedness. And vice-versa. Nevertheless when private indebtedness, as a percentage of GDP, reaches the mid-200s, the evidence suggests that the scope for further growth becomes limited. On this basis, the outlook for bank asset growth in Europe is a mixed bag. In Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, private indebtedness already stands at 250 percent of GDP, implying that the stock of profitable bank assets is close to its upper limit (Chart I-6). Chart 6In Switzerland, Sweden And Norway, Private Indebtedness Is Very High Meanwhile in the euro area, private indebtedness ratios in the Netherlands and Belgium are already well above 200 percent, and in France at 200 percent. On the other hand, the ratios in Germany and Italy - the largest and third largest euro area economies - are barely above 100 percent (Chart I-7). This bestows on them the honour of the lowest privately indebted major economies in the world (Chart I-8), with considerable theoretical capacity for bank asset growth. Admittedly, Italy has a high level of public indebtedness. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that if the banking system in Italy could be unfrozen, there is great scope for economically productive lending. Chart 7In Germany And Italy, Private Indebtedness Is Very Low Chart 8In Japan, Private Indebtedness Has Plunged Having said all that, we now turn to something that bank investors everywhere in the world should fear: blockchain. Blockchain Is A Mortal Threat To Banks The internet's major innovation was to decentralize and democratize information. Before the internet, the creation, ownership and dissemination of information was a function centralized to privileged organizations: governments, media and entertainment companies. But after the internet, anybody and everybody could create, receive and share content - and this has proved to be a game changer for the governments, media and entertainment companies that previously owned and/or controlled the information. In the same way, blockchain's major innovation is to decentralize and democratize trust. The Economist even described blockchain as "the trust machine".2 It follows that blockchain will be a game changer for the privileged organizations whose raison d'être is to supply trust and integrity in transactions - essentially, those that act as a middleman. Clearly, one such privileged organization is the banking system, because the banking system is really nothing more than a middleman that provides trust and integrity in the transaction between the people with savings and the people who want to borrow those savings. Granted, banks also assess and price the credit risk of borrowers as well as provide a degree of insurance for savers. But with the prevalence of universal credit scoring systems and compensation schemes, there is a growing tendency to decentralize those functions too. Put simply, blockchain removes the need for a middleman. Until now, counterparties without an established trust relationship could only transact through a middleman who could add the trust and integrity overlay. But once each participant in the transaction trusts the blockchain itself, they no longer need to use a costly intermediary, like a bank. Therefore, just as the internet has revolutionized politics, media and entertainment, it is our very high conviction view that blockchain will revolutionize the way that money, assets and securities are held, transferred and accounted for. And the major casualty will be the banking system as we now know it. Investment Considerations The structural case for European banks is that Germany and Italy - the largest and third largest euro area economies - have considerable scope for bank credit expansion. The structural case against is that the other European economies have very limited scope for bank credit expansion. Furthermore, we confidently predict that within a decade blockchain will have decentralized and democratized financial intermediation, transforming it to something that is unrecognizable from today. Overall, this will not be a good thing for bank investors. With this in mind, German and Italian real estate and real estate equities are a much cleaner structural play on the potential for increased private indebtedness in those economies, whether intermediated by the banking system or not (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). Chart 9The Evolution Of Private Indebtedness... Chart 10...Drives The Real Estate Market We end with another important lesson from Japan. Even in a three decade long bear market, the banks had the capacity for countertrend bursts of outperformance from oversold levels, sometimes by as much as 50 percent in a year. This is because even within a structural bear trend, there are cycles of excessive depression. European banks could be ripe for such a countertrend burst of outperformance. This year, European banks sank by 35 percent versus European healthcare. However, the sharp deceleration in global credit growth which dragged them down has now clearly reversed (Chart I-11). On this basis, the next six months could be a countertrend phase: a brief opportunity to own some European banks, at least relative to other equity sectors. Chart 11European Banks Are Ripe For A Burst Of Outperformance Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Performances are calculated in common currency terms. 2 Please see 'the trust machine', The Economist, October 31, 2015.

Highlights Gold's performance during the "Red October" equities sell-off, coupled with that of the most widely followed gold ratios (copper- and oil-to-gold), indicates investors and commodity traders are not pricing in a sharp contraction in global growth. These ratios are, however, picking up divergent trends in EM and DM growth (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields In the oil markets, the Trump Administration appears to have blinked on its Iran oil-export sanctions. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days (Chart 2).1 The higher-than-expected number of waivers indicates the Trump Administration is aligned with our view that the global oil market is extremely tight, despite the recent production increases from OPEC 2.0 and the U.S.2 The U.S. State Department, in particular, apparently did not want to test the ability of OPEC spare capacity - mostly held by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - to cover the combined losses of Iranian exports, Venezuela's collapse, and unplanned random production outages. No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Chart 2Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days Energy: Overweight. Iran's exports are reportedly down ~ 1mm b/d from April's pre-sanction levels of ~ 2.5mm b/d. We assume Iran's exports will fall 1.25mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Close to 45k MT of copper was delivered to LME warehouses last week, according to Metal Bulletin's Fastmarkets. This was the largest delivery into LME-approved warehouses since April 7, 1989. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is trading close to fair value, while the most widely followed gold ratios - copper- and oil-to-gold - indicate global demand is holding up. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's crop report shows the corn harvest accelerated at the start of November, reaching 76% vs. 68% a year ago. Feature Gold Ratios Suggest Continued Growth Gold is trading mostly in line with our fair-value model, based on estimates using the broad trade-weighted USD and U.S. real rates (Chart 3).3 Safe-haven demand - e.g., buying prompted by the fear of a global slowdown or a deepening of the global equity rout dubbed "Red October" in the press - does not appear to be driving gold's price away from fair value. Neither is rising volatility in the equity markets. Chart 3Gold Trading Close To Fair Value This assessment also is supported by the behavior of the widely followed gold ratios - copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold - which have become useful leading indicators of global bond yields and DM equity levels following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). From 1995 up to the GFC, the gold ratios tracked changes in the nominal yields of 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds fairly closely. During this period, bond yields led the ratios as they expanded and contracted with global growth, as seen in Chart 4. Post-GFC, this relationship has reversed, and the gold ratios now lead global bond yields. Chart 4Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC To understand this better, we construct two variables to isolate the common growth-related and idiosyncratic factors driving these ratios over the long term, particularly following the GFC.4 The common factor is labeled growth vs. safe-haven in the accompanying charts. It consistently tracks changes in global bond yields and DM equities, which also follow global GDP growth closely. If investors were fleeing economically sensitive assets and buying the safe haven of gold, the correlation between these variables would fall. As it happens, the strong correlation held up well following the "Red October" equities rout, indicating investors have not become overly risk-averse or fearful global growth is taking a downturn. When regressing our proxy for global 10-year yields and the U.S. 10-year yields on the growth vs. safe-haven factor, we found this factor explains a significantly larger part of the variation in global yields than U.S. bond yields alone (Chart 5).5 This common factor also is highly correlated with DM equity variability (Chart 6). Chart 5Gold Ratios' Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields ... Chart 6... And DM Equities The second, or idiosyncratic, factor we constructed, captures the fundamental drivers that impact each of the gold ratios through supply-demand fundamentals in the copper and oil markets, and EM vs. DM economic performance. The latter is proxied using EM equity returns relative to DM returns.6 This analysis shows oil outperforms copper in periods of rising DM and slowing EM economic growth (Chart 7). Our analysis also indicates this idiosyncratic factor explains the divergence of the gold ratios seen in 2018: Copper demand is heavily influenced by EM demand, particularly China, which accounts for ~ 50% of global copper demand, but less than 15% of global oil demand. Oil demand - some 100mm b/d - is much more affected by the evolution of global GDP. Chart 7Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors At the moment, this idiosyncratic factor is driving both ratios apart because of: Relative economic underperformance of EM vs. DM, which favors oil over copper; and Persistent fears of escalating Sino-U.S. trade tensions, which are weighing on copper. Price-supportive supply-shocks in the oil market (sanctions on Iranian oil exports, falling Venezuelan production) and still-strong demand continue to drive oil prices. These dynamics likely will remain in place for the foreseeable future (1H19), which will favor oil over copper. Gold Ratios As Leading Indicators To round out our analysis, we looked at causal relationships between the performance of financial assets - EM and DM stocks and bonds - and the gold ratios.7 From 1995 to 2008, the causality ran from stocks and bond yields to our growth vs. safe-haven factor for the gold ratios. However, since 2009, causality has gone from the common factor to bond yields (Table 1). Table 1Granger-Causality Results In our view, this suggests that the widely traded industrial commodities - copper and oil being the premier examples of such commodities - convey important economic information on the state of the global economy, as a result of their respective price-formation processes.8 It also suggests that in the post-GFC world, commodity markets assumed a larger role in discounting the impacts on the real economy of the numerous monetary experiments of central banks in the post-GFC era. Bottom Line: Our analysis of the factors driving the copper- and oil-to-gold ratios supports our view that demand for cyclical commodities - mainly oil and metals - is still strong. The behavior of our idiosyncratic factor leads us to favor oil over copper due to the rising EM vs. DM divergence, and the price-supportive supply dynamics in the oil market.   Waivers On U.S. Sanctions Roil Oil Markets A week ago, we cautioned clients to "expect more volatility" on the back of news leaks the Trump administration was considering granting waivers to importers of Iranian crude oil, just before the sanctions kicked in this week. We certainly got it. Since hitting $86.1/bbl in early October, Brent crude oil prices have fallen $15.4/bbl (18%), as markets attempt to price in how much Iranian oil is covered by the sanctions and when importers can expect to see it arrive. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days. This was a higher-than-expected number of waivers than we - and, given the volatility in prices - the market was expecting. This pushed down the elevated risk premium, which had been supporting prices over the past few months.9 The combined imports of these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d, according to Bloomberg estimates. The loss of these volumes in a market that was progressively tightening as OPEC 2.0 brought more of its spare capacity on line - while the USD continued to strengthen - likely would have driven the local-currency cost of fuel steadily higher (Chart 8). Because they are a de facto supply increase - albeit temporary, based on Trump Administration statements - they also will restrain price hikes in EM generally, barring an unplanned outage in 1H19 (Chart 9). Chart 8Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms\ Chart 9Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Although it is obvious Iranian sales will recover some of the ~ 1mm b/d of exports lost in the run-up to the re-imposition of sanctions, it is not clear how much will be recovered. We believe the 180-day effective period for the waivers most likely was sought by KSA and Russia to give them time to bring on additional capacity to cover Iranian export losses. Markets will find out just how much spare capacity these states have in 1H19. By 2H19, additional production out of the U.S. from the Permian Basin will hit the market, as transportation bottlenecks are alleviated. This will allow U.S. exports to increase as well. However, it's not clear how much of this can get to export markets, given most of the dredging work needed to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in the U.S. Gulf Coast has yet to be done. This could explain why the WTI - Cushing vs. WTI - Midland differentials are narrowing, while WTI spreads vs. Brent remain wide (Chart 10). Chart 10WTI Spreads Diverge It is important to note the market still is exposed to greater-than-expected declines in Venezuela's production, and to any unplanned outage anywhere in the world. OPEC spare capacity is 1.3mm b/d, according to the EIA and IEA, and most of that is in KSA. Russia probably has another 200k b/d or so it can bring on line. These production increases both are undertaking are cutting deeply into spare capacity, as the Paris-based International Energy Agency noted in its October 2018 Oil Market Report: Looking ahead, more supply might be forthcoming. Saudi Arabia has stated it already raised output to 10.7 mb/d in October, although at the cost of reducing spare capacity to 1.3 mb/d. Russia has also signaled it could increase production further if the market needs more oil. Their anticipated response, along with continued growth from the US, might be enough to meet demand in the fourth quarter. However, spare capacity would fall to extremely low levels as a percentage of global demand, leaving the oil market vulnerable to major disruptions elsewhere (p. 17). Bottom Line: We expected continued crude-oil price volatility, as markets sort out the U.S. waivers on Iranian oil imports. The supply side of the market remains tight, and spare capacity is being eroded by production increases. We believe OPEC 2.0 will use the 180 days contained in the waivers to mobilize additional production. How much of this becomes available is yet to be determined. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "As U.S. starts oil sanctions against Iran, major buyers get waivers," published by reuters.com November 5, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia. Please see "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity" for our most recent supply-demand balances and price assessments, published October 25 by Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 We use the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) and U.S. inflation-adjusted real rates as explanatory variables in these models. As Chart 3 indicates, actual gold prices are in line with these variables. 4 The first factor accounts for ~ 80% of the variation in the gold ratios. The second idiosyncratic factor, which captures (1) supply-demand fundamentals in the oil and copper markets, and (2) divergences in global growth using EM vs. DM equities as proxies, accounts for the remaining ~ 20% of the variation. 5 Throughout this report, we proxy global yield by summing the yield on the 10-year German Bunds, Japanese Government Bonds and U.S. Treasurys. Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds," dated August 2, 2018. Available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The adjusted R2 in the global yield model is 0.94 compared to 0.88 for the U.S. Treasury model. 6 Using MSCI Emerging Market Index and MSCI Word Index price index. 7 To conduct this analysis, we use a statistical technique developed by the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger. The eponymous Granger-causality test is used to see whether one variable (i.e., time series) can be said to precede the other in terms of occurrence in time. This test measures information in the variables, particularly the effect of information from the preceding variable on the following variable. Please see Granger, C.W.J. (1980). "Testing for Causality, Personal Viewpoint,"Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2 (pp. 329 - 352). 8 This assessment is consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the literature on which is countably infinite at this point. Sewell notes: "A market is said to be efficient with respect to an information set if the price 'fully reflects' that information set (Fama, 1970), i.e. if the price would be unaffected by revealing the information set to all market participants (Malkiel, 1992). The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are efficient." The EMH has been debated and tested for decades. Please see Sewell, Martin (2011). "History of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Research Note RN/11/04, published by University College London (UCL) Department of Computer Science. 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity," published October 25, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017