Equities

Executive Summary The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. The key conclusion of the FMH is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price reflects all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Using the FMH over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does Bottom Line: As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Feature For nations and societies, disagreement and conflict are unhealthy. But for financial markets, the opposite is true – it is the lack of disagreement and conflict that is unhealthy. This is because the market needs disagreement to generate liquidity, the ability to trade quickly and in large volume without destabilizing the market price. If I want to buy a share, then somebody must sell me that share. It follows that I and the seller must disagree about the attractiveness of the share at the current price. Likewise, if I and like-minded individuals want to buy ten million shares, it follows that lots of market participants must disagree with us. If lots of market participants do not disagree with us, there will be insufficient liquidity to complete the transaction without a price change. And if too many people are engaged in groupthink, the price change could be extreme. Markets Become Inefficient When There Is Not Enough Disagreement How can there be major disagreement about the attractiveness of an investment when we all have access to the same facts and information? According to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) there cannot be, because asset prices always reflect all available information.1   Unfortunately, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons – ranging from the milliseconds of momentum-driven high-frequency trading (HFT) to the decades of a value-driven pension fund. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes the reality of different time horizons. Crucially, the FMH acknowledges that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. In other words, they disagree (Box I-1). Box 1-1The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does For example, the momentum-based high frequency trader might interpret a sharp one-day sell-off as a sell signal, but the value-based pension fund might interpret the same information as a buying opportunity. This disagreement will create liquidity without requiring a big price adjustment. Thereby it also fosters market stability. The key conclusion of the Fractal Market Hypothesis is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price does reflect all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Buy and sell orders will no longer match without a price change, possibly extreme. Can we measure the loss of efficiency in a specific investment, and thereby anticipate a potential trend reversal? The answer is yes, by monitoring its fractal dimension, using the expression in the Appendix. Although many readers may find the concept of a fractal dimension intimidating, the idea is simple and intuitive. It just measures the complexity – or information content – in an object or structure. Thereby, when an investment’s fractal dimension reaches its lower limit, it warns that the information content of longer-term investors is missing from the price.  When the longer-term investors do ultimately re-enter the price setting process, the question is: will they endorse the recent trend because of some major change in the fundamentals – such as the start of the Russia/Ukraine war? Or will they reject it, as an unjustified deviation from a fundamental anchor. In most cases, it is the latter: a rejection and a trend reversal. As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Fractal Trading Update Using the Fractal Market Hypothesis over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. A fragile fractal structure warns of a crowded trade. One structured recommendation was closed flat: Short Personal Goods versus Consumer Services. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. As for the unstructured recommendations, for which we do not define profit targets or expiry dates, we are pleased to report that out of 31 recommendations, only 2 failed to experience a countertrend reversal. Wins 1) November 18th: Short ILS/GBP Achieved its profit target of 4.2 percent. 2) November 25th: Short Coffee versus Cocoa (Chart I-1) Achieved almost half of its 30 percent profit target at expiry. Chart I-1Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In Coffee Versus Cocoa 3) January 20th: Short World Semiconductors versus Tech (Chart I-2) Achieved its profit target of 6 percent. Chart I-2Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Semiconductors Versus Technology 4) March 10th: Long EUR/CHF Achieved its profit target of 3.6 percent. 5)  April 14th: Short World Basic Resources versus Market (Chart I-3) Achieved its profit target of 11.5 percent. Chart I-3Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Basic Resources Versus Market In addition, Short World Personal Goods versus Consumer Services which was opened on December 9th reached a high-water mark of 10.5 percent but expired flat. Losses 1) December 2nd: Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech Hit its stop loss of 9.5 percent. 2) January 13th: Long Poland versus US: 10-Year Government Bonds Reached a high-water mark of 3.7 percent, but then reversed to hit its stop loss of 8 percent. In the current geopolitical crisis, Poland has been a casualty due to its lengthy border with Ukraine. 3) February 3rd: Short Nickel versus Silver (Chart I-4) Hit its stop loss at 20 percent following an explosive short-squeeze rally in the Nickel price. Chart I-4Nickel's Short-Squeeze Rally Forced A Price Trend Prolongation Open Trades 1) January 27th: Long MSCI Korea versus All-Country World (Chart I-5) Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 6 percent (versus an 8 percent target). Chart I-5Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Rebound In Korea Versus All-Country World 2) February 24th: Long US Biotech versus US Tech Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 10.5 (versus a 17.5 percent target). 3) March 3rd: Short World Banks versus Consumer Services Reached a high-water mark of 7.3 percent (versus a 12 percent target), but then reversed and is in loss. 4) March 24th: Long 5-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss. 5) April 7th: Short World Non-Life Insurance versus Homebuilders (Chart I-6) Open, in profit having reached a high-water mark of 12.4 percent (versus a 14 percent target). Chart I-6Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Non-Life Insurance Versus Homebuilders 6) April 7th: Long JPY/CHF Reached a high-water mark of 3.4 percent versus a 4 percent target, but then reversed into modest loss. This suggests that the trade needed a narrower profit target. 7) April 28th: Short High Dividend ETF versus US 10-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss, having reached a high-water mark of 2.9 percent (versus a 6 percent target). 8) May 19th: Short FTSE 100 versus STOXX Europe 600 Open, and flat. 9) June 2nd: Long JPY/USD (Chart I-7) Open, and flat. Chart I-7The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point 10) June 2nd: Short Australia Basic Resources versus World Market (Chart I-8) Open, and flat. Chart I-8The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Our full watchlist of 29 investments that are at, or approaching turning points, is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Appendix: Calculating The Fractal Dimension Of A Financial Market Chart 1AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 2Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 3Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 4US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 5BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 6Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 7CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 8CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 9Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 10The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 11The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 12FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 13Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 14The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 15The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 16Food And Beverage Outperformance Exhausted Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 18The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 24The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Chart 28US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 29GBP/USD At A Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Hadi Elzein Research Associate hadi.elzein@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Strictly speaking, the EMH assumes there is some disagreement, but that this disagreement is random and follows a standard Gaussian (bell-curve) distribution. Therefore, the EMH assumes that a share price just follows a random walk until new (unpredictable) fundamental information arrives. Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary   Lower Rates Are A Tailwind For Growth Stocks We remain in the bearish camp. While the market bottom is getting closer, there are still hurdles to overcome such as elevated economic and earnings growth expectations, which need to come down to prevent new disappointments. Notably, the market focus has shifted away from inflation and has turned towards worries about growth as is evident in the falling 10-year Treasury yield. The environment of slowing growth and falling rates is a tailwind for growth stocks, warranting an upgrade of Growth to at least a benchmark weight. Technicals also signal that Growth is oversold relative to Value. The valuation differential has also moderated. However, we are wary of upgrading Growth to an outright overweight and downgrading Value to underweight as there is still plenty of economic uncertainty. We also posit that in the next several months the markets will be “fat and flat”, i.e., a bear market punctuated by rallies and pullbacks. In this environment, a balanced allocation between Growth and Value will reduce portfolio volatility and result in higher compound returns. Bottom Line: In a commentary to our chart pack report, we upgrade the Growth/Value style preference to benchmark allocation. Feature This week we provide you with a style chart pack. In this accompanying note, we will make a case for upgrading Growth and downgrading Value, bringing these style allocations to equal weight. We are booking a profit of 13% since we established the position in January 2022. We are getting closer to upgrading Growth to overweight. Performance May started as another tough month for equities, but, as they say, all’s well that ends well. After pulling back 10% since the beginning of May, and briefly touching bear market territory of -20%, the S&P 500 rebounded in the last 10 days of the month bringing the index to where it ended April. As a result, the S&P 500 was flat, and the NASDAQ was down 2.4% in May. As expected, the rally brought about a change in leadership (Chart I-1), with Consumer Discretionary and Technology leading the pack. Energy and Utilities are the only sectors that avoided rotation. Since May 20, Growth has outperformed Value by 3%. Chart I-1Recent Performance Bear Market Rally Or The Real Thing? Since the start of the May rally, investors have been debating whether it has legs. Bulls argue that we are in the early innings of a sustainable rebound in equities – after all, much of the bad news is already priced in, 45% of NYSE and 70% of NASDAQ have recently hit new 12-month lows, screaming oversold conditions, and making bottom fishing tempting  (Chart I-2). Bears consider this surge in performance a garden-variety bear market rally: Growth is slowing and none of the problems that have been haunting the markets over the past five months, such as inflation, war, China, and a hawkish Fed, have yet been resolved. Our views are closer to the bearish camp: We believe that, even if the market bottom is getting closer, there are still hurdles to overcome, such as elevated economic and earnings growth expectations, which need to come down to prevent new disappointments. As we discussed in the recent “What Is Next For Equities: They Will Be Fat And Flat” report, we believe that equities are likely to be range-bound over the next several months: A turn in inflation and a downshift in growth may ignite rallies on hopes of a gentler, data-driven Fed, and a shallower trajectory for the rate-hiking cycle  (Chart I-3). However, we argue that the Fed “put” is no longer in play and the Fed will stay focused on inflation, inadvertently puncturing any budding rallies. In addition to a hawkish Fed, investors will have to process what may become a sharp economic growth slowdown and an earnings recession in the US on the back of rising costs, a stronger dollar, and slowing global demand for US goods. Chart I-2Is Much Of The Bad News Already Priced In? Chart I-3Many Hope For A Shallower Hiking Cycle Growth Vs. Value: Shifting Positioning To Equal Weight When Growth Is Harder To Find, Growth Stocks Shine As we argued in the “Fat and Flat” report, there are multiple signs that economic growth is slowing, and that earnings growth will disappoint. Our Business Cycle Indicator, which is a compilation of soft and hard data across production, consumer, and credit dimensions, is also signaling a slowdown  (Chart I-4). Here we would like to emphasize our view: As of now, US economic growth is strong, and it is only its second derivative, i.e. a deceleration of growth, that is the root of our concerns. In a world where growth is becoming scarcer, companies that can deliver growth will shine. These are “growth” companies, i.e. large, stable companies with strong balance sheets that are able to generate positive cash flow and churn out strong earnings even under economic duress  (Chart I-5). Quality growth outperforms during slowdowns  (Chart I-6). This reasoning does not apply to speculative, barely profitable, growth companies which will fight for survival in a slow-growth world. Chart I-4We Are In A Slowdown Stage Of The Business Cycle Chart I-5Large Cap Growth Is Synonymous With Quality Chart I-6Growth Outperforms During Economic Slowdowns Of course, one might argue that economic growth has been slowing for about a year, initially by returning towards the pre-pandemic trend and, lately, as a result of monetary tightening. Yet, over the past six months, Growth has underperformed Value by nearly 11%. What is different now? First, inflation, and the monetary tightening that inevitably follows it, are the mortal enemies of growth stocks: Higher discount rates deflate the present value of future cash flows. Rising inflation and sharply rising Treasury yields are behind the recent sell-off in Growth stocks. However, recently, the market focus has shifted away from inflation, and seems to finally be turning towards worries about growth. As a result, the 10-year Treasury yield decreased from 3.12% to 2.75%, and its relentless climb may now be behind us  (Chart I-7). Lower rates are a tailwind for Growth stocks which rebounded at the first whiff of rate stabilization  (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Investors Concerns Have Shifted From Inflation To Growth Further, our research on macroeconomic regimes suggests that a turn in inflation heralds a change in market leadership from Value to Quality and Growth  (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Lower Rates Are A Tailwind For Growth Stocks Chart I-9Growth And Quality Will Lead Markets When Inflation Abates Growth Not Yet Cheap But Oversold This year’s sell-off is characterized by a multiple contraction. Growth is a poster child of this trend: Its forward multiple has decreased by 8 points, with the style currently trading at just under 20x forward earnings, which is the 61st percentile relative to its 10-year history (compare that to 28x and the 94th percentile back in January). As for Value, it also became cheaper, contracting from 16.8x in January to 14.9x (Table I-1). Table I-1Valuations And EPS Growth Expectations According to the BCA Valuations Indicator  (Chart I-10), the Growth/Value valuations spread has moderated but by itself, is not an impetus for a switch. However, looking at technicals, Growth is extremely oversold relative to Value and is at levels last seen in 2006. Why Neutral, Not Overweight? We hope we made a compelling case for shifting allocation from Value to Growth. Then why not go overweight, but just neutral? Mostly because many of the macroeconomic developments we have described are tentative and are just conjecture at this point – there is still plenty of uncertainty about inflation, rates, and the Fed monetary response. Second, while Growth stocks are supposed to grow faster than Value stocks, at the moment analysts expect them to grow at 8% and 11% respectively. We expect earnings growth expectations for Value stocks to be downgraded since they are dominated by cyclicals. However, until the new numbers are in for both styles, we need to be careful. Chart I-10Growth Is Getting Cheaper Relative To Value... It Also Appears Oversold Last, if we are right, and US equities are to test their bottom this summer in a “fat and flat” manner, there will be a frequent change in leadership, with Growth and Small outperforming during the rallies, and Value outperforming during pullbacks. Portfolios need exposure to both styles to achieve the highest compound returns as diversification reduces portfolio volatility. Once macroeconomic uncertainty dissipates, we will be able to pounce and shift Growth to overweight, and Value to underweight. For now, we are going to stay neutral out of an abundance of caution. Bottom Line Macroeconomic conditions are becoming more favorable for Growth as Treasury yields stabilize and economic growth slows, making the strong fundamentals and stable earnings of large-cap growth stocks more valuable. Growth is oversold relative to Value, and the relative performance differential of Growth vs. Value over the past six months has been staggering – it is time to book profits and prepare for the next chapter.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     S&P 500 Chart II-1Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-2Profitability Chart II-3Valuations And Technicals Chart II-4Uses Of Cash Cyclicals Vs Defensives Chart II-5Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-6Profitability Chart II-7Valuation And Technicals Chart II-8Uses Of Cash Growth Vs Value Chart II-9Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-10Profitability Chart II-11Valuations And Technicals Chart II-12Uses Of Cash Small Vs Large Chart II-13Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-14Profitability Chart II-15Valuations and Technicals Chart II-16Uses Of Cash Table A1Performance Table A2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth   Footnotes Recommended Allocation Recommended Allocation: Addendum 

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. A much better option would be to adopt measures that boost disposable income. Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales. A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. Go long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Bottom Line: China faces a number of economic woes, but these are fully discounted by the market. What has not been discounted is a broad-based stimulus program focused on income-support measures.   Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi next week. No doubt, the outlook for oil prices will feature heavily in my discussions. I will brief you on any insights I learn in my report on June 17. In the meantime, I am pleased to announce that Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, will be the guest author of next week’s Global Investment Strategy report. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Triple Threat The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Let us discuss each problem in turn.   Problem #1: China’s Zero-Covid Policy in the Age of Omicron Chart 1China’s Lockdown Index Remains Elevated China was able to successfully suppress the virus in the first two years of the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron strain is challenging the government’s commitment to its zero-Covid policy. The BA.2 subvariant of Omicron is 50% more contagious than the original Omicron strain and about 4-times more contagious than the Delta strain. While 89% of China’s population has been fully vaccinated, the number drops off to 82% for those above the age of 60. And those who are vaccinated have been inoculated with vaccines that appear to be largely ineffective against Omicron. Keeping a virus as contagious as measles at bay in a population with little natural or artificial immunity is exceedingly difficult. While the authorities are starting to relax restrictions in Shanghai, China’s Effective Lockdown Index remains at elevated levels (Chart 1). A number of domestically designed mRNA vaccines are in phase 3 trials. However, it is not clear how effective they will be. Shanghai-based Fosun Pharma has inked a deal to distribute 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, but so far neither it nor Moderna’s vaccine have been approved for use. Our working assumption is that China will authorize the distribution of western-made mRNA vaccines later this year if its own offerings prove ineffectual. The Chinese government has already signed a deal to manufacture a generic version of Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which has been shown to cut the risk of hospitalization by 90% if taken within five days of the onset of symptoms. In the meantime, the authorities will continue to play whack-a-mole with Covid. Investors should expect more lockdowns during the remainder of the year.   Problem #2: Weaker Export Growth China’s export growth slowed sharply in April, with manufacturing production contracting at the fastest rate since data collection began. Activity appears to have rebounded somewhat in May, but the new export orders components of both the official and private-sector manufacturing PMIs still remain below 50 (Chart 2). Part of the export slowdown is attributable to lockdown restrictions. However, weaker external demand is also a culprit, as evidenced by the fact that Korean export growth — a bellwether for global trade — has decelerated (Chart 3).  Chart 2China’s Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart 3Softer Export Growth Is Not A China-Specific Phenomenon Spending in developed economies is shifting from manufactured goods to services. Retail inventories in the US are now well above their pre-pandemic trend, suggesting that the demand for Chinese-made goods will remain subdued over the coming months (Chart 4). The surge in commodity prices is only adding to Chinese manufacturer woes. Input prices rose 10% faster than manufacturing output prices over the past 12 months. This is squeezing profit margins (Chart 5). Chart 4Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Chart 5Surging Input Costs Are Weighing On The Profits Of Chinese Commodity Users A modest depreciation in the currency would help the Chinese export sector. However, after weakening from 6.37 in April to 6.79 in mid-May, USD/CNY has moved back to 6.66 on the back of the recent selloff in the US dollar. Chart 6The RMB Tends To Weaken When EUR/USD Is Rising We expect the dollar to weaken further over the next 12 months as the Fed tempers its hawkish rhetoric in response to falling inflation. Chart 6 shows that the trade-weighted RMB typically strengthens when EUR/USD is rising. Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Chief Currency Strategist, expects EUR/USD to reach 1.16 by the end of the year.   Problem #3: Flagging Property Market Chinese housing sales, starts, and completions all contracted in April (Chart 7). New home prices dipped 0.2% on a month-over-month basis, and are up just 0.7% from a year earlier, the smallest gain since 2015. The percentage of households planning to buy a home is near record lows (Chart 8). Chart 7The Chinese Property Market Has Been Cooling Chart 8Intentions To Buy A House Have Declined China’s property developers are in dire straits. Corporate bonds for the sector are, on average, trading at 48 cents on the dollar (Chart 9). Goldman Sachs estimates that the default rate for property developers will reach 32% in 2022, up from their earlier estimate of 19%. The government is trying to prop up housing demand. The PBoC lowered the 5-year loan prime rate by 15 bps on May 20th, the largest such cut since 2019. The authorities have dropped the floor mortgage rate to a 14-year low of 4.25%. They have also taken steps to make it easier for property developers to issue domestic bonds. BCA’s China strategists believe these measures will foster a modest rebound in the property market in the second half of this year. However, they do not anticipate a robust recovery – of the sort experienced following the initial wave of the pandemic – due to the government’s continued adherence to the “three red lines” policy.1 China is building too many homes. While residential investment as a share GDP has been trending lower, it is still very high in relation to other countries. China’s working-age population is now shrinking, which suggests that housing demand will contract over the coming years (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Property Developer Bonds Are Trading At Distressed Levels Chart 10Shrinking Working-Age Population Implies Less Demand For Housing Chinese real estate prices are amongst the highest anywhere. The five biggest cities in the world with the lowest rental yields are all in China (Chart 11). The entire Chinese housing stock is worth nearly $100 trillion, making it the largest asset class in the world. As such, a decline in Chinese home prices would generate a sizable negative wealth effect. Chart 11Chinese Real Estate Is Expensive A Silver Bullet? Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. Luckily, one does not need to fill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. China needs to reorient its economy away from its historic reliance on investment and exports towards consumption. The easiest way to do that is to adopt measures that boost disposable income, which has slowed of late (Chart 12). Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. The authorities have not talked much about pursuing large-scale income-support measures of the kind adopted by many developed economies during the pandemic. As a result, market participants have largely dismissed this possibility. Yet, with the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales (Chart 13). A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. As we saw in the US and elsewhere, stimulus cash has a habit of flowing into the stock market; and with real estate in the doldrums, equities may become the asset class of choice for many Chinese investors. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Chart 12Disposable Income Growth Has Been Trending Lower Chart 13Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap At a global level, a floundering Chinese property market would have been a cause for grave concern in the past, as it would have represented a major deflationary shock. Times have changed, however. The problem now is too much inflation, rather than too little. To the extent that reduced Chinese investment injects more savings into the global economy and knocks down commodity prices, this would be welcomed by most investors. China’s economy may be heading for a “beautiful slowdown.” Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn Twitter   Footnotes   1      The People’s Bank of China and the housing ministry issued a deleveraging framework for property developers in August 2020, consisting of a 70% ceiling on liabilities-to-assets, a net debt-to-equity ratio capped at 100%, and a limit on short-term borrowing that cannot exceed cash reserves. Developers breaching these “red lines” run the risk of being cut off from access to new loans from banks, while those who respect them can only increase their interest-bearing borrowing by 15% at most. View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Return Of The 'Pocketbook Voter' President Biden’s pledge to fight inflation ahead of the midterm elections got a boost with the Gulf Arab states pledging to increase oil production in July and August. Yet OPEC’s action should not be overrated. The Saudis are not clearly bailing out Biden … at least not yet. Biden’s other inflation-fighting tools are also limited. The Fed will hike rates, which will weigh on inflation, at least in the short run. A short-term moderation in inflation will cause big shifts in financial markets. It will not save the midterms for Democrats, but gridlock is disinflationary so the effect is the same. Inflation risks will persist over the long run.   Recommendation (Cyclical) Inception Level Inception Date Return Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.6485 26-JAN-22 14.2% Oil And Gas Transportation And Storage Vs. S&P 500 0.0527 30-MAR-22 16.5% Bottom Line: Expect inflation to moderate in the short run. Oil prices will be volatile. Book a 14% profit on small cap versus large cap energy stocks and a 16.5% profit on the oil and gas transportation sub-sector relative to the broad market. Feature President Biden kicked off the summer – and the midterm election campaign – by defending his record thus far and pledging a three-pronged strategy to fight inflation. His options are limited but he received a boost from OPEC right off the bat. The bottom line is that disinflationary pressures are emerging. These include congressional gridlock, which is likely to return in January 2023. Biden’s policies will not save his party from a defeat in the midterms but moderating inflation will have huge investment consequences. Biden’s Three-Pronged Plan Consumer confidence is hurting while inflation eats away at real wage growth for Americans (Chart 1). Confidence is 14% higher than when Biden took office but 17.5% lower than when it peaked in June 2021. The latest survey from the Conference Board showed another decrease in May. This is foul weather for a ruling party that already stands to suffer a major check on its power when voters go to the polls in the fall. Biden’s approval rating is likely to stabilize but only at the current low level of 41.4%. Voters are focusing on the economy more than other issues like health care, the environment, or foreign affairs (Chart 2). Chart 1Consumer Confidence And Real Wages Tumble Chart 2Return Of The 'Pocketbook Voter' In the Wall Street Journal Biden laid out his party’s election pitch.1 First, he argued that the US economy is transitioning from rapid recovery to stable growth – i.e. that it is not going into recession. That would be good, but a recession is possible and the slowdown is politically deadly: Household Savings: Aggregate household savings have risen from $1Tn in 2019 to $3.9Tn today, which Biden cited as evidence of improving financial security. The problem is that inequality skews the picture and the average American is unlikely to feel secure. Low and middle income earners have depleted their savings or seen only a small increase (Chart 3). The Biden administration failed to improve inequality as promised while the uneven economic recovery means that lower-paid Americans do not have as much ability to buffer spending as the aggregate savings imply. They will be unhappy in November. Chart 3Normal Households No Longer Flush With Savings Jobs And Wages: Biden highlighted the role of his economic stimulus in lowering unemployment and argued that Americans have better paying jobs. But inflation has eroded real wages and incomes, as highlighted in Chart 1 above. Business Investment: Biden argued that business investment is brisk. But sentiment is turning. New orders of core capital goods have rolled over and capex intentions are falling (Chart 4). Manufacturing Comeback: Biden also touted the US manufacturing comeback, claiming that factory jobs are growing at fastest rate in 30 years. But again the tide is shifting against him, with the employment component of manufacturing purchasing manager indexes now signaling contraction (Chart 5). Biden, like Presidents Trump and Obama, has invested heavily in the “Buy America” re-industrialization narrative, so this trend is threatening. Chart 4Business Investment Setback Chart 5Manufacturing Employment Weakening A recession may indeed be avoided but the risk will not go away in time for the election. A recent study showed that at today’s extremely high level of inflation and extremely low level of unemployment, the odds of recession range from 60%-70% over the next 12-24 months.2 Second, Biden promised voters that he will fight inflation with all the powers of the White House. He laid out a three-pronged approach. However, his options are fairly limited and voters will not change their minds easily over the next five months: The Fed will hike rates: Biden argued that it is the Fed’s job to fight inflation and he will not interfere with rate hikes. While Biden offered admirable verbal support for an independent and non-partisan central bank, the truth is that real interest rates have not been this low since the highly politicized Fed chairmanship of Arthur Burns (Chart 6). While Biden has no reason to discourage rate hikes at the moment, he may change his tune as rates rise, growth slows, and the presidential election approaches. So may Powell, but by then it may be too late. In short, the Fed will hike, which will weigh on inflation, but it will not help Biden win voters this fall or avoid a recession by 2024. Congress will expand capacity: Biden argued that the bipartisan infrastructure bill that he signed into law and his other legislative proposals will boost the supply side of the economy. We are moderately optimistic about Congress’s ability to pass a party-line reconciliation bill that provides subsidies for the energy sector. This could pass under the consensus-building rubric of fighting Russia and climate change at the same time. But this measure, along with Biden’s Housing Supply Action Plan, child care and elderly care subsidies, and other proposals often look more like demand-side stimulus than supply-side reforms. They would fan inflation by increasing government spending and budget deficits. Moreover the administration cannot fix broken supply chains while China remains subject to strict Covid-19 lockdowns (Chart 7). In short, Congress may pass a reconciliation bill but it would be mildly stimulating for the economy (i.e. inflationary) and none of the supply-side improvements would reduce inflation in time for the midterms. Chart 6Biden Doesn't Need To Interfere With The Fed Chart 7Supply Snarls Will Continue While China Struggles With Covid The budget deficit will fall: Biden argued that budget consolidation will reduce inflation, pointing to this year’s estimated $1.7 trillion drop in the budget deficit and arguing that the deficit is falling lower than pre-pandemic levels. He also argued that robust tax revenues from the economic recovery justified his previous fiscal stimulus (the American Rescue Plan Act). However, the budget is merely normalizing from extreme pandemic heights – there have obviously not been any long-term fiscal reforms (Chart 8). If Congress passes a reconciliation bill then Biden may succeed at passing a minimum corporate tax, which would mark an important success. But while the fiscal drag is negative for inflation, it is also negative for the economy this year and for Biden’s party in the midterms, and long-term budget trends are inflationary. Chart 8No Sign Of Budget Control Over Long Run – Budget Deficits Are Inflationary The takeaway is that the Fed’s actions are disinflationary. Congress may or may not pass a climate bill before the election, but if it does, the budget deficit will be the same or larger and the economy will be the same or slightly stimulated. In brief Biden’s anti-inflation plan is to avoid interfering at the Fed. Extremely low unemployment will not save Biden and the Democrats this election season, any more than it saved Trump and the Republicans in 2018 (Chart 9). The Fed will rein in inflation at least in the short run. The election will lead to gridlock, which will freeze fiscal policy. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations will moderate but not because of any supply-side reform or fiscal consolidation coming from the Biden administration this year. Chart 9Low Unemployment Will Not Save Democrats Will Biden Ease Russian Energy Tensions? No. Biden’s other avenues for reducing inflation – not addressed in his editorial – lie in the foreign policy realm. The Biden administration is turning toward foreign policy as gridlock settles over Capitol Hill. Biden’s foreign policy will be insular, reactive, and focused on the midterm elections. Could Biden facilitate ceasefire talks in Ukraine so as to ease energy pressures stemming from Russia? The short answer is no. Biden imposed an oil embargo on Russia and ultimately agreed to the EU’s embargo. Biden can afford to run large risks with Russia this year because a larger confrontation or crisis with Russia would not hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections. Indeed the best hope for the Democrats is to recreate the 1962 congressional election, when John F. Kennedy stared down Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis in October just before the election. Kennedy’s Democrats lost four seats in the House, gained four in the Senate, and kept control of both. Biden’s approval rating is nowhere near Kennedy’s but his party’s outlook is bad enough that he may be willing to run the risk of a crisis that could lead to a favorable rally-around-the-flag effect in the fall (Chart 10). Biden’s clearance this week of the highly mobile artillery rocket system for Ukraine – despite the risk that Ukrainians would launch attacks into Russian territory – underscores this point. Bottom Line: Biden will not ease tensions with Russia ahead of the midterm to try to reduce energy prices. Chart 10Biden Can Risk A Bigger Russia Crisis Will Biden Lower China Tariffs? No. What about China – will Biden ease the Trump administration’s tariffs on China to reduce inflation before the midterm election? Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has repeatedly signaled support for this idea. The Trump administration marked a historic increase in US tariffs and the Biden administration has so far offered relief only for US allies (Chart 11). Again the short answer is no. Protectionist sentiment will prevail during midterm election season and US voters have turned decisively unfavorable toward China in recent years (Chart 12). The China tariffs have not been the driver for US inflation so tariff relief would bring minimal price relief while exacting a high political cost of making Biden look weak, wishy-washy on his pro-democracy values, and (according to Republicans) corrupt. Biden would be offering unilateral benefits to China without gaining Chinese trade concessions. Chart 11Biden Keeps Trump's Tariffs On China Chart 12Protectionist Sentiment To Prevail Amid Midterms Recently the Biden administration gave some indications of where it stands on China policy. Biden visited US allies in Asia Pacific and provoked China over the Taiwan Strait. Secretary of State Antony Blinken unveiled the administration’s comprehensive China policy and declared that the US would remain focused on China as the “most serious long-term challenge” despite Russia’s open belligerence in Europe.3 On paper, US-China trade relations do not look that bad. While China is falling short of its Phase One trade deal import promises, the truth is that a global recession intervened – and those promises were made under duress when the US slapped sweeping sanctions on Chinese exports. The commodity trade is booming, as is to be expected amid global energy shortages (Chart 13). The problem is that neither the US nor China has the domestic political capital to offer structural concessions in the short run, while both sides are girding for a century-long power struggle over the long run. Supply insecurity will result in the commodity trade suffering as a vast global substitution effect takes place. This is due to Russia’s energy breakup with Europe, growing Russia-China trade linkages, and ongoing US-China tensions. Global trade and US-China trade are set to slow, while China’s surge in energy imports from the US will abate for reasons of state security. Chart 13US-China Trade Faces Strategic Limits Bottom Line: No reduction in US tariffs on China is likely. Any reduction will have minimal macroeconomic effects and will be replaced by other punitive measures, given the underlying strategic competition and protectionist election politics. Meanwhile China’s “Zero Covid” policy will weigh on trade ties and sustain price pressures in the short run, as mentioned. Will Biden Lift Iran Sanctions? Probably Not. What about the Middle East? Can Biden convince the core OPEC states to pump more oil in lieu of Russian production? Or can Biden lift sanctions on Iran to undercut soaring gasoline prices? On this front Biden received welcome news on June 2 when Gulf Arab states promised to increase production by 638,000 barrels per day in July and August, up from an expected 430,000. At the same time news broke that Biden will visit Saudi Arabia, including potentially Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), and other Gulf partners sometime in June. There is not yet a clear understanding between Biden and MBS but it is possible that one will develop. The trigger for OPEC’s declaration is the EU oil embargo on Russia. EU is finalizing an embargo on 90% of oil imports – everything except the oil flowing through the Southern Druzhba pipeline to land-locked eastern European states. The embargo will impair Russian energy production: it could fall by as much as 2-3 million barrels per day, distribution interruptions will occur as Russia transitions to Asian buyers, and Russia’s long-term production capacity could be damaged. The result could be a destabilizing price spike. While the core OPEC states have just enough spare capacity to cover that gap in theory (Chart 14), they will not want to commit all spare capacity at once. Chart 14OPEC Spare Capacity There is still a lot of uncertainty about how rapidly the embargo will be enforced, how much Russian production will suffer, whether the OPEC states will meet these new production increases (all except Saudi have been falling short), and what will be the OPEC policy beyond August. But for now it is clear that the Gulf Arab states are helping the US and EU by signaling some extra supplies at a critical time. The Gulf Arabs benefit from high oil prices and have previously ignored the G7’s pleas to increase production. But they also need to prolong the business cycle – a cycle-killing price shock from Russia is not in their interest. They are interested in keeping up revenues, maintaining domestic stability, and maintaining their position as the gatekeepers of the global oil supply and price. Secondarily, they are interested in maintaining close relations with the US, which guarantees their national security. OPEC supply easing at this juncture is obviously beneficial to Biden ahead of the US midterm election in November. But there is not yet an understanding on this front because the US is also negotiating to rejoin the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, which Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states oppose. Biden’s trip to the Gulf suggests that nothing is settled yet. The OPEC production increase is not proof alone that the US is breaking off talks with Iran. If the Gulf states thought the US were going to strike a deal with Iran, they might produce more oil to preempt the deal and grab more market share, which is what they did in 2014 in advance of the original 2015 US-Iran nuclear deal. The Saudis do not want US shale producers and Iranian exporters to form an unholy alliance that steals market share and compromises Saudi security. Still, we expect the US-Iran deal to fall apart. The Biden administration does not have a unified international coalition to enforce sanctions on Iran. Nor does it have the political capital or longevity to give Iran credible security guarantees that would convince it to freeze its nuclear program. Recent events support our view. The UN atomic watchdog says that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium has risen by 30% in three months. Meanwhile the US seized an Iranian tanker off Greece, Iran seized two Greek tankers, and Greece warned about dangers to shipping in the Persian Gulf. To develop a better understanding between Biden and MBS, the US needs to assure the Saudis that it will not renew the deal with Iran. The Saudis will not provide oil at Biden’s whim but they may provide if they have satisfaction that the US will scrap the deal, or otherwise compensate them, such as through increased defense assistance (which Biden threatened to cut off when he entered office). Investors should expect OPEC to fall short of its current promises – and yet to try to provide the minimum production increases necessary to prevent a destabilizing oil spike. OPEC’s interest is to make a windfall for as long as possible, which means not killing the cycle out of greed. This policy could be positive for oil prices after the immediate downward price adjustment. But for now investors should merely expect oil volatility as the EU’s embargo enforcement, Russian retaliation, Russian oil production, OPEC implementation, and US sanctions on Iran are all up in the air. A successful US-Iran deal would deepen the drop in oil prices. But odds are 60/40 that that deal will fail, leading to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Biden will have to underscore the US’s red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization. Oil supply disruptions will increase in frequency across the region. Bottom Line: OPEC has given Biden’s anti-inflation campaign a boost but it is too soon to declare that oil prices will substantially abate. The US-Iran deal will likely fail, increasing Middle Eastern instability and supply risks. Investment Takeaways Given that we expect continued volatility in the oil space, we are booking a 14% gain on our long small cap energy versus large cap energy trade. We are also booking a 16.5% gain on our overweight position in the oil and gas transportation and storage sub-sector. We will revisit these trades in future reports. Overall we maintain a defensive portfolio strategy. Biden’s anti-inflation campaign is meeting with some success in the Middle East but the US confrontation with Russia and the likely failure of US-Iran talks suggests that price spikes can still kill more demand and lead to further growth upsets.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See Joseph R. Biden, Jr, “Joe Biden: My Plan for Fighting Inflation,” Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2022, wsj.com.  2     See Lawrence H. Summers and Alex Domash, “History Suggests a High Chance of Recession over the Next 24 Months,” Harvard Kennedy School, March 15, 2022, www.hks.harvard.edu.  3    See Antony J. Blinken, “The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” US Department of State, May 26, 2022, state.gov.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets