Sectors

Overweight We upgraded the S&P managed health care group to overweight in April shortly after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his revamped “Medicare For All” bill. Despite the recent explosive run up in relative share prices – partly owing to the drop in Elizabeth Warren’s odds of winning the Democratic candidacy and partly given her watering down of her “Medicare For All” take up plan – we are adding this health care sub-group to our high-conviction overweight call list. HMOs are finally raising prices at the steepest rate of the past fifteen years and while such breakneck pace is unsustainable, profit margins are set to expand smartly. The profit margin backdrop is enticing for health insurers for another reason: labor cost containment. CEOs have been extremely prudent refraining from adding to headcount. One final profit margin booster is the rising 10-year Treasury yield, as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves. Thus, if BCA’s bond view materializes, it will prove a tonic to both margins and profits. With regard to technicals, relative share prices are not as oversold as they were mid-year, but remain below the neutral zone still offering investors a compelling entry point to this position. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Chart 1Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields November’s manufacturing PMI data were released yesterday, giving us an update for two of our preferred global growth indicators: the Global Manufacturing PMI and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the two indicators sent conflicting signals, providing us with very little clarity on the global growth outlook. On the positive side, the Global Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 for the first time since April. China is the largest weighting in the global index, and its PMI rose for the fifth consecutive month. Conversely, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI dipped further into contractionary territory in November – from 48.3 to 48.1. Optimistically, the index’s inventory component contracted by more than the new orders component, meaning that the difference between new orders and inventories rose to its highest level since May. The difference between new orders and inventories often leads the overall ISM index by several months. All in all, we continue to see tentative signs of stabilization in our preferred global growth indicators. But a more significant rebound will be necessary to push bond yields higher in the first half of next year, as we expect. Stay tuned. Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +494 bps. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions and (iii) valuation.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is high and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a concern, because it suggests that monetary conditions may not be sufficiently stimulative for banks to keep the credit taps running (bottom panel). But the yield curve, another indicator of monetary conditions, has steepened significantly since Q3, suggesting that lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. For now, we see valuation as the main headwind for investment grade credit spreads. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +671 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month and currently sits at 370 bps, 131 bps above our target (Chart 3). Ba and B rated junk bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and 76 bps, respectively, in November. But Caa-rated credit underperformed Treasuries by 89 bps. This continues the trend of Caa underperformance that has been in place since late last year (panel 3). We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk bond universe in last week’s report and came to two conclusions.3 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for this year’s Caa underperformance that make us inclined to downplay any potential negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of this year’s underperformance (bottom panel). With elevated spreads, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months.    MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, as a 5 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a 2 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 50 bps (Chart 4). This is very close to its pre-crisis average and only 3 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers trade below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgages. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 36 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +513 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 24 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +245 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +266 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +6bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 4% in November, and currently sits at 83% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Specifically, 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios are somewhat below average pre-crisis levels at 68% and 72%, respectively. However, M/T yield ratios for longer maturities (10 years and higher) are all above average pre-crisis levels. M/T yield ratios for 10-year, 20-year and 30-year maturities are 84%, 93% and 97%, respectively. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted higher in November, steepening out to the 7-year maturity and flattening beyond that. The 2/10 Treasury slope was unchanged on the month. It currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 59 bps (Chart 7). In a recent report we discussed the 6-12 month outlook for the 2/10 Treasury slope.8 We considered the main macro factors that influence the slope of the yield curve: Fed policy, wage growth, inflation expectations and the neutral fed funds rate. We concluded that the 2/10 slope has room to steepen during the next few months, as the Fed holds down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations. However, we see the 2/10 slope remaining in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps, owing to strong wage growth and downbeat neutral rate expectations. Despite the outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers strong positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note, and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight   Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -70 bps.The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.62%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.73%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.9 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 29 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +74 bps. Chart 9ABS Market Overview The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 34 bps; its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS rank among the most defensive US spread products and also offer more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate is still low, but has put in a clear bottom. The is true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating ABS credit metrics are also a cause for concern. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +221 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 72 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). CRE prices are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +107 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 26 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index.   To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 29 2019) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 29, 2019) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 45 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 45 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 29, 2019) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations. BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as BCA predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. We remain perplexed by the market’s euphoric rise and near total neglect of weak profit growth fundamentals. This “hope rally”, as we have characterized it in the recent past, may have some more legs with the traditional Santa Rally around the corner, but the set up for stocks could not be more treacherous for 2020. Importantly, we deem the risk of not getting a Sino-American trade deal to be significantly greater than a relief rally in case of a successful deal. Most of the positive trade-related news is already reflected into equities. This complacent backdrop is reminiscent of the early 2018 SPX catapult to 2,870 as back then the fresh fiscal easing package was all priced into stocks in the first 20 trading days of that year. Chart 1 vividly depicts this euphoric melt-up in stocks with the longest dated VIX future trouncing the squashed front month VIX future. While this ratio is not at the stratospheric level hit in late-December 2017, it hit a wall recently forewarning that equities are skating on thin ice. Chart 1VOL... Similarly, speculators are net short vol, but a snap can occur at any time. This is eerily reminiscent of February 2018. Since 2017, this vol positioning measure has consistently troughed prior to the SPX peak on three occasions and a “four-peat” likely looms (vol net spec positions shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2).   On the profit front, sector earnings breadth is sinking like a stone confirming the negatively anchored S&P 500 net EPS revisions ratio (Chart 3). We doubt that 10% EPS growth for calendar 2020 is even plausible, especially given the looming steep deceleration in equity retirement that we highlighted recently.1 Tack on the mighty US dollar, and profit headwinds abound. Chart 2...A Coiled Spring Chart 3No Earnings Pulse Market internals are also screaming that something is off in the equity markets. Small caps are trailing large caps, transports are at stall speed, weak balance sheet stocks are underperforming strong balance sheet stocks, the median stock as per the Value Line Geometric Index is far from all-time highs and high yield bonds (especially CCC rated) are also not confirming the SPX breakout (Chart 4). Importantly, the CBOE’s S&P 500 implied correlation index, which gauges “the expected average correlation of price returns of S&P 500 Index components, implied through SPX option prices and prices of single-stock options on the 50 largest components of the SPX”,2 is rising again over the 40% mark, underscoring that stocks are more and more beginning to move in tandem. Historically this has been a negative omen (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Watch Market Internals Chart 5Reflation No More? Downtrodden M&A activity is also firing a warning shot. A steep divergence of M&A deals from stock prices is atypical at this late stage of the business cycle (middle panel, Chart 5). In fact, out Reflation Gauge comprising the greenback, oil prices and the 10-year Treasury yield has taken a turn for the worse, signaling that economic surprises will likely suffer the same fate (bottom panel, Chart 5). All of this, warns that the risks of a significant pullback in the SPX are rising. What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls. Similar to last year, we are using BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls.3 While last year this was offside, the collapse in the 10-year US Treasury yield from 3% last December to 1.75% currently offers a better backdrop for this view to pan out. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as our BCA house view predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection.4 As a reminder, interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 6). Moreover on a sector basis, the ebbs and flows of the risk free asset directly influence utilities, real estate, financials, consumer discretionary and tech growth stocks or more than half of the S&P 500’s market capitalization. Chart 6Priced To Perfection What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   S&P Managed Health Care (Overweight) We upgraded the S&P managed health care group to overweight in April shortly after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his revamped “Medicare For All” bill. Despite the recent explosive run up in relative share prices – partly owing to the drop in Elizabeth Warren’s odds of winning the Democratic candidacy and partly given her watering down of her “Medicare For All” take up plan – we are adding this health care sub-group to our high-conviction overweight call list. HMOs are finally raising prices at the steepest rate of the past fifteen years and while such breakneck pace is unsustainable, profit margins are set to expand smartly (Chart 7). The profit margin backdrop is enticing for health insurers for another reason: labor cost containment. CEOs have been extremely prudent refraining from adding to headcount. One final profit margin booster is the rising 10-year Treasury yield, as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves. Thus, if BCA’s bond view materializes, it will prove a tonic to both margins and profits. With regard to technicals, relative share prices are not as oversold as they were mid-year, but remain below the neutral zone still offering investors a compelling entry point to this position (bottom panel, Chart 7). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG.  Chart 7S&P Managed Health Care S&P Machinery (Overweight) A tentative up-tick in EM data in general and China in particular along with improving operating metrics signal that the US/China trade war wounded machinery stocks deserve a high-conviction overweight status for 2020. In more detail, the budding recoveries in the EM and Chinese manufacturing PMIs herald a brighter outlook for relative share prices. China’s fiscal and credit impulse also signals that a bottom in relative share prices is likely already in place. If this leading indicator proves accurate in the coming months, then relative share prices can reclaim the early-2018 highs. On the operating front, the new orders-to-inventories momentum has traced a bottom. Assuming that the Chinese manufacturing PMI reading stays on an upward trajectory, machinery demand will make a durable comeback. None of these green shoots are reflected in sell-side analysts’ bombed out relative profit and sales growth expectations (bottom panel, Chart 8). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5MACH – CAT, DE, ITW, IR, CMI, PCAR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, XYL, IEX, WAB, SNA, PNR, FLS.  Chart 8S&P Machinery S&P Banks (Overweight) The expected price of credit, still pristine credit quality, and a looming reacceleration in credit growth all argue for including the S&P banks index in our high-conviction overweight list. Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market. As the bond sell-off gained steam, the bank outperformance phase also caught on fire. BCA’s view for next year calls for a 50-75bps selloff in the 10-year Treasury yield, further boosting the allure of bank equities (top panel, Chart 9). Beyond the rising price of credit, credit growth is another key industry profit driver. Importantly, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey painted a bright picture on both the demand and supply of credit. In more detail, bankers reported that a rising number of credit categories reversed course and demand for loans slingshot higher. The upshot is that bank credit growth will likely reaccelerate in the first half of 2020 (third panel, Chart 9). Finally, credit quality, the third key bank profit driver, is also emitting a positive signal. While a few loan categories have deteriorated recently in absolute terms, as percentage of loans outstanding, credit quality remains pristine. Despite all this enticing news, bank valuations remain anchored near rock bottom levels and a resurgent ROE is signaling that there is a long runway ahead for relative bank valuations (bottom panel, Chart 9). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.  Chart 9S&P Banks Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps (Overweight) The large cap size bias is our sole hold out from last year’s high-conviction list despite getting stopped out and booking a handsome 9% profit. Today we recommend reinstating a large cap size bias. This call actually represents a slight hedge on BCA’s overall higher interest rates view for next year. Financials comprise 13% of the SPX, but the weight jumps to 18% in small cap indexes. Thus, if the rising interest view is off the mark, the large cap bias will provide an offset. Relative forward profit growth favors mega caps and by a wide margin. One key factor underpinning this increasing profit gap is the massive profit margin divergence (Chart 10). Tack on the fact that index providers omit negative forward profits from their index EPS calculations and the narrative that small caps have cheapened versus large caps falls flat on an adjusted basis. Why? Because a large number of small caps have negative forward EPS. Moreover, we recently created a relative employment proxy that is firing on all cylinders. Not only is the small business labor market crumbling according to the latest NFIB survey, but hard data also suggest that nonfarm private small business payroll employment has ground to a halt. Finally, small caps are debt saddled compared with large caps and small cap b/s have actually been degrading of late (Chart 10). Chart 10Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps S&P Homebuilding (Underweight) We downgraded homebuilders to underweight in late-October, and today we are adding it to our high-conviction underweight call list. Most, if not all, positive profit drivers are already reflected in relative share prices. Specifically, the drubbing in interest rates has been more than accounted for by the year-to-date outperformance in homebuilders. Now that interest rates are moving in reverse, more pain lies ahead for the S&P homebuilding index (Chart 11). Worrisomely, consumers’ expectations to purchase a new home plunged anew last month according to The Conference Board’s survey, and that demand softness will weigh on housing starts and ultimately homebuilding revenues (Chart 11). Adding insult to injury, new house selling prices are losing ground to existing home prices, but such discounting is no longer boosting volumes as new home sales market share gains have stalled. Already, S&P homebuilding sales are contracting and the risk is that deflation gets entrenched in this construction industry (Chart 11). Simultaneously, lumber prices are gaining steam and coupled with contracting new home prices signal that homebuilding profits will suffer a setback. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOME – DHI, LEN, PHM, NVR.  Chart 11S&P Homebuilding S&P Semi Equipment (Underweight) While year-to-date chip equipment stocks are the best performing index in the SPX, we deem them a mania, and include them in our high-conviction underweight basket for 2020. The top panel of Chart 12 shows this irrational exuberance that has permeated the semi equipment universe is similar to the dotcom era excesses. Back in the late-1990s relative profit growth was sky high, but today it is flirting with the zero line, warning that gravity will pull these stocks back down to earth (second panel, Chart 12). The contracting ISM manufacturing survey signals that relative share price momentum running at a breakneck pace is unwarranted. The same holds true for relative forward profit and revenue growth expectations, especially given the ongoing contraction in global semi sales (middle panel, Chart 12). This deficient demand for semis and therefore semi equipment manufacturers is also apparent in deflating DRAM prices, our industry pricing power proxy. Historically, relative profit expectations and pricing power have moved in lockstep and the current message is to fade sell-side analysts’ buoyancy. Net earnings revisions have slingshot from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism during the past quarter and are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lack of profit growth, deficient industry demand, perky valuations and extremely overbought conditions all suggest that the mania in the S&P chip equipment index will likely turn into a panic next year. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC. Chart 12S&P Semi Equipment S&P Utilities (Underweight) Heavily indebted utilities are a high-conviction underweight call for next year. · 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. 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 (Chart 13). Utilities command a 19.4 forward P/E multiple representing roughly a 10% premium to the broad market, but their forecast EPS growth rate at 5% trails the SPX by 400bps. Our composite relative Valuation Indicator has surged to one standard deviation above the historical mean, a level typically associated with recession (Chart 13). On the operating front, natural gas prices are contracting at the steepest pace of the past four years, and electricity capacity utilization is in a multi-decade downtrend, warning that the relative profitability will remain under pressure in 2020. The implication is that this crowded trade is at risk of deflating, especially if the breakout in bond yields gains steam as BCA expects. 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.  Chart 13S&P Utilities S&P Real Estate (Underweight) We would refrain from chasing high yielding real estate stocks higher, and instead we are including them in our high-conviction underweight call list for 2020. The commercial real estate (CRE) sector is a bubble candidate that exemplifies this cycle’s excesses. CRE prices sit at roughly two standard deviations above both the historical time trend and the previous cycle’s peak (not shown). Worryingly, CRE demand is waning. Not only our proprietary real estate demand indicator has sunk recently, but also the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey revealed that demand for CRE loans remains feeble. Simultaneously, fewer bankers are willing to extend CRE credit according to the same quarterly Fed survey (Chart 14). Occupancy rates have crested and there are increasing anecdotes of credit quality deterioration. As a result, CRE rents are also failing to keep up with inflation which eats into relative cash flow growth prospects. The supply side build up tilts this delicate balance further into deficit. Non-residential construction shows no signs of abating, with multi-family housing starts still running at an historically high rate of roughly 400K/annum (Chart 14). Finally, interest rate related headwinds will also weigh on this high-yielding sector in coming quarters, especially if the selloff in the bond market gains steam as BCA expects. (Chart 14). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5RLST – AMT, PLD, CCI, SPG, EQIX, WELL, PSA, EQR, AVB, SBAC, O, DLR, WY, VTR, ESS, BXP, CBRE, ARE, PEAK, MAA, UDR, EXR, DRE, HST, REG, VNO, IRM, FRT, KIM, AIV, SLG, MAC. Chart 14S&P Real Estate Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gasping For Air” dated November 18, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://www.cboe.com/micro/impliedcorrelation/impliedcorrelationindicator.pdf 3    Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, “OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game” dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4    Ibid. 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%)

Overweight While we were a tad early lifting the broad S&P health care sector to an overweight stance mid-year, quarter-to-date, health care stocks are the best performing GICS1 sector up 10%, besting the SPX by 450bps. Such consistent health care outperformance is significant and we reiterate our overweight stance on this defensive sector. Elizabeth Warren’s moves in the polls are a key driver behind the recent health care stellar returns and we would continue to lean against any increase in her probabilities of both winning the Democratic nomination and the 2020 Presidency (see chart). Importantly, Warren’s toning down of her “Medicare For All” speedy adoption to a more pragmatic phase-in approach over a number of years fueled the stampede into health care stocks in general and managed health care (which we are also overweight) in particular. Bottom Line: Any selloff in health care equities due to Warren’s rise in the polls presents an excellent buying opportunity. Stay overweight the S&P health care sector.

Special Report

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

Underweight We reiterate our recent downgrade in the S&P semi equipment index to underweight. Our previous mid-year attempt to fight this rally in chip equipment stocks fell short, but thankfully our prudent risk management metric limited our losses. While still early, there is tentative evidence that our underweight stance is starting to bear fruit as the position has moved in our favor. We expect to harvest more gains down the road as a potential trade tension flare up and sustained capex blues leave no room for error in the perfectly priced S&P semi equipment index. Please refer to this Weekly Report for additional details. Bottom Line: We remain underweight the S&P semi equipment index, and maintain the stop loss at the -10% relative return mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.

Highlights Monetary policy settings should continue to sustain the expansion,… : Tight monetary policy is a precondition for a recession. Although the line separating tight from easy is a matter of judgment, current Fed policy is squarely accommodative.  … and the building blocks of GDP confirm that recession is not an imminent threat: A robust labor market and fortified household balance sheets should continue to support consumption; the fixed investment outlook is okay as long as trade tensions don’t wreck business confidence; and the fiscal taps are likely to remain open throughout 2020. Housing will not get in the way of the economy or the markets: Mortgage rates have fallen since we examined housing dynamics in a two-part Special Report this time last year, and residential investment will increasingly reflect it. We project that the beginning of the next recession is about two years away, and that the equity and credit bull markets still have room to run: We are not perma-bulls, but there’s no evidence that the long bull run is about to end. Feature We view the study of key cycles – the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the sentiment cycle – as an essential element of investment strategy. The monetary policy cycle has been especially critical throughout the long expansion and bull market because it has held sway over the business cycle and the credit cycle since the crisis. We have also found that it exerts a powerful influence on equity returns: for six decades, stocks have done very well when policy is easy, but they have failed to generate positive real total returns when it’s tight. There is far more to investment returns than monetary policy, but a simple strategy of embracing risk during easy-policy phases of the fed funds rate cycle and limiting exposure to it when policy is tight has been a big winner over time. Although the fed funds rate cycle has been an especially valuable input in our process, it relies on an estimate. The equilibrium, or neutral, fed funds rate cannot be directly observed. We can only infer when the target fed funds rate crosses above or below it by observing actual economic performance. We continually review real-time data to gauge whether our equilibrium estimate is in the ballpark. As a formal check on that estimate, we regularly examine the building blocks of GDP for insight into where the business cycle is going. We update our review of the GDP equation in this report, and conclude that the expansion should remain on track over the next six to twelve months. We also provide an update on housing a year after our dedicated Special Reports on the topic, finding that it is unlikely to derail the expansion. The GDP Equation – Consumption As we all learned in Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X-M). As net exports are insubstantial in the comparatively closed US economy, US GDP growth reduces to the weighted sum of growth in consumption, investment and government spending, with consumption accounting for two-thirds of growth and investment and government spending accounting for one-sixth each. GDP = C + I + G Month-to-month moves in real retail sales and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are volatile, but both series have recovered from their late-2018 softness to get back to their mean for this cycle, somewhat below the means of the previous two expansions (Chart 1). The activity supports our constructive take at the time of our initial review of the GDP equation in April,1 but the choppy series do not provide much insight into the consumption outlook. Looking forward involves examining households’ income prospects and balance sheets to project the money that will be coming in, and consumers’ ability and willingness to spend it. Chart 1Consumption Has Been Holding Up Well Labor market conditions drive household income, and they remain quite tight. The number of unfilled job openings continues to exceed the number of unemployed workers (Chart 2), indicating that demand for employees remains strong. An elevated quits rate indicates that employers are competing fiercely to meet that demand, even to the point of poaching employees from one another (Chart 3). Our payrolls model projects that employment growth will stay close to its pace of the last several years (Chart 4, top panel), as small businesses have ambitious hiring plans (Chart 4, second panel), temporary employment is still growing (Chart 4, third panel), and the 26-week moving average of initial unemployment claims is only slowly beginning to rise (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 2With More Jobs Than Workers, ... Chart 3... Employees Can Seek Out Greener Pastures Chart 4Payrolls Will Keep Expanding Wages are already growing around 3% year-over-year, and the tight labor-market backdrop should promote further gains. With employers forced to bid up wages to attract a shrinking pool of available workers, we expect that wage growth will peak somewhere above 3.5% before the cycle ends. Humans’ ability to see into the future does not extend beyond six to twelve months, but we are confident that more households will be working by the middle of 2020 than are working now, and that they’ll be earning more, in real terms. Households don't have to spend their income gains, but they're in a comfortable position to do so after several years of building up savings and working down debt. Households won’t necessarily spend all of their income gains. They may choose to direct them to paying down debt or increasing savings. Their balance sheets suggest they don’t have a need to do so, however, as the savings rate is back to early ‘90s levels above 8% (Chart 5, top panel), nearly all the debt as a share of GDP that they took on in the last expansion has been worked off (Chart 5, middle panel), and their aggregate debt service burden is lower now than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 5, bottom panel). Not only do households face little pressure to save their coming income gains, they have plenty of capacity to borrow to augment them. Chart 5Household Finances Are Solid The GDP Equation – Investment And Government Spending Investment accounts for just a sixth of GDP, but its volatility gives it a greater likelihood of tipping the economy into a recession than either consumption or government spending (Chart 6). Per the surveys we use to anticipate capital expenditures, the change since April is mixed. Small business capital spending plans as reported in the NFIB survey have ticked up and remain elevated (Chart 7, top panel), while capex intentions from the regional Fed manufacturing surveys have continued to slip and are only around their historical mean (Chart 7, bottom panel). We expect that the trade negotiations will exert a powerful near-term pull on corporate capex; if the US and China reach some sort of accord, capex should pick up, but if tensions worsen, corporate confidence will decline and capex may outright contract. Our base case calls for a modest détente around a Phase 1 agreement, so we do not expect that investment will break down, but it is the most vulnerable component of GDP and we are watching it closely. Chart 6Investment Is The Swing Factor Chart 7The Capex Outlook Is Only Okay, ... Government spending, on the other hand, doesn’t merit a whole lot of attention right now. It is a stable series that accounts for a modest share of GDP and for most of the postwar era, it was reliably countercyclical, shrinking when times were good and expanding when times were bad (Chart 8). The gaping divergence between the federal deficit and economic performance bodes ill for Treasuries and the dollar over the long term, but it shows that there’s no appetite for reining in federal spending ahead of the most hotly contested election campaign in recent memory. State and local spending accounts for about 60% of all government spending, and the strong labor market will boost state receipts, which come from income and sales taxes, while steady home price appreciation will support property tax receipts (Chart 9), keeping municipal coffers full. The longer-term implications of the debauched federal budget are unpleasant, but government profligacy will help sustain the expansion through the end of next year. Chart 8... But The Fiscal Party Rages On Chart 9Home Price Gains Will Fill Local Government Coffers Housing Residential investment finally broke out of a six-quarter string of detracting from GDP growth last quarter, though its drag in the first half of the year was modest. Residential investment may not exert the sway over the economy that it did earlier in the postwar era when the suburbs were being created from scratch, but its interest rate sensitivity makes it a good proxy for the effect of monetary policy on the economy. Housing has picked up as mortgage rates have fallen, and rates’ lagged effect suggests that more gains are in store (Chart 10). A high level of affordability should keep the momentum going (Chart 11), and new household formations continue to outstrip housing starts (Chart 12, top panel), at a time when inventories (Chart 12, middle panel) and vacancies (Chart 12, bottom panel) are historically low. Chart 10The Full Effect Of Lower Rates Is Yet To Be Felt Chart 11Affordability Is High, ... Chart 12... And Supply Is Tight We continue to believe that housing poses no threat to the expansion. New home sales should pick up as builders address the undersupply of homes for first-time and first move-up buyers. The cap on itemized deductions imposed by the December 2017 revision to the federal tax code does not appear to have had a material impact on regional sales activity, and the relationship between top marginal income tax rates2 and home price appreciation since the tax act passed is weak (Chart 13). The bottom line is that residential investment is more likely to boost fixed investment over the next year than it is to detract from it. Chart 13Post-Act Home Price Appreciation Among 20-City Case-Shiller Constituents Investment Implications The underlying elements of the GDP equation support our monetary policy-driven assessment that the expansion will keep chugging along. A robustly healthy labor market will support wage gains, and household balance sheets have firmed up enough to allow consumers to spend their increased income. Surveys indicate that fixed investment does not present a major economic headwind, and positive trade developments could turn it into a tailwind. Government spending will be well supported through 2020. It would be consistent with history if this bull market didn't end until it made one more big push higher. Recessions and bear markets coincide, so the equity bull market should persist until the next recession is in sight. Spread product should also continue to outperform Treasuries and cash, especially while lenders are desperately seeking incremental carry. We reiterate our broad recommendation to overweight equities and spread product, while underweighting Treasuries, and urge investors with more conservative mandates to remain at least equal weight equities and spread product. Excesses in the real economy or the financial markets are a recession prerequisite, and it is quite possible that the excesses that precipitate the next recession will not emerge until after stocks make another significant move higher. We want to be positioned to participate in that move, which would be consistent with bull markets’ established tendency to sprint to the finish line.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the April 8, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong,” available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 The 2017 Act capped the amount of state and local tax payments household filers could claim as itemized deductions, severely reducing the federal government’s homeownership subsidy. Residents of states with high income tax rates lost the most from the change, but those states’ housing markets have not yet experienced disproportionately negative impacts.

Neutral (Downgrade Alert) Tech stocks have been on a tear with the sector besting the SPX by over 40% since 2015. While such a breakneck pace is unsustainable, what is missing from this outperformance is relative forward earnings participation. Specifically, on a sub sector level, our newly created S&P semiconductors earnings model is flashing a red light as it forecasts the steepest contraction in semi earnings since the GFC. Meanwhile, relative share prices have rallied ~15% since the mid-2019 lows highlighting the prevalent euphoria in semi equities. Bottom Line: We remain on the sidelines in the S&P semiconductors index, but we have entered into a tactical S&P semi equipment underweight position. Please see the recent Weekly Report for more details.