Economy

Special Report

Highlights Net inflows into US assets have been rolling over since the beginning of 2019, given that the repatriation associated with the 2017 tax cuts was a one-off effect. Besides, fading interest rate differentials are making US Treasuries less attractive, which is a headwind for the greenback.  A trade war ceasefire between the US and China should improve the balance of payments dynamics for export-oriented nations. We maintain a pro-cyclical stance.  A revival in oil demand and curbs on supply should underpin oil prices through 2020, which could lift the trade balances of Norway and Canada. However, we expect the Canadian dollar to underperform, weighed by pipeline constraints and the divergence between WCS and WTI prices. Stay short CAD/NOK. Feature The balance of payments is one of the key indicators we watch on a regular basis to gauge the direction of exchange rates. While the power of BoP on currency moves differs from one country to another, it provides a big picture view of a country's transactions with other nations. Generally speaking, persistent surpluses are usually associated with appreciation in currencies, and vice versa. Ongoing trade disputes since early 2018 have caused some fluctuation in current account balances globally. Political uncertainties and rising protectionism have also limited foreign investments in some countries. Going forward, should global growth stabilize amid a possible trade détente, export-oriented regions will have more scope to improve their balance of payments dynamics. In what follows we present balance of payments across G10 through five categories: the trade balance, the current account balance, foreign direct investment, the basic balance, and lastly, portfolio investment. United States Chart 1US Balance Of Payments The US trade deficit has been more or less flat, lingering around 3% of GDP. The trade deficit mostly comes from manufactured goods. On the positive side, the US has been producing and exporting more petroleum and related products, which has decreased oil demand from abroad. Meanwhile, exports of pharmaceutical products are on the rise. The current account is at a smaller deficit of 2.5% of GDP, thanks to a positive net international investment position. Foreign direct investment had been increasing due to repatriation by US companies since the 2017 Trump tax cuts. If this one-off tax break was a source of US dollar strength in 2018, that support is now gone. Meanwhile, dollar strength since the beginning of 2018 may have made US assets less attractive to foreign investors. Since the beginning of 2019, net inflows into US assets have been rolling over, and have fallen to 0.9% of GDP. This has brought the US basic balance down to -1.6% of GDP. In terms of portfolio investment, US bond markets are still appealing to foreign investors, but interest rate differentials are moving against the greenback. Total foreign purchases of US Treasury bonds have been negative this year, of which official purchases stand at US$350 billion of net outflows. In short, the path of least resistance for the US dollar is down, due to a widening current account deficit, waning foreign direct investment, fading interest rate differentials and increasing dollar liquidity. Euro Area Chart 2Euro Area Balance Of Payments The slowdown in global trade has hit European exports, but the trade balance is still sporting a “healthy” surplus of 1.7% of GDP, albeit far below its peak. As a result, the current account as of September 2019 was still at a healthy level of 2.7% of GDP. Should a US-China "phase one" deal be finalized, the trade balance in the euro area is likely to rebound going into 2020. Foreign direct investment has been increasing to the point of being at its highest level over the past 20 years, or 1% of GDP. This has been aided in part by the peripheral countries, further evidence that we are getting a convergence in competitiveness across Eurozone countries. The cheap euro and lower cost of capital have helped. As a result, the basic balance for the euro area reached a new high of 3.8% of GDP in September 2019. Portfolio investment into the euro area has stopped deteriorating since the beginning of 2017 and is now sporting net inflows of 0.8% of GDP. European purchases of both foreign equities and foreign bonds are falling, probably a sign that domestic assets are becoming more attractive. For example, ETF inflows are accelerating. The restart of the European Central Bank’s asset purchase program will continue to act as an anchor for spread convergence in the euro area. Meanwhile, a rally in European equities will be another signal of recovery in the euro area. A healthy current account balance and improving foreign investments both signal a higher euro going forward. Japan Chart 3Japanese Balance Of Payments The trade slowdown has dealt a small blow to Japan’s current account balance. The trade deficit widened further in 2019, reaching -0.5% of GDP in Q3. Exports have been falling for a 10th consecutive month, weighed down in part by lower sales of auto parts and semiconductor equipment. But these will pick up should a trade truce be reached. Among its major trading partners, sales to the US, China and other Asian countries have fallen, but have risen in the Middle East and Western Europe. That said, Japan’s large net international investment position has helped keep the current account surplus at an elevated level of 3.4% of GDP. Foreign direct investment in Japan has been dismal for many years due to an offshoring of industrial production. Net FDI is currently standing at -4% of GDP, which has brought the basic balance below zero for the first time since 2016. The recent deceleration is further evidence that corporate Japan needs structural reforms. Portfolio investment remains in negative territory mostly due to Japanese residents' large purchases of foreign long-term bonds. Going forward, fund inflows to Japan could face more headwinds with the proposed change to the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act. The change aims to lower the minimum stake for foreign investors without government approval from 10% to 1%. Other changes include requiring foreign directors to seek permission before becoming a board member. That said, Japan’s large net international investment position, which produces a high current account surplus, will continue to make the yen a safe haven amid global uncertainties. United Kingdom Chart 4UK Balance Of Payments So far, a cheap pound has not yet staunched the deterioration in UK balance of payments. The UK trade deficit remained wide at 7% of GDP in the third quarter. Among its major trading partners, the trade deficit comes mainly from Germany and China, offset by a smaller surplus from the US, the Netherlands and Ireland. Net receipts are positive, but the current account balance is still in negative territory at -5% of GDP. The Brexit imbroglio has led to an exodus of foreign direct investment. Many international companies are fleeing the UK, but to the extent that we get a quick resolution after the December elections, the uncertainty is likely to subside. Portfolio investment in the UK has been volatile over the past few years and has not really helped dictate any discernable trend in the UK basic balance. More recently, inflows into UK gilts have been £19 billion in the second quarter, while flows into equities are also improving. Relative interest rate differentials are also likely to move in favor of the UK, especially if reduced uncertainty provides scope for the Bank of England to hike interest rates. At a minimum, compared with other European nations, gilts remain appealing to international investors. We remain positive on the pound and are long GBP/JPY in our portfolio. Canada Chart 5Canadian Balance Of Payments The Canadian trade deficit has been hovering near -1% of GDP over the past few years. The goods trade deficit narrowed this year, led mostly by an increase in energy exports and lower imports of transportation equipment. Further improvement in energy product sales will require an improvement in pipeline capacity and a smaller gap between WCS and Brent crude oil prices. The current account deficit has been narrowing, now standing at -2% of GDP, the smallest since 2008. This is helped by net receipts, especially driven by a rise in direct investment income. FDI has been the bright spot in Canadian BoP dynamics. FDI inflows have been in part helped by increased cross- border M&A activities. Net FDI into Canada now accounts for 2.7% of GDP. This has brought the basic balance back above zero for the first time since 2015. Portfolio investment is positive on a net basis, but the trend looks quite worrisome. Foreign entities are fleeing Canada. In the meantime, Canadian investment in foreign securities is on the rise, reaching C$6 billion in Q3. Profitability, liquidity concerns and a global push towards sustainable investing are making Canadian energy and mining companies unappealing for foreign capital. Moreover, with elevated house prices and depressed interest rates, the outlook for banking profitability is also concerning. A drop in the US dollar will help the loonie in the short term. Over the longer term, however, we prefer to be underweight the Canadian dollar, especially via the Australian dollar and the Norwegian krone, which have a better macro outlook. Australia Chart 6Australian Balance Of Payments Australia has seen the best balance of payments improvement among the G10. The Australian trade balance soared this year and now stands at 2.5% of GDP, the highest in several years. Terms of trade, which have increased by 45% since their 2016 bottom, have been one of the main drivers. Exports of iron ore and concentrates increased by 64% year-on-year in September 2019, adding to the positive trade balance. Ergo, Australia is benefitting from both a price and volume boost. Trade has lifted the current account to be on track to post its first surplus since the ‘70s. Going forward, we expect Australian trade to continue improving amid the US-China trade détente. Foreign direct investment dipped slightly in 2019, but from very elevated levels. At present, it still stands at 3.5% of GDP. This has allowed for a very healthy basic balance surplus of 2.9% of GDP. The largest sources of Australian foreign direct investment are the US and the UK. The FDI inflows tend to be concentrated in the mining and manufacturing sectors and generate a negative income balance for Australia. This has been part of the reason behind the country’s chronic current account deficit, but it is impressively becoming less and less important. Portfolio investment in Australia plunged in 2019, and now stands at -4.2% of GDP. This has been driven by an exodus from the bond market. The repatriation of capital back to the US probably helped exacerbate this trend. The Australian dollar is likely to rebound from a contrarian perspective. We are playing Aussie dollar strength via the New Zealand and Canadian dollars. New Zealand Chart 7New Zealand Balance Of Payments New Zealand is also benefitting from a terms-of-trade boost. The trade deficit marginally narrowed to -1.7% of GDP in the third quarter. Exports rose by 4% year-on-year in the third quarter, while imports rose by 3.6% year-on-year. Terms of trade increased in 2019, mainly driven by a rise in dairy and meat prices. It appears the pork crisis in China is benefitting New Zealand exports. As a result, the current account deficit narrowed slightly to 3.4% of GDP. Foreign direct investment in New Zealand rose sharply to 3.1% of GDP, partly driven by reinvestment in the banking sector. This almost brought the basic balance back into positive territory. If this trend continues, it will be the first time the basic balance is in positive territory in two decades. Portfolio investment in New Zealand has been deteriorating, with net outflows of $6.2 billion in the second quarter. This is almost 4% of GDP on an annualized basis. The withdrawal of equity and investment fund shares by foreign entities, as well as divestment of debt securities by the general government, are some of the reasons behind falling portfolio investment. In a nutshell, increased portfolio investment in New Zealand will be predicated on a terms-of-trade shock that boosts margin growth for agricultural exporters, or a policy shift that boosts domestic return on capital. We like the kiwi versus the dollar, but are underweight against its pro-cyclical peers, namely the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona. Switzerland Chart 8Swiss Balance Of Payments The Swiss trade balance has been in a structural surplus, and hugely underpins the nation’s large current account surplus. The improvement this year, a rebound to 5.4% of GDP in the third quarter, is notable. The increase in exports has been partly driven by higher sales of chemical and pharmaceutical products, jewelry, and metals. Combined with income inflows from its large net international investment position, this has produced a current account balance of 10.7% of GDP. The slowdown in foreign direct investment has eased sharply from a record-low of -16% to -8% of GDP. Tax breaks from the US Jobs Act in 2017 allowed for favorable divestment of FDI in Switzerland and repatriation back to the US. This was a one-off that is now behind us, which explains why the basic balance is shifting back into surplus territory, to the tune of 2.5% of GDP.  Portfolio investment has been gradually improving and now stands at 0.3% of GDP. Swiss paper and equities (which are defensive) have benefitted from increased safe-haven demand this year. The Swiss franc is likely to continue its slow structural appreciation in the years to come, interspersed with bouts of volatility. In the short-term, however, the Swiss National Bank is likely to use the currency to fight deflationary pressures. This suggests the EUR/CHF has upside tactically. Sweden Chart 9Swedish Balance Of Payments The Swedish trade balance has been in structural decline since 2004 and turned negative in 2016. A large component of Swedish exports are machinery and automobiles which have suffered stiff competition from other global giants. The good news is that the weak krona is starting to help. The third-quarter trade balance shifted to a surplus for the first time since 2016 and is currently standing at 0.2% of GDP. Combined with inflows from Sweden’s external investments, this has nudged the current account balance to 3.3% of GDP. Despite net FDI inflows falling to -2.1% of GDP, the basic balance still managed to remain stable at 1.2% of GDP due to the improvement in the current account balance. The recent decline in Swedish FDI has mirrored those in other countries. However, Swedish exports will benefit from a trade détente as well as from a broader improvement in global growth. This should stem FDI outflows. Net portfolio investment in Sweden has been volatile in recent years, but our expectation is for improvement. A weak krona has typically helped the manufacturing sector with a lag of 12 months. Moreover, with the krona trading at a large discount to its long-term fair value, foreign investors will likely benefit from both equity and currency returns, should cyclical stocks continue to outperform defensives. In summary, Sweden’s basic balance should recover to levels that have prevailed over the past few years. Norway Chart 10Norwegian Balance Of Payments The bottom in oil prices since 2016 has gone a long way towards improving Norway’s trade balance. Net trade has fallen marginally this year due to lower exports of oil and natural gas, but still stands at 7.2% of GDP. The trade balance is the primary driver of the current account balance, and the latter now stands at 6.4% of GDP. Norway has seen an exodus of foreign capital from both direct and portfolio investment.  Net FDI and portfolio investment stand at -3% and -4% of GDP, respectively. Declining oil production in the North Sea has been partly responsible for falling FDI. On the portfolio side of the equation, it has been mainly due to increased purchases of foreign equities and bonds, especially via the Oil Fund. Concerns around sustainable investing have also likely diverted investors away from Norwegian assets. Despite this, Norway still sports a basic balance surplus of 3.4% of GDP. Eventually, this basic balance will move from being supported by trade to income inflows from Norway’s large net international investment position. The Norwegian krone is cheap on many metrics, and is one of our favorite petrocurrencies at the moment. Should global growth stabilize, which will revive oil demand, inflows into Norway should improve.   Kelly Zhong Research Analyst kellyz@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

An analysis on Brazil is available below. Feature Chart I-1Poor Performance By EM Stocks, Currencies And Commodities I had the pleasure of meeting again with a long-term BCA client Ms. Mea last week during my trip to Europe. Ms. Mea and I meet on a semi-annual basis, where she has the opportunity to query my analysis and view. In our latest meeting, she was more perplexed than usual by the global macro developments and financial market dynamics. Ms. Mea: All the seemingly positive news on the trade front is pushing up global share prices. In fact, a substantial portion -if not all -of the global equity price gains have occurred on days when there has been positive news surrounding the US-China trade negotiations. Given EM financial markets were the most damaged by the trade war, one would have thought that EM markets would outperform in a rally stemming from progress in negotiations. Yet this has not occurred. EM currencies have failed to advance (a number of currencies are in fact breaking down), EM sovereign credit spreads are widening and the relative performance of EM vs. DM share prices has relapsed (Chart I-1). What is causing this disconnect? Answer: The disconnect is due to a somewhat false narrative that the global trade and manufacturing recession as well as the EM/China slowdown were primarily caused by the US-China trade confrontation. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The latter can only partially be attributed to the US-China trade tariffs and tensions. Chart I-2 illustrates that mainland exports are not contracting while imports excluding processing trade1 are down 5% from a year ago. This implies that China’s growth slump has not been due to a contraction in its exports but rather due to weakness in its domestic demand. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The basis as to why mainland exports have held up so well is because Chinese exporters have been re-routing their shipments to the US via other countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan. Critically, the key force driving EM currencies and risk assets has been Chinese imports (Chart I-3). Mainland imports continue to shrink, with no recovery in sight. This is the reason why EM risk assets and currencies have performed so poorly, even amid the global risk-on environment. Chart I-2Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Chart I-3China Imports Drive EM Currencies   Ms. Mea: Are you implying that a ceasefire in the trade war will not help Chinese growth rebound, and in turn support EM economies? The “Phase One” agreement and possible reductions in US tariffs on imports from China may help the Middle Kingdom’s exports, but not its imports. Crucially, the Chinese authorities will likely be reluctant to augment their credit and fiscal stimulus if there is a “Phase One” deal with the US. Absent greater stimulus, China’s domestic demand is unlikely to stage a swift recovery. In the case of a “Phase One” agreement, a mild improvement in business confidence in China and worldwide is likely, but a major upswing is doubtful. The basis is that business people around the world have witnessed the struggles faced by the US and China in their negotiations. They will likely doubt the ability of both nations to reach a structural resolution – and rightly so. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. Importantly, global investors are miscalculating China’s negotiating strategy and tactics. We put much greater odds than many other investors on the possibility that China will continue to drag out the negotiations without signing the “Phase One” agreement. This could easily derail the global equity rally. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. China’s shipments to the US have been around 3.3% of GDP, even before the trade war began. The value-added to the economy/income generated from China’s exports to the US is less than 3% of its GDP. In contrast, capital spending accounts for the largest share (42%) of China’s GDP. In turn, investment outlays are driven by the credit cycle and fiscal spending, rather than by exports. Chart I-4China: Stimulus And Business Cycle Ms. Mea: Turning to stimulus in China, the authorities have been easing for about a year. By now, the cumulative effect of this stimulus should have begun to revive the mainland’s domestic demand. Why do you still think China’s business cycle has not reached a bottom? Answer: Indeed, our credit and fiscal spending impulse has been rising since January. Based on its historical relationship with business cycle variables – it leads those variables by roughly nine months – China’s growth should have troughed in August or September (Chart I-4). However, the time lags between the credit and fiscal spending impulse and economic cycle are not constant as can be seen in Chart I-4. On average, the lag has been nine months but has also varied from zero (at the trough in early 2009) to 18 months (at the peak in 2016-‘17). Relationships in economics – as opposed to those in hard sciences – are not constant and stable. Rather, correlations and time lags between variables vary substantially over time. In addition, the magnitude of stimulus is not the only variable that should be taken into account. The potential multiplier effect is also significant. One way to proxy the multiplier effect is via the marginal propensity to spend by households and companies. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Our proxies for Chinese marginal propensity to spend by companies and households have been falling (Chart I-5). This entails that households and businesses in China remain downbeat, which caps their expenditures, in turn offsetting the positive impact of stimulus. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Without rapidly rising property prices and construction volumes, boosting sentiment and growth will prove challenging. We discussed the current conditions and outlook of China’s property market in last week’s report. Construction is the single largest sector of the mainland economy, and it is in recession: floor area started and under construction are all shrinking (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: A Weak Multiplier Effect Chart I-6China Construction Is In Recession   It is difficult to envision an improvement in manufacturing and a rebound in demand for commodities/materials and industrial goods without a recovery in construction. Notably, Chart I-6 displays the most comprehensive data on construction, as it encompasses all residential and non-residential construction by property developers and all other entities. Ms. Mea: Why are some global business cycle indicators turning up if, as you argue, the global manufacturing slowdown originated from Chinese domestic demand and the latter has not yet turned around? Answer: At any point of the business cycle, it is possible to find data that point both up and down. Our ongoing comprehensive review of global business cycle data leads us to conclude that the improvement is evident only in a few circumstances, and is not broad-based. In particular: In China and the rest of EM, there is no domestic demand recovery at the moment. China and EM ex-China capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart I-7). Chinese consumer spending is also sluggish (Chart I-8). The rise in China’s manufacturing Caixin PMI over the past several months is an aberration. Chart I-7EM/China Capex Is Very Weak Chart I-8No Recovery For Chinese Consumers     In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, narrow and broad money growth are underwhelming (Chart I-9). These developments signify that EM policy rate cuts have not yet boosted money/credit and domestic demand. We elaborated on this in more detail in our recent report. The basis for such poor transmission is banking-system health in many developing countries. Banks remain saddled with non-performing loans (NPLs). The need to boost provisions and fears of more NPLs continues to make banks reluctant to lend. Besides, real (inflation-adjusted) lending rates are high, discouraging credit demand. In the US and euro area, consumption – outside of autos – as well as money and credit growth have never slowed in this cycle. The slowdown has largely been due to exports and the auto sector. The latter may be bottoming in the euro area (Chart I-10). This might be behind the improvement in some business surveys in Europe. Chart I-9EM Ex-China: Money Growth Is At Record Low Chart I-10Euro Area’s Auto Sales: Is The Worst Over?   European business survey data are mixed, but the weakest segment - manufacturing – remains lackluster. In particular, Germany’s IFO index for business expectations and current conditions in manufacturing have not improved (Chart I-11, top panel). Similarly, the Swiss KOF economic barometer remains downbeat (Chart I-11, top panel). The only improvement is in Belgian business confidence, and a mild pickup in the euro area manufacturing PMI (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-11European Manufacturing And Business Confidence   In the US, shipping and carload data are rather grim. They are not corroborating the marginal improvement in the US manufacturing PMI. Overall, at this point there are no signs that domestic demand is recovering in China and the rest of EM, which have been the epicenter of the slowdown. The improvement is limited to some data in the US and Europe. Consistently, US and European share prices have been surging, while EM equities have dramatically underperformed. Ms. Mea: What about lower interest rates driving multiples expansion in both DM and EM equities? Answer: Concerning multiples expansion, our general framework is as follows: So long as corporate profits do not contract, lower interest rates will likely lead to equity multiples expansion. However, when corporate earnings shrink, the latter overwhelms the positive effect of a lower discount rate on multiples, and share prices drop along with lower interest rates. DM corporate profits are flirting with contraction, but are not yet contracting meaningfully. Hence, it is sensible that US and European stocks have experienced multiples expansion. In contrast, EM corporate earnings are shrinking at a rate of 10% from a year ago as illustrated in Chart I-12. The basis for an EM profit recession is the downturn in Chinese domestic demand and consequently imports. EM per-share earnings correlate much better with Chinese imports (Chart I-13, top panel) than US ones (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12EM Profits And Share Prices Chart I-13EM EPS Is Driven By China Not The US   In fact, we have documented numerous times in our reports that EM currencies and share prices correlate well with China’s business cycle/global trade/commodities prices, more so than with US bond yields. This does not mean that EM share prices are insensitive to interest rates. They are indeed sensitive to their own borrowing costs, but not to US Treasury yields. Chart I-14 demonstrates that EM share prices move in tandem with inverted EM sovereign US dollar bond yields and EM local currency bond yields. Similarly, emerging Asian share prices correlate with inverted high-yield Asian US dollar corporate bond yields (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-14EM Share Prices And EM Bond Yields Chart I-15Chinese Bond Yields Herald Relapse In EM Stocks And Currencies In short, EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Looking forward, exchange rates hold the key. A relapse in EM currencies will push up both the US dollar and local currency bond yields in many EMs. That will in turn warrant a setback in EM share prices. Ms. Mea: What about the correlation between EM performance and Chinese local rates? Answer: This is an essential relationship. Chart I-15 demonstrates that EM share prices and currencies have a strong positive correlation with local interest rates in China. The rationale is that all of them are driven by China’s business cycle. Relapsing interest rates in China are presently sending a bearish signal for EM risk assets and currencies. Ms. Mea: What does all this mean for investment strategy? A few weeks ago, you wrote that if the MSCI EM equity US dollar index breaks above 1075, you would reverse your recommended strategy. How does this square with your fundamental analysis that is still downbeat? Answer: My fundamental analysis on EM/China has not changed: I do not believe in the sustainability of this EM rebound in general, and EM outperformance versus DM in particular. The key risk to my strategy on EM stems from the US and Europe. It is possible that US and European share prices continue to rally. EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Notably, the high-beta segments of the US equity market and the overall Euro Stoxx 600 index are flirting with major breakouts (Chart I-16A and I-16B). If these breakouts transpire, the up-leg in US and European share prices will be long-lasting. This will also drag EM share prices higher in absolute terms. This is why I have placed a buy stop on the EM equity index. Chart I-16AUS High-Beta Stocks Chart I-16BEuropean Equities: At A Critical Juncture   That said, I have a strong conviction that EM will continue to underperform DM, even in such a scenario. Hence, I continue to recommend underweighting EM versus DM in both global equity and credit portfolios. As we have recently written in detail, the global macro backdrop and financial market dynamics in such a scenario will resemble 2012-2014, when EM currencies depreciated, commodities prices fell and EM share prices massively underperformed DM ones (Chart I-17). Further, I am not arguing that the current global trade and manufacturing downtrends will persist indefinitely. The odds are that the global business cycle, including China’s, will bottom sometime next year. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January (please refer to Chart I-12 on page 8). This is an unprecedented historical gap, making EM stocks, currencies and credit markets vulnerable to continued disappointments in EM corporate profitability. Ms. Mea: What market signals give you confidence in poor EM performance going forward? Answer: Even though the S&P 500 has broken to new highs, multiple segments of EM financial markets have posted extremely disappointing performance. These include: Small-cap stocks in EM overall and emerging Asia as well as the EM equal-weighted equity index have struggled to rally (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Underperformed During 2012-14 Bull Market Chart I-18Various EM Equity Indexes: Failure To Rally Is A Bad Omen   Various Chinese equity indexes – onshore and offshore, small and large – have failed to advance and continue to underperform the global equity index. EM ex-China currencies and industrial commodities prices have remained subdued (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Ms. Mea: Would you mind reminding me of your country allocation across various EM asset classes such as equities, credit, currencies and fixed-income? Answer: Within an EM equity portfolio, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our equity underweights are Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa and Colombia. We continue recommending to short an EM currency basket including ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. Today, we add the BRL to our short list (please refer to the section below on Brazil). As to the country allocation within EM local currency bonds and sovereign credit portfolios, investors can refer to our asset allocation tables below that are published at the end of each week’s report and are available on our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Brazil: Deflationary Pressures Warrant A Weaker BRL The Brazilian real is breaking below its previous support. We recommend shorting the BRL against the US dollar. The primary macro risk in Brazil is not inflation but rather mounting deflationary pressures. Inflation has fallen to very low levels, to the bottom of the central bank’s target range (Chart II-1). Deflation or low inflation is dangerous when there are high debt levels. The Brazilian government is heavily indebted. With nominal GDP growth still below government borrowing costs and a primary budget balance at -1.3% of GDP, the public debt trajectory remains unsustainable as we discussed in previous reports (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Brazil: Undershooting Inflation Target Chart II-2Public Debt Dynamics Are Still Not Sustainable   The cyclical profile of the economy is very weak as shown in Chart II-3. Tight fiscal policy and a drawdown of foreign exchange reserves have caused money growth to slow. That in turn entails a poor outlook for the economy, which will reinforce the deflationary trend. Accordingly, Brazil needs to reflate its economy to boost nominal GDP, which is the only scenario where the nation escapes a public debt trap. Yet, fiscal policy is straightjacketed by the spending cap rule, which stipulates that government spending can only grow at the previous year’s IPCA inflation rate. Federal government spending is set to grow only at the low nominal rate of 3.4% in 2020. Hence, monetary policy is the sole tool available for policymakers to reflate. Both bond yields and bank lending rates remain elevated in real terms. This hampers any recovery in the business cycle. Notably, the marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers is declining, foreshadowing weaker economic activity ahead (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Brazil: The Economy Is Weak Chart II-4Brazil: Propensity To Spend Is Declining   The central bank is determined to reduce interest rates further. As such, they cannot control the exchange rate. Indeed, the Impossible Trinity thesis states that in an economy with an open capital account (like in Brazil), the authorities cannot control both interest and exchange rates simultaneously. Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes stated in recent days that tight fiscal and easy monetary policies are consistent with a lower currency value. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. In fact, currency depreciation is another option to boost nominal growth that the nation desperately needs. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. Commodities prices remain an important driver of the Brazilian real (Chart II-5). These have failed to rebound amid the risk-on regime in global financial markets. This suggests that the path of least resistance for commodities prices is down, which is bad news for the real. Brazil’s current account deficit is widening and has reached 3% of GDP (Chart II-6). Notably, not only are export prices deflating but export volumes are also shrinking (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Chart II-5BRL And Commodities Prices Chart II-6Widening Current Account Deficit   Chart II-7The BRL Is Not Cheap Meanwhile, the nation’s foreign debt obligations – the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – are at $190 billion, all-time highs. As the real depreciates, foreign currency debtors (companies and banks) will rush to acquire dollars or hedge their dollar liabilities. This will reinforce the weakening trend in the currency. Finally, the Brazilian real is not cheap - it is close to fair value (Chart II-7). Hence, valuation will not prevent currency depreciation. Bottom Line: We are initiating a short BRL / long US dollar trade. Investors should remain neutral on Brazil within EM equity, local bonds and sovereign credit portfolios. Investors with long-term horizon should consider the following strategy: long the Bovespa, short the real. This is a bet that Brazil will succeed in reflating the economy at the detriment of the currency. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Processing trade includes imports of goods that undergo further processing before being re-exported.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The seemingly interminable discussions around the “phase one” deal touted by US and Chinese trade negotiators notwithstanding, base metals prices are primed for a rally. The bottoming in base metals prices indicates industrial activity, particularly in EM economies, will turn higher, which will lift aggregate demand. The signaling from base metals markets is consistent with our proprietary industrial activity models, including our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast, which continue to show industrial activity has bottomed and is turning up. Year-on-year growth in supply and demand of aluminum and copper – the largest components of the LMEX index – is diverging: Consumption is outpacing production, which is forcing inventories to draw hard. Any increase in demand will rally prices. Given our view, we are going long the LMEX index at tonight’s close. We recommend this as a tactical position at present and are including a 10% stop-loss; however, we could move this to a strategic position. Feature Despite the seemingly interminable back-and-forth between US and Chinese negotiators working on “phase one” of the Sino-US trade deal, base metals prices are signaling a revival of global economic growth, particularly in EM economies, in 2020. This is consistent with the growth indications being picked up in our proprietary models and reflected in global PMIs. The proximate cause of this revival in economic activity is the global monetary accommodation systemically important central banks have been pursuing for the better part of 2019, and the likely implementation of the long-awaited “phase one” Sino-US trade deal. Fiscal policy space remains available for systematically important economies – e.g., China, Germany and the US – and we expect such stimulus to be deployed next year. Fundamentally, global base metals inventories continue to draw hard, as the rates of growth in consumption and production diverge. Any recovery in organic growth – particularly in EM demand – would spark a rally. Base Metals In The Role Of Leading Economic Indicators We use metals prices to confirm the signals coming from the proprietary models we use to gauge economic growth prospects. Base metals prices often are used as indicators of global economic activity, particularly EM nominal and real GDP growth (Chart of the Week). Indeed, US Federal Reserve Board economists recently noted base metals prices are “often viewed by policymakers and practitioners as early indicators of swings in economic activity and global risk sentiment.”1 These metals prices are more sensitive to changes in global growth than other commodities (e.g., oil, which has its own idiosyncratic factors driving the evolution of prices). For this reason, we use these prices to confirm the signals coming from the proprietary models we use to gauge economic growth prospects. Our research indicates base metals prices are more closely linked to EM activity than DM activity, which makes them especially useful to our analysis of commodity markets generally, particularly oil. This is true also of our proprietary models by construction – EM demand drives commodity demand. Together, the base metals prices and our models contain complementary information that is useful in gauging growth prospects, particularly for EM economies (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekBase Metals Often Function As Gauges of GDP Growth Chart 2Base Metals Prices, BCA's GIA Model Both Are Sensitive to EM Growth Prospects We’ve found base metals prices to be timely indicators of turning points in EM GDP cycles, similar to the Fed’s findings (Table 1). In particular, the LMEX, IMF Base Metals index, and high-grade copper prices lead nominal and real EM GDP by anywhere from one to three months. However, for the entire sample correlation, which goes from 1995 to present, our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index and Global Commodity Factor (GCF) have the highest correlation with nominal and real EM GDP. Table 1Correlation Between EM GDP And Indicators Of Global Activity Our proprietary indicators – GIA index, GCF, EM Import Volume Model (EMIV Model) – have been signaling a revival in commodity demand for several months (Chart 3). The model we’ve developed to track freight, similar to our EMIV Model, also is signaling a recovery in global trade (Chart 4).3 Chart 3BCA's Proprietary Models Also Closely Aligned with EM Growth Chart 4EM Import Volumes Closely Follow Freight Base Metals Stocks Drawing Hard Supply in the biggest components of the LMEX – copper and aluminum – is contracting, while demand is holding up or slightly growing. This is causing global stocks to draw hard, as incremental demand is met from inventory. Any stimulus coming out of China, which accounts for more than half of global base metals demand would propel prices in these markets higher. Global refined aluminum inventories have been drawing sharply as growth rates in production and consumption diverge (Chart 5). Global ali inventories now stand at 1.76mm MT, down 24% y/y. On average, global consumption has exceeded production by 7.2k MT this year. A similar set of fundamentals is forcing copper inventories to draw hard, as well, where consumption has exceeded production by 22.6k MT this year (Chart 6). Global copper inventories are down ~ 20% y/y, and continue to fall. Chart 5Ali Consumption Outpaces Production, Forcing Stocks To Draw Hard Chart 6Copper Stocks Draw Hard On Similar Fundamental Pressure The only thing preventing a sustained rally in these markets is organic demand growth, which the global accommodation by systematically important central banks is directed toward reviving. PBOC policymakers in China have drawn attention to their capacity for additional monetary stimulus, even though they have held off on goosing money and credit supply this year. A prolonged weakening of GDP growth in China likely would push policymakers to move to a more accommodative stance on monetary policy. Net, weak demand growth is offsetting upside price pressure as production contracts in key base metals markets. That said, EM demand ex-China for base metals likely will increase, if our economic activity gauges and prices are correct in the signals they are generating. Any stimulus coming out of China, which accounts for more than half of global base metals demand would propel prices in these markets higher. Expect Higher Base Metals Demand In 2020 Both our GIA index and base metals prices are good predictors of EM economic activity – overall EM and EM ex-China – which inclines us to expect growth to revive there as well. We are expecting base metals consumption to move higher next year, given the uptick we are seeing in base metals markets and from our economic activity gauges, particularly our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast, which is a weighted combination of the individual models we use as a contemporaneous indicator (Chart 7).4 Chart 7Base Metals Demand Set To Recover in 2020 Chart 8Global Financial Easing Will Lift Base Metals Part of this will be led by improving Chinese demand, which accounts for more than 50% of base metals demand globally (Chart 8). We expect global financial conditions to remain supportive, and for total social financing in China to provide additional tailwinds to metal prices. This will keep aluminum demand in China stable-to-higher (Chart 9) along with copper demand (Chart 10). Both our GIA index and base metals prices are good predictors of EM economic activity – overall EM and EM ex-China – which inclines us to expect growth to revive there as well.5 Chart 9Chinese Aluminum Consumption... Chart 10...And Copper Demand Will Recover Given our view, we are going long the LMEX Index at tonight’s close. Bottom Line: Base metals prices and price indexes are telling a similar story to the gauges we’ve constructed to follow EM growth prospects, hence commodity demand prospects. Fundamentally, these markets continue to tighten, as supply growth remains significantly behind demand growth and stocks continue to draw hard. The y/y changes in the metals price indexes likely have bottomed and will be moving higher. Our GIA and GCF indicators concur. Taking the information contained in our proprietary indexes and base metals prices together drives our expectation for stronger base metals demand next year, which, given the state of supply growth and inventories, points to higher prices. Given our view, we are going long the LMEX Index at tonight’s close. We recommend this as a tactical position and will await confirmation of a robust recovery in demand before moving it to a strategic position. For that reason, we are including a 10% stop-loss; however, we could move this to a strategic position. Chart 11Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Also Works Against Base Metals Demand The same forces that are hindering a strong recovery in oil demand – chiefly the elevated level of global economic uncertainty, which keeps the USD well bid – also are at play in the base metals markets. USD strength keep the cost of base metals high in local-currency terms, which retards demand, and encourages increased supply at the margin, as the local-currency cost of production is suppressed (Chart 11). It will be difficult to go all-in on a commodity price rally until this uncertainty is resolved, or at least reduced.     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Market Round-Up Energy: Overweight. Brent prices closed at one-month high on Tuesday, surpassing $64/bbl. We expect this trend to continue as demand – mainly from EM – picks up in the coming months, as signaled by our proprietary indicators. Next week will be critical for the 2020 oil market balance. OPEC’s Joint Technical Committee will meet on December 3, OPEC on December 5, and OPEC and non-OPEC countries – i.e. OPEC 2.0 – on December 6. The current market consensus seems to be that OPEC 2.0 will agree to maintain the current production curtailments for three additional months, which would take their deal to keep 1.2mm b/d off the market to the end of June. Non-complying countries – mainly Iraq – can be expected to encounter pressure to further reduce production in line with their quotas. In our global oil market balances, we assume OPEC 2.0 will extend the current quota until year-end 2020. Nonetheless, this could be announced gradually throughout the year. Base Metals: Neutral. Base metals moved higher on Tuesday following positive developments in the US-China trade talks. Top negotiators from both countries spoke by phone earlier this week and Trump signal its administration was in the “final throes of a very important deal.”6 We expect a ceasefire to be signed this year, which will revive sentiment at the margin. Moreover, copper and aluminum prices will be supported by rising EM GDP next year (see this week’s front section for details). Copper prices are up 2% since last Thursday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices held above our $1,450/oz stop-loss despite the risk-on sentiment fueled by encouraging discussions between the US’s and China’s top negotiators. For next year, we believe the Fed will remain accommodative and will not risk de-railing the recovery pre-emptively, even as inflation moves above target. This will support gold prices. The Fed will only tighten more aggressively once inflation breakeven rates are well anchored in the 2.3% to 2.5% range identified by our US Bond strategists. Appearing before the New York Association of Business Economics this week, Fed Governor Lael Brainard argued for a flexible average inflation target that would allow for a sustained period of inflation running above 2% to offset the last decade of inflation averaging far below the current 2% target.7 This is part of the undergoing review of how the Fed conducts monetary policy, led by Vice Chair Richard Clarida. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The slow corn harvest forced the USDA to delay the end of its weekly crop progress report. 84% of corn harvest was complete, below the five-year average of 96%. This season’s corn harvesting has been the slowest since 2009. Wheat rallied on Monday amid fund buying, with its most active contract for March delivery up almost 3%. The rally continued from last week when European wheat prices climbed over unfavorable weather conditions, particularly in France, where the condition of the grain was revised down to a four-year low. The soybean market has faced pressure over doubts a Sino-US trade deal will be concluded. China has turned to Brazil to lock in supplies. The January 2020 futures contract on the CME sank to its lowest level since September. Footnotes 1     In a recent study, The Fed researchers used the IMF’s Base Metals index as a leading indicator of GDP growth. The IMF’s index is highly correlated with the London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) we use from time to time to assess base metals markets. However, the LMEX, unlike the IMF’s index, does not include iron ore, which can, at times, cause these indexes to diverge. Please see Caldara, Dario, Michele Cavallo, and Matteo Iacoviello (2016), Oil Price Elasticities and Oil Price Fluctuations, International Finance Discussion Papers 1173, published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2    We find two-way Granger-causality between EM GDP and the IMF’s base-metals price index, the LMEX index, and our Global Industrial Activity Index (GIA), Global Commodity Factor (GCF), and shipping rates proxy, which we discuss below. Close to 75% of the LMEX Index is accounted for by aluminum and copper. Aluminum account for 14% of the IMF index, while copper makes up 30% of the index. 3    The GIA index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity. These statistics are highly correlated with trade-related activity, which, since most of this involve trade in manufactured goods, is important to global industrial activity. The GCF uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different real commodity prices. The EMIV model tracks EM import volumes which are reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. We are also following shipping indexes, which are highly correlated with global trade volumes. 4    Our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is a coincident indicator of commodity demand, comprised of our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, and our Global Commodity Factor (GCF) and EM Import Volume (EMIV) models. 5    EM GDP ex-China is more correlated with base metals prices and our GIA index, while US GDP and IP is only slightly impacted by them. 6    Please see U.S.-China trade deal close, Trump says; negotiations continue published November 26, 2019 by reuters.com. 7    Please see Fed's Brainard calls for 'flexible' average inflation target published November 26, 2019 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 In 2015, the nominal sales of global listed companies shrank by -11.3 percent, marginally worse than the -11.0 contraction suffered during the Great Recession of 2008.  But because few people are aware of the depth of this latter sales recession, we are calling it the ‘hidden sales recession of 2015’ (Feature Chart).  Chart I-1The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Significantly, all of the major stock markets suffered sales recessions in 2015, even when their domestic economies were expanding healthily (Chart I-2). Which starkly illustrates that the performance of stock markets often has little, or no, connection with the performance of their domestic economies. Chart I-2All The Major Stock Markets Suffered Sales Recessions In 2015 The euro area and UK economies grew strongly in 2015, yet the nominal sales of listed European companies contracted by -7 percent. Meanwhile, the sales of listed companies in the US shrank -3 percent, and in China by -10 percent. However, among the major stock markets, the worst pain was felt by the UK stock market where total nominal sales plunged -20 percent (Charts 3-5). Chart I-3US Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 3 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-4European Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 7 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-5UK Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 20 Percent Despite A Growing Economy The particularly sharp contraction in UK stock market sales, with their heavy exposure to the oil and resource sectors, points to the cause of the sales recession of 2015: the interrelated weakness in emerging markets, oil and other commodity prices, and a surging dollar. What Caused The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015? In 2015, Chinese policymakers started tightening policy to lean against a putative credit bubble. This exacerbated a slowdown in Chinese growth that was already underway. In turn, China’s slowdown set off a domino effect in other emerging economies which relied on China as a major export market. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve signalled its intention to exit its extended period of zero interest rate policy, arguing that extraordinarily easy monetary policy was no longer appropriate for a US economy that had returned to normality. On the other sides of the Atlantic and Pacific though, the ECB and the BoJ were moving monetary policy in the opposite direction, obsessed by the persistent undershoot of inflation relative to the two percent target. This combination of tighter monetary policy in the US combined with looser policy in the euro area and Japan precipitated a surge in the value of the dollar. The surging dollar worsened China’s problems. With the yuan pegged to the dollar, the stronger dollar hurt the competitiveness of Chinese companies. But when China loosened the peg in August 2015, it just unleashed another problem: capital outflows.  The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016. Crucially, the synchronized slowdown across emerging economies hit the demand for commodities, catalysing a collapse in prices across the whole commodity complex. The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016 (Chart I-6); metal markets also suffered, the copper price fell from $7000 to $4500; as did agricultural commodities like soybeans whose prices almost halved. This collapse in commodity prices simply added further pressure on emerging economies that are major commodity producers, like Brazil. Chart I-6The Sales Recession Of 2015 Was About A Collapse In Prices In Key Sectors Of The Economy In turn, the problems in the emerging economies and commodity complex set off other negative feedback loops that further hurt prices. For the significant portion of emerging market debt that is denominated in dollars, a stronger dollar meant a greater debt burden and danger of default. At the same time, the collapse in the oil price endangered the financial viability of the heavily indebted US shale oil producers and thereby their corporate bonds.     To summarise, the stock market sales recession of 2015 was partly about a slowdown in sales volumes. But it was more about a collapse in the prices in certain key sectors of the economy, namely oil, materials, and industrials. And as nominal sales are the product of sales volumes and prices, the nominal sales of listed companies suffered as sharp a recession in 2015 as in 2008. Why Does The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Matter Today? The experience of 2015 painfully illustrates that the nominal sales of the dominant companies in a stock market may have little, or no, connection with their domestic economy, or indeed with conventional measures of the global economy. The reason is that the stock market, which by definition only includes publicly listed companies, has different sector skews compared with the whole economy. This is particularly true for those European stock markets where sector skews make them over exposed to the oil, materials, and industrial sectors, whose output prices can show wild swings that swamp the impact of sales volumes. The years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth. Chart I-7After A Sales Recession, There Is A Snapback There is another important message for today. After a sharp contraction in nominal sales caused by either volumes or prices plunging, as in 2008 and 2015, the first part of the recovery from overly-depressed levels tends to be the sharpest. This sharp snapback phase tends to last no more than two years. So the years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth (Chart I-7). Clearly, the sharp snapback phase is most powerful for the most beaten-up sectors during the nominal sales recession, such as energy and materials. For such ‘value cyclicals’, nominal sales growth tends to outperform that of the aggregate stock market in the snapback, and then underperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Energy Outperforms In The Snapback, Then Underperforms Chart I-9Materials Outperform In The Snapback, Then Underperform Chart I-10Healthcare Underperforms In The Snapback, Then Outperforms The corollary is that the sectors that did not suffer much during the sales recession, such as healthcare do not have a snapback phase. Hence, for such a ‘growth defensive’, nominal sales strongly underperform the aggregate market during the two year snapback, and then outperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-10). Let’s conclude with some brief investment thoughts. First, for mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18. Without any support from lower bond yields and the associated multiple expansion for stocks, this means that stock markets are likely to deliver low single digit returns. Second, value cyclicals such as energy and materials outperformed in the snapback phase from 2017 to mid-2019, but now appear to be rolling over into an underperformance phase. Structurally underweight energy and materials. For mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18.  Third, a growth defensive such as healthcare underperformed sharply in the snapback phase, but now appears to be back in an outperformance phase. Stay structurally overweight healthcare.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global High-Yield: The widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks. Feature There’s Nothing To “Caa” Here The clouds of pessimism on global growth, and financial markets, continue to slowly dissipate. The global manufacturing PMI has clearly bottomed, our rising global leading economic indicator is signaling more upside for the first half of 2020, equity markets worldwide are grinding higher, volatility is subdued, while corporate credit spreads in the US and Europe remain generally tight. Yet within the corporate bond market, a peculiar dynamic has emerged. We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for the overall Bloomberg Barclays US high-yield (HY) index now sits at 376bps. While this spread is relatively narrow from a longer-term perspective, investors may have become more discerning about credit risk. Lower-rated HY has dramatically underperformed higher-rated HY debt of late, with the US Caa-rated OAS now sitting at 985bps compared to Ba-rated spreads of 196bps (Chart of the Week). The divergence across credit tiers is unprecedented, in that Caa spreads are widening while Ba spreads are narrowing – typically, spreads move in tandem directionally, both in bull and bear markets for US junk bonds. The widening of US Caa-rated junk bond spreads has started to raise concerns that this is a “canary in the coal mine” signaling future financial stress among US corporate borrowers. Yet the same dynamic is occurring in euro area HY, with Caa-rated and Ba-rated spreads tracking the US on an almost tick-for-tick basis. In a report published yesterday, our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy investigated the history of Caa spread widenings dating back to 1996.1 They noted that Caa spread widening has typically been a good predictor of one-year-ahead negative excess returns for the overall US junk bond index. However, there has never been a period like today where Caa spreads have widened while overall HY spreads have remained stable. Chart of the WeekSome Odd Divergences In Global Credit We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy, for two main reasons: Chart 2Lower Energy Prices Hurt Lower Rated US HY 1) The widening is focused on Energy related debt The widening of US Caa-rated spreads in 2019 has occurred alongside a parallel increase in the spreads of Energy-related companies in the US junk bond universe (Chart 2). A similar trend played out during the 2014/15 HY bear phase, which was triggered by the collapse of world oil prices that ravaged the US shale oil industry which dominated the lower-rated tiers of the junk bond market. In 2019, oil prices have declined, although not as dramatically, and HY Energy spreads have widened but to nowhere near the levels seen five years ago. More importantly, non-Energy junk spreads remain very subdued and stable, unlike the case in 2014/15 (bottom panel). When looking at the 2019 year-to-date excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays US HY index, it is clear that the overall negative returns for the Caa-rated bucket have been driven by the lagging performance of Energy names (Chart 3). The rest of the market has generally been delivering solid excess returns. Chart 3Contribution To 2019 YTD US HY Excess Returns* 2) The widening has not been confirmed by signals from other reliable credit cycle indicators We believe that, from a top-down macro perspective, corporate credit performance in the US is influenced by three main factors: the state of US corporate health, the stance of the Fed’s monetary policy and the trend in lending standards for US banks. We have dubbed this our “Credit Checklist”, and we present a version of that checklist for US high-yield in Chart 4. Chart 4Conditions Not In Place For A Broad US HY Selloff Our “bottom-up” US HY Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) aggregates, for a sample set of US HY issuers, published financial ratios that are typically used to determine the creditworthiness of borrowers – measures like interest coverage, operating margins and leverage. The US HY CHM is currently at a “neutral” reading (2nd panel), unlike past periods where Caa-rated spreads widened sharply: during the early 2000s telecom bust, the 2008 Financial Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual. Turning to measures of the stance of US monetary policy, we look at both the slope of the US Treasury curve (2-year vs 10-year) and the gap between the real fed funds rate and the New York Fed’s estimate of the neutral “r-star” rate. Prior to the early 2000s and 2008 blowout in Caa spreads, the Fed had pushed the real funds rate into restrictive territory above r-star, and the Treasury curve subsequently inverted. That was not the case during the 2014/15 Caa widening, as the Fed was only beginning to transition away from its QE/zero-rate era at that time. Currently, the real funds rate is right at r-star, and the Treasury curve is very flat but not inverted, indicating a broadly neutral monetary policy stance. Finally, we look at data from the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey to evaluate lending standards for US banks. On that front, the latest reading on standards for commercial and industrial loans showed a very modest tightening in the third quarter of 2019, but the overall level remains broadly neutral – unlike the sharp tightening of conditions seen in the early 2000s and 2008 (and the modest tightening in 2014/15). The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual, rather than a sign of future stress in US credit markets. We even see a similar dynamic at work in the euro area. In Chart 5, we present a Credit Checklist for euro area HY, using the same indicators that go into our US HY Credit Checklist. The readings here are even more positive for corporate credit performance than in the US. Our euro area bottom-up HY CHM is showing no deterioration of euro area corporate health, the real ECB policy rate is well below the estimate of r-star, the German yield curve is not inverted and the ECB’s survey of euro area bank lending standards showed a modest easing in the third quarter. Just like in the US, the fundamental backdrop does not argue for a sustained period of euro area HY spread widening, making the latest move higher in euro area Caa spreads as unusual as the move in US Caa. We cannot even blame lower oil prices for the spread widening, as Energy represents only a tiny fraction of the euro area HY market, compared to the large weighting of Energy borrowers in the US junk bond universe. Chart 5Conditions Not In Place For A Broad European HY Selloff We suspect that the correlation between US and euro area HY spreads, by credit tier, has more to do with the increased correlation of trading within global credit markets. Or perhaps it is a sign of investors staying cautious and staying up in quality, even within the riskier HY market. Whatever the reason, we see little fundamental reason to expect the widening of Caa-rated spreads to leak into the broader high-yield market. In fact, if oil prices begin to move higher again, as our commodity strategists are expecting for 2020, that might create a tactical buying opportunity in Caa-rated junk bonds in both the US and euro area. In the meantime, we see no reason to change our recommended overweight stance on US and euro area HY corporate bonds, even with the widening of lower-rated spreads. Bottom Line: The recent widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: The RBA May Not Be Done Yet The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. We have maintained a recommended overweight investment stance on Australian government bonds since December 19, 2017. Since then, the yield on Bloomberg Barclays Australian Treasury index has declined by -140bps, sharply outperforming bonds in the other developed markets and ending Australia’s long-time status as a “high-yielding” developed economy bond market (Chart 6). The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. The central bank has already cut interest rates by 75bps this year, taking the Cash Rate down to a record low of 0.75%. At the November 5th monetary policy meeting, the RBA held off on additional easing but still delivered what was perceived by the market to be a dovish surprise, emphasizing persistently below-target inflation and potential downside risks stemming from the housing market. The door was kept wide open for further rate cuts, if necessary. RBA Governor Philip Lowe has even discussed the possibility that the RBA may have to cut rates to the zero bound and start buying assets via quantitative easing to try and restore inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. Chart 6Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Sharply   The RBA’s dovishness is justified, given sluggish economic growth and tepid inflation. Real GDP growth slowed sharply in the first half of 2019 to a meager 1.4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). Consumer sentiment and business confidence remain depressed, having both declined since the start of the year. The former is being hit by weak house prices and sub-par income growth, while the latter is suffering under the weight of weaker demand from Australia’s most important trade partner, China. In addition, persistent drought conditions in much of the country have pushed up food prices and brought down incomes related to the farming sector. Chart 7Sluggish Australian Domestic Demand Chart 8From Boom To Bust In Australian Housing A bellwether for the Australian economy, the housing market, has not fared much better (Chart 8). Building approvals for new dwelling units have fallen almost 20% since September of last year, while house prices in the major cities have been contracting since the fourth quarter of 2017. Responding to easy financial conditions in Australia and the rest of the world, the standard variable mortgage rate has now fallen to a 60-year low. It remains to be seen how quickly the housing market will turn around and when that, in turn, will lift dwelling investment, but the RBA cuts in 2019 should give a bit of a lift to Australian housing in 2020. As in other developed markets, trade uncertainty and fears of a recession have made Australian firms more hesitant to invest. Real private business investment is now falling in year-over-year terms, even with the boost to the terms of trade (and corporate profits) from the increase in prices for Australia’s most important commodities seen in 2019 (Chart 9). That impact may be starting to fade, however. The price for iron ore – a major Australian commodity export – has already fallen 28% from the 2019 peak. In addition, Chinese iron ore imports from Australia are contracting in year-over-terms, even with Chinese growth starting to show signs of stabilization in response to stimulus measures implemented earlier this year. Those is an ominous signal for Australian growth, given the massive swing in net exports seen this year. Chart 9Terms Of Trade Turning Negative For Australian Capex Chart 10An Unsustainable Lift From Net Exports Driven by the persistent depreciation of the Australian dollar, and supportive terms of trade, the Australian trade balance has reached its highest value as a percent of nominal GDP (3.7%) since 1959, when quarterly data began (Chart 10). The surge has come almost entirely from the export side, occurring alongside the boost to commodity prices that was concentrated in iron ore, and looks both unsustainable and unrepeatable on a rate-of-change basis. Slowing Australian economic momentum has also impacted the labor market. Employment growth is slowing and the unemployment rate has ticked up to 5.3% from a cyclical low of 5% in February 2019 (Chart 11). The so-called “underemployment rate”, is a much higher 8.5%, indicating that there is still ample slack in the Australian labor market as workers are working fewer hours than they wish (and are hence, “underemployed”). The underemployment rate is negatively correlated to wage growth, suggesting that the modest upturn in the latter seen since the end of 2016 is likely to cool off (bottom panel). Chart 11Some Softening In The Australian Labor Market Chart 12Australian Inflation Remains Subdued The RBA has already warned that wage growth expectations may have become anchored at a lower level given the anemic growth over the past several years. That mirrors the trend seen in overall price inflation. Headline CPI inflation was only 1.6% in the third quarter of 2019, as was the “trimmed mean” CPI inflation rate that is favored by the RBA. Both are below the bottom end of the RBA’s target range of 2-3%, as are survey-based expectations of short-term inflation (Chart 12). The previously mentioned drought conditions have put some upward pressure on overall inflation via grocery food prices, but that is expected to be transitory. With depressed house prices and ongoing issues with spare capacity in the labor market, longer-term market-based inflation expectations, captured by the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate, have dipped below the 2% level. The combination of weakening growth and soggy inflation poses a problem for the RBA, as it tries to use monetary policy tools to reverse those trends at a time when Australian banks have seen an unprecedented level of scrutiny of their lending practices. Australian banks have been under the harsh political spotlight after the government’s Royal Commission on misconduct in the financial industry released its findings back in February of this year. Many banks were exposed for serious violations, including money laundering and “improperly” selling financial products to households. Several top bank executives lost their jobs as a result, with the overall industry duly chastised and humbled.  Australian banks remain well capitalized, following the path of most developed market banks in response to the Basel III reforms, while non-performing loans remain modest. Yet the risk moving forward is that Australian banks become more prudent in their lending practices after the public “flogging” they received this year, which may impair the transmission mechanism from low RBA policy rates to increased loan growth - and, eventually, faster economic activity. Already, private credit growth has slowed sharply, with the sharpest declines coming for housing and business lending (Chart 13). Investment implications for Australian bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. Despite signs that the global economy is starting to bottom out after the 2019 downturn, the momentum in Australian economic growth and inflation remains tepid. This suggests that Australian sovereign debt is likely to continue outperforming global peers on a relative basis over the next 6-12 months. Our RBA Monitor continues to signal that more interest rate cuts from the RBA are needed. Yet the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve now discounts only 19bps of rate cuts over the next year (Chart 14). This mirrors the trend seen in other developed interest rate markets, as investors have shifted to pricing out the dovish policy expectations as global growth starts to improve. Chart 13Weakening Loan Demand, But No Credit Crunch Chart 14Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. We advise staying strategically overweight Australian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios. Bottom Line: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Building on a previous special report focused on the investable market, in this report we construct and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese domestic equity sector outperformance. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the predictors included in our model, our Li Keqiang leading indicator (based on monetary conditions, money, and credit growth) has been the most important. Our base case view argues in favor of domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, but recent sector performance suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. Over the long-term, we argue that investors have a good reason to favor domestic defensives over cyclicals until the latter demonstrates meaningfully better earnings performance. Feature We examined China’s investable equity sector performance in detail in our October 30 Special Report,1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. In today’s report, we extend our approach to China’s A-share market. Our research focused on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the macroeconomic and equity market factors that we found to be important predictors, our Li Keqiang leading indicator was the most significant. This confirms that China’s domestic market is more sensitive to monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than its investable peer. We also note the sharp difference in the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives in the domestic market compared with the investable market, and what this means for investors over the coming 6-12 months. Finally, we argue that investors should maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance, and point to an existing position in our trade book for investors interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of domestic sector performance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report).2 The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market. Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models ##br##Aimed At... Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang (LKI) Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to three months in order to reduce the need to forecast. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, is detailed in Box I-1 of our October 30 Special Report (please see footnote 1). Key Drivers Of Sector Performance: Domestic Versus Investable Pages 11-22 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 11-22 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Following a review of our domestic equity sector outperformance models, differences in the results from those presented in our previous report can be organized into three distinct elements: 1) the breadth of macro & equity market factors in predicting sector performance, 2) the relative importance of our LKI leading indicator, and 3) the difference between domestic/investable cyclical versus defensive performance. The Breath Of Predictive Factors Chart I-3In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Compared with the models for investible sector performance that we detailed in our previous report, our work modeling domestic equity sector performance highlights that the breadth of predictive factors is narrower, particularly among cyclical sectors (Chart I-3). Our model for domestic materials (shown on page 12) is one exception to this rule, but we found that our models for energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary relative performance were all focused on fewer predictors than is the case for the investable market. In addition, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The case of industrials is particularly notable: our model for investable industrials highlighted the importance of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices & earnings, and overbought and oversold technical conditions in explaining past periods of industrial sector outperformance. By contrast, our domestic industrials model is quite simple: the sector has been more likely to outperform, with a lag, when our BCA China Activity Index and LKI leading indicator have been rising, and underperform following periods of extreme overvaluation. One of the core conclusions of our previous report was that investors should view the relative performance of investable industrials versus consumer staples as a reflationary barometer, given the strong sensitivity of both sectors to tight monetary policy. We explained this sensitivity by pointing to the substantial difference in corporate health between the two sectors: industrial firms are heavily debt-laden and thus experience deteriorating operating performance and an environment of rising interest rates. In comparison, food and beverage firms appear to have the strongest balance sheets among the sub-sectors that we have examined, suggesting that they would benefit less from easier monetary conditions than firms in other industries. Our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity has been considerably more important in predicting domestic equity sector outperformance than in the investable market. However, these dynamics appear to be completely absent in influencing performance in China’s domestic equity market. Not only has domestic industrial sector relative performance not been negatively linked to periods of tight monetary policy, but our model for consumer staples (shown on page 15) highlights that periods of staples performance have been driven by two simple factors: the relative trend in staples EPS  (positive sign), and the trend in broad market EPS (negative sign). The Relative Importance Of Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Chart I-4 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that our LKI leading indicator is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, rising economic activity, and oversold technical conditions. The ranking of results shown in Chart I-4 is fairly similar to those that we listed for the investable market, with two exceptions. First, for the domestic market, periods of tight monetary policy were considerably less important than in the investable market as an important predictor of relative sector performance. Instead, our LKI leading indicator was by far the most important predictor, which underscores a point that we have made in previous reports: domestic stocks appear to be much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than for the investable market. This increased sensitivity has helped explain the difference in performance this year between the investable and domestic market, underscoring that the former has more catch-up potential than the latter in a trade truce scenario. Chart I-4Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Second, in the investable market, episodes of significant overvaluation had essentially no power to predict future episodes of equity market underperformance. But this factor was an important or very important contributor to our domestic industrials, health care, and tech models. This finding is consistent with our May 23 Special Report, which noted that value stocks have outperformed in China’s domestic equity market over the past five years and underperformed in the investable market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Has Been A More Successful ##br##Factor In The Domestic Market   Major Differences In The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives The results of our models for domestic equity sector performance did not change the cyclical & defensive labels that we applied in our previous report. The signs of the predictors shown in the tables on pages 11-22 clearly highlight that the domestic energy, materials, industrials consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors, and that consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive. What is striking, however, is that there is a major difference in the relative performance of equally-weighted domestic cyclicals versus defensives compared with what has occurred in the investable market over the past decade. Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B illustrate the different relative performance trends, along with their corresponding trends in relative P/E and relative EPS. Whereas the relative performance of investable cyclicals versus defensives has had somewhat of a stable mean over the past decade, domestic cyclicals have badly underperformed since early-2011. The charts also make it clear that this underperformance has been driven by a downtrend in relative EPS, not due to trend differences in relative valuation. Chart I-6ACyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market... Chart I-6B...But Not So In The Domestic##br## Market Digging further, it appears that this discrepancy can be largely explained by the significant difference in performance between investable and domestic tech over the past decade (Chart I-7). Whereas the former has outperformed the overall investable index by roughly 4-5 times since 2010, the relative performance of the latter has only very modestly risen. In effect, Charts I-6 and I-7 highlight that Chinese cyclical sectors have been structurally impaired over the past decade and have only been “saved” in the investable market by massive outsized outperformance of the tech sector. The fact that investable tech sector performance itself has been largely driven by 2 extremely successful firms underscores how narrowly based the investible cyclical versus defensives performance trend has been. Chart I-7A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Investment Conclusions There are three conclusions that investors can draw from our analysis. First, our research shows that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market. This does not mean that domestic sector performance is not significantly impacted by macro and top down equity market factors, but it suggests that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. As such, investors should be prepared to include episode-specific investigation of abnormal performance as a regular part of their domestic equity sector allocation decisions. Investors should favor domestic cyclicals over the coming year, with exposure focused on consumer discretionary and tech. Second, the fact that our LKI leading indicator is in an uptrend suggests that investors should favor domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, with a caveat. We have noted in several previous reports that our indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the slower pace of money and credit growth than during previous economic upswings suggests that the bar may be higher for some cyclical sectors to outperform. We would advise investors to watch closely over the coming 3-6 months for signs of a technical breakout in all cyclical sectors. But sector performance in Q1 of this year, when the overall A-share market rose sharply versus global stocks, suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus (Chart I-8). Within resources, we prefer the investable energy sector to its domestic peer, due to a sizeable valuation advantage. Chart I-8Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year As a third and final point, abstracting from our bullish outlook for select cyclical sectors over the coming year, Charts 6 and 7 clearly argue for investors to maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance. In the May 23 Special Report that we referred to above, we noted that an A-share portfolio formed of industry groups with above-median return on equity and below-median ex-post beta has significantly outperformed over the past decade. Table I-1 presents the current industry group weights of this portfolio, and shows that overweight exposure is concentrated in the health care, consumer staples, and real estate sectors (all of which are defensive), and a heavy underweight towards industrials. Table I-1Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* For clients who are interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market, we maintain a long position in this portfolio relative to the MSCI China A Onshore index in our trade book, and plan to continue to update the performance of the trade on a weekly basis. Energy Chart II-1 Table II-1 Similar to the investable energy sector, periods of domestic energy sector outperformance are strongly positively related to rising oil prices and rising headline inflation in China. We noted in our previous report that this is a behavioral relationship, rather than a fundamental one. Domestic energy stocks are negatively associated with rising broad market stock prices, unlike their investable peers. This largely reflects the fact that the relative performance of domestic energy stocks has been in a structural downtrend over the past decade. From 2010 to mid-2016, this decline was caused by a persistent underperformance in earnings. Since mid-2016, domestic energy sector EPS have been rising in relative terms, meaning that more recent underperformance has been due to multiple contractions. While not as relatively cheap as their investable peers, domestic energy stocks are heavily discounted versus the broad domestic market based on both the price/earnings ratio and the dividend yield. Consequently, it is possible that domestic energy stocks may at some point begin to outperform in a rising broad equity market environment. For now, our model argues for an underweight stance towards domestic energy due to the lack of a clear uptrend in oil prices. As a pure value play, investable energy stocks maintain a dividend yield of nearly 6.5%, and are thus more attractive than their domestic peers. Materials Chart II-2 Table II-2 Our model for the domestic materials highlights that the sector’s performance has been related to strengthening economic activity and strongly related to a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator. Among the equity market variables that we tested, materials outperformance has been positively associated with rising relative EPS, rising broad market EPS, and prior oversold technical conditions. Similarly, the investable materials sector, these results show that domestic materials are a strong play on accelerating Chinese economic activity. The factors included in our domestic materials sector model are similar to those included in our investable material, except that relative material earnings have also been a significant predictor of sector relative performance. In addition, the macro & equity market predictors included in our domestic materials model have done a better job of leading material sector performance. The odds of domestic materials outperformance rose twice above the 50% mark this year according to our model, without any corresponding improvement in relative stock prices. The spikes in the model occurred largely because domestic materials became significantly oversold; technical conditions for the sector have only twice been weaker over the past decade. This underscores that investors should be watching domestic materials closely in Q1 of next year for signs of a relative rebound. Industrials Chart II-3 Table II-3 The results of our model for domestic industrial sector outperformance are interesting, as they imply that the drivers of performance are different between the domestic and investable markets. In the investable index, we found that industrials were heavily sensitive to monetary policy, rising core inflation, relative sector earnings, and periods of rising broad market stock prices. Our domestic model is considerably simpler: industrials outperform, with a lag, when our activity index and Li Keqiang leading indicator are rising. Periods of strong overvaluation have also been significant in predicting future episodes of domestic industrial sector underperformance. It is not clear to us why the drivers of relative performance for domestic industrials have been different than in the investable equity index, But the good news is that the relative simplicity of the model makes the investment decision making process for domestic industrials considerably easier. Today, domestic industrials are significantly undervalued, and our Li Keqiang leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend. This suggests that domestic industrials are likely to begin outperforming at some point in early-2020 following a bottoming in Chinese economic activity, unless policymakers are quick to tighten once activity begins to improve (which would be contrary to our expectations). Consumer Discretionary Chart II-4 Table II-4 Our domestic consumer discretionary model highlights that the sector’s relative performance is positively associated with a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to its investable peers, domestic consumer discretionary stocks are cyclical, and positive relationship with core inflation may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. Unlike investable consumer discretionary, the domestic consumer discretionary has not been meaningfully impacted by the December 2018 changes to the global industry classification standard. Hence, our model does not exclude the internet & direct marketing retail sector as we did in our previous report on investable sectors. For now, our model suggests that the domestic consumer discretionary sector is likely to continue to underperform, given decelerating core inflation and the lack of a clear uptrend in the broad domestic equity index. However, as a cyclical sector, we will be watching closely for an upside breakout in domestic consumer discretionary performance in the first quarter as a signal to increase exposure to the sector. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Table II-5 Our domestic consumer staples model is significantly different than that shown in our previous report for investable staples. This reflects sizeable differences in investable/domestic staples relative performance over the past decade, particularly from mid-2015 to late-2017 (where domestic staples outperformed significantly and investable staples languished). Of the two predictors found to be significant in explaining historical periods of domestic staples performance, a negative relationship with the trend in broad market EPS has been the most important. This underscores that staples are defensive sector. The trend in staples relative earnings has closely followed in importance, showing that the tremendous outperformance in domestic consumer staples over the past several years has, at least in part, been driven by fundamentals. Still, domestic consumer staples are currently priced at 34x earnings per share, compared with 15x for the overall domestic market. While our model currently argues for continued staples outperformance, the risk of a valuation mean reversion next year, against the backdrop of an improving economy, is above average. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should be closely monitoring domestic staples for signs of waning earnings momentum and/or a major technical breakdown as potential signals to reduce domestic staples exposure. Health Care Chart II-6 Table II-6 Over the past decade, periods of domestic health care outperformance have been negatively associated with rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Oversold technical conditions and periods of overvaluation have also helped predict future episodes of health care relative performance. These factors clearly point to the defensive nature of domestic health care, similar to health care stocks in the investable index. However, one clear difference between investable and domestic health care is that the former appears to have leading properties and the latter does not. We noted in our previous report that periods of investable health care underperformance appeared to lead, on average, our BCA Activity Index, periods of rising core inflation, and uptrends in the broad investable index. By contrast, domestic health care lags the Activity Index and core inflation by just over a year, and also lags the trend in broad market EPS. Our model points to further health care outperformance, but we would expect domestic health care stocks to underperform at some point next year following an improvement in economic activity and a resumed uptrend in broad domestic EPS. Financials Chart II-7 Table II-7 Our outperformance probability model for domestic financials highlights that the sector is countercyclical: periods of outperformance have been negatively related to our LKI leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to the case of the investable index and unlike the case globally, financials are clearly defensive. Investable financials have exhibited atypical performance this year according to the model presented in our previous report. By contrast, domestic financials have performed in line with what our model has suggested: our LKI leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the relative performance of domestic financials has trended flat-to-down since late-2018. Barring a major shift by the PBoC towards a hawkish stance in the coming year (which we do not expect), our base case view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic financials are likely to continue to underperform. Banks Chart II-8 Table II-8 Our model for domestic banks is similar to that of financials, with some important differences. In addition to being sensitive to our LKI leading indicator, domestic bank performance is negatively related to our Activity Index. Oversold technical conditions have also been quite important in predicting future episodes of domestic bank outperformance. The model is currently forecasting domestic bank underperformance, although it was late in predicting the selloff in bank stocks that began late last year. Similar to the case for domestic financials, our baseline view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic bank are likely to continue to underperform over the coming year. Information Technology Chart II-9 Table II-9 Our model for the domestic technology sector is different than that of investable tech, which reflects the vast difference in performance between the two sectors. While the relative performance of domestic tech has trended sideways over the past decade, investable tech stock prices have risen fourfold relative to the broad investable index. This difference is largely accounted for by the absence of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) from the domestic market. Similar to investable tech, domestic technology stocks are negatively related to tight monetary policy, and positively linked with a pro-cyclical economic variable (a rising LKI leading indicator). However, strangely, domestic tech has been strongly and negatively related to rising headline inflation, a finding with no clear fundamental basis. The model has been less successful in predicting domestic tech performance over the past year than in the past, which appears to be linked to the inclusion of headline inflation in the model. Rising headline inflation has been clearly associated with three major episodes of domestic tech underperformance since 2010, but over the past year domestic tech has outperformed as headline inflation accelerated. For now we would advise investors to focus on the other factors in the model: the lack of overvaluation, and our view that policy will remain easy on a measured basis, supports an overweight stance towards domestic tech over the coming year. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Table II-10 Our domestic telecom services relative performance model highlights that the sector is defensive like its investable peer, but the factors driving performance are somewhat different. The only similarity between the two models is that periods of outperformance are negatively related to rising broad market stocks prices for both investable and domestic telecom services, with domestic telecom stocks responding with a lag. Among the macro factors included in the model, periods of domestic telecom services outperformance are negatively and coincidently related to our LKI leading indicator, and positively related to tight monetary policy (with a slight lead). Oversold technical conditions have also proven to help predict future episodes of outperformance. The model failed to predict a brief period of outperformance in mid-2018, but has generally accurately predicted underperformance of domestic telecom stocks since early-2017. Barring a collapse in the US/China trade talks or considerably weaker near-term economic conditions than we expect, domestic telecom services will likely continue to underperform until the specter of tighter monetary policy emerges. This is unlikely to occur until the middle of 2020, at the earliest. Utilities Chart II-11 Table II-11 Overall, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The model shows that the performance of domestic utilities is negatively related to rising core inflation (with a lag) and rising broad market EPS, but these relationships are not particularly strong. We noted in our June 19 Special Report that domestic utilities ranked highly on the impact that relative EPS had on predicting relative stock prices , yet relative sector earnings did not register as a significant predictor in our model. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by differences in the time horizon between these two approaches. The analysis that we presented in our June 19 Special Report examined the relationship between earnings and stock prices over the entire sample period (2011-2018), meaning that it examined the predictive power of earnings over the long-term. The models built in this report have focused strongly on explaining periods of outperformance over a 6-12 month time horizon, there have been enough deviations in the trend between the relative performance of utilities and relative utilities earnings that the relationship between the two was not sufficiently strong to show up in the model. In other words, the long-term link between utilities relative earnings and stock prices is strong, but the short-term link is fairly weak. Real Estate Chart II-12 Table II-12 Similar to investable real estate, our model shows that domestic real estate is a counter-cyclical sector in that it is negatively related to periods of rising economic activity, a rising LKI leading indicator, tight monetary policy, and rising core inflation. Overbought technical conditions have also aided in predicting future episodes of domestic real estate underperformance. Our model for domestic real estate stocks has performed quite well on average, but its predictive success since late-2017 has been mixed. This period of atypical underperformance has coincided with a considerably weaker rebound in residential floor space sold than has occurred in previous recoveries in the real estate market. This suggests that domestic real estate stocks are more susceptible to trends in housing sales than their investable peers (which appear to be mostly sensitive to rising house prices). We noted in our November 6 Weekly Report that floor space sold is picking up , but it still remains weak when compared with history. This, in combination with our view that the Chinese economy will improve over the coming year, suggests that investors should avoid domestic real estate exposure relative to the overall domestic equity market. Footnotes 1  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Equity Sector Earnings: Predictability, Cyclicality, And Relevance," dated June 19, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated November 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations