Equities

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Depressed technicals, compelling valuations, macro tailwinds, improving operating fundamentals and the messages from our relative profit growth models and relative Cyclical Macro Indicators all signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long energy/short utilities pair trade. Pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the sell-off in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P Energy/short S&P Utilities pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Equities propelled to uncharted territory, celebrating an easy Fed and the US/China détente with a hint of a tariff rollback, overcoming the seasonally difficult months of September and October. Historically, investors chase performance during the end of the year and seasonality will likely favor further flows into equities in the last two months of the year. On the economic front, while manufacturing remains in recession, a resilient labor market is providing a significant offset allaying fears of recession gripping the broad economy. Drilling deeper on the labor front is revealing. The unemployment rate ticked higher to 3.6% last month based on the household survey as the participation rate increased. However, according to the Sahm Rule Recession Indicator (SRRI), courtesy of Fed economist Claudia R. Sahm,1 were the unemployment rate to average 4% for three consecutive months by September 2020, the US economy will enter recession. In other words, based on empirical evidence the SRRI shows that when the three-month average unemployment rate has jumped by 50bps compared with previous twelve month low, the US has entered recession 100% of the time since the end of WWII (Chart 1). Chart 1Watch The Sahm Rule Recession Indicator Meanwhile, the parallels drawn with the mid-to-late 1990s and the current market backdrop have mushroomed, but our view is that the differences could not be wider. Since the history of our reconstructed SPX data going back to the late-1920s, there has never been a five-year period when the S&P 500 rose by at least 20% every year except for the 1995-1999 era. In that five-year period the SPX soared more than threefold, increasing annually by 34%, 20%, 31%, 27% and 20%, respectively. Investors forget that those were manic markets and despite a high and rising fed funds rate that peaked at 6.5% in early 2000 (real rates were over 4%), the forward P/E multiple went to the stratosphere ignoring theory and defying logic (Chart 2). Putting the late-1990s exuberance into perspective is instructive: if 1995 is similar to 2016 (and 1998 is similar to 2019) then the SPX should spike to over 6000 by the end of next year! Moving over to economic green shoots, we turn our attention to the signal the emerging markets are emitting. While both the EM and the Chinese manufacturing PMIs are expanding smartly, leading indicators suggest that the recovery may be running on empty. Chart 2One Of A Kind Chart 3Mixed Signals Chart 3 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is contracting, weighing on EM FX momentum and also signaling that the CAIXIN China manufacturing PMI, that has opened the widest gap with the official China NBS manufacturing PMI since the history of the data, will likely suffer a setback in the coming quarters. In the transportation sector, the Baltic Dry Index is down 33% since the early-September peak and is also losing steam on year-over-year basis, warning that a global trade recovery is skating on thin ice. Moreover, EM sentiment is downbeat. Investor flows into EM equities, according to the most liquid iShares MSCI EM ETF, have been drifting lower since the 2018 peak and have more recently gapped down (bottom panel, Chart 3). Thus, the recent green shoots may prove fleeting. This week we are initiating a new market-neutral pair trade and reiterate our negative view on a niche defensive sector. With regard to US liquidity, that we have been inundated with client requests recently, we highlight our simple liquidity indicator: industrial production (IP) growth versus M2 money supply growth. In other words, we gauge how fast a unit of currency is translated into IP. Chart 4 highlights that IP/M2 is contracting at an accelerating pace, heralding further earnings growth pain for the S&P 500. US dollar based liquidity is also contracting as we showed in last week’s US Equity Strategy Webcast slides. Chart 4Clogged Pipelines Weighing On Profit Growth Other SPX profit indicators we track continue to suggest that the earnings soft patch is not out of the woods yet (we use forward EBITDA estimates to gauge trend growth, which excludes the one time fiscal easing boost to net EPS). Net forward EBITDA revisions are below zero, the ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio has fallen 40% from the 2018 peak and is hovering near parity, momentum in the key ISM manufacturing new orders subcomponent is contracting and BCA’s boom/bust indicator continues to deflate. All of this, suggests that a turnaround in profits remains elusive and is a first half of 2020 outcome, at the earliest (Chart 5). Already, Q4/2019 profit growth estimates have now sunk into negative territory according to the latest FactSet data.2 Finally, the Fed released the last Senior Loan Officer Survey of the year in the past week and demand for C&I loans collapsed. This data series has broken below the 2016 trough and warns that C&I credit origination will continue to contract. Chart 5No Pulse Chart 6Capex Contraction Dampens Need For Credit Such a souring backdrop makes intuitive sense as animal spirits have died down courtesy of the Sino-American trade war. CEO’s are still voting with their feet and are canceling/postponing capital outlays. Absent capex, C&I credit demand runs aground (Chart 6). It remains unclear if a US/China “phase one” trade deal including tariff rollbacks can reverse the ongoing global trade contraction, signaling that caution is still warranted on the prospects of the broad equity market for the next 9-12 months. This week we are initiating a new market-neutral pair trade and reiterate our negative view on a niche defensive sector. Long/Short Idea: Buy Energy/Sell Utilities There is an exploitable opportunity in going long the S&P energy sector/short the S&P utilities sector and we recommend initiating this market-neutral trade today. The top panel of Chart 7 shows that energy stocks have come full circle and are trading at levels last seen two decades ago when WTI oil was fetching less than half of today’s $55/bbl price. Encouragingly, there seems to be long-term support for relative share prices at the current overly depressed level. While utilities have been making headlines all year long given their outperformance, when put in proper perspective this niche defensive sector with a mere 3% weight in the SPX looks like a shipwreck (bottom panel, Chart 7). Taken together, this battle between two diminishing sectors presents a tradable opportunity by favoring energy stocks at the expense of utilities. In fact, this ratio trades at more than two standard deviations below the historical uptrend, and thus offers a lucrative risk/reward profile (Chart 8). Chart 7Buy Energy… Chart 8…At The Expense Of Utilities Beyond depressed technicals and compelling overall valuations with an alluring relative dividend yield (investors are paid an unprecedented 100bps in dividend yield carry to put on this trade, Chart 9), macro tailwinds, improving operating fundamentals, and the messages from our relative profit growth models and relative Cyclical Macro Indicators (CMI), all signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long energy/short utilities pair trade. On the macro front, inflation expectations have tentatively troughed and if oil rebounds further, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects, then given their tight positive correlation with oil prices, rising inflation expectations should put a definitive floor under the relative share price ratio (Chart 10). Chart 9Unloved And Oversold Chart 10Return Of Inflation… However, the real interest rate component (i.e. growth) also explains roughly half of the selloff in the 10-year Treasury yield since early September, which also moves in lockstep with relative share price momentum (bottom panel, Chart 10). Were this budding global growth recovery to gain steam into the first half of 2020, then energy profits would outshine utility sector profits. As a reminder, oil is a global growth barometer and rises with increasing global growth while defensive utilities flourish when growth sputters (Chart 11). The US dollar’s recent appreciation has also dealt a blow to this trade and a grinding lower currency which is synonymous with a modest global growth recovery would also reverse this pair trade’s fortunes (top two panels, Chart 12). Chart 11…And Green Shoots Beneficiary Chart 12Operating Metrics Also… Zooming into the relative operating outlook, the bottom panel of Chart 12 shows that oil price inflation is outpacing natural gas selling prices. This relative underlying commodity backdrop is important as energy stocks move with the ebbs and flows of the oil market, whereas the marginal price setter for utility services is natural gas prices. The upshot is that heading into 2020, bombed out relative share prices should play catch up to the firming relative commodity backdrop. Capital spending outlays also favor energy shares over utilities stocks (top two panels, Chart 13). Surprisingly, the utilities sector net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is above 5x, waving a red flag, but energy indebtedness is coming down fast in the aftermath of the early 2016 oil price collapse and the energy sector’s net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is close to 2x (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our relative CMIs and relative profit growth models do an excellent job capturing all these moving parts and are unanimously sending a bullish message that an earnings-led recovery is in store for the relative share price ratio (Chart 14). Chart 13…Favor Energy Over Utilities Chart 14Green Light From US Equity Strategy Models Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P energy/short S&P utilities pair trade today. Out Of Power Warning Utilities stocks have been all the rave this year, but given their small weighting in the SPX they only explain a very small part of the broad market’s run (in contrast, the heavyweight tech sector explains most of the S&P 500’s rise as we highlighted in recent research).3 We reiterate our underweight stance in this small defensive sector that has run way ahead of soft profit fundamentals. Worrisomely, utilities trade with a 20 forward P/E handle and command a 20% premium to the broad market, but their forecast EPS growth rate at 5% trails the SPX by 350bps (not shown). Chart 15 shows that our composite relative Valuation Indicator has surged to one standard deviation above the historical mean, a level typically associated with recession. Technicals are also extended (bottom panel, Chart 15), warning that this crowded trade is at risk of deflating, especially if the breakout in bond yields gains steam.   Chart 15Overbought And Overvalued   In sum, pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the selloff in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. The top panel of Chart 16 shows that relative share prices and the 10-year Treasury yield are closely inversely correlated. Now that the risk free asset is having a more competitive yield, investors will likely start to abandon this niche defensive sector. Similarly, the recent selloff in the total return bond-to-stock ratio also warns that buying up expensive utilities at the current juncture is fraught with danger (second panel, Chart 16). The jury is still out on the final outcome of the Sino-American trade war. However, there has been a decisive change of heart in US exporters and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new export orders subcomponent reflects an, at the margin, improvement in the US/China trade relationship. This bodes ill for safe haven utilities stocks (new export orders shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 16). Chart 16Budding Recovery Weighing On Utilities Chart 17Sell The Strength Turning over to the sector’s operating metrics reveals that investors piling into utilities is unwarranted. Natural gas prices are contracting at the steepest pace of the past four years (middle panel, Chart 17) and signal that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share price momentum. Meanwhile, electricity capacity utilization is in a multi decade downtrend, warning that the relative profitability will remain under pressure in the coming quarters (bottom panel, Chart 17). In sum, pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the sell-off in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. Bottom Line: Shy away from the expensive S&P utilities sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5UTIL– PPL, PNW, ATO, PEG, FE, EIX, AEE, SO, SRE, AEP, XEL, DTE, EVRG, WEC, AES, CMS, LNT, ED, NRG, D, AWK, DUK, ETR, EXC, NEE, CNP, NI, ES.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/claudia-r-sahm.htm 2       https://insight.factset.com/sp-500-now-projected-to-report-a-year-over-year-decline-in-earnings-in-q4-2019 3       Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Deciphering Sector Returns” dated August 30, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Highlights All the steps in the earnings dance are well known: Company management teams guide Wall Street analysts to lower their expectations in the weeks leading up to the beginning of earnings season, and their companies’ results then comfortably clear the lowered bar. Given the lack of true suspense, the S&P 500 largely ignores quarterly results: In the near term, moves in the S&P 500 have little to no relationship with either earnings growth or the magnitude of earnings beats. Over time, however, index prices and earnings move together: If earnings multiples mean-revert, earnings and prices have to converge over the long run. The equity bull market isn’t finished yet: The monetary policy backdrop will support earnings growth well into 2021, though it will not promote multiple expansion for much more than a year. Feature Chart 1We've Seen This Movie Before Taking a turn chairing BCA’s daily meeting last week, we duly updated our colleagues on the progress of earnings season. At the time, over 75% of the S&P 500’s constituents had reported, and the index was on its way to surpassing consensus analyst expectations by a few percentage points. We then showed charts tracking the course of expectations across each of this year’s three quarters to show that the “surprise” wasn’t actually very surprising (Chart 1). We included the charts to add a bit of levity, but a fellow strategist asked an incisive question: If earnings season follows the same pattern every quarter, why pay attention to it at all? Earnings season surely has its elements of Kabuki theater, but earnings are the fundamental basis for purchasing an ownership stake in a company. A share of stock is a claim on a company’s aggregate future earnings. To the extent that quarterly earnings reports provide a window into the trajectory of a company’s future earnings path, they contain relevant information about the fair value of its shares. Quarterly earnings offer more insight at the individual stock level than at the index level, as individual stocks are subject to idiosyncratic factors, while index earnings tend to reflect overall economic performance, and we therefore view them as a check on the other real-time indicators we examine to gauge the health of the economy. A review of how S&P 500 prices interact with S&P 500 earnings suggests that earnings have little to no impact on near-term index performance. They do move together in the long term, though, as they must if earnings multiples are a mean-reverting series. In the near term, when multiples are oscillating, anticipating stock market moves is a function of anticipating earnings growth and swings in multiples, which move independently of one another. The fed funds rate cycle has historically provided a good high-level guide to earnings and multiples trends. S&P 500 Performance During Earnings Season To test the S&P 500’s sensitivity to earnings surprises, we dug through weekly earnings updates going back to the beginning of 2012 (4Q11 earnings season) to compare expected index earnings per share (EPS) with reported index EPS.1 I/B/E/S has long been recognized as the earnings-estimates authority, so we use its estimates in conjunction with its compilation of reported earnings to ensure our analysis really is apples-for-apples.2 We track S&P 500 performance in three-month segments, beginning with the Monday following the second Friday of the new quarter, since that is the week that the banks typically get earnings season rolling. Earnings beats are stable and predictable, but the S&P 500's reaction to them is anything but. The empirical record over the last 31 quarters supports our colleague’s intuition. Over the 13 weeks following the major banks’ releases, S&P 500 performance exhibits no consistent link with earnings surprises (Chart 2). The best-fit line through a simple scatterplot shows that the relationship, such as it is, has been inverse and weak (Chart 3). The link with the year-over-year change in S&P 500 earnings is even weaker (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 2Earnings Surprises Don't Move The S&P 500 … Chart 3… Which Is Slightly Negatively Correlated With Them Chart 4Earnings Growth Doesn't Move The S&P 500 … Chart 5… Which Has No Short-Term Relationship With It Earnings data support our colleague’s contention that earnings season, at least as it relates to expectations, is something of a charade. Companies, which heavily influence analyst estimates with their guidance, have beaten expectations every quarter for at least eight years. As Charts 2 and 3 show, earnings beat expectations by an average of 3.7%, nearly the midpoint of the 1-6% range. The S&P 500 shouldn’t be expected to react to “surprises” that are more or less pre-ordained. Bottom Line: Earnings season has no observable impact on the S&P 500. Earnings attract a lot of attention, but they do not influence index-level performance in the near term. The S&P 500 And Earnings Over Longer Periods Anything can happen over short periods, but stock prices have to track earnings over the long term. If the idea that an ownership share represents a proportional stake in company earnings is too abstract, consider the equity equation. Equity prices, P, can be viewed as the product of earnings, E, and the multiple investors are willing to pay for each dollar of earnings, P/E. P = E * (P/E) The market P/E ratio is subject to mean reversion, making changes in earnings the key long-term driver of S&P 500 performance. Since 1966, the S&P 500 index (Chart 6, top panel) has appreciated at the same rate as its trailing four-quarter operating earnings (Chart 6, middle panel), given that its trailing multiple is not far from where it started (Chart 6, bottom panel). Growth in forward earnings expectations (Chart 7, middle panel) has lagged S&P 500 growth (Chart 7, top panel) since expectations data began to be compiled in 1979 because the forward multiple has more than doubled from late ‘70s trough levels (Chart 7, bottom panel). In any extended period not bookended by an outlier multiple, however, one should expect S&P 500 appreciation to track earnings estimate growth. Chart 6S&P 500 Earnings And Prices Will Converge Over Time ... Chart 7... As Long As The Starting Or Ending Multiple Isn't An Outlier Bottom Line: Stock price gains and earnings growth will converge over the long run as long as the earnings multiple mean-reverts. Earnings do matter in the long run. Where Do We Go From Here? There are several earnings growth models within BCA. Like all regression models, they often work well in stretches, but are susceptible to unanticipated inflections and changes in correlations. Since the crisis, the difference between year-over-year growth in industrial production and year-over-year growth in the money supply has aligned closely with earnings growth (Chart 8). If we (and global equity markets) are correct in sniffing out a bottoming in global manufacturing activity, and loan growth is unlikely to accelerate much as banks are pulling in their horns in commercial real estate and selected consumer categories, earnings growth could pull out of its funk. Chart 8Earnings Growth Will Revive Once Global Manufacturing Pressure Abates We have found that earnings growth and multiple re-rating or de-rating is reliably influenced by the monetary policy backdrop. While the level of the fed funds rate goes a long way to explaining overall index moves, earnings growth and multiple expansion/compression are a function of its direction. Broadly, forward estimates grow at a rapid rate when the Fed is hiking rates (the economy is expanding) and slump when it’s cutting them (the economy needs a hand). Forward multiples are the mirror image of earnings estimates, contracting when the Fed is hiking and expanding at a robust clip when the Fed is cutting. Earnings grow at a rapid clip when the Fed is leaning against a too-strong economy, but they slump when the Fed is trying to nurse it back to health. Viewed through the lens of the fed funds rate cycle (Figure 1), policy had been in Phase I from December 2015, when the Fed began hiking rates, until the end of July, when the Fed began cutting, transitioning into Phase IV. Phase IV has been characterized by solid multiple expansion and, ex-2008-9, decent earnings growth. It will remain in force until the Fed returns to hiking rates, which we do not expect until the second half of 2020 at the earliest. Once the Fed does resume hiking, it will likely take some time for it to raise the fed funds rate above its equilibrium level (Phase II). Figure 1The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our base case is that the Fed will not turn restrictive until 2021. Easy monetary policy is a tailwind for earnings growth, which remains strong in Phase II, so we expect that earnings growth will shake loose of 2019’s doldrums across the next two years. Stocks should benefit from re-rating until the Fed resumes hiking rates (Phase I), cutting off multiple expansion. They will de-rate once monetary policy becomes restrictive (Phase II), as it must once the Fed perceives a need to cool the economy. The bottom line is that the monetary policy backdrop should be earnings-friendly well into 2021, even if multiple expansion isn’t likely to persist beyond the next nine to twelve months. Investment Implications Investors should not look to quarterly earnings reports to inform asset allocation decisions. Quarterly releases may be telling for individual companies’ longer-run profit potential, but they do not shed much light on the S&P 500’s future earnings. The long-run index earnings profile is much more likely to be influenced by broad themes than real-time data points. We devote our focus to the cyclical forces affecting asset-class-level returns, and find that the monetary policy cycle offers useful insight into future moves in earnings and multiples. The Fed's dovish pivot will help keep the expansion going, ... That insight is favorable for equities, and for spread product as well. We are in the latter stages of both the business cycle and the credit cycle, but new injections of monetary accommodation and the postponement of the shift to restrictive monetary policy settings will extend the longevity of the expansion and the period over which credit generates positive excess returns. Investors have different objectives and risk tolerances, but we think all of them should remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and overweight spread product (and underweight Treasuries) within fixed-income sleeves. It is too soon to de-risk investment portfolios.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 All data cited in this section comes from Refinitiv’s (formerly Thomson Reuters’) This Week in Earnings publication. 2 Earnings estimates compiled by other vendors may differ from I/B/E/S estimates, and other measures of reported earnings, like Standard & Poor’s, regularly diverge from I/B/E/S’.

Special Report

Highlights Since early this year, global semiconductor stock prices have been front-running a demand recovery that has not yet begun. There is strong industry optimism surrounding a potential demand boost for semiconductors from the rollout of 5G networks and phones in 2020. Yet we expect actual 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments to fall considerably short of what industry observers expect, especially in the first half of the year. Global semiconductor stocks are over-hyped. Even though momentum could push them higher in the short term, we believe there will be a better entry point in the coming months. Given that Korean semiconductor stocks have lagged, we are upgrading Korean tech stocks and the KOSPI to overweight within the EM equity benchmark. Feature Global semiconductor stock prices have been rallying strongly, increasingly diverging from global semiconductor sales since early January. The former have risen to new highs, while the latter have remained in deep contraction (Chart 1). Chart 1A Puzzle: Semiconductors Stock Prices Skyrocketed When Sales Remain In A Deep Contraction We are puzzled by such a dramatic divergence between share prices and the industry’s top line. After all, the ongoing contraction in worldwide semiconductor sales has been broad-based across both regions and the majority of top 10 semiconductor companies (Charts 2 and 3). Chart 2A Broad-Based Contraction Across All Regions… Chart 3…And Most Top Semiconductor Companies   In our June1 report, we argued that world semiconductor sales would continue to shrink through the remainder of 2019. This view has played out, but global semiconductor share prices have surged and outperformed the global equity benchmark.  Global semiconductor stock prices have been front-running a demand recovery that has not yet begun. It seems the market has been looking beyond the current weakness. It currently expects a potential demand boost for semiconductors from 5G phones in 2020 on the back of rising hopes of a US-China trade conflict resolution. Is such hype about 5G network and corresponding shipments justified? Our research leads us to contend that global semiconductor sales will likely post only low- to middle-single-digit growth in 2020, with most of the recovery back loaded in the second half of the year. Hype over 5G phones among industry participants and investors may continue pushing semiconductor share prices higher in the near term. However, the odds are that the reality of tepid semiconductor sales growth will likely set in early next year, and semiconductor stocks will correct considerably. In short, we do not recommend chasing the rally. There will be a better entry point in the months ahead. 5G-Smartphones: The Savior Of Semiconductor Demand? Chart 4Semiconductor Sales Are Still Contracting At A Double-Digit Rate The primary driver behind the rally in semiconductor share prices is strong optimism among major semiconductor producers and investors about a rapid ramp-up of global 5G-smartphone adoption. In addition, the market is also holding onto a good amount of hope for a US-China trade conflict resolution, which will also facilitate the pace of global 5G deployment. Mobile phones account for the largest share (29%) of global semiconductor revenue. The industry expects strong global 5G-smartphone shipments in 2020 to spur a meaningful recovery in semiconductor demand (Chart 4). Table 1 shows a list of estimates for 2020 global 5G-smartphone shipments by major semiconductor companies, industry analysts and investors, ranging from 120 million to 225 million units, with a mean of 180 million units. Table 1Market Forecasts Of In 2020 Global 5G-Smartphone Shipments In particular, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest dedicated integrated circuit (IC) foundry, recently almost doubled its forecast for 5G smartphone penetration for 2020 to a mid-teen percentage from a single-digit percentage forecast made just six months ago. Given that global smartphone shipments currently stand at roughly 1.4 billion units per year, a 15% penetration rate would translate into 210 million units of 5G smartphone shipments in 2020. Meanwhile, Qualcomm, the world's largest maker of mobile application processors and baseband modems, last week predicted that 2020 global 5G smartphone shipments will range between 175 million units and 225 million units. We agree that 5G smartphone sales in 2020 will increase sharply from currently very low levels, but we also believe the penetration pace estimated by the industry is optimistic. The basis for our conclusion is as follows: Chart 5So Far, China 5G-Adoption Pace Has Been Much Slower Than Its 4G 5G-smartphone shipments in China will largely determine the pace of worldwide 5G-phone shipments. The country will be the world leader in the 5G smartphone market due to the government’s promotion of it and the advanced 5G technology held by China's largest telecom equipment producer, Huawei. China announced the debut of the 5G-era on June 6. Since then, total 5G-smartphone shipments have been only about 800,000 units through the end of September. In terms of the pace of penetration (5G-smartphone shipments as a share of total mobile phone shipments during the first three months of launch), the rate was a mere 0.3%. In comparison with the debut of the 4G-era in December 2013, shipments of 4G phones in China were significantly larger, and their adoption rate was much faster (Chart 5). During the first three months of the 4G launch, 4G phone shipments were 9.7 million units, reaching 10% of total smartphone shipments. Here are the most important reasons behind what will be a much slower penetration pace for 5G smartphones in China compared with the 4G rollout. We agree that 5G smartphone sales in 2020 will increase sharply from currently very low levels, but we also believe the penetration pace estimated by the industry is optimistic. Market saturation: The Chinese smartphone market has become much more saturated than it was six years ago when 4G was launched. Since then, there have been about 2.3 billion units of 4G smartphones sold, with 1.3 billion units sold in the past three years – nearly equaling the total Chinese population. This means the replacement need in China is low. High prices: 5G smartphones in China are currently much more expensive than 4G ones. 5G phone prices range from RMB 4000-7000 in China, while most of the 4G ones sell within the range of RMB 1000-3000. According to data from QuestMobile, a professional big data intelligence service provider in China's mobile internet market, in the first half of 2019, about 41% of smartphones were sold at RMB 1000-2000, about 30% at RMB 2000-3000, and only 10% at RMB 4000 and above. Functionality: At the moment, except for faster data download/upload speed, 5G smartphones do not offer much more functionality than 4G ones. Back in 2014, 4G phones had much more attractive features than 3G. For example, while 3G smartphones only allowed audio and picture transmission, those with 4G enabled video chatting and high-quality streaming video. In addition, for now, there are very few smartphone apps that can only be used for 5G phones. 5G Infrastructure: Presently, there is only very limited geographical coverage of 5G base stations. The number of 5G base stations is estimated to be 130 thousand units this year, only accounting for 1.6% of total base stations in China. In comparison, 65% of all Chinese base stations are 4G-enabled.  Meanwhile, to cover the same region, the number of 5G base stations needs to at least double that of 4G ones. It will take at a minimum two or three years to develop decent coverage of 5G base stations. Besides, the cost of building 5G-enabled infrastructure is much more expensive than the deployment of the 4G ones. There are two types of 5G networks: Non-standalone (NSA) and Standalone (SA). The 5G data transmission speed is significantly faster in SA mode than in NSA mode. However, the deployment cost of the SA network is much higher than the cost for NSA networks, as the latter can be built from existing 4G networks, but the former cannot. Critically, the Chinese government recently announced only SA-compatible 5G smartphones will be allowed to have access to the 5G network in China, starting January 1, 2020. This signals that the focus of future 5G network development will be centered around SA mode instead of this year’s NSA mode. Over 90% of China’s 5G network was NSA mode in 2019. Building a 5G SA network will take longer and cost more.  The market expects China to build as much as 1 million units of 5G base stations in 2020. Even if this goal is achieved, it only accounts for about 11% of total Chinese base stations. Chart 6Chinese Smartphone Sales: Still In Contraction Lack of variety of SA-compatible 5G-phone models. There are also limited options for SA-compatible 5G smartphones models. So far, even though Huawei, Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, ZTE and Samsung have all released 5G smartphones, only models from Huawei work under SA networks.2 All others only work under the NSA network. Hence, the variety of SA-compatible 5G phone models is very limited. This will likely delay sales of 5G phones in China. Many more models of SA-compatible 5G smartphones will likely be released only in the second half of next year, which may both drive down 5G smartphone prices and attract more buyers. Consumer spending slowdown: 4G smartphones can meet the needs of the majority of users, and most users have purchased a new phone within the past three years. With elevated economic uncertainty and slowing income growth, a larger proportion of people in China may decide to delay upgrading from 4G-phones to much more expensive 5G ones. This echoes a continuing decline in Chinese smartphone sales (Chart 6). Overall, from Chinese consumers’ perspective, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a nice-to-have, but not a must-have. Given all the aforementioned factors, our best guess for 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments is 40-60 million units, with a larger proportion occurring in the second half of the year.  From Chinese consumers’ perspective, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a nice-to-have, but not a must-have. As China is much more aggressive in moving to 5G network adaptation than other large economies, we share industry experts’ forecasts that China will account for 50% of total global 5G shipments. Provided our estimate for China is about 50 million units, our global forecast for 5G phone shipments in 2020 comes to about 100 million units worldwide. This is substantially lower than industry and analyst average estimates of 180 million units (see Table 1 on page 4). Notably, rising 5G smartphone sales will cannibalize some 4G-phone demand. Consequently, aggregate demand for semiconductors will not grow, but the share of high-valued-added chips in the overall product mix will rise. Bottom Line: The penetration pace of 5G smartphones will be meaningfully slower than both the semiconductor producers and analysts expect. Most likely, a meaningful recovery in global aggregate smartphone sales will not occur over the next six months. We suspect the positive impact of 5G phone sales will be felt by global semiconductor producers largely in the second half of 2020. Semiconductor Demand Beyond 5G In terms of end usage, except smartphones, the top five end uses for semiconductors are personal computers (PCs) (12%), servers (11%), diverse consumer products (12%), automotive (10%), and industrial electronics (9%). Structural PC demand is down, but sales have been more or less flat in the past three years (Chart 7). Next year, commercial demand may accelerate as enterprises work through the remainder of their Windows 10 migration. However, household demand is still facing strong competition from tablets. Overall, we expect PC demand to remain stagnant. Global server shipments sank deeper into contraction in the second quarter of this year due to a slowdown in purchasing from cloud providers and hyperscale customers. They may stay in moderate contraction over the next six months as global economic uncertainty remain elevated, which may discourage enterprises’ investment plans (Chart 8). Chart 7Structural PC Demand Is Stagnant And Will Remain So In 2020 Chart 8Global Server Shipments: A Moderate Contraction In 2020 Chart 9Automotive-Related Semiconductor Demand: A Moderate Growth Ahead Chinese auto sales – about 30% of the world total – will likely stage a rate-of-change improvement, moving from deep to mild contraction or stagnation over the next six months.3 Increasing penetration of new energy vehicles and continuing 5G deployment may still result in moderate growth in auto-related semiconductor demand (Chart 9). Semiconductor demand from diverse consumer products slightly declined in the third quarter, with robust growth in tablets, eReaders and portable navigation devices, and contraction in all other subsectors including TV sets, gaming, printers and images, cameras and set-top boxes (Chart 10). This may remain in slight contraction or stagnation over the next three to six months. Automation and 5G deployment will likely continue to increase semiconductor sales in the industrial sector (Chart 11).  Chart 10Semiconductor Demand From Consumer Products: A Slight Contraction Or Stagnation Ahead Chart 11Industrial Semiconductor Demand: More Upside Ahead   Chart 12Memory Prices Still Signal Sluggish Semiconductor Demand Overall, demand recovery has not yet begun. The lack of price recovery in DRAM prices after 18 months of declines and still-low NAND prices are also signaling sluggish semiconductor demand (Chart 12). Bottom Line: Odds are that global semiconductor demand in sectors other than smartphones will show improvement in terms of rate of change, but will still likely be flat in 2020. TSMC Sales: A Harbinger Of Industry Recovery? TSMC, the world’s biggest semiconductor company, posted a revival in sales over four consecutive months from June to September. Do TSMC sales lead global semiconductor sales? The answer is not always. TSMC sales do not always correlate well with global semiconductor sales (Chart 13). For example, TSMC sales diverged from global semiconductor sales in 2017-‘18 and 2013-‘14. So what are the reasons for strong increase in TSMC sales? First, it reflects market share rotation in the global smartphone market in favor of smartphone producers that use TSMC-fabricated chips. Chart 13TSMC Sales Do Not Always Lead Global Semiconductor Sales Demand from the global smartphone sector contributes to almost half of TSMC’s total revenue. Apple and Huawei are TSMC’s two top customers. The most recent report from market research firm Canalys shows that while Apple’s smartphone shipments declined 7% year-on-year last quarter, Huawei’s shipments soared 29%.4 Combined, smartphone shipments from these two companies still jumped nearly 12% year-on-year in the third quarter of the year. This has increased their market share in the global smartphone market to 31% now from 28% a year ago. Second, rising TSMC sales also reflect market share rotation in the global server market, in particular rising shipments and growing market share of servers using AMD high-performing-computing (HPC) chips instead of Intel ones. AMD’s 7nm Epyc CPU, launched this August and manufactured by TSMC, has been taking share from Intel in the global server market. This has driven the increase in TSMC’s revenue from the HPC sector.  Third, the share of value-added products (high-end chips) in TSMC’s product mix has been rising rapidly. TSMC’s share of revenue from 7nm technology jumped from 21% to 27% in the third quarter, as most of Apple’s and Huawei’s chips and all of AMD’s Epyc CPUs are 7nm-based. Back in the third quarter of 2018, TSMC’s 7nm business only accounted for 11% of its total revenue. Chart 14Both TSMC Sales And Taiwanese PMI Could Continue To Improve While Global Semiconductor Sales Remain In Contraction Finally, although internet of things (IoT) and automotive chips only account for 9% and 4% of TSMC’s total share of revenue respectively, strong growth in both segments –33% year-on-year in IoT and 20% year-on-year in automotive – indeed shows exceptional demand in these two sectors in a weakening global economic environment. As IoT and automotive development will highly rely on global 5G infrastructure development, their impact will be meaningful once the global 5G network becomes well advanced and widely installed. To conclude, while a 40% boost in TSMC’s capital spending indeed paints a positive picture on global semiconductor demand over the longer term, rising TSMC sales do not mean an imminent and strong recovery in the global semiconductor sector is in the works. Huawei is the global 5G technology leader and the major supplier in both 5G-network equipment and 5G smartphones; the company will be a major revenue contributor to TSMC. As Huawei will likely place more orders to TSMC for chip fabrication, this will likely result in further improvement in TSMC’s sales (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Rising TSMC sales do not necessarily herald an imminent and robust cyclical recovery in the global semiconductor sector.  Investment Conclusions Global semiconductor stock prices have been front running a recovery that has not yet begun. In addition, there is still uncertainty about the technology aspect of US-China trade negotiations. The US will likely continue to have Huawei and other Chinese high-tech companies on its trade-ban list – its so-called Entity List. TSMC sales do not always correlate well with global semiconductor sales. Notably, global semiconductor sales and profits are still in deep contraction, while share prices are at all-time highs (Chart 15). As a result, semiconductor stocks’ multiples have spiked to their previous highs (Chart 16). Chart 15Semiconductor Companies Profits: Still In Deep Contraction Chart 16Elevated Semiconductor Stocks Multiples     While it is common for share prices to rally ahead of a business cycle/profit revival, we believe a true recovery will only emerge in spring 2020, and it will initially be much more subdued than industry watchers and investors expect. In the near term, strong momentum could still push semiconductor stock prices higher. However, the reality will then set in and there will be an air pocket before a more sustainable bull market emerges.   Our US Equity Investment Strategy earlier this week downgraded S&P semiconductor equipment companies to underweight and put the S&P Semiconductors Index on a downgrade alert.5 Their newly created top-down semiconductor profit growth model warns that an earnings recovery is not yet imminent (Chart 17). For EM-dedicated equity managers, we have been neutral on Asian semiconductor sectors. We continue to recommend a market-weight allocation to Taiwan’s overall market, while we are upgrading the Korean technology sector from a neutral allocation to overweight. Korean semiconductor stocks have rallied much less than their global peers. Hence, the risk of a major relapse is lower. Given that we have been overweight non-tech Korean stocks, upgrading tech stocks to overweight means we will be overweight the KOSPI within the EM equity benchmark (Chart 18). Chart 17Semiconductor Earnings Recovery: Not Imminent Chart 18Upgrade Korean Tech Stocks And Overweight KOSPI Within EM   Meanwhile, we remain long the Bloomberg Asia-Pacific Semiconductor Index and short the S&P 500 Semiconductor Index. This trade has produced a 7% gain since its initiation on June 13, 2019. The Bloomberg Asia-Pacific Semiconductor index has 12 stocks. Samsung and TSMC account for 38% and 37% of the index, respectively. The S&P 500 Semiconductor Index has 13 stocks. Intel, Broadcom, Texas Instruments and Qualcomm are the top five constituents, together accounting for nearly 77% of the index. Although the US and China may reach a temporary trade deal, the US will continue to restrict sales of tech products and high-end semiconductors to China. As a result, these US semiconductor companies, most of which are IC designing companies, will likely experience a more subdued than expected recovery in sales. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The Global Semiconductor Sector: Is A Cyclical Upturn Imminent?" dated June 13, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.guancha.cn/ChanJing/2019_09_21_518748.shtml http://www.cac.gov.cn/2019-10/23/c_1573361796389322.htm 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Chinese Auto Demand: Time For A  Recovery?" dated October 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.canalys.com/analysis/smartphone+analysis 5 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Defying Gravity," dated November 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

The latest NFIB job openings data nosedived, warning that small cap troubles are even deeper than previously assumed. Worrisomely, when compared with non-farm payrolls (gauging the large cap labor market) our proxy is sending an unambiguously negative signal that relative earnings growth will remain downbeat in the coming quarters (middle panel). Already, forward profit estimates are sinking like a stone for small cap indexes, but large caps have remained resilient (bottom panel). Tack on the relative indebtedness of small versus large caps (not shown) and we continue to recommend a large cap size bias.  

Highlights Please note that we will publish a Special Report on the Asian semiconductors cycle on Monday November 11. The risk to our negative stance on EM stocks is that DM share prices will continue advancing, pulling EM equities higher. If the MSCI EM Equity Index breaks decisively above our stop buy level instituted two weeks ago, we will reverse our stance on the absolute performance of EM. Nevertheless, we assign high odds that EM share prices will underperform DM even in a global equity rally. Hence, we are not changing our underweight recommendation on EM within a global equity portfolio. In the 2012-14 period, EM stocks underperformed their DM counterparts despite the global equity rally. Feature Chart I-1China: A Tale Of Two Manufacturing PMIs In our October 24 weekly report, we instituted a buy stop on the MSCI EM Equity Index at 1,075. The index is currently flirting with this level. If EM stocks break decisively above this level, our buy stop will be triggered. Such a technical breakout will signify that this EM equity rally will likely be sustained in the medium term, and that investors should play it. What would be the rationale behind this rally? Is it the rise in China’s Caixin manufacturing PMI or an imminent trade deal between the U.S. and China? Or is it a recovery in the global business cycle? The top panel of Chart I-1 shows that China’s Caixin and NBS manufacturing PMIs have decoupled. The Caixin PMI is compiled through a survey of about 500 companies, while the NBS measure is based on about 3000 companies. Neither one appears to have a consistently better track record than the other. For this reason, to tackle the issues of excessive volatility and false signals from both measures, we prefer to look at their average. The bottom panel of Chart I-1 illustrates the average of the two. The takeaway is that China’s manufacturing PMI has indeed improved, but only modestly. Further, non-manufacturing PMI – also the average of the Caixin and the NBS figures – has dropped to 2015 lows (Chart I-2). Hence, Chinese PMIs are not sending an unequivocal message that the mainland economy is recovering. Chart I-2China: Non-Manufacturing PMI Is At Its 2015 Low On one hand, the business cycle in China as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet improved. On the other, share prices often lead markets, and waiting for economic data often results in missing the turning points. In this week’s report, we present both the bullish market signals and the lack of evidence of an economic recovery in China/EM, global trade and manufacturing. Finally, we elaborate why an enduring global equity rally does not always lead to EM equity relative outperformance versus DM. Bullish Market Signals… The motive for our buy stop on the EM Equity Index is the number of bullish market signals that currently suggest the global equity rally could be sustainable, and hence playable. First, DM share prices have been trading well – equity market actions in the U.S., Europe and Japan have been characteristic of a bull market since early October. Specifically, companies that have missed analysts’ earnings estimates have seen their share prices do quite well, often rising markedly in the days following their earnings announcements. Share prices of companies that have beaten analysts’ expectations have literally surged. This is typical of a genuine bull market. Technical patterns are also positive for U.S. equities. U.S. small caps, S&P 500 high-beta stocks and FAANG share prices have all bounced from major support levels. Second, technical patterns are also positive for U.S. equities. U.S. small caps, S&P 500 high-beta stocks and FAANG share prices have all bounced from major support levels and are attempting to break out (Chart I-3). Finally, the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio has also failed to break below one of its long-term moving averages and has rebounded (Chart I-4). When a 200-day or long-term moving average holds, it often marks a major reversal. Chart I-3Bullish Patterns In U.S. Equities Chart I-4A Bull Market In U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio   All these signals imply a bullish trajectory for U.S. and other DM share prices. At the current juncture, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to the market and ready to reverse our stance on EM performance in absolute terms when our buy stop is triggered. Apart from these technical signals and market actions, U.S. economic fundamentals remain healthy. In particular, U.S. households have decent balance sheets, their income and spending growth is quite robust, the banking system is healthy, and nationwide property markets are picking up following a soft spot early this year. Although American manufacturing and capital spending have been weak, these relapses primarily reflect negative demand from the rest of the world and business confidence deterioration due to the U.S.-China trade confrontation. The latter will be partially reversed by the forthcoming U.S.-China trade deal. Chart I-5China Not U.S. Drives EM Profits Cycles At the same time, there is a lack of meaningful green shoots in global trade and manufacturing (we discuss this in more detail below). Altogether, one can explain this equity rally as being driven by subsiding fears of a U.S. recession, Federal Reserve easing and the improvement on the U.S.-China trade front.  That said, our negative view on EM has not been contingent on a U.S. recession, Fed policy or the U.S.-China trade confrontation. As such, improvements on these fronts do not constitute sufficient basis for us to change our fundamental stance on EM. The empirical evidence that U.S. growth is not driving EM growth in general and EM corporate profitability in particular emanates from the following: U.S. imports and EM corporate earnings cycles have not been correlated since 2011 (Chart I-5, top panel). EM earnings-per-share cycles have instead been driven by Chinese imports since 2009 (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Hence, it is China’s domestic demand that drives broader EM profit cycles. As we elaborate below, there is little evidence of improvement in the mainland’s business cycle, its imports, and commodities prices. Bottom Line: There are numerous bullish signals from DM equity markets. The risk to our negative stance on EM is as follows: If DM share prices continue to rally, they will drag EM stocks and other risk assets higher. …But Global Growth Has Not Yet Improved Chart I-6No Clear Bullish Signal From Currency Markets Several key financial market signals, as well as soft and hard data, are not yet indicating that a recovery is already underway in global trade and manufacturing. Nor do they point to an improvement in China/EM economies. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 has rebounded but has not yet broken above its neckline (Chart I-6, top panel). This indicator had formed a classic head-and-shoulders pattern before breaking down. The jury is still out on whether the recent rebound is a false start or the beginning of a cyclical advance. We put a lot of emphasis on this indicator because (1) it is very strongly correlated with EM share prices, (2) it captures both risk-on and risk-off periods in global financial markets, (3) it leads the global business cycle, and (4) it is agnostic to the U.S. dollar’s trend. In a similar vein, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has weakened but has not yet broken through key moving averages to conclude that it has definitively entered a bear market. With the exception of China’s Caixin manufacturing PMI, there are few green shoots in global manufacturing. Manufacturing PMIs in Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are all still below the 50 boom-bust line (Chart I-7, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, manufacturing PMIs in the ASEAN region have plunged (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Critically, EM per-share earnings are contracting at a rate of 10% from a year ago. Notably, the leading indicators for EM corporate profits – China’s domestic orders of 5,000 industrial companies and narrow money (M1) growth – signal a tentative bottoming of EM corporate profit growth only in early 2020 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Outside China, Asian Manufacturing PMIs Are Weak Chart I-8Leading Indicators For EM EPS Growth   In the majority of developing economies, corporate per-share earnings are contracting or stagnating in local currency terms (Chart I-9). Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio has rebounded but has not yet broken above its neckline. “Hard” economic data out of EM/China and global trade remain downbeat as well. For example, Chinese construction activity and capital goods imports as well as Japanese foreign machine tool orders are all shrinking at double-digit rates from a year ago (Chart I-10, top and middle panels). Korea’s October exports contracted by 15% from a year earlier (Chart I-10, bottom panel).   Chart I-9Individual EM Country EPS In Local Currency Terms Chart I-10China Capex And Global Trade: Double Digit Contraction   Finally, the import sub-component of China’s NBS manufacturing PMI remains well below the 50 boom-bust line. Chinese demand is of paramount importance for industrial metals. China accounts for 50% of industrial metals demand, while the U.S. accounts for only about 7%. The very subdued bounce in commodities in general and industrial metals prices in particular, are confirming a lack of recovery in Chinese intake of raw materials (Chart I-11). EM share prices, including emerging Asian stocks, have the highest correlation with global materials stocks (Chart I-12). The rationale for this tight relationship between emerging Asian equities and commodities is that both are leveraged to the Chinese business cycle, as we discussed in our recent report, EM: Perceptions Versus Reality. It is difficult to envision EM share prices staging a cyclical bull market when commodities prices are flat to down. Chart I-11Chinese Imports PMI And Industrial Metals Chart I-12Emerging Asian Stocks And Global Materials: Moving In Tandem   Bottom Line: The key variables driving EM share prices are China’s credit and business cycles, its imports and global trade. There are few green shoots in China/EM business cycles and global trade. This is why we believe even if this global equity rally is sustained, EM equities will underperform DM ones. We elaborate on this below. Can EM Underperform DM In A Bull Market? Chart I-132012-14: EM Underperformed During Global Bull Market BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view on global equity allocation is as follows: Even if DM equities enter a sustainable bull market, odds are that EM stocks will underperform. This scenario will likely resemble the 2012-14 episode that was characterized by the following: DM share prices were in a strong bull market following the European credit crisis and the global markets selloff in 2011 (Chart I-13, top panel). Global trade and manufacturing bottomed in late 2012 and accelerated in 2013 (Chart I-13, third panel). Yet, this global trade and manufacturing improvement did little to support EM share prices, currencies and commodities prices. In 2012-14, EM equities were range-bound in absolute terms and significantly underperformed their DM peers (Chart I-13, second panel). In short, EM stocks were low beta relative to global stocks during that period. Besides, commodities prices were falling and EM currencies were depreciating versus the U.S. dollar (Chart I-13, bottom panel). The cause of such poor EM performance was two-fold: First, the recovery in China’s business cycle and its imports was tame. Second, many EM economies were suffering from poor domestic fundamentals following the 2009-2011 credit and cheap money booms. We expect any growth improvement in China to be muted, resembling the 2012 growth stabilization rather than the 2016 recovery. The top panel of Chart I-14 illustrates that China’s manufacturing PMI oscillated between 48 and 52 in 2012-2014 when the global manufacturing cycle rebounded and DM growth improved. This occurred despite China’s large stimulus in 2012 (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-14Chinese PMI And Credit And Fiscal Stimulus In line with the subdued recovery in China’s business cycle at the time, EM corporate profits did not recover much in the 2012-2014 period (please refer to Chart I-8 on page 7). We expect EM currencies to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar even if global share prices continue rallying. This will resemble the 2012-14 scenario. Notably, EM equity underperformance versus DM escalated in the spring of 2013 during the Fed’s Taper Tantrum when EM currencies plunged and EM fixed-income markets sold off. Yet, the Fed’s Taper Tantrum was not the only reason for EM currency depreciation. As demonstrated in the bottom panel of Chart I-13 on page 10, EM ex-China currencies’ total return was strongly correlated with commodities prices. Currently, many EM countries do not suffer from the same malaises they did in 2012-14, namely, high inflation and large current account deficits. On the contrary, very low nominal growth, i.e., enduring deflationary pressures, is the foremost problem in many EM countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Russia. These deflationary pressures are due to very sluggish domestic demand, weak/unhealthy banking systems and falling commodities prices. This backdrop indicates that these economies are not in a position to withstand either higher global borrowing costs or lower commodities prices. Their currencies will depreciate with either higher global bond yields or falling commodities prices. Even if DM equities enter a sustainable bull market, odds are that EM stocks will underperform. Hence, a scenario of firming U.S. and European demand – which would warrant higher bond yields – amid still weak Chinese growth – which would push commodities prices lower – would be very negative for EM currencies. Chart I-15Outperformance By Euro Area And Value Stocks Does Not Always Herald EM Outperformance Chart I-16EM Vs. DM: Relative Share Prices Are Tracking Relative EPS Finally, EM stocks’ relative performance versus global stocks does not always coincide with the relative performance of euro area or value stocks (Chart I-15). This entails that outperformance by euro area and global value stocks does not always herald EM outperformance versus the global equity benchmark. Bottom Line: Regardless the direction of global share prices, we expect EM stocks to underperform DM equities in the next several months. Relative equity performance is driven by relative EPS trends, as illustrated in Chart I-16. The corporate earnings outlook is worse in EM than in the U.S., euro area and Japan.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to average of CHF & JPY total returns.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

  Highlights While the Caixin PMI is pointing to improving economic conditions, other data series still reflect weak growth. China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. The failure of Chinese stocks to significantly outperform the global benchmark and the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks underscore the near-term risks to equities if this month’s trade & manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the data remains mixed: the strength in the October Caixin PMI and the September pickup in electricity production are positive signs, but other important datapoints still point to weak conditions. We continue to expect that China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. We continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, Chinese stocks have rallied in absolute terms over the past month in response to greatly increased odds of a trade truce between China and the US, but have failed to outperform the global benchmark. This, in combination with the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks, suggests that hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to rise in relative terms. The risk of near-term underperformance is still present, especially if October’s hard trade and manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Not Yet A Clear Change In Trend The Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) ticked up in September, led by an improvement in electricity production. An improvement in the LKI in lockstep with a rising Caixin manufacturing PMI (discussed below) raises the odds that the Chinese economy may be bottoming earlier than we expect, but for now only modestly so. Chinese economic data is highly volatile, and Chart 1 shows that the improvement in the LKI is very muted when shown as a 3-month moving average. In addition, a slight improvement also occurred earlier this year, but proved to be a false signal. All told, for now we continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Our leading indicator for the LKI was essentially flat in September on a smoothed basis, with sequential declines in M3 growth and the credit components of the indicator offsetting improvements in monetary conditions and M2. From a big picture perspective, the story of our LKI leading indicator remains unchanged: it continues to trend higher, at a much shallower pace than has been the case during previous easing cycles. The uptrend is the basis of our forecast that China’s growth will soon bottom, but the uncharacteristically shallow nature of the rise suggests that the eventual recovery will be modest. On a smoothed basis, Chinese residential floor space sold improved again in September, following a very significant rise in August. Over the past 12-18 months, we had emphasized that the double-digit pace of growth in China’s housing starts was unsustainable because it had entirely decoupled from the trend in sales (which have reliably led construction activity over the past decade). This gap disappeared over the summer due to a significant slowdown in starts, which is what we predicted would occur. However, the recent acceleration in floor space sold represents a legitimate fundamental improvement in the housing market, that for now is difficult to attribute to the recent drivers of housing demand (Chart 2).1 Still, investors should continue to watch China’s housing demand data closely over the coming few months, for further signs of a potential re-acceleration in housing construction. Investors need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data. The October improvement in China’s Caixin PMI was quite notable, as it appears to confirm the full one-point rise in the index that occurred in September and suggests that manufacturing in China’s private-sector is now durably expanding. Still, conflicting signals remain: the official PMI fell in October and remains below 50, and the significant September improvement in the Caixin PMI was not corroborated by an improvement in producer prices or nominal import growth (Chart 3). As PMIs are simply timely coincident indicators that do not generally have leading properties, investors will need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data in order to have confidence that the Caixin PMI improvement is not a false signal. Chart 2It Is Not Yet Apparent What Is Driving A Pickup In Housing Demand Chart 3If The Caixin PMI Is Not A False Signal, A Hard Data Improvement Must Occur Soon Chinese stocks have rallied 6-7% over the past month in absolute terms, but have modestly underperformed global equities. The rally in global stock prices has occurred largely in response to the mid-October announcement of a trade truce between China and the US. The failure of Chinese stocks to outperform during this period suggests hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to outpace their global peers. At the regional equity level, the other notable development over the past month has been the continued outperformance of the MSCI Taiwan Index versus the global benchmark. Taiwan’s outperformance has been boosted by a rising TWD versus the dollar, but Taiwanese stocks have also outperformed in local currency terms. Taiwan province is highly exposed to global trade, and it is not surprising that equities have reacted positively to the prospect of a trade truce between the US and China. Further meaningful outperformance, however, will likely require a re-acceleration in Taiwanese exports, as export growth has merely halted its contraction (Chart 4). Within China’s investable equity market, cyclicals have underperformed defensives over the past month after having rallied significantly from late-August to mid-September (Chart 5). We noted in our October 30 Special Report that these cyclical sectors have historically been positively correlated with pro-cyclical macroeconomic and equity market variables,2 and their underperformance versus defensives is thus consistent with the failure of Chinese stocks in the aggregate to outperform global equities over the past month. In both cases, outperformance likely requires hard evidence of an upturn in China’s business cycle. Chart 4Export Growth Needs To Improve In Order To Expect Further Taiwanese Relative Outperformance Chart 5Cyclical Underperformance Underscores The Near-Term Risks To Chinese Vs. Global Stocks We do not take the rise in Chinese government bond yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chart 6Chinese Relative Equity Performance Leads Bond Yields, Not The Other Way Around Chinese 10-year government bond yields have risen roughly 15bps over the past month, and are now 30bps off of their mid-August low. Many market participants view Chinese government bond yields as a leading growth barometer, but 10-year yields have actually lagged Chinese investable stock performance over the past two years (Chart 6). As such, we do not take the rise in yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have declined over the past month as government bond yields have been rising, continuing a pattern of negative correlation between the two that has prevailed since early-2018. A negative correlation between yields and corporate bond spreads is a normal relationship, and it suggests that spreads may narrow over the coming year if the Chinese economy bottoms in Q1, as we expect. Spreads remain elevated despite the substantial easing in monetary conditions that occurred last year, due to persistent concerns about rising onshore defaults. While we acknowledge that defaults are indeed occurring, we have argued on several occasions that the pace of defaults would have to be much faster in order for current spreads to be justified.3 We continue to recommend a long RMB-denominated position in China’s onshore corporate bond market. The RMB has appreciated over the past month in response to news of a likely trade truce between the US and China, with most of the rise having occurred versus the US dollar. USD-CNY is likely to sustainably trade below the 7 mark in a trade truce scenario, but how much further downside is possible in the near-term absent a re-acceleration in Chinese economic activity remains an open question. With the Fed very likely on hold for the next year, stronger than expected economic growth in China would likely catalyze a persistent selloff in USD-CNY barring a re-emergence of the Sino-US trade war. This, however, is not our base-case view, meaning that we expect modest post-deal strength in the RMB.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1. Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018. 2. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance,” dated October 30, 2019. 3. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “A Shaky Ladder,” dated June 13, 2018, "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War,” dated September 19, 2018 and "2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year,” dated December 5, 2018. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

The S&P 500 made fresh all-time highs last week, despite the ongoing profit contraction and a well telegraphed hawkish Fed interest rate cut. The “hope rally” continues and the longer it lasts defying sagging profit fundamentals, the larger the snapback will be in the ensuing months. We remain cautious awaiting a turn in our proprietary four-factor macro SPX earnings growth model and in the meantime our strategy is to sell this strength and raise dry powder. Worrisomely, our new candidate for the Chart of the Year award shows that analysts have thrown in the towel and are downgrading SPX long-term profit growth expectations at a faster pace than in the aftermath of the dotcom bubble. Historically, the S&P 500 and its five-year forward EPS growth estimates are joined at the hip, and the current message is bearish for the broad equity market. Bottom Line: Remain cautious on the prospects on the broad equity market. For more details, please refer to the most recent Weekly Report, and to read more about our previous Chart of the Year candidate click here and here.