Market Capitalization: Large / Small

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Important leading indicators of Eurozone activity point to record growth in the coming quarters. Progress on the vaccination front, global pent-up demand, and easing fiscal policy will fuel the Euro Area recovery. Consensus growth expectations for the Eurozone do not reflect this upbeat outlook; hence, European economic surprises will remain firm. Robust economic surprises will help European stocks, especially small-cap ones. They will also allow for a stronger EUR/USD and rising German 10-year yields. The UK economy is strong, and the BoE will be among the first central banks to tighten policy meaningfully. However, investors understand the UK’s strength well. While the cyclical outlook for the pound is bright against both the USD and the EUR, the GBP is vulnerable to some near-term profit taking. Downgrade UK small-cap stocks to neutral on a tactical basis.  Feature The case for the Eurozone’s recovery is only growing stronger. However, consensus growth forecasts for the Euro Area remain modest. Faced with this dichotomy, the European economy has ample room to generate positive surprises in the coming months. This process will support European financial assets, small-cap stocks in particular. This contrasts with UK assets, where investors have already embedded generous growth assumptions in response to the country’s rapid pace of vaccination. A tactical downgrade of UK small-cap equities is appropriate. Surprise! Two indicators from outside the Eurozone point to an elevated likelihood that the European economy will generate some exceptionally strong growth numbers over the coming 12 months. First, the Swiss KOF Economic Barometer hit an all-time high in April. The KOF series is an excellent leading indicator of Switzerland’s economic activity, and it currently forecasts record GDP growth and PMIs for that country (Chart 1). This message of strength for Switzerland bodes well for the Eurozone. While the Swiss market is defensive, owing to its heavy exposure to healthcare and consumer staple stocks, the Swiss economy is pro-cyclical. Exports represent 60% of GDP, and exports to the Eurozone account for 40% of this total. Moreover, the growth-sensitive machinery, consumer goods, and chemicals categories account for almost 50% of shipments. Based on these observations, the KOF Economic Barometer forecasting ability unsurprisingly extends beyond Swiss economic variables; it also anticipates positive growth for the Global Manufacturing PMI, the Euro Area Manufacturing PMI, and the Eurozone’s forward earnings (Chart 2). Chart 1Climbing Swiss Peaks Chart 2A Good Sign For The Eurozone Second, an aggregation of Swedish economic data confirms the KOF indicator’s message and also calls for record economic activity in Europe. Our Swedish Economic Diffusion Index, which incorporates 14 data series from the Nordic country, points toward a further acceleration in the Euro Area PMIs relative to the US (Chart 3). It is also consistent with a pick-up in the performance of European equities relative to the US. These important indicators of the European economy reflect a variety of forces at play that increasingly point toward stronger growth. Among them, the improvement in the pace of vaccination is crucial to lifting the mood across the continent. As the top panel of Chart 4 illustrates, the number of daily vaccine doses administered across major Euro Area economies is accelerating sharply. While it took three months to inoculate 20% of the population, it only took one month to raise the vaccinated population to nearly 40% (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Sweden Leads The Eurozone Chart 4Accelerating Vaccinations Euro Area fiscal policy is also moving in a more growth-friendly direction. The Italian Budget announced on April 26 will add EUR248 billion in spending over the next six years. For the moment, Germany has abandoned its debt brake, and, as we wrote three weeks ago, the September election is likely to reify this outcome and further ease fiscal policy in Europe’s biggest economy. Spain is the second largest recipient of the NGEU funds, and it is expected to increase fiscal spending by EUR167 billion over the coming six years. In addition, France has yet to give clear hints about its plan, but next year’s elections are likely to result in further stimulus measures as well. Thus, fiscal easing in Europe will only increase from this point on (Chart 5). Chart 5The Expanding European Stimulus Accumulated pent-up demand remains another potent fuel for growth in the Euro Area. Unlike in the US, spending on durable goods in the Eurozone has not overtaken its pre-pandemic levels (Chart 6). Furthermore, global inventory-to-sales ratio are low, which hints at a coming inventory restocking cycle. These two trends will benefit Euro Area economic activity. The service sector recovery has more to go. Despite some recent improvements, the Eurozone’s Service PMI remains depressed compared to that of the US (Chart 7, top panel). However, the acceleration in the European vaccination campaign and the continued injection of fiscal support at the same time as the lockdowns ebb should result in a significant catch up in service activity in the Euro Area. Thus, the double-dip recession is on the verge of ending and giving way to a robust GDP expansion (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Ample European Pent-up Demand Chart 7The Service Sector Recovery Is Paramount Even though the recovery in GDP growth will lead to strong positive economic surprises for the Euro Area, consensus growth expectations for the region remain conservative. According to Bloomberg, Eurozone annual GDP growth is expected to reach 12.6% in Q2 because of an extremely strong base effect. However, growth will decelerate suddenly and hit 2.3% in Q3 and 4.3% in Q4. Growth is anticipated to be 4.1% in 2022. These are low thresholds to beat, and thus, economic surprises will remain positive. Chart 8Decomposing The Surprises The source of positive economic surprises is likely to be broad-based. If the service sector recaptures some of its previous shine, the Surveys and Business Cycle component and the Labor Market component of the Bloomberg surprises index will improve and remain positive for many months (Chart 8). Moreover, the absorption of pent-up demand will allow the Retail and Wholesale as well the Personal/Household components to remain robust or firm up further. Finally, the strength of the global manufacturing sector and the elevated potential for a global inventory restocking will allow the Industrial component to firm up anew. Bottom Line: The European economy is in a good place to validate the upbeat message from the KOF Economic Barometer or the Swedish Economic Diffusion Index. Since expectations for European economic activity are still limited for the second half of 2021, this strong growth performance will result in positive economic surprises. Investment Implications The heightened odds that Europe will generate significant positive economic surprises for the coming quarters means that investors’ perspective of the Euro Area will gradually improve. While this process will ultimately curtail the ability of Europe to beat expectations, it will also lift Eurozone assets. If our forecast is correct that European economic surprises will largely be positive over the coming 6 to 12 months, then European equities are more likely to generate generous returns than otherwise. Table 1 highlights that positive changes in the Economic Surprise Index (ESI) on a 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month horizon coincide with returns of the Euro Area MSCI equity benchmarks that have positive batting averages of 72%, 70%, and 73%, respectively. Moreover, the average and median returns are significantly higher than when the ESI deteriorates. Table 1Forecasting Strong Surprises Means Forecasting Strong Equity Returns The signal from the ESI is weaker if we do not make forecasts about its direction. The batting averages of subsequent 3-month and 6-month equity returns following an improving ESI are 63% and 69%, respectively, and the median subsequent returns are higher than if today’s ESI is deteriorating, but not to the same extent as when we make a forecast of the ESI. 12-month returns for the Eurozone MSCI index have a 58% chance of being positive, if the ESI increases over a 12-month window, which is lower than the 63% batting average if the ESI worsens. Moreover, average and median 12-month expected returns are somewhat higher if the ESI has been deteriorating rather than improving over the past 12-month period. European small cap equities will be prime beneficiaries of the coming growth outperformance. From an economic perspective, this makes sense because small-cap stocks are geared more toward domestic growth than large-cap equities, which are dominated by multinationals. Table 2 shows that 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month periods of improvement in the surprise index precede an outperformance of small-cap relative to large-cap stocks over similar windows of time. Thus, the current positive level of the European ESI and its ability to rise further should favor small-cap European equities. Table 2Favor Small-Cap Stocks Table 3A Bullish Backdrop For EUR/USD The same exercise shows that the outlook also favors the euro. European economic surprises should continue to outpace the US, because Eurozone growth will catch up to the US, but investors already have much loftier expectations for US activity than for the Euro Area. Table 3 illustrates that periods when the Eurozone’s ESI is greater than that of the US, EUR/USD generates a positive 3-month return 65% of the time, with a median gain of 1.3%. When the US ESI is higher, the EUR/USD depreciates 55% of the time, with a median loss of -0.5%. Chart 9Rising German Yields? Finally, the potential for stronger European ESI is negative for Bunds. Speeches by various members of the European Central Bank Governing Council indicate that the ECB will tolerate higher yields, if they reflect stronger economic activity. As the European vaccination campaign advances and the fiscal stimulus increases, the need to maintain depressed Bunds yields recedes. Hence, a continuation of positive ESI readings is now more likely to boost these yields. Additionally, the gap between the European ESI and the US one will remain positive, thus, a period of rising German yields relative to the US is more likely (Chart 9).  Bottom Line: The ability of the European economy to continue to surprise positively should generate attractive equity returns on the continent. Moreover, this economic backdrop is consistent with an outperformance of small-cap equities, as well as an appreciating EUR/USD. Under these circumstances, Bunds yields should experience more upside. Country Focus: The UK’s Outlook Is Brightening, Unsurprisingly Last week, the Bank of England left the total size of its asset purchase program in place at GBP875 billion, even if the weekly pace of purchases was slowed to GBP3.4 billion from GBP4.4 billion. The BoE also raised its 2021 growth forecast to 7.5%, from 5% in February.  The BoE is joining the Bank of Canada as one of the first central banks to taper its asset purchase program. It will also be one of the first central banks to increase interest rates, after the Norges Bank, but ahead of the Fed. In a way, the UK shares many similarities with our recent positive depiction of the Swedish economy. Chart 10Support For Household Net Worth The rapid pace of vaccination in the UK allows for a vigorous economic recovery. In all likelihood, the UK economy will have contracted in Q1 2021 because of the severe lockdowns that prevailed then; however, these lockdowns are being eased and economic fundamentals point up. Our Global Fixed Income and Foreign Exchange strategists recently demonstrated that house prices are increasing on the back of rising mortgage approvals and falling household debt-servicing obligations (Chart 10). The robust readings of the RICS House Prices survey only confirm the positive outlook for housing prices. Expanding house prices will elevate consumption. An appreciating housing stock boosts the wealth of households and leads to higher UK consumer confidence. Moreover, business confidence is improving; the rise in capex intentions not only indicates that investments will increase, but is also a precursor to climbing job vacancies (Chart 11). Brighter labor market prospects often result in rising consumption, especially if wages firm up, as we argued seven weeks ago. The current bout of economic strength points to some upside in UK inflation as well. The elevated PMI readings and the rapid increase in construction activity are reliable forecasters of higher CPI prints (Chart 12). However, this not a uniquely British phenomenon, and it remains to be seen how durable this rising inflation will be. Chart 11UK Consumption Will Rise More Chart 12Accelerating UK Inflation   Despite this positive economic outlook, investors should adopt a more cautious tactical stance toward UK markets. The problem for British assets is that investors have understood UK’s vaccination strength so well that they embed much optimism in the price of financial instruments levered to domestic economic activity. In contrast to the Eurozone, Bloomberg consensus forecast anticipate Q2 year-on-year GDP growth of 20.7%, 6.1% for Q3 and 6.5% for Q4. Cable is particularly ripe for some near-term profit taking. Our Intermediate-Term Technical Indicator and the 52-week rate of change of GBP/USD, as well as net speculative positions and sentiment, all point to a correction in that pair (Chart 13). Moreover, the 13-week momentum measure for EUR/GBP shows that the rapid decline in this cross is also overdone. As a result, BCA’s Foreign Exchange strategists closed their short EUR/GBP position to book some gains.  It is also time to downgrade British mid- and small-cap stocks from our current overweight stance, at least on a tactical basis. Compared to large-cap UK stocks, small-cap names have moved in a parabolic fashion, and the ratio’s elevated 52-week rate-of-change measure warns of a pullback, especially in light of the deterioration in near-term momentum (Chart 14). The message from technical indicators is particularly concerning, because the forward earnings of small-cap stocks are plunging relative to large cap ones (Chart 15). Additionally, valuation multiples on UK small-cap stocks have vastly outpaced those of their larger counterparts, despite a rapid decline in relative RoE (Chart 16). Chart 13Cable Is Ripe For Some Near-Term Profit Taking Chart 14UK Small-Cap Stocks Are Technically Vulnerable Chart 15Deteriorating Profit Performance Chart 16Quite The Valuation Premium Ultimately, these cautious views are of a short-term nature. BCA’s Foreign Exchange strategists remain upbeat on the pound on a 12- to 24-month basis. Cable continues to trade at a deep discount to our purchasing-power parity estimate, which adjusts for the composition of price indexes in the UK and the US (Chart 17). Moreover, real short rate differentials still favor GBP/USD. The pound also trades at a discount to the euro based on long-term valuation metrics. Most importantly, real interest rates differentials at both the short- and long-end of the curve, as well as the outlook for the evolution of monetary policy in the UK relative to the Euro Area, indicate a significantly lower EUR/GBP (Chart 18). Chart 17Despite Nera-term risks, Cable's Cyclical Underpinning Is Strong Chart 18Lower EUR/GBP Ahead For small-cap equities, the cyclical picture is more complex. On the one hand, their domestic exposure and a higher pound over the coming 12 to 24 months should help them, unlike the large-cap UK stocks, which derive most of their income from abroad and are negatively affected by a higher GBP. On the other hand, UK small-cap stocks have become so expensive that we need to see how an appreciating pound will boost their earnings relative to large-cap stocks before adjusting our neutral stance. Bottom Line: The strong UK economy will allow the BoE to be one of the first major DM central banks to tighten policy. This will support a further appreciation of the pound against both the dollar and the euro over the coming 12 to 24 months. Nonetheless, the GBP has been overbought on a tactical basis and is vulnerable to a near-term pullback. Similarly, compared to large-cap equities, we are downgrading small-cap UK stocks from overweight to neutral on a tactical basis.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance​​​​​​​ Closed Trades

Highlights Extremely accommodative fiscal policy and a rapid pace of vaccination puts the US on track to close its output gap by the end of the year. The situation is different in Europe, and the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Investors are now unusually more hawkish than the Fed, whose caution is driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. The Fed’s rate projections, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. For inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. We expect a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, and overweight US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds. The fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar over the coming 0-3 months. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to favor global ex-US vs. US stocks, and expect the dollar to be lower than it is today. A Brighter Light At The End Of The Tunnel Chart I-1Even Better Than Some Optimists Would Have Predicted Over the past 4-6 weeks, the US has continued to make incredible progress in vaccinating its population against COVID-19. Chart I-1 highlights that the pace of vaccination is now well within the range required for herd immunity to be in place by the end of the third quarter. If this pace continues at an average of 2.5 million doses per day, the US will have vaccinated 90% of its population by the end of September (if it is determined that the vaccine is safe to give to children). And these calculations assume the continuation of a two-dose regime, meaning that the eventual rollout of Johnson & Johnson's Janssen vaccine – which requires only one dose and has shown to be extremely effective at preventing severe illness and death – could shorten the time to herd immunity rates of vaccination among adults even further. The situation is clearly different in Europe. The vaccination progress in several European countries is woefully behind that of the US and the UK (Chart I-2), and per capita cases in the euro area have again risen significantly above that of the US (Chart I-3). This reality motivated last week’s news that the European Union is reportedly planning on banning exports of the AstraZeneca vaccine for a period of time, as European policymakers grow increasingly concerned about the potential economic consequences of lengthened or additional pandemic control measures over the coming few months. Chart I-2Europe Is Badly Lagging The Vaccine Race… There was at least some positive economic news from Europe this month, as reflected by the flash manufacturing and services PMIs (Chart I-4). The euro area manufacturing PMI surpassed that of the US this month, reflecting that the prospects for goods-producing companies in Europe remain solidly linked to the strong global manufacturing cycle. Services, on the other hand, have been the weak spot in Europe, having remained below the boom/bust line since last summer (in contrast to the US). The March services PMI highlighted that this gap is now starting to narrow, although the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Chart I-3...And It Is Starting To Show Chart I-4Some Closure Of The Services Gap, But Still A Ways To Go   The underperformance of the European services sector over the past nine months has been due in part to more severe pandemic control measures, but also a comparatively timid fiscal policy. The IMF’s October Fiscal Monitor highlighted that the US had provided roughly eight percentage points more of GDP in above-the-line fiscal measures versus the European Union as a whole, and that was before the US December 2020 relief bill and this month’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) act were passed. The CBO estimates that the ARP will result in about US$1 trillion in outlays in 2021, which is roughly 5% of nominal GDP. Consequently, Chart I-5 highlights that consensus expectations now suggest that the output gap will be marginally positive by the end of the year, with the Fed’s most recent forecast implying that real GDP will be more than 1% above the CBO’s estimate of potential output. Chart I-5The US Output Gap Will Likely Be Closed By The End Of This Year The Fed Versus The Market Despite this, the Fed held pat during this month’s FOMC meeting and did not validate market expectations of rate hikes beginning in early 2023. Chart I-6 highlights the Fed funds rate path over the coming years as implied by the OIS curve, alongside the Fed’s median projection of the Fed funds rate. This means that investors are now more hawkish than the Fed, which is the opposite of what has typically prevailed since the global financial crisis. Chart I-6The Market Is Now, Unusually, More Hawkish Than The Fed Fed Chair Jerome Powell implied during the March 17 press conference that some FOMC participants were unwilling to change their projections for the path of interest rates based purely on a forecast, which argues that the median dot in the Fed’s “dot plot” will shift higher in the second half of the year if participants’ growth and inflation forecasts come to fruition. But Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the Fed’s caution is also driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart I-7AA Positive Output Gap Implies… Chart I-7B…An Unemployment Rate Below NAIRU   The charts highlight the historical relationship between the output gap and the deviation of NAIRU from the unemployment rate, from 2000 and 2010. In both cases, the charts show that the unemployment rate would be below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU at the end of this year (roughly 4.5%) given the CBO’s estimate for potential (i.e. full employment) GDP and the Fed's forecast for growth. However, the Fed is forecasting that the unemployment rate will essentially be at NAIRU, which is itself above the Fed’s longer-run unemployment rate projection of 4%. As such, the Fed does not see the unemployment rate falling to “full employment” levels this year, a precondition for the onset of rate normalization. Investors should note that the relationships shown in Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the unemployment rate will be closer to 3-3.5% at the end of this year if the Fed’s growth forecast is correct, which would constitute full employment based on the Fed’s 4% unemployment rate target. The difference between a 3-3.5% unemployment rate and the Fed’s estimate of 4.5% translates to a gap of roughly 1.5-2.5 million jobs at the end of this year, which underscores that the Fed expects either a significant shift in temporary to permanent unemployment or an influx of unemployed workers back into the labor force who don’t quickly find jobs once social distancing ends and pandemic restrictions are no longer required. Chart I-8The Full Employment Level Of GDP Has Not Been Significantly Revised There are three possible circumstances that would resolve this seeming contradiction. The first is that the Fed’s estimate for growth this year is simply too high, and that the output gap will be close to zero at the end of the year (i.e., more in line with consensus market expectations). The second is that the CBO is understating the level of GDP that is consistent with full employment, namely that potential GDP is higher than what they currently project. But Chart I-8 shows that the CBO’s current estimate for potential output at the end of this year is only 0.4% below what it had estimated prior to the pandemic, which is smaller than the positive gap implied by the Fed’s growth estimate for this year (roughly 1.2%). The third possibility is that the Fed is overestimating the extent to which the pandemic will cause permanent damage to the labor market. As we noted in our February report, even once social distancing is no longer required, it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return. While it seems reasonable to expect that the gap in spending on hospitality and travel will close quickly once the health situation allows, it also seems reasonable to expect that some service areas, particularly retail, will experience a permanent loss in demand owing to durable shifts in consumer behavior that occurred during the pandemic (greater familiarity and use of online shopping, a permanent reduction of some magnitude in commuting, etc). A gap of 1.5-2.5 million jobs accounts for roughly 10-15% of pre-pandemic employment in retail trade, or 4-7% of the sum of retail trade, leisure & hospitality, and other services. It is possible that permanent job losses or significantly deferred job recovery of this size will occur, but it is far from clear that it will. Were job losses / deferred jobs recovery of this magnitude to not materialize, it would suggest that the US will reach full employment earlier than the Fed is currently projecting, and would significantly increase the odds that the Fed will begin to taper its asset purchases and/or raise interest rates at some point next year – which is earlier than investors currently expect. For Now, Dangerously Above-Target Inflation Is Unlikely Fed projections of a 0% Fed funds rate for the next 2 1/2 years, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have understandably stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. Larry Summers’ recent interview with Bloomberg was emblematic of the concern, during which he criticized the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 It is true that the Federal Reserve is explicitly aiming to generate a temporary overshoot of inflation relative to its target, the Biden administration’s fiscal plan is legitimately large, and there is a tremendous pool of excess savings that could be deployed later this year once the pandemic is essentially over. Clearly, the risks of overheating must be higher than they have been in the past. But from our perspective, out-of-control inflation over the coming 12-24 months would very likely necessitate one of two things to occur, and possibly both: US consumers decide to spend an overwhelmingly large amount of the excess savings that have been accumulated. Main street expectations for consumer prices rise sharply, prompted by a public discussion about the likelihood of a shifting inflation regime. Our view is rooted in the examination of the modern-day Phillips Curve that we presented in our January report, which considers both the impact of economic/labor market slack and inflation expectations as a driver of actual inflation. The modern-day Phillips Curve posits that expectations act as the trend for inflation, and slack in the economy determines whether actual inflation is above or below that baseline. Chart I-9 highlights that the output gap worked well prior to the global financial crisis at explaining the difference between actual and exponentially-smoothed inflation, the latter acting as a long-history proxy for expectations. Pre-GFC, the chart highlights that there have been only two exceptions to the relationship that concerned the magnitude rather than the direction of inflation. Post-GFC, the relationship deviated substantially, but in a way that implied that actual inflation was too strong during the last expansion, not too weak – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. This likely occurred because expectations initially stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, but ultimately declined due to a persistently negative output gap as well as in response to the 2014 collapse in oil prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Pre-GFC, The Output Gap Generally Explained Inflation Surprises Chart I-10Inflation Expectations Eventually Succumbed Post-GFC To Collapsing Energy Prices Thus, for inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. Chart I-11 highlights that the amount of excess savings that have accumulated as a percentage of GDP does indeed significantly exceed the magnitude of the output gap, but some of those savings have been and will be invested in financial markets (boosting valuation), some will be used to pay down debt, some will eventually be spent on international travel (boosting services imports), and some will likely be permanently held as deposits in anticipation of future tax increases. And while long-term household expectations for prices have risen since the passing of the CARES act last year, the rise has merely unwound the decline that took place following the 2014 oil price collapse (Chart I-12). Chart I-11A Huge Pool Of Savings Exists, But Not All Of It Will Be Spent Chart I-12Long-Term Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Risen From A Very Low Base   For now, this framework points to a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Investment Conclusions Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. While the Fed is likely to shift in a hawkish direction compared with its current projections, it is highly unlikely to become meaningfully more hawkish than current market expectations unless economic growth and the recovery in the labor market is much stronger than the Fed or the market is projecting. In fact, even if the market’s expectations for the first Fed rate hike shift to mid-2022 over the coming several months, Chart I-13 highlights that the impact on the equity market is likely to be minimal unless investors shift up their expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate. The chart presents a fair value estimate for the 10-year Treasury yield based on the OIS-implied path of the Fed funds rate out to December 2024, and assumes that short rates ultimately rise to the Fed’s long-term Fed funds rate projection of 2.5%. The second fair value series assumes that the shape of the OIS curve stays the same, but shifts closer by 6 months. Chart I-13The Market’s Assumed Rate Hike Path And Terminal Rate Are Not Threatening For Stocks The chart underscores that the 10-year yield will rise to at most between 2-2.2% by the end of the year based on these scenarios. A shift forward in the timing of Fed rate hikes will impact the short end of the curve, but the long end will remain relatively unchanged if terminal rate expectations stay constant and the term premium on long-term bonds remains near zero. These levels would in no way be economically damaging nor threatening to stock market valuation. It is possible, however, that investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest (“r-star”) will shift higher once the pandemic is over, and we explore this risk to stocks in Section 2 of our report. For now, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but it is likely to remain an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Within fixed income, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration even though investors are already pricing in a more hawkish path for the Fed funds rate. First, Chart I-13 highlighted that yields at the long end of the curve are likely to continue to move modestly higher this year even if the projected path for the Fed funds rate remains relatively unchanged. But more importantly, barring a substantially negative development on the health or vaccine front that prolongs the pandemic, the risk appears to be clearly to the upside in terms of the timing of the first Fed rate hike and the terminal Fed funds rate. As such, from a risk-reward perspective, a long duration stance remains unattractive. We would also recommend overweighting US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds, as spreads are not as historically depressed for the former than the latter (Chart I-14). Finally, in terms of the dimensions of equity market performance and the dollar, we recommend that investors overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, overweight value vs. growth, overweight cyclicals vs. defensives, and overweight small vs. large caps. We are also bearish on the dollar on a 12-month time horizon. However, there are two caveats that investors should bear in mind. First, global cyclicals versus defensives (especially in equally-weighted terms) as well as small versus large caps have already mostly normalized not just the impact of the pandemic but as well that of the 2018-2019 Trump trade war (Chart I-15). We would expect, at best, modest further gains from both positions this year. Chart I-14Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Are Less Expensive Than Investment-Grade Chart I-15Going Forward, Expect More Modest Gains From Cyclicals And Small Caps   Second, the fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar on a 0-3 month time horizon. The US dollar is typically a counter-cyclical currency, but there have been exceptions to that rule. And historically, exceptions have tended to revolve around periods when US growth has been quite strong, as is currently the case (Chart I-16). A continued counter-trend rally in the dollar is thus possible over the course of the next few months, but we would expect USD-EUR to be lower than current levels 12 months from now. Chart I-16A Short-Term Counter-Trend Dollar Move Is Possible A counter-trend dollar move could also correspond with a period of US outperformance versus global ex-US, or at a minimum, a period of flat performance when global ex-US stocks would normally outperform. Our China strategists expect that the Chinese credit impulse will decelerate later this year (Chart I-17), which would weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. Chart I-18 highlights that euro area equity underperformance versus the US last year was mostly a tech story, but today there is little difference between the relative performance of euro area stocks overall versus indexes that exclude the broadly-defined technology sector. In both cases, the euro area index is roughly 10% below its US counterpart relative to pre-pandemic levels, which exactly matches the extent to which euro area financials have underperformed. Chart I-17A Slowing Chinese Credit Impulse Means EM Equities Will Struggle To Outperform Chart I-18Euro Area Financials Need To Outperform For Europe To Outperform   Euro area financials have demonstrated very poor fundamental performance over the past decade, but they are likely to outperform for some period once the European vaccination campaign gains enough traction to alter the disease’s transmission and hospitalization dynamics. Chart I-19 highlights that euro area bank 12-month forward earnings have further room to recover to pre-pandemic levels than for banks in the US, and Chart I-20 highlights that euro area banks trade at their deepest price-to-book discount versus their US peers since the euro area financial crisis. Chart I-19Euro Area Bank Earnings Have Catch-Up Potential Chart I-20Euro Area Banks Are Extremely Cheap Versus The US   Thus, while euro area and global ex-US equities may not outperform on the back of rising global stock prices over the coming few months, investors focused on a 6-12 month time horizon should respond by increasing their allocation to European stocks and to further reduce dollar exposure. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 31, 2021 Next Report: April 29, 2021 II. R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks In the decade following the global financial crisis, investor concerns that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation have been mostly overblown. But today, it is now true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid near bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. A gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but in the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that the neutral rate of interest (or “r-star”) was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, we expect the narrative of secular stagnation to be challenged and for investor expectations for the neutral rate to move closer to trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, and possibly as high as 4% or more. Such a shift would push the US equity risk premium back to 2002 levels based on current stock market pricing. This is not necessarily negative for equities, but it is also not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. A low ERP that is technically not as low as that of the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, as T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” may not prevail. Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. While they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. Chart II-1Equity Valuation Concerns Have Persisted For The Past Decade... For the better part of the last decade, many investors have argued that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation. Based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio metric originated by Robert Shiller, stocks reached pre-global financial crisis (GFC) multiples in late 2014 and early 2015 (Chart II-1). Based on metrics such as the price-to-sales ratio, stocks rose to pre-GFC valuation in late 2013, and are now even more richly valued than they were at the height of the dotcom bubble. These concerns have mostly occurred in response to absolute changes in stock multiples, but equity valuation cannot be divorced from the prevailing level of interest rates. Relative to bond yields, stocks were extraordinarily cheap for many years following the GFC. Measured by one simple approach to calculating the equity risk premium, the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year Treasury yield, stocks were the cheapest following the GFC that they had been since the mid 1980s, and remain reasonably priced today (Chart II-2). Chart II-2...But Stocks Have Actually Been Cheap Versus Bonds The fact that stocks have appeared to be expensive for several years but quite cheap (or reasonably priced) relative to bonds underscores the fact that longer-term bond yields have been extraordinarily low following the global financial crisis. Still, equities were not dependent on low bond yields prior to the pandemic, as illustrated in Chart II-3. The chart highlights the range of 10-year Treasury yields that would be consistent with the pre-GFC equity risk premium range (measured from 2002-2007), alongside the actual 10-year yield and trend nominal GDP growth. The chart shows that for years following the financial crisis, bond yields could have risen to levels well above trend rates of economic growth and stocks would still have been priced in line with pre-crisis norms. This “normal pricing” range for the 10-year declined as the expansion continued, but remained consistent with trend growth rates and above the actual 10-year yield up until the beginning of the pandemic. Chart II-3 also highlights, however, that the circumstances changed last year. The equity risk premium briefly rose at the onset of the pandemic as stocks initially sold off sharply, but then quickly fell as stock prices recovered in response to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. Today, it is true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Chart II-3Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Prior to the pandemic, most fixed-income investors would have viewed the risk of bond yields rising to trend nominal GDP growth, let alone above it, as minimal. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) that show a substantial gap between the natural rate and trend real growth (Chart II-4). This view has manifested itself in a decline in surveyed estimates of the long-run Fed funds rate, but at present the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has pushed well above this survey-derived fair value range (Chart II-5). It is possible that the fiscal response to the pandemic will cause investor views about r-star to evolve even further over the coming 12-24 months, and in this report we explore the potential headwind that such an evolution could present to stock prices at some point – potentially as early as next year. Chart II-4Investors Have Accepted Secular Stagnation, And The View That R-star Is Well Below Trend Rates Of Growth Chart II-5The Market's Views About R-star May Be Shifting   R-star: A Brief Primer Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. From the perspective of macro theory, the neutral rate of interest is determined by the supply of and demand for savings. But in practical terms, this implies that the neutral rate should normally be closely linked to the trend rate of economic growth. For example, if interest rates – and thus the cost of capital – were persistently below aggregate income growth, then demand for capital (and thus credit and likely labor demand) should increase as firms seek to profit from the gap between the interest rate and the expected rate of return from real investment. As such, the trend rate of growth acts as a good proxy for the interest rate that will balance the supply and demand for credit during normal economic circumstances. Empirically, academic estimates of r-star closely followed estimates of trend real GDP growth prior to the global financial crisis, as shown in Chart II-4 above. In addition, we noted in our January report that the stance of monetary policy, as defined by the difference between nominal GDP growth and the 10-year Treasury yield, has generally done a good job of explaining the US output gap prior to 2000. This supports the notion that monetary policy is stimulative (restrictive) when bond yields are below (above) trend growth rates. However, in the years following the GFC, investors’ estimates of r-star collapsed, as evidenced by the sharp decline in 5-year / 5-year forward Treasury yields (Chart II-6). This was followed by a decline in primary dealer and FOMC expectations for the long-term Fed funds rate, which investors took as validating their view that the neutral rate of interest has permanently declined. Chart II-6Investors Led The Fed And Others In Expecting A Lower Nominal Neutral Rate R-star And Trend Growth: Is A Gap Between The Two Really Justified? Chart II-7R-star Likely Did Decline Following The GFC (For A Time) It seems clear that r-star did indeed decline for a time after the GFC. The US and select European economies suffered a balance sheet recession in 2008/2009 that impacted credit demand for an extended period of time (Chart II-7), and extraordinarily low interest rates for several years did not fuel major credit excesses (at least in the household sector). But as we detailed in a Special Report last year,2 we doubt that the decline in r-star was permanent, for several reasons. The first, and most important, is that there have been at least four deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies since 2008 that magnified the impact of prolonged household deleveraging and help explain the disconnect between growth and interest rates during the last economic cycle: The euro area sovereign debt crisis Premature fiscal austerity in the US, the UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs beginning in 2018, impacting China but also other developed market economies. Chart II-8Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Except for the oil price shock of 2014 (which was driven by technological developments and a price war among producers), all of these non-monetary shocks were caused or exacerbated by policymakers – often for political reasons or due to regulatory failures. Second, the trend in US private sector credit growth last cycle does not suggest that r-star fell permanently. Chart II-8 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it started growing again in 2013 and had largely closed the gap with income growth prior to the pandemic. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector clearly leveraged itself over the course of the last expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. Third, we disagree with a common view in the marketplace that the 2018-2019 period supported the validity of low academic estimates of the neutral rate. Chart II-9 highlights that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative in 2019 according to the Laubach & Williams r-star estimate, which some investors have argued explains the late 2018 equity market selloff, the 2019 slowdown in the US housing market, the inversion of the yield curve, and the global manufacturing recession. Chart II-9Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative In 2019, According To The LW R-star Estimate But this narrative ignores other important factors that contributed to the slowdown. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that this period of economic weakness exactly coincided with the most intense phase of the Sino-US trade war, as well as a significant slowdown in Chinese credit growth. The chart highlights that the selloff in the US equity market began almost immediately after a surge in the effective tariff rates levied by the two countries against each other, and after the Chinese credit impulse fell three percentage points (from 30% to 27% of GDP). Chart II-10The 2018 Stock Market Selloff Occurred Once Sino-US Tariffs Exploded Chart II-11 highlights that interest rates did likely impact the housing market, but that it was the speed at which rates rose that was damaging rather than their level. The chart shows that the rise in mortgage rates from late 2016 to late 2018 was among the largest 2-year increases that has occurred since the early 1980s, so it is unsurprising that the growth in home sales and real residential investment slowed for a time. Additionally, Chart II-12 highlights that the rise in mortgage rates during this period did not cause a downtrend in mortgage credit growth, which only occurred in Q4 2018 in response to the impact of the sharp selloff in the equity market on household net worth. Chart II-11Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late 2016 To Late 2018 Chart II-12A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   In short, the late 2018 / 2019 period saw a major global aggregate demand shock occur following an already-established slowdown in Chinese credit growth and a rapid rise in interest rates in the DM world. It is these factors that were likely responsible for the 2019 slowdown in economic growth, not the fact that interest rates reached levels that restricted economic activity on their own. R-star In A Post-Pandemic World Charts II-7 – II-12 above suggest that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in r-star only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand. In the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that r-star was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. But that is now a counterfactual assertion, as the pandemic has transformed the outlook for interest rates and bond yields in conflicting ways. A 10% decline in the level of real output was the most intensely negative non-monetary shock to aggregate demand since the 1930s (Chart II-13), and we agree that another depression would have occurred without extraordinary government assistance. The economic damage caused by the pandemic certainly does not work in favor of a higher neutral rate, and we highlighted in Section 1 of our report that the Fed expects there to be some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart II-13Without Major Monetary And Fiscal Policy Support, The Pandemic Would Probably Have Caused A Depression Chart II-14A Huge Increase In Government Transfers And Spending Is Underway On the other hand, Larry Summers, the chief proponent of the theory of secular stagnation, has argued for several years that increased fiscal spending was warranted in order to address an imbalance between private sector savings and investment. Summers himself now characterizes US fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that he has seen over the past 40 years, because of too-large government spending that risks overheating the economy (Chart II-14). Summers’ critique rests in large part on the fact that new government spending has not occurred in the form of investment (to balance out the existence of excess savings), but is instead providing transfers to households that in many cases have already accumulated significant excess savings. But the key point for investors is that the pandemic has completely shifted the narrative about fiscal spending, from “arguably insufficient for several years following the global financial crisis” to now “risking a dramatic overheating of the economy.” Some elements of Summers’ criticism of the Biden administration’s fiscal policy are justified, particularly the policy of large direct transfer payments to workers who have suffered no loss in employment or income as a result of the pandemic. Despite this, as detailed in Section 1 of our report, we are more sanguine about the risks of aggressive overheating for three reasons: it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return or will be slow to return, some of the excess savings that have accumulated will not be immediately (or ever) spent, and the rise in consumer inflation expectations that has occurred over the past year has happened from an extremely low starting point and has yet to even rise above its post-GFC range. The low odds that we assign to dangerously above-target inflation over the coming 12-24 months does not, however, mean that investors’ expectations for r-star will stay low. For right or for wrong, the US government has aggressively dis-saved over the past year, in an environment where low expectations for the neutral rate were anchored by a view of excessive private sector savings and insufficient demand from governments. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation will be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate will converge towards trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, possibly as high as 4% or more. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions A rise in the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield does not, in and of itself, suggest that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to levels that would threaten a significant decline in stock prices. The Fed does not control the long-end of the Treasury curve, but it does exert a very strong influence on the short-end. For example, were the Fed to follow the median current projection of FOMC participants and refrain from raising interest rates until sometime after 2023, it would limit how high current 10-year Treasury yields could rise. But it is not difficult to envision plausible scenarios where the 10-year Treasury yield rises above the range consistent with the pre-GFC US equity risk premium. Chart II-15 presents three hypothetical fair value paths for the 10-year yield assuming a mid-2022 liftoff date and a 4% terminal Fed funds rate for the following three scenarios: Chart II-1510-Year Yields Could Rise Meaningfully Further If Investors Shift Their Expectations For R-star The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 10 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1.5% (6 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points In the first scenario, based on the current US 12-month forward P/E ratio, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield would rise above the range consistent with a reasonable ERP in the middle of 2022, the liftoff point assumed in all three scenarios. In the second and third scenarios, the US equity ERP would already be quite low. When using the late 1999 / early 2000 bubble period as a reference point, even the scenarios shown in Chart II-15 are not very threatening to stock prices. Given current equity market pricing, the third scenario would take the US equity risk premium back to mid 2002 levels, which were still meaningfully higher than during the peak of the bubble. And that is assuming an earlier liftoff than the market currently expects, a faster pace of rate hikes than experienced during the last economic cycle, and a very meaningful increase in the market’s expectations for the neutral rate. But it is not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. For example, equity investors are today faced with a riskier policy environment than existed 20 years ago in the US and in other developed economies that is at least partially driven by populist sentiment, potentially impacting earnings via lower operating margins or higher taxes. These or other risks existed at several points over the past decade and T.I.N.A. (“There Is No Alternative”) prevailed, but that occurred precisely because the equity risk premium was very elevated. A low ERP that is technically not as low as what prevailed during the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, raising the specter of negative absolute returns from stocks and nominal government bonds for a period of time, beginning potentially at or in the lead-up to the first Fed rate hike. Chart II-16There Are Alternatives To A Traditional 60/40 Portfolio In A Rising Rate Environment Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. Chart II-16 provides some perspective on the question, by comparing the total return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio to a strategy involving the opportunistic redeployment of cash into stocks. The strategy rule maintains a 50/50 stock/cash allocation during normal market conditions, but it then shifts the entire cash allocation into equities following a 15% selloff in the stock market. The portfolio is shifted back to a 50/50 allocation once stocks rise to a new rolling 1-year high. The chart highlights that 60/40 balanced portfolio-style returns may be achievable with cash as the diversifier without a significant reduction in the Sharpe ratio. In fact, the strategy has the effect of lowering average volatility due to prolonged periods of comparatively lower equity exposure, although this occurs at the cost of higher volatility during periods of high market stress (precisely when investors most want protection from volatility). But the bottom line for investors is that while they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. As noted above, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but we will continue to monitor the potential threat posed to stock prices as the pandemic draws to a decisive close later this year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields. The indicator remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have ticked slightly lower from their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, US stocks have recently risen versus global ex-US, reflecting a countertrend rise in the US dollar and a lagging vaccination campaign in Europe. We expect a deceleration in the Chinese credit impulse later this year, which will weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has risen well above its 200-day moving average. Long-dated yields are technically stretched to the upside, but our valuation index highlights that bonds are still extremely expensive and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. The recent bounce in the US dollar has reflected improved relative US growth expectations, but also previously oversold levels. The dollar may continue to strengthen on a 0-3 month time horizon, but we expect it to be lower in 12 months’ time than it is today. Commodity prices have recovered not just back to pre-pandemic levels, but also back to 2014 levels. This underscores that many commodity prices are extended, and may be due for a breather once the Chinese credit impulse begins to decline. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. This underscores that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2  2020-03-20 GIS SR “Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis.”

Upgrade Alert Small cap indexes regained their footing late last year and recovered two years of losses relative to the SPX in a mere quarter. During that uprising in mid-January we monetized sizable gains both on a cyclical and tactical (high-conviction) time horizon, and subsequently added the small cap bias back to our upgrade watch list. Following a drubbing in absolute and relative valuations, small caps have regained their luster and are now trading at a near 15% premium on a 10-year Cyclically Adjusted P/E (CAPE) basis. Given BCA’s view that the sell-off in the bond market has staying power, we are monitoring this ratio closely for a better entry point.  Bottom Line: Small cap stock indexes remain on our upgrade alert list, awaiting a more compelling level to re-establish a small cap size portfolio bias.  

We are reopening our long “Back-To-Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade that we first instituted in the September 8th, 2020 Strategy Report, and subsequently closed earlier this year for a gain of 21.5%, since inception as our risk management rolling stop was hit. Yesterday we highlighted that the recent market tumult is likely an equity-only event and the underlying cyclical drivers in the stock market remain intact. As equity vol settles down and the sudden fall in the 10-year Treasury yield reverses course (it remains one of the key risks to our economic reopening theme), there are high odds that the long “Back-To-Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” share price ratio will resume its ascend. At the same time, the bullish theme for the economic reopening trade got another boost from the most recent ISM release that posted upbeat numbers especially on the prices paid subcomponent of the survey (bottom two panels). Thus, we are compelled to re-initiate this trade. With regard to the small cap bias that we recently monetized handsome gains for our portfolio – which is driven by similar macro catalysts – we are on the lookout to re-establish a small cap size bias, but at a better entry point (top two panels). Bottom Line: Reopen the long “Back-To-Work” / short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade and put the small size bias on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols in the “Back-To-Work” and “COVID-19 Winners” baskets are: LUV, DAL, MAR, HLT, CVX, EOG, SBUX, MCD, CAT, HON, AXP, COF, NUE, GM; and TDOC, FCN, ZM, CTXS, JNJ, AMGN, REGN, CLX, RBGLY, WMT, COST, KR, NFLX, AMZN, respectively. ​​​​​​​

Overconcentration of returns in a handful of stocks has been an overarching theme in a number of our 2020 publications. For instance, we separated the SPX in the S&P 5 vs. the S&P 495 in late-July, and showed how a handful of tech titan stocks dominated S&P 500 returns, especially since 2015. Roughly a month later these tech stocks peaked, and the normalization process began (top panel). It is remarkable that the S&P 5 are down in absolute terms since their September 2 crest, whereas the S&P 495 are up over 15%. The recent surge in the 10-year Treasury yield exacerbated the nosedive in relative share prices as it deals a blow to the bubbly valuation of the longest duration sector in the SPX: the tech sector. Crudely put, the steeper the selloff in the bond market the greater the fall in relative market capitalization (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, middle & bottom panels). Bottom Line: Stick with a barbell tech sub-group positioning, preferring software and services to hardware and equipment, but stay tuned.  

​​​​​​​Consistent with the previous Insight’s cautionary tone, we recommend investors book gains of 16% on the small size bias that we have been exploring since the October 26, 2020 inception (top panel) and 6% since the high-conviction calls report on December 7, 2020. Small caps have gone parabolic since late October and the small/large 13-week rate of change annualized momentum is at the highest print since the dotcom bubble era breaching 100%/annum recently (second panel), and second largest ever in the history of our data set (not shown). The top 10 constituents of small cap indexes are now populated by highly speculative names (see here and here) and in the Russell 2000 specifically the weights of some of the top 10 constituents have jumped to more than 10 fold from the 0.05% median weight to over 0.5% weight. In other words, elements of frothiness are also evident in small cap indexes. At least a pause for breath is likely in the next three months and we opt to move to the sidelines and downgrade the size bias back down to neutral. Finally, we are also shifting the 10% stop in our long “Back-To Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade baskets to a 5% rolling stop in order to protect gains of over 25% since the September 8, 2020 inception (bottom panel). Bottom Line: The easy money has been made in the small/large ratio, lock in gains and step aside. Today we also switch our trailing 10% stop to a rolling 5% stop in the long “Back-To Work”/short “COVID-19 Winners” pair trade baskets. Stay tuned.

Overweight Vaccine efficacy announcements have paved the way for a sustainable great rotation trade into small caps and out of large caps. One of the key small size bias drivers is the delta in sector composition between the small and large cap indexes. The relative gap in deep cyclicals alone is 13% as we highlighted in recent research. Relative share prices remain far apart from the budding recovery in the commodity complex including Dr. Copper’s flirtations with seven-year highs. Thus, the small caps catch up phase has a long ways to go (top & fourth panels). The financials sector gulf is also significant, with small caps’ exposure relative to their large cap brethren clocking in at over 700bps. Already, the yield curve is steepening and there are high odds of a selloff in the bond market as the economy continues to reopen (third panel). In addition, easy fiscal policy is a tonic to the small/large share price ratio. As a flood of money enters the economy with a slight lag, small caps will continue to make up ground lost during the early stages of the pandemic (fiscal balance shown inverted, second panel). Bottom Line: A small size bias is a high-conviction call for 2021. ​​​​​​​

Dear client, Next Monday December 14, 2020 we will be hosting our last webcasts for the year “From Alpha To Omega With Anastasios”, one at 10am EST for our US, European and Middle Eastern clients and one at 8pm EST for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our final weekly publication for 2020 will be on Monday December 21, 2020 where we will highlight our top charts of the past year. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Our high-conviction overweight calls comprise four “Back-To Work” beneficiaries, and a hedge. In marked contrast, all of our high-conviction underweights are focused on “COVID-19 Winners” that should lose some of their luster next year. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P real estate sector to overweight, today. Feature Favorable Macro Backdrop Easy monetary and loose fiscal policies will remain intact and sustain flush liquidity conditions next year. As a result, the global economy will continue to gain traction. Importantly, early-August marked a critical economic inflection point. Gold prices peaked and 10-year real and nominal yields troughed (yields shown inverted, top & middle panels, Chart 1). The bullion and bond markets corroborated the economic recovery that equities and the ISM manufacturing surveys sniffed out in late-spring. This is important for cementing the bull market in equities which is predicated on a durable economic recovery. In other words, the rise in real yields serves as a green light for further stock gains as it signals that the economy is on the recovery path. The bottom panel of Chart 1 also highlights that non-US equity markets started sporting accelerating profit growth expectations in August. Eurozone and other ex-US bourses zoomed past the US EPS growth trajectory as the latter reached a plateau. Chart 1Inflection Point This gives us confidence that 2021 will be a bumper year for SPX profits and help carry the market higher near our 4,000 target. As a reminder, on November 9 in a Special Report, we lifted our EPS estimate to $168 for calendar 2021 and introduced an end-2021 SPX target of 4,000 (Chart 2). Chart 2Earnings Will Do The Heavy Lifting In 2021 Two Risks To Monitor Nevertheless, the bond market represents a risk to our sanguine equity market view. Simply put, if the 10-year US Treasury yield stalls, then it will also stop the rotation trade in its tracks. The budding improvement in the Chinese and EM economic cycles will likely be sustainable next year, consistent with the Chinese four-year cycles of the past twenty years (Chart 3). Each up-cycle has typically been driven by credit expansion and capital spending, on the back of fiscal and monetary easing. These conditions are in place once again. Chart 3Follow The Chinese Four-year Cycle We recently showed that China’s fiscal easing will likely continue to grease the wheels of global trade into mid-2021 and thus debase the greenback (Chart 4), but will likely run out of steam in the back half of next year. Thus, China’s reflation going on hiatus is another key risk we will monitor in 2021 that could serve as a growth scare catalyst and reset stocks. Chart 4Laggard Deep Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand Year In Review 2020 is a year to forget as far as the coronavirus human toll is concerned; the economic and EPS recessions, while short lived, were deep. The COVID-19-inflicted wounds, especially to services industries the world over, were deep and there will be severe scarring. Early in the year, equities felt the COVID-19 tremor and collapsed 35% from the February 19 highs, but extremely aggressive monetary and fiscal policy responses filled the void and were the dominant themes in the ensuing recovery that saw the SPX vault to all-time highs. Our portfolio was resilient and was able to absorb the COVID-19 shock as we were bulletproofing it in the back half of 2019 and early-2020 for a recession owing largely to the yield curve inversion. Importantly, we were not dogmatic and on March 16 we turned cyclically bullish. This eventually culminated into the March 23 Strategy Report where we penned 20 reasons to start buying stocks and coincided with the trough in the SPX. This cyclical shift in our view from bearish-to-bullish aided our portfolio performance as we started adding cyclical exposure and trimming defensive exposure in order to benefit from the immense monetary and fiscal policy responses. Early on, we deemed these macro forces were forceful enough to really turn things around and we remained bullish on a cyclical time horizon. All in all, our trades produced alpha to the tune of 425bps. While our pair trades were sub-par (as is custom we are closing the remaining today), our high-conviction trades and cyclical portfolio moves recorded solid gains (please see the final tally below). Ray Of Light Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel, as a number of vaccines will become available late this year and/or early in 2021. This is great news for the economy and for stocks. We have positioned the portfolio to benefit from the reopening of the economy and the vaccine will act as an accelerant as our flagship publication posited last week while documenting BCA’s upbeat Outlook for 2021. Our portfolio enjoys a cyclical-over-defensive bent, has a small cap bias and we remain committed to the “Back-To-Work” basket versus the “COVID-19 Winners” basket (Chart 5). In the short-term, equities have discounted a lot of good news, which is likely to steal from next year’s returns. However, as populations get inoculated and large parts of the global economy reopen, a virtuous cycle of increasing consumer and business confidence would boost investment and GDP and prove a boon for corporate profits. Already the rally is broadening out with the value line arithmetic and geometric indexes outshining the SPX (Chart 6). An active ETF (RVRS:US) that has a reverse weighting to US large caps is also besting the S&P 500 and signals that more gains are in store in the New Year, especially for the still beaten down deep cyclical laggards. Chart 5Stick With The Reopening Trade Chart 6Rally Is Broadening Out, And That’s Healthy More Overweights Than Underweights As is custom every year, this Strategy Report introduces our high-conviction calls for 2021. This year we have four overweights, a bonus volatility trade on the long side, three underweights, and a bonus structural trade that we add to our trades of the decade first introduced in mid-December 2019. Our overweights comprise three “Back-To-Work” beneficiaries, a great rotation trade and a hedge. All of our underweights are focused on “COVID-19 Winners” that should lose some of their luster next year. Finally, this year we take a page out of Byron Wien’s annual “10 surprises” list and offer our clients three “also rans”, which got close but ultimately failed to make our high-conviction list.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Overweight Hotels (Back-To-Work Theme) The recent positive vaccine news is a key reason we are warming up to this consumer discretionary sub group. While neither lodging nor cruise line vacationing will return to their previous peaks any time soon, both industries will survive and thus should no longer be priced for bankruptcy. One key industry demand determinant is confidence. Consumer sentiment has staged a W-shaped recovery. It is still flimsy, but the vaccine efficacy news should catapult confidence higher in the coming quarters. The implication is that the wide gulf between consumer confidence and relative share prices will narrow via a catch up phase in the latter (top panel, Chart 7). Moreover, the ISM non-manufacturing survey is on a sling shot recovery following the bombed out spring readings. This rebound also suggests that the path of least resistance is higher for lodging stocks (second panel, Chart 7). Our hotel demand indicator does an excellent job in encapsulating all these different forces and forecasts an enticing lodging services demand backdrop into 2021 (third panel, Chart 7). Already, consumer outlays on hotels are staging a comeback, albeit from an extremely depressed level. The upshot is that an earnings-led bounce is in the cards (fourth panel, Chart 7). Finally, washed out technicals and extremely alluring valuations provide an attractive reward/risk tradeoff at the current juncture (bottom panel, Chart 7). Bottom Line: The S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index is a high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL – MAR, HLT, CCL, RCL, NCLH. Chart 7Buy Hotels Overweight Real Estate (Back-To-Work Theme) Boost the S&P real estate sector all the way to overweight today, in order to benefit from the looming full reopening of the economy on the back of the vaccine’s arrival. We have been bearish this niche S&P sector and delivered alpha to our portfolio both via the cyclical and high-conviction underweights this year. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and the time is ripe for a bullish commercial real estate (CRE) stance. The bearish story is well known, but some bullish undertones are widely neglected. The rebound in relative share prices is substantially trailing the 2009 episode, when REITs outshined the SPX by 65% one year following the March 2009 trough. Currently, on a similar SPX advance from the March 2020 lows, REITs are lagging the S&P 500 by 22% (top panel, Chart 8). As large parts of CRE have been at the epicenter of the pandemic, any return to even semi-normalcy in 2021 should see these beaten down stocks sling shot passed the SPX. When the fiscal package finally passes, it will likely serve as a fresh reflationary bridge to support the economy. The proverbial “kicking the can down the road” will thus lift some uncertainty hanging over CRE landlords receiving rents and also via banks not foreclosing distressed properties which would have further depressed CRE prices. CRE prices will likely recover in the New Year as vulture funds and opportunistic investors are already bargain hunting. Tack on the likely refinancing lifeline bankers will extend to CRE debt originators (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8) and such a backdrop will loosen the noose around distressed property landlords. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P real estate sector to an above benchmark allocation and add it to the high-conviction overweight call list.   Chart 8Upgrade Real Estate To Overweight Overweight Industrials (Back-To-Work Theme) Add the S&P industrials sector to the high-conviction overweight list. Emerging markets (EM) and China represent the key source for the sector’s buoyancy. The EM manufacturing PMI clocking in at 53.9 hit an all-time high (top panel, Chart 9). China’s PMIs are also on a similar trajectory, and the Chinese Citi economic surprise index has swung a whopping 277 points from -239 to +38 over the past nine months (second panel, Chart 9). The upshot is that US industrials stocks should outperform when China and the EM are vibrant. Peering over to the currency market, the debasing of the US dollar should also underpin industrials stocks via the export relief valve. A depreciating greenback also lifts the commodity complex and hence industrials equities that are levered to the extraction of commodities and other derivative activities (middle panel, Chart 9). Capex intentions are firming and CEO confidence is upbeat for the coming six months. The ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio is corroborating the budding recovery in the soft data. Green shoots are also evident in hard data releases. Durable goods orders are on the verge of expanding anew (fourth panel, Chart 9). Sell-side analysts have never been more pessimistic with regard to the sector’s long-term EPS growth rate that is penciled in to trail the broad market by almost 800bps (bottom panel, Chart 9)! This bearishness is contrarily positive as a little bit of good news can go a long way. Bottom Line: The S&P industrials sector is a high-conviction overweight.  Chart 9Overweight Industrials Overweight Small Caps At The Expense Of Large Caps (Rotation Trade) Recent vaccine efficacy announcements have paved the way for a sustainable great rotation trade into small caps and out of large caps. One of the key small size bias drivers is the delta in sector composition between the small and large cap indexes. The relative gap in deep cyclicals alone is 13% as we highlighted in recent research. Relative share prices remain far apart from the budding recovery in the commodity complex including Dr. Copper’s flirtations with seven-year highs. Thus, the small caps catch up phase has a long ways to go (top & fourth panels, Chart 10). The financials sector gulf is also significant, with small caps’ exposure relative to their large cap brethren clocking in at over 700bps. Already, the yield curve is steepening and there are high odds of a selloff in the bond market as the economy continues to reopen (third panel, Chart 10). In addition, easy fiscal policy is a tonic to the small/large share price ratio. As a flood of money enters the economy with a slight lag, small caps will continue to make up ground lost during the early stages of the pandemic (fiscal balance shown inverted, second panel, Chart 10). Not only is fiscal stimulus providing a lifeline to debt-burdened small caps, but also the Fed’s opening up of the monetary spigots has pushed fixed income investors out the risk spectrum. Thus, the proverbial “kicking the can down the road” is boosting the allure of small cap stocks (junk spread shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 10). Bottom Line: A small size bias is a high-conviction call for 2021. Chart 10Prefer Small Caps To Large Caps Long VIX June 2021 Expiry Futures (Hedge Trade) We want to hedge our overweight exposures with a long VIX futures position for the June 16, 2021 expiry. We are spending $25.3 to go long and are comfortable paying up for insurance when the SPX is at all-time highs and there is a risk of some growth disappointment in the next six months. Chart 11 draws a parallel with the March 2009 SPX lows and plots the VIX in 2009 and 2010. While the path of least resistance is lower for volatility, sporadic surges are typical in the year following recessions. The S&P 500 also troughed in March 2020 and if history is an accurate guide, the path to SPX 4,000 will be rocky next year. As a reminder, the S&P 500 suffered a 16% correction in May 2010 and the VIX spiked higher. Positioning remains lopsided with both VIX put/call ratios (volume and open interest) at historically high levels, underscoring investor complacency. Net speculative futures positions as a percent of open interest are also probing multi-year lows, corroborating the complacent options data. Finally, the equity volatility curve has flipped from a 10% backwardation to a steep contango in the past month with the 3rd month now trading at a 25% premium to spot VIX; such a complacent level typically warns of a looming spike in the VIX. Bottom Line: Go long the VIX June 2021 futures as a small hedge to overweight equity positions. Chart 11Go Long VIX Futures As A Hedge Underweight Homebuilders (COVID-19 Winner Theme) We deem that most, if not all, of the good news (low mortgage rates, low inventories, high demand, work-from-home reality, all-time highs on the overall NAHB housing sentiment survey) is already priced in galloping homebuilders stock prices and exuberant expectations. While being contrarian is fraught with danger, because more often than not the herd is right, there is a key macro driver that gives us confidence to be bearish homebuilders: interest rates. If our economic reopening thesis proves accurate next year, then the COVID-19 winners – homebuilders included – will take the back seat. Historically, interest rates and relative share prices have been inversely correlated and a steep selloff in the bond market is bad news for homebuilding stocks (top panel, Chart 12). On the operating housing front, some cracks are forming. New home sales, while brisk in absolute terms, are losing out to existing housing sales and homebuilders have resorted to price concessions in order to drive volumes (second & third panels, Chart 12). Profit margins are at the highest level since the subprime crisis and are vulnerable to a squeeze, not only from lower selling prices, but also from rising input costs. Framing lumber comprises roughly 15% of a new home’s commodity related costs and lumber prices have been expanding all year long (bottom panel, Chart 12). Bottom Line: Put the S&P homebuilding index to the high-conviction underweight call list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, DHI, NVR. Chart 12Avoid Homebuilders Underweight Pharma (COVID-19 Winner Theme) The S&P pharmaceutical index is a high-conviction underweight for 2021. On the macro front, the Fed’s ZIRP bodes ill for defensive pharma equities. The Fed was uncharacteristically quick this recession to drop rates to the lower zero bound to reflate the economy. As a result, safe haven equities, Big Pharma included, typically trail the broad market as the economy gets out of the ER and into the recovery room (second panel, Chart 13). Importantly, relative pharmaceutical profits are highly counter cyclical: they rise at the onset of recession and collapse as the economy heals. Currently, as the world economy has transitioned to a V-shaped recovery, the reopening of the economy into the New Year will continue to knock the wind out of relative pharma profitability. Similarly, an appreciating greenback has historically been synonymous with pharma outperformance and vice versa (third panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind, Big Pharma make the lion’s share of their profits domestically, further cementing the positive correlation with the US dollar. This local profit sourcing represents one of the main reasons why politicians on both sides of the aisle are after domestic pharma profits. Pharma prices are on the cusp of contracting. Importantly, President Trump’s late-July executive order “to allow importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada” among other provisions is a direct blow to the profit prospects of Big Pharma (bottom panel, Chart 13). Bottom Line: We are cognizant that the COVID-19 vaccine will lift Big Pharma, but only temporarily, as cyclical forces will more than offset the positive vaccine news. The S&P pharmaceuticals index is a high-conviction underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5PHARX: JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, MYL, PRGO. Chart 13Sell Pharma Underweight Consumer Staples (COVID-19 Winner Theme) Countercyclical consumer staples stocks served their purpose and supported our portfolio in the front half of 2020. Now that vaccines are coming, we are adding the S&P consumer staples sector to the high-conviction underweight call list. The current macro backdrop underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also, consumer confidence is forming a trough (ISM manufacturing shown inverted, second panel, Chart 14). One of the factors that will drive relative earnings lower is the weaker US dollar. As a reminder, the S&P consumer staples sector derives approximately 32% of its sales from abroad, which is 10 percentage points lower than the S&P 500. As a consequence, on a relative basis, staples stocks benefit much less than the rest of the market from a falling currency (third panel, Chart 14). Our relative macro earnings model does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and paints a dark profit picture for this GICS1 sector in the New Year (fourth panel, Chart 14). Bottom Line: The S&P consumer staples sector is a high-conviction underweight.   Chart 14Underweight Consumer Staples Short NASDAQ 100 / Long S&P 500 (Secular 10-year Call) We first wrote about the extreme market cap concentration in January when we were cautioning investors of an SPX drawdown and drew parallels with the dotcom era. Back in late-1999/early-2000 the top 5 stocks comprised 18% of the S&P 500. In July we delved deeper and split the S&P 500 in the S&P 5 versus the S&P 495 to highlight the extraordinary narrow returns since 2015. Such extreme concentration in a handful of tech titan stocks is clearly unsustainable. The bullish case for tech is well documented and understood; the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an accelerant to the technological adoption of the new remote working realities. However, $2tn valuations (AAPL, MSFT & AMZN) make little sense to us, especially if there is little earnings follow through and most of the returns are explained by multiple expansion. In all likelihood, the easy money has been made. Going back to the early 1970s is instructive in order to put the tech juggernaut into proper perspective. Every decade or so there have been clearly defined booms and busts in US tech stocks (Chart 15). Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” forces are undoubtedly at play. What is interesting is that not only have tech stocks likely stalled near the dotcom era peak, but also they have been outperforming since the end of the GFC (i.e. roughly a decade); they are due for at least a breather. If history rhymes, we have entered a new bust cycle and the tech sector’s underperformance will play out over the coming decade. Bottom Line: We are compelled to add to our structural trades and recommend investors underweight the tech sector on a ten-year time horizon via the short QQQ / long SPY exchange traded funds which offer the most liquidity. Chart 15Short QQQ / Long SPX For The Next Decade Also Rans Within consumer discretionary, automobiles & auto parts & components piqued our interest from the long side. These stocks would greatly benefit from a reopening economy as a semblance of normality returns sometime next year. Nevertheless, two key factors kept us at bay. First, similar to homebuilders, this index has gone vertical since the March lows, besting the SPX by a factor of 2:1 (top panel, Chart 16). We maintain exposure via our “Back-To-Work” basket with GM, but even this auto manufacturer is up 50% since the September 8, 2020 inception. Finally, TSLA is about to enter the SPX at a stratospheric valuation that would dominate the automobile sub group. This is eerily reminiscent of YHOO’s SPX inclusion in late-1999 that led the dotcom bubble peak by four months. The parallel is making us nervous, therefore we are staying patiently on the sidelines. On the underweight side we wanted to include the niche S&P semi equipment index, but opted not to as the Bitcoin mania has really pushed these stocks to the stratosphere (middle panel, Chart 16). In addition, this chip sub-group has one of the highest export exposures in the SPX with a large slice of foreign revenue originating in China. Hence, news of a Biden presidency also served as a catalyst to propel them higher (i.e. at the margin, a less hawkish president on the Sino/American trade war). We really struggled with global gold miners (GDX:US). Our initial thinking was to downgrade them to underweight (from currently neutral), which is consistent with global growth reaccelerating and interest rates rising. However, we missed the boat when it set sail in early August (bottom panel, Chart 16). Now, the gold bearish trade is gaining momentum and has become a consensus trade as big macro investors (Tudor and Druckenmiller among others) are shifting toward Bitcoin and have been vociferous about their positioning. Thus, we preferred to remain on the sidelines with a benchmark allocation. Chart 16Three “Also Rans” Footnotes   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views October 26, 2020 Favor small over large caps July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth