Bubbles/Crises/Manias

Special Report

Highlights Historically, soft-budget constraints have typically been followed by periods of poor equity market performance. Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinct economic scenarios: malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. Odds are that the US will continue to pursue easy money policies, sowing the seeds of US equity underperformance in the years ahead. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints, which will weigh on their growth in the near term. However, forced restructuring could boost efficiency and productivity leading to their equity and currency outperformance in the coming years. Unlike other developing economies, China is not currently facing hard-budget constraints. However, the structural overhang from the past 10 years of soft-budget constraints is lingering on and in some cases is increasing. The Thesis The consensus in the investment industry is that cheap money and ample stimulus are good for share prices. We do not disagree with this thesis when it is applied to the near and medium-term equity strategy. However, excessive stimulus and easy money policies — we refer to these as soft-budget constraints — bode ill for share prices in the long run. The investment relevance of this thesis is as follows. Since March, the US has implemented the largest fiscal and central bank stimulus in the world and will likely continue doing so in the coming years (Chart I-1). Such soft-budget constraints will likely support the US economy for now. Nevertheless, they will also sow seeds of future US equity underperformance and currency depreciation. Conversely, many emerging economies (excluding China) have failed to provide sufficient fiscal and credit support to their economies (Chart I-2). The resulting hard-budget constraints will foreshadow their economic underperformance vis-à-vis the US in the coming months. Chart I-1Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Chart I-2EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints   That said, hard-budget constraints will force companies in these EM economies into deleveraging, restructuring and improving efficiency. Ultimately, such hard-budget constraints will benefit EM shareholders in the long run. This thesis has been a key rationale behind our decision to close the short EM / long S&P 500 strategy on July 30, and to turn negative on the US dollar on July 9. In the months ahead, we will be looking for an opportunity to upgrade EM equities to overweight versus the S&P500. BOX 1 Gauging Budget Constraints In our opinion, the best way to gauge budget constraints for the real economy is by monitoring changes in the money supply. This is due to the following reasons: First, net changes in the money supply account for all net loan origination. Second, the money supply also reflects the monetization of public and private debt by the central bank and commercial banks. When a central bank and commercial banks acquire a security from or lend to a non-bank entity, they create new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not change the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. Securities transactions among non-banks do not create new or destroy existing deposits, i.e., they have no impact on the money supply. Rather, these constitute an exchange of securities and existing deposits between sellers and buyers. Provided these types of transactions do not expand the money supply, they do not, according to our framework, alter budget constraints. Finally, the broad money supply, not central bank assets, is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Commercial banks’ excess reserves at the central bank – a large item on the central bank balance sheet - do not constitute a part of the broad money supply. Empirical Evidence The following are examples of soft-budget constraints that were followed by periods of weakening productivity growth, diminishing return on capital and poor equity market performance: 1. China’s soft budget constraints in 2009-10 Due to the post-Lehman crisis stimulus, the change in broad money exploded above 40% of GDP (Chart I-3, top panel). The economy boomed from early 2009 until early 2011 as cheap and abundant money super-charged investment and consumption. Chart I-3China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance However, Chinese share prices — the MSCI China Investable equity index excluding technology, media and telecom (TMT)  — peaked in H1 2011 in absolute terms (Chart I-3, second panel). Relative to the global equity index excluding TMT, the Chinese investable stocks index began underperforming in late 2010 (Chart I-3, third panel). The basis for this equity underperformance was falling return on assets for non-financial companies due to capital misallocation, breeding inefficiencies and diminishing productivity gains (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). In China, the excessive stimulus of 2009 and 2010 and ensuing recurring rounds of soft-budget constraints put a floor under the economy but have destroyed shareholder value. 2. Money overflow in EM ex-China in 2009-10. China’s boom in 2009-10 produced a bonanza for other emerging economies. Not only Chinese imports from developing economies boosted the latter’s balance of payments and income but also international investors rushed into EM equity and fixed income. EM companies and banks took advantage of easy financing and their international borrowing skyrocketed. Finally, EM policy makers stimulated and domestic bank credit boomed. This period of soft-budget constraints led to complacency, lower productivity, falling return on capital and/or inflation in the following years (Chart I-4). Their financial markets performance in the 10 years that followed the soft-budget constraints in 2009-10 has been dismal. The share price index of EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan as well as the total return on their currencies (including the carry) versus the US dollar have been in a bear market (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). 3. The credit and equity bubbles in Japan, Korea and Taiwan of the late 1980s Money and credit bubbles proliferated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s (Chart I-5, Chart I-6 and Chart I-7).  Chart I-4EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market Chart I-5Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-6Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-7Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth   Their productivity growth rolled over in the late 1980s amid easy money policies. Share prices deflated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s (please refer to the middle and bottom panels of Charts I-5, I-6 and I-7). Chart I-8ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise 4. The boom-bust cycle in emerging Asia ex-China in the 1990s Soft-budget constraints prevailed in many emerging Asian economies in the first half of the 1990s. Foreign money inflows and domestic bank credit produced an economic boom. The consequences of such soft-budget constraints were debt-financed malinvestment, falling return on assets and massive current account deficits (Chart I-8). All of these culminated in epic currency and banking crises. 5. The credit bubbles in the US and Europe leading to the 2008 crash Lax credit standards propelled credit and property booms in the US and Southern Europe in the period of 2002-2007. Broad money ballooned in the euro area and swelled in the US (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 2). These property bubbles unraveled in 2007-08. These are well known, and we will not delve into the details. Soft-Budget Constraints Lead To Malinvestment Or Inflation Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinctive economic scenarios – malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. The malinvestment scenario occurs when easy money propels undisciplined capital spending. Easy and abundant money boosts medium-term growth and, thereby, creates the illusion of an economic miracle. The latter renders companies, creditors, investors and government officials complacent. Creditors lend a lot and do so based on optimistic assumptions while companies expand hastily and invest carelessly. The result is capital misallocation, i.e., companies pour money into projects that do not ultimately produce sufficient cash flow. Equity investors project high growth expectations into the future and bid up share prices. Government officials preside over an unsustainable growth trajectory overlooking lurking systemic risks and deteriorating economic fundamentals. Easy money and unlimited financing typically bode ill for efficiency and productivity— this is simply due to human nature. Companies neglect efficiency considerations and, as a result, productivity stagnates. Consequently, cost overruns and unprofitable investments suffocate corporate profits. Declining corporate earnings at a time of expanded capital base culminate in a collapse of return on capital. This is the crucial reason why share prices drop. As profits and return on capital decline, companies retrench by cutting costs and halting investment spending. Defaults mushroom, leading creditors to cut new financing. The inflation scenario transpires when easy money boosts consumption more than investment. Easy money and unlimited financing lift household income and consumption. This can arise from a large fiscal stimulus or private sector's borrowing and spending. On the one hand, robust household income growth inevitably leads to higher wage growth expectations. On the other hand, limited investment brings about productivity stagnation. Mounting wages and languishing productivity growth lead to rising unit labor costs and, ultimately, result in a corporate profit margin squeeze. Faced with corporate profit margin shrinkage, companies either raise prices, i.e., pass through higher costs, or retrench by shedding labor and shrinking capital spending even further. The latter produces a widespread economic downturn, and stifles business profits and share prices. A symptom of higher inflation is a wider current account deficit. With an economy’s productive capacity lagging behind demand, the gap between the two can be filled in by imports. In addition, escalating domestic costs make a country less competitive, which inhibits exports and bloats imports. When a central bank is unwilling to tighten monetary policy meaningfully amid high and rising inflation and/or a widening current account deficit, it falls behind the inflation curve. This constitutes a very bearish backdrop for the exchange rate. Currency depreciation erodes the country’s equity returns in common currency terms versus other bourses. Can an economy with soft-budget constraints, i.e., booming money growth, avoid both malinvestment and inflation? Yes, it can if it is able to boost productivity growth so that it avoids systemic capital misallocation (i.e., investments produce reasonable returns to pay off to creditors and shareholders) and escapes higher inflation by expanding output faster to meet growing demand. However, achieving higher productivity growth amid soft-budget constraints is easier said than done. Bottom Line: The scenario of malinvestment has been playing out in China since 2009. Capital misallocation also occurred in the US and parts of Europe during the 2002-2007 credit boom, and took place in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s. Malinvestment, with some elements of inflation, occurred in emerging Asian countries prior the 1997-98 crises as well as in many EM economies like India, Indonesia and Brazil in 2009-2012. Investment Implications It is fair to say that the unprecedented economic downturn in the US warranted an exceptionally large stimulus. The question for the next several months and years is whether US authorities will: overstay easy policies and make soft-budget constraints a permanent feature of the US economy, or tighten policy earlier than warranted, or navigate policy perfectly so that the economy is neither too hot nor too cold. Our sense is that US authorities will overstay their easy money policies. If the US continues to pursue macro policies in the form of soft-budget constraints, will the nation experience malinvestment or inflation? Our sense is that the US will likely experience asset bubbles and inflation. As the Federal Reserve stays behind the inflation curve in the coming years, the US dollar will be in a multi-year downtrend. Hence, the strategy should be selling the greenback into rebounds. We switched our short positions in select EM currencies— such as BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, IDR and PHP —away from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY on July 9. For now, EM currencies will lag DM currencies. US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world is in the late innings (Chart I-9). The pillars of US equity underperformance in common currency terms will be excessive US equity valuations, a potential new era of US return on capital underperforming the rest of the world and greenback depreciation. Chart I-9US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages The top panel of Chart I-10 illustrates that the difference between US investors owning international stocks and non-US investors holdings of US equities is at a record low. This reveals that both US and foreign investors currently "over-own" US stocks versus non-US equities. Perfect timing of a structural trend reversal is impossible, but we believe US equity outperformance will discontinue before year-end. That was the rationale behind terminating our short EM / long S&P 500 strategy and upgrading EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints which will weigh on their economic performance in the near term. This is why we are not rushing to upgrade EM stocks and currencies to overweight. However, the lack of cheap money will force these EM countries and their companies to do the right things: deleverage households and companies, clean up and recapitalize their banking systems and undertake corporate restructuring. Ultimately, hard-budget constraints will likely sow the seeds of high productivity and, with it, equity and currency outperformance in the years to come. China is a tricky case. On a positive note, it has not stimulated as much during the pandemic as it did in 2009. Besides, policymakers are now aware of the ills that come with soft-budget constraints and have been working hard to address these. Critically, the Chinese population, businesses and the authorities are all united in the nation’s confrontation with the US. Complacency in this context is not a major risk and the focus on efficiency and productivity will be razor sharp. On the negative side, the credit, money and property bubbles that had not been dealt with before the pandemic are now increasing with the stimulus. Continued malinvestment and falling return on capital in China’s old economy sectors is signified by the very poor performance of China’s cyclical “old economy” stocks (Chart I-11, top panel). In turn, bank share prices are making new cyclical lows underscoring their worsening structural outlook (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Chart I-11Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises   Weighing the pros and cons, we infer that the cyclical recovery in China has further to run. This will support China’s growth and equity outperformance for now. That is why we continue to recommend overweighting China within an EM equity portfolio. However, as the credit and fiscal impulses fade starting in H1 next year, structural malaises will resurface posing risks to China’s equity outperformance.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Dear Client, I will be on vacation next week. Instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan will explore the risks posed to commercial real estate and the banking system from work-from-home policies and the potential for urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The Nasdaq 100 index is up 31% since the start of the year. The “Awesome 8” stocks (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, and Tesla) have gained a staggering 59%. Will tech outperformance continue? There are five reasons to think it will not: 1) The dismantling of pandemic lockdown measures, hopefully facilitated by a vaccine later this year, could shift some spending from the online realm back to brick-and-mortar stores; 2) Interest rates are unlikely to fall much further, which will remove one of the tailwinds propelling tech outperformance; 3) Tech valuations are now quite stretched; 4) Many marquee tech companies have become so big that further gains in market share may be difficult to achieve; 5) Regulatory and tax policy changes could negatively impact a number of prominent tech names. A pivot in market leadership from tech to non-tech is likely to foster the outperformance of value over growth and non-US over US stocks. Are The Awesome 8 At Risk Of Becoming The Awful 8? After plunging alongside the rest of the stock market in March, tech stocks have roared back. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 is up 31% since the start of the year. The “Awesome 8” stocks (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, and Tesla) have gained a staggering 59% on a market cap-weighted basis. Meanwhile, the median US stock has lost 14% this year (Chart 1). Will tech outperformance continue? There are five reasons to think it will not: Reason #1: The dismantling of pandemic lockdown measures could shift some spending from the online realm back to brick-and-mortar stores The pandemic has led to a major reallocation of spending from brick-and-mortar stores to online retailers. Sales at US online stores increased by 25% year-over-year in July versus -1% at physical stores (Chart 2). According to Bank of America, after rising steadily from about 5% in 2009 to 16% in 2019, the US e-commerce penetration rate has jumped to 33%, representing more than ten years of growth in only a few months. Chart 1Awesome 8 Propelling Tech Stocks To New Highs Chart 2Will The Dismantling Of Lockdown Measures Bring Brick-And-Mortar Retailers Back To Life?   There is little doubt that we are still in the midst of a secular transition towards e-commerce. However, it is likely that the dismantling of lockdown measures – hopefully facilitated by the release of a vaccine later this year – will bring back some spending to brick-and-mortar stores. This could produce a temporary air pocket in sales for online sellers, a risk that does not seem to be fully discounted (Chart 3). Chart 3Online Retail Spending Could Slow, At Least Temporarily, As Shopping Malls Reopen Chart 4The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge Meanwhile, other tech companies that have benefited from the pandemic could face headwinds. Netflix saw its global subscriber count jump 27% in the second quarter relative to a year earlier. If someone did not bother to purchase a Netflix subscription in March or April, how likely is it that they will subscribe for the first time in September? Along the same lines, global PC and server shipments surged to multi-year highs earlier this year as millions of people were forced to work from home (Chart 4). This likely brought demand for computers and peripheral equipment forward, which could produce a spending vacuum over the next few quarters. Reason #2: Interest rates are unlikely to fall much further, which will remove one of the tailwinds propelling tech outperformance Technology companies are used to cutting prices on older models as newer, more innovative versions come to market. In this sense, deflation is built into their business models. Many tech companies also trade on long-term growth prospects, which means that changes in discount rates have a disproportionately greater impact on the present value of their cash flows than for slower growing companies. All this means that tech stocks tend to outperform in environments where inflation and interest rates are falling. Chart 5Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Financials We do not expect inflation to surge over the next two years. Nevertheless, the deflationary impulse from the pandemic is likely to abate as spare capacity is absorbed and overall demand recovers. Likewise, bond yields are likely to rise modestly over the next 12 months. Higher bond yields will benefit bank shares (Chart 5). Reason #3: Tech valuations have gotten increasingly stretched Based on full-year estimates, the Nasdaq 100 trades at 32-times 2020 earnings and 27-times 2021 earnings. The Awesome 8 stocks are even more pricey, trading at 43-time and 34-times this year’s and next year’s earnings, respectively (Table 1). Table 1Equity Valuations: Tech Versus Non-Tech Outside the IT sector, the S&P 500 trades at 26-times 2020 earnings and 20-times 2021 earnings. It should be noted that these numbers overstate how expensive the non-tech part of the S&P 500 index really is because Amazon resides in the consumer discretionary sector while Facebook, Google, and Netflix sit in the communication sector. In fact, only three of the Awesome 8 are in the S&P 500 IT sector (Tesla has yet to be admitted into the S&P 500, despite having a market cap that would now make it the 10th most valuable company in the index, right ahead of P&G).  While the PE ratio on tech stocks is still well below the nosebleed levels reached during the dot-com bubble, other valuation measures are approaching their prior peaks. The S&P 500 IT sector now trades at 6.2-times sales, not far below the peak price-to-sales of 7.8 reached in 2000. Tech stocks trade at 9.6-times book value, the highest level since early 2001, and more than double their peak valuation level in 2007 (Chart 6). Reason #4: Many marquee tech companies have become so big that further gains in market share may be difficult to achieve The Nasdaq’s lofty valuation presumes that earnings will continue to rise at a rapid pace for many years to come. That has certainly been true for the past decade. The Nasdaq 100 enjoyed annualized earnings per share growth of 16% since 2010, 2.5-times the pace of the S&P 500 index and 3.2-times faster than the non-IT constituents of the S&P 500. Indeed, most of the outperformance of tech stocks can be chalked up to their faster earnings growth (Chart 7). Chart 6Tech Stocks: Some Valuation Measures Are Quite Stretched Chart 7Most Of The Outperformance Of Tech Stocks Can Be Attributed To Faster Earnings Growth But will such earnings growth continue? That is far from certain. Bottom-up estimates foresee earnings per share among Nasdaq 100 members rising by 20% in 2021. This is actually below the projected earnings growth of 27% for the S&P 500. One sees a similar pattern within S&P 500 sectors: The IT sector is expected to see earnings growth of 15% in 2021 compared with 31% for non-IT sectors (Table 2). Table 2Earnings Growth Projections Admittedly, the faster projected earnings growth of non-tech companies in 2021 will constitute a reversal of this year’s pandemic-induced earnings collapse, from which tech was largely insulated. Thus, there is a base effect at work. Nevertheless, if most investors focus mainly on annual growth rates, they could become enamoured with non-tech stocks, at least temporarily. Looking further out, the rapid growth in tech earnings could decelerate as many of today’s marquee tech companies struggle to expand market share. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. New opportunities for growth will undoubtedly arise, but there is no guarantee that today’s leaders will be able to take advantage of them. History is littered with tech companies that failed to keep up with a changing world: RCA, Kodak, Polaroid, Atari, Commodore, Novell, Digital, Sinclair, Wang, Iomega, Corel, Netscape, Altavista, AOL, Compaq, Sun, Lucent, 3Com, Nokia, and RIM were all major players in their respective industries, only to fade into oblivion. Stock market investors were very lucky that companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Oracle, Amazon, and Netflix issued shares to the public at an early stage in their development (Table 3). All seven had market caps below $1 billion when they went public. Such hidden gems are becoming less common: The number of publicly listed companies in the US is still well below what it was two decades ago (Chart 8). The median age of tech companies at the time of their IPO has risen from around 7 years in the 1990s to 11 years in 2019 (Chart 9). Table 3Big Gains From Once Small Companies Chart 8The Number Of US Publicly Listed Companies Is Not What It Once Was   Chart 9Tech Companies Entering The Public Arena Are Now More Mature Reason #5: Regulatory and tax policies could negatively impact a number of prominent tech names Historically, the US government has taken a laissez-faire approach towards the tech sector. As an avowedly pro-business party, the Republicans were happy to espouse deregulation and low corporate taxes, while lauding Silicon Valley’s dynamism and global dominance. The Democrats also had a cozy relationship with the tech sector. As Chart 10 shows, political donations from tech company employees are heavily skewed towards Democratic candidates. Chart 10Tech Company Employees Donate Heavily Towards Democrats Things may not be as easy for the tech sector going forward, however. Conservatives have accused social media companies of stifling their voices. According to a recent Pew Research study, 53% of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of big tech companies, up from 42% in 2018 (Chart 11). For their part, Democrats have expressed concerns about the growing monopoly power of tech companies and their perceived insouciant attitude towards consumer privacy. Chart 11Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies A Biden administration would not be as tough on tech companies as say, an Elizabeth Warren administration. Nevertheless, Biden has said that breaking up big tech companies is "something we should take a really hard look at."1  He has also argued that online platforms should not be granted legal immunity for user-generated content. On the tax side, Biden has vowed to reverse half of Trump’s corporate tax cuts, while introducing a minimum 15% corporate tax. The latter could disproportionately affect a number of prominent tech companies that have taken full advantage of the current tax code to minimize their tax liabilities. Meanwhile, tech companies are increasingly finding themselves in the crossfire between China and the US. While Joe Biden would not be as quick to impose unilateral tariffs on China as Donald Trump, BCA Research’s  geopolitical strategists warn that the rivalry between the two nations will intensify over the coming decade as they reduce their economic interdependency and vie for military advantage in Asia.2 This could have adverse implications for tech firms’ ability to maximize global market share, never mind optimizing global supply chains. Pivot Towards Value And International Stocks Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, while financials dominate value indices (Table 4). Thus, it is not surprising that the relative performance of tech versus financial stocks has closely mirrored the relative performance of growth versus value stocks (Chart 12). If tech stocks shift from being leaders to laggards, value stocks will shift from being laggards to leaders. Table 4Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Chart 12The Relative Performance Of Tech Stocks Has Closely Mirrored The Relative Performance Of Growth Versus Value Chart 13The Valuation Gap Between Value And Growth Is Larger Today Than At The Height Of The Dot-Com Bubble Value stocks usually appear “cheap” in relation to growth stocks, but the valuation gap is much larger today than in the past – larger, in fact, than at the height of the dot-com bubble (Chart 13). Despite their name, growth stocks usually underperform value stocks when global growth is on the upswing (Chart 14). Provided that progress is made towards developing a vaccine, global growth should remain above trend over the next 12 months, giving value stocks a lift. Chart 14Growth Stocks Usually Underperform Value Stocks When Global Growth Is On The Upswing Value stocks also generally do better when the US dollar is weakening. Recall that tech stocks did phenomenally well in the late 1990s when the dollar was rising, but faltered during the period of dollar weakness from 2001 to 2008 (Chart 15). As we discussed last week, the dollar is likely to depreciate further in the months ahead. Chart 15Value Stocks Generally Do Better When The US Dollar Is Weakening   Chart 16Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker US Dollar Tend To Be Good News For Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth and a weaker US dollar tend be good news for non-US stocks (Chart 16). As US tech stocks enter a holding pattern, stock markets outside the US will assume the upper hand. Investors should reallocate equity capital towards value stocks and overseas stock markets. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Hunter Woodall, “2020 hopeful Biden says he’s open to breaking up Facebook,” The Associated Press, May 13, 2019. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “A Tech Bubble Amid A Tech War,” dated July 31, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Special Report

Highlights COVID-19 shutdowns have intensified the pressure on the original “everything stores,” … : A combination of factors has been weighing on department stores since at least the early 2000s. Pandemic store closures have turned up the heat. … and turned an unwelcome spotlight on the future of shopping malls: Bankruptcy filings by anchor tenants pose an existential threat to already struggling malls. Shelter-at-home orders and universal telecommuting have debilitated the fashion industry, further testing malls’ resilience: Apparel retailers account for an estimated 60% of leased mall space, and their struggles are ramping up the pressure on mall operators. City-to-suburb migration may act to accelerate incumbent malls’ decline: Chester County, Pennsylvania has steadily gained wealth and population since the 1970s, but all the legacy malls within a 15-mile radius of the county seat are dead or dying. Feature Dear Client, US Investment Strategy will take its second summer break next week, so there will be no publication on August 24th. We will return on the 31st with Part 2 of the Mallpocalypse series. Best regards, Doug Peta Come On. How Can It Be That Bad? The July 31st episode of BCA’s Friday Conversations webcast series featured a construction executive who expressed the view that a considerable share of America’s enclosed shopping malls has very little value.1 Many malls, he argued, are no longer viable as originally intended and a daunting mix of financial and zoning obstacles stand in the way of repurposing them for other uses. A client in attendance thought we were laying it on a little thick. “Aren’t you being extreme?” he asked. “Why won’t things go back to normal [for enclosed shopping malls] once there’s a vaccine?” Like casinos, malls created a self-contained environment where customers would spend more the longer they stayed, ...  We confess to a weakness for invented mash-up catchphrases that refer to the patently ridiculous (Sharknado) or relentlessly overhyped (the Snowmageddon build up to potential winter storms). It was with tongue in cheek that we titled the webcast “Mallpocalypse,” but this multi-part Special Report is testament to the dire prognosis for much of the stock of US malls. Malls were under pressure well before COVID-19 emerged and they would remain under pressure even if it were already in full retreat. The pandemic has dramatically accelerated weaker malls’ demise, and few of them appear to have a path back to viability. A Brief History Of The Shopping Mall The fully enclosed, temperature controlled Southdale Center in the Twin Cities suburb of Edina, Minnesota was the world’s first shopping mall. Its 1956 opening was front-page news across the national media, which greeted it with rapturous praise. It was designed by Austrian émigré Victor Gruen, who had made his name by reconfiguring New York City’s retail entryways in a way that lured prospective consumers into stores and helped to keep them there. His mall design achieved the same effect on a much greater scale. Southdale positioned 72 stores across two levels joined by escalators and bookended by two branch department store “anchors.” The open floor plan in the body connecting the anchors allowed for unimpeded views of nearly every storefront. “A ‘garden court’ under a skylight, with a fishpond, enormous sculpted trees, a twenty-one-foot cage filled with bright-colored birds, balconies with hanging plants and a café,”2 meant to evoke the feeling of a town square, was set in the center of the mall, inviting visitors to linger. Vast parking lots stood ready to accommodate thousands of their cars (Box 1). Malls revolved around the department store anchors that promised to deliver foot traffic that their rank-and-file tenants wouldn’t find on the high street or in supermarket-anchored shopping centers. Developers couldn’t get bank funding without contractually committed anchors and most mall leases today contain a provision that automatically resets rent lower, or allows tenants to exit their lease without penalty, if multiple anchors close. Per the 2019 10-K for Simon Property Group, the country’s largest mall owner, the rounded average base minimum rent for anchor tenants with leases expiring between 2020 and 2029 ranges from $4 to $8, while the average base minimum rent for inline tenants ranges from $50 to $65. Anchors are the belle of the ball and malls that lose them risk entering a death spiral. Box 1: The ‘70s: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It Other developers faithfully followed Gruen’s initial template during the mall building boom from the mid-fifties to 1990. The three malls within a 15-mile radius of my hometown – Concord Mall (Wilmington, DE, opened 1968), Exton Square Mall (Exton, PA, 1973) and Granite Run Mall (Media, PA, 1974) – had every element but swapped out the bright-colored birds for outsized fountains. Concord Mall meant ICEEs in blue and red cups with a cartoon polar bear, Exton Square was Baskin-Robbins’ mandarin chocolate sherbet and Granite Run was large square floor tiles with a beguiling pattern of cross-sectioned stones, but this elementary schooler’s dominant mall impression was the Niagara-like roar of the fountains, which seemed to fill every cubic foot of the area outside the stores. The Long-Running Department Store Crisis The minimum base rent comparison is not quite apples-to-apples, as anchor tenants often own their own spaces, but anchors are malls’ drawing card. As Simon’s 10-K puts it, “our [properties] rely upon anchor tenants to attract customers.” Ideally, an anchor will comfortably fill the two-level bookend spaces and bring a steady stream of consumers who may spend at the stores they pass on the way. Fit is essential: dollar store customers aren’t likely to pony up for luxury brands or the merchandise on offer at high-end boutiques. Gyms and movie theaters can absorb the space, but shopping may not be on their clientele’s agenda. ... and they counted on department stores to lure them inside it. Before the advent of category-killers in the ‘90s, department stores were an ideal anchor. They were trusted well-known brands that shoppers in their area were conditioned to seek out for a broad range of purchases (Box 2). Despite their struggles, department stores remain the go-to anchors at most malls. High-end brands like Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom or Saks might anchor a mall with luxury tenants, while Dillard’s, JCPenney, Lord & Taylor or the ubiquitous Macy’s might anchor a mall seeking a more general clientele. Box 2: The ‘80s: Best. Purchase. Ever. At 19, I ventured to the massive King of Prussia Mall for a post-Christmas department store sale where I wrote my first check with a comma to purchase a floor model Sony rack system (turntable, amplifier, receiver and dual tape deck) and a CD player. The nearly three-foot-high speakers and cabinet were an early concession to marital comity (reciprocated by the gift of higher-end bookshelf speakers) but the amplifier would keep spreading joy until 2012, when it succumbed just three blocks from BCA’s Montreal office to time and the steady thump of Crazy Horse. Unfortunately for mall operators, department stores have been losing ground for at least 25 years and openly reeling for the last ten. The big-box, category-killer stores, like Home Depot, the late Circuit City, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority and the late Toys ‘R’ Us, reshaped the retail landscape in the ‘90s, ushering in power centers and stealing business from department stores’ more expensive, less specialized and comparatively thinly stocked individual departments. The steady buildup of e-commerce (Chart 1), the shift in popular appeal from suburbia to urban centers and millennials’ celebrated preference for experiences over things contributed to further erosion. Private equity’s foray into the field exacerbated the other pressures. Its modus operandi of levering its portfolio companies up to the gills left the store chains it acquired dangerously unprepared to contend with falling revenues. Chart 1Perpetual Motion Machine A Rotten Time For A Pandemic Many department stores and other retail chains were staggering before a sick bat straggled into a live animal market in Hubei province. The subsequent pandemic has forced a long list of them, including Neiman Marcus, JCPenney and Lord & Taylor, into Chapter 11 to shrink their debt and their cost bases under the protection of the bankruptcy code (Table 1). Several national chains not in bankruptcy are trimming their footprints as well. Nordstrom has announced plans to close a sixth of its locations, and mall stalwart Macy’s (which also owns Bloomingdale’s) wants to shutter 125 of its 850 locations (Table 2). The pandemic has cut a wide swath through apparel retailers, department stores, gyms and restaurants and the toll continues to mount. Table 1Selected Pandemic Retail Bankruptcies Table 2Selected Store Closures Outside Of Bankruptcy Chapter 11 bankruptcy offers struggling businesses a second chance while protecting the interests of senior lenders and secured creditors, but it is cold comfort for unsecured creditors. From a landlord’s perspective at the back of the priority line, the time out that bankruptcy grants an ailing debtor is an excruciating limbo when it is enjoined from initiating eviction proceedings. The landlord collects little, if any, rent and is unable to market the space or spruce it up while the tenant is shielded by the court. The Fashion Industry Was Already A Mess The outlook for department stores is undoubtedly bleak, but the fashion industry, which has relied on department stores’ retail distribution channel, may have it worse. According to a wide-ranging New York Times Magazine cover story,3 the entire fashion ecosystem has been busily devouring itself ever since the financial crisis. Although turmoil in the fashion industry would not typically register with most non-specialist investors, apparel retailers account for around 60% of leased mall space and have become another flash point for mall distress. According to the apparel component of the consumer price index, clothing prices peaked in 1998, rebounded somewhat in 2011 and 2012, and had resumed drifting lower before plunging to 1998 levels in May. The decline in women’s clothing prices has been even more severe, falling 27% from their 1993 peak to slip all the way to 1981 levels (Chart 2). One culprit has been fast fashion. Enabled by social media’s instantaneous dissemination of runway designs, nimble non-luxury retailers like Zara and H&M are able to rush their own versions into production, front-running high-end collections and compelling department stores to discount their own inventory as soon as they receive it. Chart 2Salmon Have It Easier Discounting has been ruinous for the department stores’ apparel margins, as producers’ prices have failed to follow consumer prices lower (Chart 3). Department stores struck back by presenting designers with ridiculously one-sided vendor agreements. Designers reluctantly acquiesced, lest they lose access to the stores’ once-mighty distribution channel and fail to meet their lofty growth targets. Those targets are courtesy of a new breed of investor, eager to discover the next fashion star and ramp his/her operation up to scale immediately. The accelerated timetable pushes fledgling designers to expand well beyond the capacity of their bare-bones organizations and makes an inherently fickle business even more tenuous. Chart 3Rising Production Costs + Falling Prices = A Lot Of Red Ink E-commerce further eroded department stores’ and other brick-and-mortar retailers’ positions, a story with which investors are already familiar. The bottom line is that department stores (Chart 4) and apparel retailers (Chart 5) have been badly lagging the broader market for an extended period. Their relative market performance is consistent with their constituents’ cycling in and out of Chapter 11. Even though they shrink their debt loads and store footprints with every trip to the courthouse, they haven’t been able to do so fast enough to overcome revenue and margin headwinds that show no signs of letting up. Chart 4Gradually, Then Suddenly Chart 5Ex-The Discount Stores, Apparel Retailers Have Gotten Crushed Then the pandemic arrived and nearly the entire white-collar workforce, ex-health care professionals, ceased going to the office or traveling to meet clients in person. For five months and counting, the primary consumers of professional attire have had no reason to wear it, much less buy more. It’s no surprise that Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor, JoS. A. Bank and Men’s Wearhouse have been among the casualties. Overall sales of clothing fell off a cliff in March, April and May (Chart 6, top panel) but clothing stores fared even worse (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Apparelocalypse With department store anchors, who occupy approximately 30% of malls’ leasable area, and apparel retailers under siege, mall operators have few places to turn to fill their space. The new breed of anchor stand-ins – fitness centers, movie theaters and entertainment spaces – are not able to open in every state and haven’t been paying rent. Gold’s Gym, 24 Hour Fitness and Chuck E. Cheese have already filed for bankruptcy and the big movie theater chains’ future is deeply uncertain. There’s Gold In Them Thar Hills, But Someone Else Has Already Staked A Claim Green Street Advisors, the leading commercial real estate research and advisory firm, estimates that half of all mall-based department stores will close by the end of 2021. Estimates of the share of malls that will close in the aftermath range from a quarter to a third. If the US has around 1,200 malls, 300 or 400 may soon disappear. Their owners and the entities that have lent to them will recoup only a fraction of their initial investments. If their losses lead to a reduction in the availability of credit, or trigger a self-reinforcing wave of defaults and bankruptcies, they could have a broader macro impact. We will explore the potential macro effects in the next installment of the series. We close this one by noting the sad fate of the ‘70s-era malls within a 15-mile radius of West Chester, Pennsylvania. Granite Run Mall was razed in 2016 and replaced with an open-air mixed-use facility that retained the original mall’s anchor spaces. Concord Mall was sold to a buyer of distressed malls in January, which has yet to disclose its plans for the site. Exton Square Mall, which underwent an ill-fated 2000 expansion that more than doubled its leasable area, is now owned by the ailing publicly traded Pennsylvania Real Estate Trust (PEI). PEI classifies the property as a non-core asset, along with the other two weakest malls in its portfolio. The Chester County mall experience bears on a client question from the July 31st webcast: “People are fleeing cities for the countryside. Isn’t that the opportunity?” Chester County, which has the highest mean household income in Pennsylvania and the 27th highest in the United States, bucks the state’s broader demographic decline. West Chester, the county seat, added a third public high school in 2006; its university has steadily grown enrollment, increasing its share of students in the 14-school State System of Higher Education consortium from 12.1% in 2010-11 to 18.5% in 2019-20; and new highway arteries and commuter rail stations have made it much more feasible for residents to work in Philadelphia, 25 miles to the east, than it was in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Chester County has been a prime suburban development opportunity for 20 or 30 years and commercial and residential developers have been making the most of it, converting acreage formerly devoted to feed corn into high-end housing, office parks, luxury auto dealerships and other commercial uses. It’s not that the market can’t support retail, it’s that it no longer wants 50-year-old spaces that were built to serve a humbler, less affluent constituency. A range of newer open-air options featuring more upscale retailers and restaurants have supplanted Concord, Exton Square and Granite Run. The area has improved; it’s the old nags that couldn’t keep up.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Webcast "Mallpocalypse", from July 31, 2020, available at bcaresearch.com. 2 Gladwell, Malcolm, "The Terrazzo Jungle," The New Yorker, March 15, 2004. 3 Aleksander, Irina. "Sweatpants Forever," The New York Times Magazine, August 9, 2020, pp. 28-33 and 42-43.

Special Report

Highlights Even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, likely within 18 months, many behavioral changes that were forced on society by social distancing will remain. Individuals who have gotten used to working from home, shopping online, and using the internet for socializing and entertainment will continue to do so. Amid any large structural shift, it is easier to spot losers than winners. The biggest losers are likely to be: (1) Parts of the real estate industry, as companies shed expensive city-center office space and office workers move away from big cities; and (2) the travel industry, since business travel will decline. The winners will include: Health care (as governments spend to strengthen medical services); capital-goods producers (with US manufacturers increasingly reshoring production but automating more); and the broadly-defined IT sector which, while expensively valued, is nowhere near its 2000 level and has several years of strong growth ahead.   “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” –  Bill Gates “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” –  Lenin Introduction The world has been turned upside down since February by the coronavirus pandemic. Households all around the globe have been forced to stay indoors; companies have been forced to drastically change working practices; some industries, such as online shopping or videoconferencing software, have seen a surge in demand. But once the pandemic is over, how many of these changes will stick? What will be the long-term impact on society, the workplace, consumer attitudes, and companies’ strategic planning? How should investors position themselves to take advantage of secular changes in the sectors that will be most affected, ranging from health care and technology, to real estate, retailing, and travel? In this Special Report (which should be read in conjunction with two other recent BCA Research Special Reports on the macro-economic and geopolitical consequences, respectively, of COVID-191), we look at the social and industry implications of the coronavirus pandemic. We assume that, within the next 12-to-18 months, the pandemic will be a thing of the past, either because a vaccine has been developed, or because enough people have caught it for herd immunity to develop. This does not mean that people will be unconcerned about a reoccurrence, or about a new virus triggering another epidemic. Pandemics are not rare, even in modern history (Table 1). And COVID-19 may return as an annual mild seasonal flu (as the 1968 Asian flu did), but which is not serious enough to alter behavior. But the assumption in this report is that, within a couple of years, people will feel comfortable again about being in crowded spaces and traveling, without a need for social distancing or periodic lockdowns. Table 1Estimated Mortality And Infection Rates Of Pandemics During The Past Century But that doesn’t mean that everything will return to the status quo ante. At least some individuals who have gotten used to working from home, video conferencing, and shopping online will continue these practices. Companies will, therefore, need to rethink their employment policies, as well as how they manage their office space, global supply chains, and just-in-time inventories. Government policies towards health care and education will need to be rethought. None of these changes are new. Indeed, the result of an exogenous shock is often simply to accelerate trends that were already in place. E-commerce, telecommuting, and “reshoring” have already been growing steadily for years. COVID-19 is, however, likely to accelerate these shifts. Not every individual or company will change their behavior, but even small changes at the margin can have a significant impact. Ultimately, what these changes amount to is a liberalization of space and time. Employees do not need to be in the same physical space to work together. Students can choose when to listen to a lecture. Music lovers based in a small city can have the same access to a live (streamed) concert as those in London or New York. This Special Report is divided into two sections. In the first section, we examine the meta-changes in consumer and corporate behavior that could result from the pandemic. How widely will the shift from office-based work to “working from home” stick? How much will shopping, entertainment, and education stay online? Will companies really bring back a large chunk of manufacturing from overseas? In the second section, we analyze the impact on specific industries, such as real estate, health care, technology, and retailing, and make some suggestions as to how investors should tilt their portfolios over the longer term to take advantage of these trends. In summary, we identify the winners as health care, technology, and capital-goods producers. The clear losers are in real estate and travel. Retailing and consumer goods will see a significant shakeout, with both winners and losers, but the overall impact on these industries will be neutral. Social Impacts Working From Home Teleworking, or working from home, is hardly new. Craftsmen before the industrial revolution did so as a matter of course. But the development of computers and telecommunications in the 1980s made it feasible for white-collar workers to work from home too. As Peter Drucker wrote as long ago as 1993: "...commuting to office work is obsolete. It is now infinitely easier, cheaper and faster to do what the nineteenth century could not do: move information, and with it office work, to where the people are."2  Until now, however, teleworking has been rare. But the requirements imposed by the pandemic could cause that to change. Technically, it is possible for workers in many job categories to telework effectively. A recent study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman3 estimated, based on job characteristics, that it is feasible for 37% of all jobs in the US to be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). The vast majority of jobs in sectors such as education, professional services, and company management could be done from home (Table 2). Extending the analysis to other countries, they find that more than 35% of jobs in most developing countries can be done from home, but less than 25% in manufacturing-heavy emerging economies such as Turkey and Mexico (Chart 1). Table 2Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Industry Chart 1Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Country But, in practice, before the coronavirus pandemic, many fewer people than this worked from home. Partly this was simply because many companies did not allow it. A survey by OWL Labs in 2018 found that 44% of companies around the world required employees to work from an office, with no option to work remotely.4 The percentage was even higher, 53%, in both Asia and Latin America. By contrast, OWL did find that 52% of employees globally worked from home at least occasionally, and that as many as 18% of respondents reported working from home always. The pandemic forced many white-collar workers to telework for the first time. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of US adults – and as many as 62% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree – worked from home during the crisis.5  How white-collar workers found the experience, and whether they plan to continue to work from home some of the time even if not required to do so, vary widely. Employers are generally positive about the idea. A survey of hiring managers by Upwork found that 56% believed that remote working functioned better than expected during the crisis (Chart 2). They cited reduced meetings, fewer distractions, increased productivity, and greater autonomy as reasons for this. The major drawbacks were technological issues, reduced team cohesion, and communication difficulties. Another survey, by realtor Redfin, found that 76% of US office workers had worked from home during the crisis (compared to only 36% who worked from home at least some of the time beforehand) and that 33% of respondents who had not worked remotely pre-shutdown expect to work remotely after shutdowns end (with another 39% unsure) (Chart 3). Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well Chart 3Many Employees Expect To Continue Working Remotely After The Pandemic Ends But there are problems too. Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that, while teleworking has some clear advantages, such as improved work-family interface, greater job satisfaction, and enhanced autonomy, it also has drawbacks. Most notably, if workers aren’t in the office at least half the week, relationships with fellow workers suffer, as does collaboration.6 There are also developed countries where backward technology has made the experience of working from home difficult. This is particularly the case in Japan. A survey by the Japan Productivity Center found that 66% of office workers said their productivity fell when working from home; 43% were dissatisfied with the experience. The reasons cited for the dissatisfaction were “lack of access to documents when not in the office” (49%), “a poor telecommunications environment” (44%), and a difficult working environment, such as lack of desk space (44%). Japanese companies remain rather paper-based, and household living space tends to be small. Research carried out on employees at Chinese online travel company Ctrip before the pandemic concluded that home working led to a 13% performance increase but, crucially, there were four requirements for working from home to succeed: Children must be in school or daycare; employees must have a home office that is not a bedroom; complete privacy in that room is essential; and employees must have a choice of whether to work from home.7  After the pandemic, a significant shift in the pattern of office work is likely. Many workers will work remotely part or most of the time. But they will also benefit from coming to an office a certain number of days a month to work together, bond with co-workers, exchange ideas, etc. Online Shopping E-commerce has been growing steadily for years. In the US, it increased by 15% year-on-year in 2019, to reach $602 bn, or 16% of total retail sales (Charts 4 and 5). The share is even higher in some other countries: For example, 25% in China and 22% in the UK. The pandemic caused a big acceleration in e-commerce the first few months of this year, as consumers in most countries around the world were either not allowed to go outside, or felt unsafe doing so. Chart 4The Share Of E-commerce Has Been Steadily Expanding For Years… Data from Mastercard show that, in the worst period of lockdowns in April, e-commerce grew by 63% in the US, and 64% in the UK year-on-year, compared to a decline of 15% and 8%, respectively, in overall retail sales (Chart 6). The growth was particularly apparent in products such as home improvement, footwear, and apparel (Chart 7). Chart 5…With Growth Of Around 15% A Year Chart 6In April, Online Sales Soared…   Chart 7…Especially In Certain Categories Moreover, many consumers in advanced economies bought goods such as clothing, medicine, and books online for the first time, and used services such as online grocery delivery, and apps to order food from restaurants (Chart 8). Note, however, that few consumers bought financial services, magazines, music, and videos online for the first time. Presumably these are products that the vast majority of households had already been consuming online. Chart 8Consumers Shifted Purchases Of Many Items Online It is hard to know how sticky these trends will be. Once shops permanently reopen without restrictions, will consumers simply return to their old habits of going to supermarkets, restaurants, and clothing stores? Perhaps many enjoy the experience of browsing. It seems likely, however, that the newly acquired habit of shopping online will at least accelerate the trend towards e-commerce. Many of those who ordered, for example, supermarket deliveries online for the first time will continue to do so at least occasionally in the future. Other changes are likely too: Many smaller retailers were forced to close their physical stores during the pandemic and so had no choice but to set up an online delivery service. Some struggled with this, but others were aided by companies such as Shopify, which simplify the process of setting up a website, processing payments, and arranging delivery. Shopify now works with over a million merchants. These smaller retailers are now better able to compete with giants such as Amazon. During the lockdown, US consumers notably diversified their online product searches away from Amazon and Google to smaller retailers (Chart 9). Chart 9Search Diversified Away From Amazon And Google We might see a trend towards smaller-scale, local shops benefiting as consumers stick to shopping in smaller stores closer to their homes. Many stores during the pandemic refused to accept cash; this might accelerate the shift towards contactless payments. Consumers may be less focused in future on conspicuous consumption. The trend towards wellness, home-cooking, gardening, crafts, and self-investment might continue. Other Uses Of Technology It is not only work and shopping habits that changed during lockdowns. Individuals also got used to a range of technologies for socializing, entertainment, education, and medical consultation. Consumer surveys by the Pew Research Center show that a third of American adults have socialized online using services such as Zoom, and a quarter have used online systems for work or conferences (Chart 10). But these percentages are much higher for certain demographics. For example, 48% of 18-to-29 year-olds have socialized online, and 30% of this age group have taken online fitness classes. The percentage using video systems for work is as high as 48% for people with a college degree. And, unsurprisingly, with many university courses moving online since the spring, 38% of 18-to-29 year-olds say they have taken an online class. Chart 10Individuals Have Been Socializing And Communicating More Online How sticky these trends will be once the pandemic is over is not easy to forecast. But further research by Pew showed that 27% of US adults believed that online and telephone contacts are “just as good as in-person contact,” and only 8% thought of them as not much help at all, although a rather larger 64% answered that online socializing is “useful but will not be a replacement for in-person contact.” The responses differed little between gender, race, and political views, although fewer people under the age of 30 thought online contacts were as good as in-person ones (Table 3). Table 3How Do Online Interactions Compare To In-Person Ones? Another survey in Japan by Ipsos suggests that people’s values have changed as a result of the pandemic and quarantines, with a greater focus on wellbeing, home-based activities such as cooking, and self-improvement. When questioned, a large percentage of people believe they will persist with these habits even when lockdowns end. For example, 51% of Japanese respondents believe they will continue to enjoy themselves as much as possible at home in their spare time, compared to only 20% who favored entertainment at home before the pandemic (Chart 11).  Chart 11Pandemic Brought A Greater Focus On Wellbeing And Home-Based Activities Other areas that have moved online en masse include education, health care, the judiciary, concerts, and sports (e-sports, and popular sports such as soccer and baseball that are now being played in empty venues). Education at the tertiary level in advanced economies was already partly online before the pandemic. In the US, out of 19.7 million tertiary students in 2017, 2.2 million (13.3%) were enrolled in exclusively online/distance learning courses, and another 3.2 million (19.5%) took at least one course online.8 Of course, everything changed during the pandemic, with 98% of US institutions moving the majority of in-person courses online, and many planning to continue this through the Fall 2020 semester. At the elementary and secondary school level, online education was much more limited pre-pandemic. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 21% of US schools offered some courses entirely online in 2016 but, of this 21%, only 6% offered all their courses online and only another 6% the majority of courses. Many of these schools were forced to shift entirely online during lockdowns: According to UNESCO data, at the peak of the pandemic 1.6 billion children (90% of the total in school) in 191 countries attended schools that had closed physically. It seems likely that, while in-person teaching will remain the central method of education, distance and online learning solutions, even at the high school level, will become more prevalent in the future. The health care sector has lagged in technology, in terms of using AI for diagnosis, digitalizing patient records, and offering online doctor-patient consultation. But the use of digital tools had started to increase in recent years, particularly in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 12). At the peak of the pandemic in April, the number of telehealth visits in the US rose by 14% year-on-year, compared to a 69% decline in in-person visits to a doctor.9 It seems likely that this trend will continue, as medical practitioners find viritual consultations more efficient and effective for many simple initial diagnoses, and as sick or elderly patients prefer to avoid a physical visit to a surgery.10 Chart 12The Transition To A Digital-Driven Health Care Model Travel Travelers have been very reluctant to get back on airplanes and stay in hotels again, even in countries and regions where the pandemic has eased over the past couple of months (Chart 13). Based on our assumption that the pandemic will be completely over within 18 months, it seems likely that people will eventually resume travelling, at least for leisure and to see family and friends. After previous disruptions to global travel, such as 9/11 and SARS, it took only two-to-three years for air travel to resumed its pre-crisis trend (Chart 14). Chart 13Travelers Remained Reluctant Even When Pandemic Eased Business travel might be very different, however. Salespeople who have become used to making sales calls over Zoom may not feel the need to travel to see clients so much. Conferences, exhibitions, and other events will be increasingly (at least partly) online. Travel budgets are a large expense for many companies. According to estimates by Certify, a travel software provider, spending on business trips in 2019 totalled $1.5 trillion (including $315 billion by US businesses). The availability of a technological alternative to at least some business trips will provide a good excuse for many companies to meaningfully reduce the number of trips and their travel budget. In the future, business travel may become more of a privilege than a necessity. It is easy to imagine a significant decline in overall business travel. Manufacturing Supply Chains Corporate behavior could also change as a result of the disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Companies in the US and Europe realized how vulnerable their complex supply chains are. Popular and political pressure is pushing firms to reshore at least some of their overseas production. Firms will need to build in more “operational resilience,” with higher levels of inventory, less debt, and greater redundancy in their systems. Developed economies such as the US have been deindustrializing for 40 years – since reforms in China in the late 1970s, followed by Mexico and central Europe in the 1990s,  made these countries appealing locations for cheap manufacturing. US manufacturing employment has almost halved since 1980, falling to only 27% of the workforce (Chart 15). Manufacturing output, especially outside of the computer sector, has substantially lagged that of the overall private sector (Chart 16). The US has also fallen behind in automation, with a much lower number of robots per manufacturing worker than in countries such as Germany and Japan (Chart 17). Chart 15US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980   Chart 16Manufacturing Output Outside The Computer Sector Has Lagged Chart 17The US Has Relatively Few Robots The pandemic highlighted how vulnerable widely distributed supply chains are. This was clearest in the health care sector. The US is far away the biggest spender on health care research and development (Chart 18). And yet it was unable to provide critical medical equipment such as face masks, testing kits, and ventilators to its population at an adequate rate, mainly because almost 70% of the facilities which manufacture essential medicines are based abroad (Chart 19). During the pandemic, countries such as China and India prioritized their own citizens, forcing the US government to strike emergency deals to avoid drug shortages. Chart 18The US Spends A Lot On R&D In Health Care… Chart 19…But Drug Production Is Mostly Done Overseas Once the crisis subsides, CEOs of American companies (as well as the US government) will have to decide if they are comfortable with the fact that, while they possess a vast store of intellectual capital, the manufacturing of their products happens halfway around the world. What happens if there is another pandemic? What about a global disaster caused by climate change? Finally, and perhaps more worryingly, what happens if tensions between the US and China escalate seriously? This shift will not happen overnight: China still has much cheaper labor, an enormous manufacturing base of factories and parts suppliers, and formidable transportation infrastructure. Many aspects of supply chains are too deep-rooted and the economics too compelling for them to be unwound quickly. Some production will shift from China to other emerging economies. A Biden administration might be less confrontational with China, and could lower some of the Trump tariffs. But, at the margin, companies will choose to build new factories in the US (and in western Europe and Japan), with highly automated systems. Government policy (via both subsidies and tariffs) will encourage these trends. Manufacturers which have lived “on the edge” in recent years, with dispersed supply chains, just-in-time processes, minimal inventories, the fewest possible workers, and the maximum amount of debt compatible with their targeted credit rating (often BBB) now understand the need to build redundancy into their systems. Corporate debt levels are high by historical standards in many countries (Chart 20). Companies may want to build up a buffer of net cash in the future, as Japanese companies did for decades after the bubble there burst in 1990. Inventories have risen a little relative to sales since the Global Financial Crisis but will probably rise further (Chart 21). These trends are likely to be negative for profit margins. Chart 20In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... Chart 21...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? Implications For Industries In light of the social changes described above, how will various industries be reshaped over the coming years? Which sectors should investors tilt towards because they are likely to emerge as winners from post-COVID structural shifts? And which are the sectors that investors should avoid since they will suffer from the creative destruction? In the midst of major social and technological change, it is often easier to spot losers than winners. Think of the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. How many investors would have correctly picked Google, Amazon, Apple, and only a handful of others as the winners? It would have been easier to correctly identify industries that were likely to lose out to disruption, such as book retailers, travel agents, newspaper publishers, and TV broadcasters. We start, therefore, with the industries likely to lose out from post-COVID changes. The Losers Real Estate Over the next few years, prime real estate seems the most likely loser. It is not clear how many white-collar workers will choose to work from home in the future, or how many days a month they will want to come into an office to meet with fellow workers. But it seems likely there will be a strong continued trend in the direction of remote working. As a result, demand for prime central-business-district property will fall, given that it is very expensive. In Manhattan, for example, the average workspace for each of the 1.5 million office workers is around 310 square feet. At pre-COVID rental costs, that amounts to an average of $20,000 per employee – and more than $30,000 for A+ grade buildings. And rent is only part of what a company pays: There are also costs for cleaning, utilities, technology, security, coffee machines, and cafeterias on top of that. Employees working at home pay for their own space, utilities, food (and often even computer equipment). The size, location, and layout of offices will need to be rethought. Maybe companies will choose to build a campus in the suburbs, with a range of different working spaces (for meetings, quiet work, or collaboration). They may prefer to rent shared co-working spaces by the day or week. Some real estate developers and builders would be beneficiaries of this. Companies would save money in real estate costs. But they may need to pay a stipend to employees who work at home to cover the extra space they will require, and to upgrade their technology (computer equipment, internet speed, and so on). On the other hand, companies may pay lower salaries for workers who move out of high-cost locations such as Manhattan or London to places where it is cheaper to live. Many office spaces are leased on a long-term basis, so some companies will not be able to move out of big cities immediately. But residential property is more liquid. The trends in work practices might accelerate a shift to the suburbs which has already been emerging over the past few years (Chart 22). Workers will not need to live so close to the company’s office if they will visit it for only a few days a month. Small towns with a lively community and pleasant environment (and decent transportation links to a big city) could grow in popularity. This would be bad news for developers which are specialized in developing residential property in cities such as London, Sydney, Toronto, and Vancouver, and for the owners of those properties. But it might be positive for builders who will develop the new houses and out-of-town office campuses. Chart 22The Shift To The Suburbs Was Already Taking Place This does not mean that cities will wither away. After previous epidemics and crises in history (think the Great Plague of London in the 17th century, or 9/11), they have always bounced back. “Casual collisions” – chance meetings with interesting people which lead to collaborative relationships – are crucial in creative industries, and happen online only with difficulty. Buildings will be repurposed: Retail space will be turned into warehouses or apartments, for example. A fall in rents would allow cities to “degentrify” and attract back young people, making the city more dynamic again. But the period of transition could be painful for some segments of the real estate industry. Travel A permanent decline in business travel would be a significant blow to airlines and hotel chains. Business travelers account for only about 12% of the number of air tickets purchased, but they generate 70%-75% of airlines’ profits. Even discount leisure airlines such as Southwest have in recent years started to target business travelers. And it will not just be airlines that are affected. Data from the US Travel Association show that 26% of the $2.5 trillion in travel-related revenues in the US in 2018 came from business travelers. Of that, 17% goes to air travel, 13% to accommodation, and 5% to car rental. An even larger portion goes to food (21%). Around 40% of hotel rooms are occupied by business travelers. Conference organizers and venues could also suffer: 62% of US business trips are to attend conferences. “Sharing economy” companies would be affected too. In 2018, 700,000 business travelers booked accommodation through AirBnB, and 78% of business travelers use Uber and other ride-sharing services. Furthermore, a slowdown in business travel would have knock-on effects on the leisure travel sector. Surveys suggest that almost 40% of business trips in the US are extended to include leisure activities (“bleisure” in the travel industry parlance). The Winners Health Care A recent report by BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service argued in detail that the macro environment for global health care equities will remain very positive in the coming years.11 An aging population in the world, and a growing middle class in emerging countries will steadily raise demand for health care services (Charts 23 and 24). China, in particular, has underinvested in health care: It spends only 5% of GDP, barely higher than it did 20 years ago, and well behind other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa (Chart 25). Chart 23Positives For Health Care Include An Aging Population… Chart 24…And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments everywhere will need to spend more money on health care (or, in the case of the US, perhaps spend it more effectively). In the US, before the pandemic, intensive-care beds were sufficient to cope only with the peak of a normal seasonal influenza breakout. The World Health Organization warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks of infectious diseases are becoming more common (Chart 26). More money will need to be spent, in particular, on developing health care technology (online consultations, digitalized patient records, track-and-trace systems), on improving senior care homes (80% of COVID-19 deaths in the Canadian province of Quebec were in such facilities), and on biotech (such as gene-related therapies). Chart 25Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Chart 26Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease   The health care equity sector is not expensive, trading in line with its long-run average valuation (Chart 27). Within the sector, biotech and health care technology look more attractive than pharmaceuticals, which are expensive and vulnerable to the price caps proposed by Joe Biden if he is elected US president this November. Chart 27Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Technology In a plethora of ways, the pandemic has propelled the use of technology: For working at home, communication, online shopping, entertainment, etc. Companies such as Zoom have moved from niche players to mainstream business providers: Zoom’s peak daily users rose from 10 million in December 2019 to 300 million in April. Chart 28Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Assuming that at least some of these developments remain in place once the pandemic is over, it is easy to see how technology stocks (broadly defined to include any company that uses information technology as a central part of its business) will continue to prosper. These stocks will not be just in the IT sector, but also in communications and consumer discretionary. Picking the individual winners will be hard: Will Microsoft overtake Amazon in cloud computing? Will Zoom’s much-discussed privacy issues undermine it? Will competitors emerge to Shopify in merchant services? Can Spotify compete with Apple in online music streaming? But the broadly-defined sector seems likely to have improving fundamentals for some years to come. The only question is whether the good news is already priced in, after the huge run-up in stock prices over the past few years. We do not believe it is fully. The valuations of these sectors are still nowhere close to the level they reached at the peak of the TMT Bubble in 1999-2000 (Chart 28), they have strong balance-sheets, and considerable earnings power. For their outperformance to end, it will take one of two things. The first trigger could be a significant shift down in growth. Over the past three years, Amazon has grown EPS at a compound rate of 47%, and Netflix at 76% (Chart 29). Over the next three years (2020-2023), analysts forecast compound EPS growth of 32% for Netflix, 30% for Amazon, 15% for Facebook (compared to 24% in 2016-2019), and 12% for Microsoft (compared to 16%). Those are still impressive growth numbers, and should be achievable as long as these companies can continue to grow market share. Chart 29Can The Big Tech Stocks Keep Growing Earnings At This Rate? The second set of risks would be regulatory: A move to break up companies such as Google and Amazon, the US introducing data privacy legislation similar to that in the European Union, or a move to a digital tax or minimum global taxation. None of these seems likely in the immediate future. Automation/Robotics/Capital Goods The return, at the margin, of some manufacturing to the United States (and other developed economies) will bring about economic changes. Unable to tap into the pool of cheap international labor as easily as before, companies will have to invest significantly in this sector. This will result in the following: A resurgence of manufacturing productivity, thanks to increased investment. An intensification of automation. The US will need to boost the number of robots per capita to compete with Korea, Germany, and Japan. This will further improve productivity. The development of a high-tech manufacturing sector. Analogous to the FAANG stocks during the 2010s, a new group of innovative manufacturing companies could emerge. New infrastructure, roads, factories, and machinery will be needed to replace what is now an outdated capital stock in the US (Chart 30). These trends should all be positive for the capital-goods sector. Such a project would also need large amounts of raw materials. This might push up the prices of commodities such as industrial metals, and benefit materials producers. As mentioned above, it could boost the price of real estate outside of the major cities, where the new manufacturers would be likely to set up. Chart 30The US Capital Stock Is Becoming Outdated Mixed Retailing / Consumer Goods Retailing is likely to see a significant shakeout over the next few years. The cracks have been apparent for some years: Decreasing footfall, and empty units on many high streets and shopping malls, amid the shift to online shopping. A shift to the suburbs and further growth in online shopping will change retailing further. Rents in the highest end Manhattan shopping districts have already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, especially Lower Fifth Avenue (between 42nd and 49th Streets) which is dominated by large chain stores (Chart 31). Shopping malls, particularly undistinguished ones in poorer areas, will continue to suffer. Overall, the US in particular has an excess of retailing space, almost five times as much per capita as the major European economies (Chart 32). Chart 31Manhattan Retail Store Rents Already Falling Sharply Chart 32The US Has Far Too Much Retail Space But it is hard to predict the winners from this shake-out. Overall spending by consumers is unlikely to be significantly affected, so it is a matter of forecasting which companies and formats will emerge victorious. Will Walmart and Target and other large retail chains improve their online offering to fight back against Amazon? Facebook, Shopify, and others have set up new services to compete with Amazon on price – will they be successful? Will small stores start to win back market share? Will supermarkets figure out how to make profits from their order-online-and-deliver services (which are now very costly because most often a human has to run around the store picking out the items ordered), or will new, fully automated competitors emerge? Will new technologies materialize to make it easier to buy clothes online (for example, digitized body measuring systems)? These changes will also affect producers of consumer products. They will have to understand the new channels, and adapt their offerings and positioning strategies accordingly. These changes will make the sector a tricky one. A skilled fund manager might be able to predict which companies’ strategies will be successful. But it could be a problematic area for investors owning individual stocks within the sector who do not have detailed expertise. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beyond The Virus," dated May 22, 2020 and Geopolitical Strategy, "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," dated June 26, 2020. 2 Peter E. Drucker, "The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition," 1993, p.340. 3 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020. 4 OWL Labs, “The State of Remote Work Report,” available at www.owllabs.com. 5 Pew Research Center survey conducted March 19-24 2020. Please see https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/03/30/most-americans-say-coronavirus-outbreak-has-impacted-their-lives/psdt_03-30-20_covid-impact-00-4/ 6 Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A., “The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown about Telecommuting”,  Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6), 2007. 7 Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015), 165-218. 8 Please see educationdata.org. 9 Ateev Mehrotra, Michael Chernew, David Linetsky, Hilary Hatch, and David Cutler, "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, dated May 19, 2020.  10For more on the long-term outlook for the health care sector, Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight," dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight,"dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights We remain bullish on France over the long run. Its industrial economy should revive on global stimulus over the coming years and its government will likely remain reformist in orientation. Macron has enough of a popular consensus and enough time on the political clock to oversee recovery in 2021 and get reelected in 2022. It would take a massive new economic crisis, on top of COVID-19, to generate a successful anti-establishment challenge. Macron is not likely to enjoy the strong legislative majorities of his first term. Much depends on how he handles the economic recovery and the international challenges facing Europe. The likely leadership change in the US will assist on the latter point, although US policy uncertainty will weigh on France’s prospects in the near term. Investors with a long-term horizon should go long French defense and energy stocks relative to American peers, which face policy headwinds. Underweight French government bonds in a diversified portfolio over the long run. Feature France celebrated Bastille Day this year with a toned down military parade on the Champs Elysee. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit the country hard – it has the eighth highest death toll in the world with 452 deaths per million people. By comparison, the US is ranked seventh, with 472 deaths per million (Chart 1). Chart 1France Has Been Badly Hit By COVID-19 Ironically, the crisis provided President Emmanuel Macron an opportunity to postpone his controversial pension reform and put a stop to massive labor strikes. These strikes were surprisingly large and effective – much more significant than the Yellow Vest protests that erupted in 2018. Aggregate demand will benefit but France’s economic structure will not, until reforms get back on track. With less than two years before the presidential election, we take a moment to reassess our view on Macron’s re-election prospects and our bullish view of the country’s equity market. We view Macron as a favorite for re-election and hence remain optimistic about the prospects for structural reforms that improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. French Markets Have Underperformed Amid COVID-19 But Will Outperform Later Chart 2French Equities Amid Covid-19 French equities have underperformed developed market equities by 12% this year. The post-February equity rally, fueled as elsewhere by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus, has been disappointing compared to US and German equities but still better than that of southern European bourses Italy, Spain and Greece (Chart 2). France has also outperformed the UK, which is heavily reliant on energy and financials and faces a high degree of economic policy uncertainty due to Brexit. Our European Strategist, Dhaval Joshi, has described equity performance this year as a case of the “good stock market” versus the “bad stock market.” The key lies in the relationship between equity sectors and bond yields. For the good sectors, lower bond yields entail a valuation boom and higher prices – as with information technology and health care. For the bad market, lower bond yields entail a profits recession and lower prices – case in point being the banking sector. To better illustrate his point, Table 1 provides the sector composition for core European equities and other developed market bourses (US and UK) as well as the year-to-date performance of each sector. Banks have underperformed massively while information technology and health care have delivered positive returns across different bourses thus far. Table 1The "Good" And The "Bad" Stock Markets French equities are the most exposed to global growth, with 17% allotted to industrials and 4% to energy. Year to date, these sectors have underperformed by -24% and -34% respectively. The upside is that global economic recovery will benefit France more than other bourses and enable it to retrace its massive underperformance during the virus lockdowns. Global economic recovery will benefit France more than other bourses and enable it to retrace its massive underperformance. Extremely accommodative monetary policy around the world will keep bond yields low as long as unemployment stays high and inflation stays low. Central bankers will remain ultra-dovish. This will drive a search for yield from investors and bid up risk assets’ prices in the process. Core European government bond yields may fall further in the short run, in the face of a resurgent virus and acute geopolitical risk surrounding the US election, but not the long run (Chart 3). Reliable cyclical indicators such as the German ZEW and IFO surveys are already showing signs that Euro Area growth is starting to recover from the lockdowns. Chart 3The Threat Of Second Waves Will Keep A Lid On Bond Yields Chart 4French Bonds Will Underperform As Growth Recovers In relative terms, economies with high “yield betas” tend to have the greatest sensitivity to global growth indicators (Chart 4). We anticipate a revival in global growth sometime in 2021, as policymakers will be forced to apply more stimulus when needed. Bond yields will eventually rise, though there is a long journey before the output gap will be closed. French bonds will underperform their peripheral peers, which have more to gain from the global search for yield combined with the implementation of the Macron-Merkel agreement to mutualize Euro Area debt. Bottom Line: Fundamentals suggest that investors should go long French equities, and favor French over other developed market equities over a long-term investment horizon. Investors should remain underweight French government bonds in a diversified portfolio over the long run as the global recovery advances. The Bloated State Saves The Supply-Side Reformer Most lockdown restrictions ended at the beginning of June in France and most measures of economic activity have rebounded sharply. The French manufacturing PMI came in at 52.4 in July, a 22-month high, from 40.6 in May. The services PMI jumped well above the 50 boom/bust line to 57.8 from 31.1 in May (Chart 5). Firms are finally resuming business as usual alongside a marked improvement in sentiment regarding the next 12 months. The underlying data from the Markit PMI survey revealed that domestic demand drove the expansion. Chart 5Sharp Rebound In Soft Data Chart 6Don’t Judge The Recovery Based On The Fiscal Stimulus Package France’s rebound was sharp even relative to other developed markets that had deployed much larger fiscal stimulus packages (Chart 6, with details in Appendix). First, the French economy was surprisingly resilient during the 2019 manufacturing downturn and the slowdown in global activity – note that the French manufacturing PMI only flirted with the 50 boom/bust line in 2019 while German, Italian and Spanish manufacturing PMIs remained well below 50. Importantly, France is after Germany the European country that stands to benefit the most from the recovery in Chinese economic activity. Second, while France’s new fiscal spending was restrained overall, the composition of its stimulus and its existing automatic stabilizers proved to be effective. France rolled out one of the most generous state-subsidized furlough schemes in Europe, with the state shouldering more than two-thirds of wages and leaving the rest to the employers. By end of June, more than 13 million workers were on state-subsidized furloughs, almost half the French workforce (Chart 7). That compares with around one-third of workers in Italy, and around one-fifth in the UK and Germany. Going forward, the sectors most badly hurt by the COVID-19 crisis, such as aerospace and tourism, will be able to keep benefitting from state-subsidized furlough schemes for the next 24 months if necessary. For other companies, the coverage will be slightly reduced and extended into the first quarter of 2021. Reducing unemployment is essential for any world leader, but Macron faces an election around the corner, and he had promised specifically to bring unemployment to 7% by the end of his mandate. Before the crisis the unemployment rate was 7.6% but is now expected to reach 10% by the end of 2020 (Chart 8). Normally it takes eight years after a recession for French unemployment to return to pre-recession levels. Chart 7The French Furlough Scheme Is Impressive Chart 8French Unemployment Rate Expected To Jump Back To Post-GFC Peak In other words, Macron will do more stimulus if necessary. So far France’s coronavirus response measures amount to nearly 4% of GDP, excluding loan guarantees. An unprecedented public sector budget deficit of 11.4% is now expected by the government this year, compared to 3% in 2019. The government is supporting car manufacturer Renault and airline company Air France – two jewels of the French economy – as well as other industries. Given the V-shaped recovery, we would not expect banks to shut the credit tap (Chart 9). Indeed, the French economy will be able to rely on stronger bank lending activity than its European peers (Chart 9, panels 2 and 3). Importantly, Chart 10 shows that French companies rated by Moody’s are less extremely exposed to the pandemic-induced recession than the firms of neighboring Germany, Italy, and Spain. Further, once economic conditions improve enough to restore consumer confidence, then consumer spending will pick up, bolstered by accumulated savings (Chart 11). Chart 9Supportive Bank Lending Chart 10A Lower Exposure To The Pandemic-Induced Recession Tourism is a weak spot, but France’s reliance on tourism is overstated (Table 2). The sector accounts for 9.5% of GDP and 7.3% of non-financial business employment. France made supporting this industry a national priority.   Chart 11A V-Shaped Recovery In Consumer Spending Incoming? Table 2The French Reliance On Tourism Is Overstated Ironically, President Macron’s greatest asset right now is the large French state that he campaigned on cutting down to size. The French state helped sustain the economy better than others during this year’s historic shock. Bottom Line: France’s economic rebound has surpassed that of other countries that deployed larger stimulus packages. Gener­ous furloughing, large automatic stabilizers, ample bank credit, and Macron’s looming election ensure that government support will persist. This is a solid backdrop for an economic recovery led by domestic demand. Macron Still Favored In 2022 Chart 12France Gets A “C-“ For Handling The Pandemic & A “B+” For Handling The Economy The French people naturally question the ability of government authorities to handle the pandemic efficiently (Chart 12). By mid-May, about 60% of the public doubted the government’s effectiveness. Public opinion has not been so bad when it comes to the handling of the economy by the government (Chart 12, bottom panel). Moreover Macron has received a notable boost to his popular support during the crisis. The number of people who intend to vote for him has gone up, the first time that has happened for an incumbent president since 2002 (Chart 13). Compared to other world leaders, Macron fares pretty well. His personal support and his party’s support have increased more than their peers in Spain, the US, the UK, and Japan, albeit less than in Germany and the Netherlands (Chart 14). But while those two governments only have to sustain this support until next year’s elections, Macron needs to sustain support for two years to get re-elected. Chart 13The Crisis Ended Up Boosting Macron’s Popular Support... Chart 14…Which Is Not The Case For All Political Leaders The good news for Macron is that the public does not believe that any other parties or candidates would have handled the pandemic any better (Chart 15). There is a lack of credible opposition from traditional political parties. Macron and the anti-establishment Marine Le Pen, who leads the National Rally, are expected to face each other once again in the second round of the 2022 election. If the election were held today, polls suggest Macron would win this rematch with 55% of votes instead of the 66% he won in 2017. Chart 15French Public Does Not Blame Macron For Coronavirus Handling As long as voters are forced to choose between Macron and Le Pen, Macron has the advantage. As in 2017, he will be able to appeal to voters from other parties in the second round of the election, notably the green party EELV (see Box 1). Left-wing voters will join with center-right voters to elect him. The risk to Macron is if a viable challenger manages to edge out Le Pen. Or, an economic collapse could discredit his centrist and reformist movement and drive more voters into the anti-establishment camp. But that risk merely underscores the necessity that will drive his administration to play an accommodative and reflationary economic role. As long as voters are forced to choose between Macron and Le Pen in 2022, Macron has the advantage.  Box 1: Macron Suffers A Setback In Local Elections French local elections have historically been a way for voters to sanction the incumbent power, as was the case for Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008 and his successor Francois Hollande in 2014. True to the historical pattern, Macron and his party La Republique En Marche (LREM) performed poorly in the polls this year. Amid the virus, voter turnout was historically low: 41% compared to 62.1% in 2014. Macron has seen some splintering in his party and has been forced to reshuffle his cabinet. This stumble should not come as a surprise for a party that is akin to an infant in the French political landscape and therefore preferred to play it safe by endorsing candidates in only half of France’s cities of 10,000 people, often choosing to support right-wing candidates (Les Republicains) everywhere else. Fortunately for Macron, Marine Le Pen’s party did not fare any better. The main surprise from the 2020 local elections came from the green party Europe Ecologie-Les Verts (EELV) which even managed to win a number of major victories in large cities. A surge for the Greens is actually quite positive for Macron as he will have no trouble rallying the Greens in 2022 if he is opposed by Le Pen (Chart 16, bottom panel). This outcome also calls for an environmental spending push as part of stimulus efforts in the second half of his term. Chart 16Polls See Macron Win In 2022 Macron is still popular among Millennials, white collar workers, and the elderly (Chart 16). He also has a strong base in Paris (and the suburbs) as opposed to Le Pen, yet he still outperforms Le Pen among rural voters in today’s polls. Bottom Line: Macron is still favored to win the 2022 election. The two-round voting system makes it very difficult for a populist or anti-establishment politician to win the election, given that other factions will align against extreme players. While another massive economic shock could change things, the Macron administration will pursue economic reflation all the more aggressively to prevent this outcome. Macron Keeps France On Reformist Path Crises often accelerate the changes that were taking shape beforehand. This is positive for Macron’s centrist vision of France rather than the anti-establishment alternative that he faced down in 2017. What will be Macron’s roadmap for the remaining two years of his presidency? Public opinion wants him to focus on the labor market and the economic recovery in the months to come and he will be happy to oblige (Chart 17). Macron reshuffled his government before announcing a recovery plan of 100 billion euros, of which 40% will be funded by the European recovery fund. For now, we know the private sector will receive a large share of the pie in order to boost productivity and help French companies stay afloat. Twenty billion euros will go toward the environmental push. A detailed blueprint will be unveiled at the end of August. Chart 17Roadmap To 2022: Focusing On The Labor Market & Economic Recovery Structural reforms may not resume until after 2022. Yes, Macron intends to finish his pension reform prior to the election. And yes, he is capable of passing it through the legislature on paper. Technically he lost his single-party absolute majority in the National Assembly in May. Defections have cost him 26 party members since the 2017 election. But LREM can still count on the unconditional support of two other coalitions in the Assembly giving him 355 seats out of 577 (61.5%). However, Macron would take a huge gamble in reviving the pension reform when the country’s output gap is large. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy attempted to pass a less ambitious pension reform in the midst of the Euro debt crisis, 12 months before facing re-election in 2012 – and he lost the election. We doubt Macron will share the fate of his predecessor, but that most likely means punting on reforms for now and returning to them after securing re-election. If Macron proves us wrong, then that will be a positive surprise for French equity markets confirming our thesis that Macron is favored and France is on a reformist trajectory. The pace and breadth of the reforms have been substantial so far, but obviously Macron has halted plans to pare back the size of the state. Cutting back inefficiencies will still be a theme of Macron’s re-election campaign, but with modifications for the new political environment (such as green spending, mentioned above). Meantime, the COVID-19 crisis revealed that more state decentralization is desperately needed. We should also expect measures to push French companies to relocate production activities back into France, which will be more feasible thanks to labor reforms passed into law earlier in Macron’s presidency. The crisis revealed France might find ways to strengthen supply chains, starting with medical masks, of which France is a net importer. Excessive foreign dependency is an economic reality that the French president cannot envision for France and the EU. As Macron said, “The only answer is to build a new, stronger economic model, to work and produce more, so as not to rely on others.” The objective is to build a European Union that is less dependent on China and the US. The EU is first and foremost a geopolitical project, and the impetus for integration has increased, not decreased, since the 2008 financial crisis. A divided Europe is no match for Russia, the US, or China, especially if the US takes a step back from its post-World War II role of guaranteeing free trade and global security. While a Democratic Party government in Washington would ease trans-Atlantic tensions, there will still be an American need to limit foreign commitments and a European need to look after itself. The outstanding question, then, is the makeup of the National Assembly in 2022. This is too far away to predict. What is clear is that Macron is unlikely to regain the golden single-party majority with which he entered office in 2017, or to gain control of the Senate. So he will necessarily be more constrained in a second term in the legislature. Nevertheless he will still benefit from the underlying trend in France: the demand for a better economy and jobs market. This requires pro-productivity reforms, which is known by the public, and Macron has made reform his banner. Bottom Line: Overseeing the economic recovery and bringing down unemployment will be the two key factors to monitor. At present, Macron’s chances of re-election are good. He does not face a major challenger other than the anti-establishment Marine Le Pen, who will provoke a coalition of parties against her. He even stands to benefit from the rise of the Greens, although the future makeup of the legislature will then become the key challenge. Although the focus of the remaining two years of his mandate will be on economic recovery, there is a chance that Macron could pass a watered-down pension reform. This political setup is positive for French growth but not entirely at the expense of long-term productivity. After 2022, Macron will face a higher legislative constraint, but he will have a new mandate to pursue structural reforms. Investment Takeaways Governments and their populations do not have much appetite for additional social lockdowns as COVID-19 cases reaccelerate, but lockdowns are clearly a near-term risk to the recovery. As such, risky assets face volatility in the near term. Europe’s political cooperation and stability combined with global reflation provide a stable launching pad for EUR-USD. The EUR-USD is reaching a critical testing ground (Chart 18). European integration has taken another leap forward during this crisis, thanks in part to Macron’s diplomatic success in smoothing the way for Germany’s Merkel to take prompt steps toward joint debt issuance and more proactive fiscal support for the periphery. Europe’s political cooperation and stability combined with global reflation provide a stable launching pad for EUR-USD. Chart 18The Case For A Higher EUR/USD However, the dollar could bounce in the near term. A chaotic US election is looming in three months and European earnings revisions underperforming the US will weigh on the euro. While global growth is recovering, and a massive new round of US fiscal stimulus is likely to further enlarge US twin deficits, the 35% chance of a surprise Trump victory would raise the prospect of trade war against Europe as well as China in 2021 and beyond. The dollar could revive if the market seeks safe havens on the anticipation of new crises in a second term in which President Trump is “unleashed.” This would also hurt industrial-oriented economies like France. The risk scenario of Trump’s re-election would also increase the tail-risk of a major conflict with Iran over the subsequent four years – and Middle Eastern instability is negative for European risk assets and political stability. Therefore the long EUR-USD call could be jeopardized by a surprise as November approaches. Otherwise, assuming that the Democratic Party wins the US election, the risk of a trade war against Europe will collapse. So too will the risk of a real war with Iran. Meanwhile the US’s strategic pivot to Asia will be handled in a less disruptive way. Therefore EUR-USD would stand to benefit. To the extent that European equities tend to outperform other regions only when global growth is accelerating, bond yields are heading higher, and the growth defensives like tech are underperforming, we are inclined to underweight European bourses relative to US equities in the short run, but not the long run. On a cyclical or 12-month-plus time frame, governments are likely to succeed in rebooting economic growth through massive stimulus. This is positive for French equities, particularly relative to US equities. We recommend going long French aerospace and defense equities in particular. This sector has been beaten down, like its global and American peers. Yet geopolitical power struggle will fuel defense expenditures and global stimulus will revive the aerospace sector once the coronavirus becomes more manageable (Chart 19). Tactically, the shift to a Democratic administration in the US presents near-term risk for US defense stocks, making them the fitting short end of a pair trade favoring French defense stocks. Two French sectors equities are particularly attractive: Aerospace & defense and Energy. Tactically we would play these against American counterparts due to US election policy headwinds for defense and energy. We also recommend going long French energy equities, relative to US peers. The French energy sector has been outperforming its US and developed market counterparts in recent years and will benefit from a global growth revival (Chart 20). The sector will also benefit on the margin if Trump loses the vote and cannot pursue “maximum pressure” on Iran, but instead gives way for former Vice President Joe Biden to tighten regulation on US energy companies and restore the 2015 nuclear deal and strategic détente with Iran. Chart 19Go Long French Aerospace & Defense... Chart 20…And Long French Energy Relative To US We remain bullish French equities on a secular basis as long as Macron’s reelection remains the base case, European integration is supported and France has the prospect to return to incremental structural reforms over time. Meanwhile it is an economy that is structurally protected from the world’s retreat from globalization. De-globalization abroad requires Europe to break down internal barriers and France is well-positioned to succeed in such an environment.   Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Appendix

  Markets have shrugged off the rise in COVID-19 cases in the US and new clusters in other places such as Spain, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Tokyo (Chart 1). The MSCI All-Country World Index is now only 4% off its all-time high in February. We don’t see the markets ignoring reality for much longer. Economic activity remains very subdued (Chart 2), which will eventually cause a significant rise in bankruptcies and problems for banks. Nevertheless, the unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus will be increased further in coming weeks, which should prevent a big shift towards pessimism for a while. The crunch time will come in the northern-hemisphere winter, when COVID cases in North America and Europe are likely to rise sharply again. Risk assets at their current levels are not pricing in those risks. Recommended Allocation   Chart 1COVID Cases Are Still On The Rise Chart 2Activity Remains Subdued Markets are driven by the second derivative of growth. It is not surprising, then, that equities began to rally in March, exactly when economic data stopped deteriorating, even though it remained atrocious (Chart 3). Real interest rates have also continued to fall, even as risk assets rallied; this further fueled the rally, since the theoretical value of equities rises as the rate at which they are discounted falls (Chart 4). Chart 3Data Stopped Deteriorating In March Chart 4Real Interest Rates Have Continued To Fall But the question now is: Can the data continue to improve? PMIs will fall back towards 50, and economic releases are unlikely to surprise so strongly on the upside. In the US, as a result of the rise in COVID-19 cases and renewed (albeit mostly moderate) government restrictions on activity, consumer confidence has started to weaken again and initial unemployment claims to pick up (Charts 5 and 6). Even though the Fed will remain ultra-dovish, real rates will not fall much further from their current level, which is the lowest since TIPS started trading in the late 1990s. Chart 5Consumer Confidence Is Weakening Again Chart 6The Jobs Market Has Stopped Improving Chart 7Will Money Supply Growth Peak? Money supply growth has grown rapidly, as a result of the increase in central-bank balance-sheets and the rush of companies to borrow to shore up their cash positions (Chart 7). The increase in excess liquidity has also been a force behind the rise in risk assets. But money supply growth is likely to slow from now. At least partly offsetting these risks will be further fiscal stimulus. BCA Research’s Geopolitical strategists see Congress approving a big new package of around $2.5 trillion, mainly because of widespread popular support for an extension of more generous unemployment benefits (Table 1). Agreement should come before the scheduled recess on August 10 (if it doesn’t, this would trigger a market selloff). The recent agreement between European Union leaders on a EUR750 billion fiscal package was a major breakthrough, since it represented joint borrowing backed by the rich northern European countries to provide transfers to the poorer periphery. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Further upside may come as the many investors who have missed the rally since March capitulate and buy risk assets. Investor sentiment is currently unusually polarized. Speculative individuals and hedge funds are very bullish (Chart 8). But more conservative pension funds, wealth managers, and individual investors, mostly remain cautious, as evidenced by the AAII weekly survey, in which many more investors say they expect the stock market to fall over the next six months than to rise (Chart 9). Cash levels remain high by historical standards (Chart 10). Although only a minority of investors turned positive in March, a recent academic study demonstrated how hedge funds and small active institutions have a disproportionate influence on price movements (Chart 11). A downside risk, then, would be if these investors decided to take profits or turned more bearish. Chart 8Hedge Funds Are Bullish... Chart 9...But Retail Investors Very Cautious Chart 10Cash Holdings Remain Elevated Chart 11Some Smaller Investors Have A Big Impact We have argued, since the pandemic began, that investors should not take high-conviction bets in such an uncertain environment. They should, rather, design portfolios which are robust under various scenarios. After the 43% rise in global equities since March, we cannot recommend an above-benchmark weighting, since downside risks are not priced in. We remain neutral on global equities. However, fixed-income instruments look even more unattractive at the current low level of rates; we remain underweight. We recommend hedging via a large overweight in cash, which leaves dry powder for when a better buying opportunity arises. Currencies: A key (as always) to the macro view is what happens to the US dollar. Many of the drivers of the dollar – interest-rate differentials, valuation, momentum, and relative money-supply growth – point to it weakening further (Chart 12). The trade-weighted dollar is already off 9% from its March peak. We turned bearish on the USD in our Quarterly published at the beginning of July. It is too early, however, to declare that the dollar bull market, which began in 2012, is definitely over. Chart 12Dollar Indicators Are Bearish... Chart 13…But Short USD Is Now A Consensus A new downturn in the global economy would push the dollar back up again, since it is a safe-haven currency. Shorting the dollar, especially against the euro, is now a consensus position, and so a near-term reversal is quite likely (Chart 13). But, over the next 12-18 months, a move above 1.22 for the euro and towards 100 for the yen is possible. We will continue to analyze whether the dollar could be entering a bear market, since this would necessarily make us more structurally positive on commodities and emerging markets. Equities: A pickup in global growth and a weakening US dollar might prove positive for cyclicals and value stocks in the long run, which would cause European and EM equities to outperform. Given the current uncertainty, however, we cannot recommend that stance and therefore continue to prefer “growth defensives” such as Health Care and Technology, which implies an overweight on the overall US market. Valuations in the Health Care sector remain attractive (Chart 14). Companies in the (broadly defined) Tech sector are beneficiaries of the pandemic, generally have robust balance-sheets, and should continue to see strong earnings growth for some years. And, while Technology is clearly expensive, valuations are still nowhere as excessive as in 2000 (Chart 15). For Tech to crash would require either that it go ex-growth, or that there is significant regulatory action. Chart 14Health Care Still Attractively Valued Chart 15Tech Still Way Below Bubble Levels Chart 16Europe No Longer So Dominated By Financials Neither of these seems likely for now. Euro zone equities are less dominated than they were by Financials, but remain more cyclical than the US, with very few internet-related names (Chart 16).   Fixed Income: Central banks will remain very dovish and, as Fed chair Jerome Powell has emphasized, are not even thinking about thinking about tightening policy. This suggests that nominal rates will rise only moderately, even if growth continues to pick up. The Fed still has plenty of room to ease further if needed, since the programs it rolled out in March have barely been taken up yet (Table 2). We thus recommend a neutral position on duration. We find TIPS attractive as a hedge against an eventual spike in inflation. The 10-year breakeven inflation rate implied in TIPS remains around 100 basis points below being compatible with the Fed achieving its 2% PCE inflation target in the long run (Chart 17). The announcement in September of the results of the Fed’s 18-month review of its policy framework, which is likely to intensify its efforts to achieve the inflation target, could push breakevens up a bit further. In credit, we continue to recommend buying whatever central banks are buying, mostly investment-grade corporate bonds and the top end of the US junk bond market. Though spreads have fallen a long way, they are still well above end-2019 levels, and look attractive in a world of such low government bond yields (Chart 18). Table 2Usage Of The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities Chart 17TIPS Still Pricing Low Inflation For A Decade Chart 18Credit Spreads Could Fall Further Commodities: The weakening US dollar and continued expansion of Chinese stimulus (Chart 19) should be positive for industrial metals prices over the next six to nine months. Oil prices also have some further upside, since the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restrict supply is being adhered to, and demand will gradually pick up (although air travel will remain depressed, more commuters are using their cars as they avoid public transport). BCA Research’s Energy Service forecasts Brent crude to average $44 in the second half of this year, and $65 in 2021 (up from the current $43). Gold has already run up a lot and is now close to a record high price in real terms, with sentiment very optimistic (Chart 20). Chart 19China Stimulus Positive For Metals Nonetheless, in an environment of very low real rates, it represents a good hedge against extreme tail risks, and therefore we continue to recommend a moderate position as an insurance. Chart 20Gold Looking Rather Toppish Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation  

Special Report

Highlights The housing market is tight, but not undersupplied, as the construction of new homes has kept up with the pace of household formation. Demand for homes should remain well supported as household formation has room to increase and the economy recovers from the pandemic-induced crisis. But existing barriers to new home construction persist and the economic recovery will help hold down residential mortgage defaults and prevent a wave of listings by desperate sellers. As such, home prices have scope to remain well-bid. Feature US home prices keep grinding higher despite the most severe recession since the Great Depression. In a May Special Report1 entitled “Housing In The Time Of COVID-19”, we highlighted that the initial uptick in home prices was spurred by housing supply falling faster than housing demand. Lockdowns and strict social distancing measures halted the construction of new homes and prompted sellers of existing homes to de-list their properties, thus immediately curbing the supply of homes for sale. Meanwhile, the mortgage forbearance allowed under the CARES Act prevented a wave of defaults and mass property listings by desperate sellers and low interest rates and generous fiscal transfers supported demand. Since then, economic activity has been recovering at a faster pace than widely anticipated and mortgage applications have eclipsed pre-pandemic highs. Yet, building permits and housing starts still have ample room to catch up. Are we heading towards a dearth of housing supply? Tight Or Undersupplied? Most real estate agents would claim that the biggest challenge they have had to face in the past few years was developing a new listing pipeline given low levels of new construction relative to history. The economic data confirms this observation: the inventory of homes for sale, as well as the share of homes currently sitting vacant, both stand at record lows (Chart 1). A rising pool of potential buyers and record-low interest rates make for lost commission opportunity amid this weak supply backdrop. Chart 1A Tight Housing Market All that one can infer from these observations, however, is that the housing market is currently a sellers’ market. Only the assessment of the underlying driver of long-term housing demand – household formations – can determine whether the overall housing market is over or undersupplied. Chart 2The Pre-GFC Extended Period Of Construction Excesses Was An Exception Rather Than The Norm There have been four2 extended phases of gains in new home prices since the 1970s (Chart 2). The longest one extended for 14 years from 1992 to 2006 but was also the slowest on a compound annual growth rate basis (CAGR). Nine million building permits were issued over the 103-month span of the most recent phase, a permit-per-month pace that was just two-thirds of the average pace of the preceding three phases (Table 1). Although a declining number of permits issued confirms the on-the-ground observations detailed above, the rate of household formation in the past decade was much slower than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Table 1The Last Four Phases Of New Home Prices Gains Put In Perspective The number of permits adjusted for household formation shows that the housing cycle that culminated in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was marked by excessive construction. During that time, 1.4 building permits were issued for every new household formed. Conversely, in the other three new home price appreciation phases over the last 50 years, that ratio nears one-to-one. An alternative analysis using the number of housing starts instead of housing permits would yield similar results. Therefore, construction has been in line with the growth of new households formed in the latest cycle. As such, the market is not undersupplied. Drivers Of Household Formation Household formation is largely demographic-driven over the long term as today’s population growth trends will only be reflected in household growth a couple of decades down the line, when the newborn population reaches adulthood. Over a shorter horizon, household formation is mostly driven by the economic health of population cohorts in their 20s and 30s. Ample research has shown that today's younger generations have pushed marriage and homeownership to their 30s. Widely accepted reasons include lifestyle changes as well as a relatively more precarious financial situation, which is leading younger individuals to require several more years of income and savings to achieve preceding generations’ level of wealth. The positive takeaway for household formation and housing demand is that today’s 20-something cohorts will likely strike out on their own in the coming years as their financial situations improve. They are not a lost generation of household heads and homeowners, just a delayed one. The pool of young individuals still living at home and the economic recovery constitute a pocket of future household formation, which is the underlying driver of housing demand. We have shown in previous research that 25-34 year olds' financial situation has been improving. They have driven the bulk of the uptick in the homeownership rate and in mortgage applications. As a result, growth in the share of young adults living at home has started to decrease (Chart 3). The economic recovery should sustain this trend. Moreover, a growing pool of individuals aged 20-25 constitutes a pocket of future household formation (Chart 4). Overall, the number of households has room to increase at a healthy rate. Chart 3Improving Financial Situation Among Younger Individuals To Support Household Formation Chart 4A Growing Pocket Of Future Near-Term Housing Demand Decreasing Supply Elasticity Conversely, some obstacles are now standing in the way of additional new-home supply. After the decade of over-construction that preceded the 2008 housing crisis, evidence shows that homebuilders have been operating with caution and restraint ever since. Chart 5Banks Are Shifting Away From Relatively Riskier Construction Loans Researchers at the Bank of England, Norges Bank and Oslo Metropolitan University3 have examined how various degrees of supply elasticity explain the dispersion in home prices across the United States. Supply elasticity measures the extent to which changes in home prices drive new construction. The research paper sheds light on a generalized nationwide trend towards declining supply elasticity. Constrained access to credit partly explains homebuilders’ restraint. Bank lending practices have been relatively muted since the GFC. Lending over the past expansion grew at a markedly slower pace than it did in any other postwar expansion.4 The composition of banks’ balance sheets also reflects more conservative lending behaviors. Their loan books have increasingly shifted away from construction5 loans towards relatively safer multi-family mortgages (Chart 5). Rising construction costs are also likely reducing the number of viable construction projects. In March 2018, the Trump administration announced tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum. The construction sector accounts for half of the global demand for steel and the US is the largest net importer. The price of lumber has increased 125% since March. A crackdown on immigration under the current administration is also contributing to rising labor costs, in an environment where homebuilders have reported that skilled labor availability issues persist. Supply has been constrained over the latest cycle…and we do not expect these supply headwinds to abate any time soon. Our colleagues at BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remark that by highlighting the risks of globalization and border insecurity, the COVID-19 crisis is reinforcing two of Trump’s major policy themes: tighter borders and a renaissance in domestic manufacturing activity. They also note that immigration policy first started tightening under the Obama administration (Chart 6). Although a potential Biden administration might view immigration more favorably, the highly polarized US political climate and the need to address populist grievances will limit immigration even if the Democrats gain control of both the Senate and the White House. Chart 6US Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another Chart 7Increasing Market Share Amongst The Largest Homebuilders An increase in land use regulation may also be stifling homebuilders. A recent NBER research paper6 reports that the level of regulation has generally increased between 2006 and 2018. Moreover, the concentration of big players within the homebuilding sector has increased. The share of total single-family completion by the 50 largest US homebuilders has grown from 24% to 35% between 2000 and 2019 (Chart 7). A higher concentration allows homebuilders to better navigate an increasingly regulated housing market, but it also decreases competition. Empirical evidence shows that firms with high market power may be incentivized to reduce output if doing so contributes to product scarcity, high sale prices and increased profits. On the demand side, so called NIMBYism (Not-In-My-BackYard) may also represent a headwind to additional new construction. The Bank of England, Norges Bank and Oslo Metropolitan University research paper notes that supply elasticity has decreased by a wider margin in states where home prices suffered most in the housing crisis. There is sound basis to hypothesize that since 2008, homeowners have become increasingly focused on maintaining the value of their properties by opposing new development projects. Towards A Supply Squeeze? Chart 8Current And Prospective Homeowners Taking Advantage Of Record-Low Mortgage Rates We do not expect the major supply headwinds to abate any time soon. Bank lending standards may ease at the margin as the economy recovers and some of the uncertainty about the credit outlook abates, but stricter bank regulation and more conservative lending standards should prevent a repeat of the subprime era’s construction excesses. Our geopolitical strategists have noted that a Democratic White House and Senate will likely maintain the pressure on China. As such, there is no assurance that tariffs on imported commodities would be reversed in the event of a Democratic sweep. We expect that the apex of globalization and pockets of inflationary pressure from COVID-19 supply disruptions will keep homebuilders’ input costs elevated. Demand has upside, though. It is already holding up well amid the current recession thanks to record-low mortgage rates and fiscal and monetary policy makers’ emergency efforts. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell below 3% for the first time in July. Mortgage lenders have reported increased backlogs due to the surging number of mortgage and refinancing applications (Chart 8), and mortgage rates may be headed lower once lenders are convinced that increased demand is sustainable. The extension of the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending facilities through the end of the year, announced last week, should help the economy at the margin. As long as Congress extends fiscal aid, policy makers’ efforts will help sustain the demand for homes and fears of a wave of mortgage defaults and distressed home sales one would expect in a severe recession will not materialize. Putting It All Together If demand remains well supported while the supply of new and existing homes remains muted, home prices do not have much room to decline. In our housing Special Report from May, we had hypothesized that the technical feasibility and increased acceptance of working remotely might lift suburban and satellite city home demand. There is early evidence of this phenomenon taking place in cramped and richly priced housing markets like San Francisco and New York. Moreover, the NAHB not only reported a stellar recovery to pre-pandemic levels in homebuilder sentiment in June and July but also an “increasing demand for families seeking single-family homes in inner and outer suburbs that feature lower density neighborhoods.” It saw improving new home demand “in lower density markets, including small metro areas, rural markets and large metro exurbs, as people seek out larger homes and anticipate more flexibility for telework in the years ahead”. Whether the pandemic will result in a material exodus from large cities is still up in the air. It remains to be seen whether remote working flexibility will recede as the pandemic weakens. Both employers and employees may favor part-time remote working arrangements, as suggested by many surveys, which would still warrant having a pied à terre within commuting distance from one’s workplace. Large metropolitan cities also remain attractive for reasons outside of one’s occupation, such as tourism or access to entertainment and leisure. Downward pressure on rents in large metropolitan areas might be more likely than an outright exodus from the city. Current renters and prospective first-time homeowners might want to take advantage of low mortgage rates and the ability to move further out from one’s workplace (though still within commuting distance) thanks to part-time work-from-home arrangements.   Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Investment Strategy Special Report, "Housing In The Time Of COVID-19", dated May 18, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The real new home median sale price series goes back to 1963. We have identified four new home prices expansions starting from the first apparent bottom reached in December 1970 (Chart 2, first panel). 3 "The declining elasticity of US housing supply", Knut Aastveit, Bruno Albuquerque, Andre Kallak Anundsen, published 25 February 2020. 4 Please see BCA Research US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated", dated April 6, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Construction loans are typically the most volatile and risky category of commercial real estate loans. Risks stem from frequent delays and sometimes the cancellation of construction projects. Loan delinquencies and defaults are common due to the cycle of booms and busts inherent to the construction industry. 6 Gyourko, J., Hartley, J., & Krimmel, J. (2019). The Local Residential Land Use Regulatory Environment Across U.S. Housing Markets: Evidence from a New Wharton Index. (No. w26573). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report from my colleague Garry Evans, Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist. Garry will be discussing the social and industrial changes that will remain in place even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, and how investors should tilt their portfolios to take advantage of them. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The number of coronavirus cases in the US appears to have peaked. Negotiations to avert a fiscal cliff continue in Washington. While we expect a deal to be reached, markets could tread nervously until this happens. The US dollar will weaken further over the next 12 months. Narrowing interest rate differentials, a revival in global growth, deteriorating momentum, and pricey valuations all bode poorly for the greenback. Global equities in general, and non-US stocks in particular, tend to fare well in a weak dollar environment. Small cap and value stocks usually outperform when the dollar weakens. Bank shares should start to do better as yield curves steepen and faster economic growth reduces concerns over non-performing loans. US Virus Wave Cresting, But Fiscal Risks Intensifying Chart 1US: Number Of New Cases Seems To Be Peaking Last week, we argued that the two biggest near-term threats to stocks and other risky assets were the rising number of coronavirus cases in parts of the US and the looming fiscal cliff.1 Since then, the news on the virus has been broadly positive, while developments on the fiscal front have been mixed. Chart 1 shows that the number of new cases seems to have peaked in the US. In Texas, Florida, California, and Arizona, the share of doctor visits linked to suspected Covid infections is trending lower. This metric leads diagnoses by about one-to-two weeks (Chart 2).   Chart 2Doctor Visits, Which Lead Diagnoses, Are Trending Lower Over half the US population lives in states that have either suspended or reversed reopening plans (Chart 3). Assuming the number of infections keeps falling and fiscal policy is not unduly tightened, household spending and employment growth – which appear to have stalled out in the second half of July – should begin to pick up. Chart 3Not So Fast Unfortunately, the assumption that fiscal policy will remain stimulative looks somewhat shaky. Expanded unemployment benefits for 30 million Americans, consisting mainly of an additional $600 per week for unemployed workers, are set to expire at the end of July. Congressional Republicans have suggested trimming benefits to $200 per week. However, even that would represent a fiscal tightening of nearly 3% of GDP. A Question Of Incentives The Republican position is understandable, given that two-thirds of unemployed workers are currently receiving more in unemployment benefits than they earned while working. Thus, some scaling back of benefits is not only inevitable, but desirable. The question is one of timing. While job openings have risen from their lows, they are still 23% below where they were at the start of the year. According to the NFIB survey, the share of small businesses reporting difficulty in finding qualified workers has also fallen from year-ago levels. When the binding constraint on employment is a shortage of jobs rather than a shortage of workers, higher unemployment benefits will likely boost hiring. This is because increased benefits will increase spending on goods and services across the economy, thus augmenting the demand for labor. Debt, Gold, And The Dollar Chart 4Gold Prices Have Risen On The Back Of Falling Real Yields Does the inevitable increase in government debt due to ongoing fiscal stimulus portend disaster down the road? According to many commentators, the recent drop in the dollar and the surge in gold prices is surely telling us that it does. While it is a compelling story, it is mainly false. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond currently stands at 1.20%, down from 1.5% in mid-June and 2.33% at the start of the year. Bondholders may be many things, but masochistic is not one of them. If they really thought a fiscal crisis was around the corner, yields would be a lot higher. So why is the dollar falling and gold rallying? The answer is inflation expectations have risen off very low levels, which has pushed down real yields. Gold prices are almost perfectly correlated with real interest rates (Chart 4). The Real Reason The Dollar Has Fallen Going into this year, US real yields had a lot more room to decline than rates abroad. For example, at the start of 2019, US real 2-year yields were 221 bps above comparable euro area yields. Today, US real rates are 35 bps lower – a swing of 256 bps. Yield differentials have narrowed against other economies as well, which has pushed down the value of the dollar (Chart 5). In addition, relative growth dynamics have hurt the greenback. The US economy tends to be less cyclical than most of its trading partners. While the US benefits from faster global growth, the rest of the world benefits even more. This causes capital to flow from the US to other countries, leading to a weaker dollar (Chart 6). Chart 5The Greenback Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support Chart 6The Dollar Usually Weakens When Global Growth Accelerates   Chart 7The Dollar And Cycles BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategist, Chester Ntonifor, has stressed that the dollar typically fares worst in the initial stages of business cycle recoveries (Chart 7). That is the stage we are in today. Indeed, the gap in growth between the US and the rest of the world is likely to be larger than usual over the next few quarters because the pandemic has hit the US harder than most other developed economies. Momentum is also working against the dollar. Being a contrarian is usually a smart investment strategy. That is not the case when it comes to trading the dollar. With the dollar, you want to follow the herd.  This is because the dollar is a high momentum currency (Chart 8). A simple trading rule that buys the dollar when it is trading above its 50-day or 200-day moving average, and sells the dollar when it is trading below its respective moving averages, has historically made a lot of money. Likewise, the dollar performs best prospectively when sentiment is bullish and improving (Chart 9). Currently, the dollar is trading below its various moving averages. Sentiment is also poor and deteriorating (Chart 10).   Chart 8USD Is A High Momentum Currency Chart 9Trading The Dollar: The Trend Is Your Friend Chart 10The Dollar Has Started Breaking Down   Chart 11The Dollar Is Still Fairly Expensive If the dollar were cheap, all the factors discussed above could be overlooked. But the dollar is not cheap. It is still pricey based on purchasing power parity measures which compare the common-currency cost of identical consumption bundles from one country to the next (Chart 11). A Weaker Dollar is Bullish For Stocks, Especially Non-US Stocks Global equities in general, and non-US stocks in particular, tend to perform well when the dollar is weakening (Chart 12). Chart 12A Weaker Dollar Should Help Global Equities   Chart 13Cyclicals Tend To Outperform Defensives In A Falling Dollar Environment Cyclical sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials normally outperform defensives in a weak dollar environment (Chart 13). Relative profit growth in these sectors tends to rise when the dollar depreciates (Chart 14). To the extent that cyclicals are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this gives non-US equities a leg up. Chart 14Relative Profit Growth In Cyclical Sectors Tend To Rise When The USD Depreciates EM Is The Big Winner From Dollar Weakness A weaker dollar is particularly beneficial to emerging markets. Commodity prices usually rise when the dollar drops (Chart 15). Rising resource prices are good news for many emerging markets. EM debt dynamics also tend to improve when the dollar weakens. EM external debt has grown in recent years (Chart 16). About 80% of EM foreign currency denominated debt is in dollars. A falling dollar reduces the local-currency value of US dollar-denominated liabilities, thus strengthening the balance sheets of many EM companies and governments. Emerging markets with large current account deficits and significant dollar liabilities such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and Mexico will outperform EMs that generally run current account surpluses and have little in the way of foreign-currency debt. Chart 15Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Falls Chart 16EM External Debt Has Grown In Recent Years The Federal Reserve today is trying to engineer an easing in US financial conditions. A weaker dollar is facilitating that goal. Historically, EM stocks have been almost perfectly inversely correlated with US financial conditions (Chart 17). Chart 17EM Equities Benefit From Easier US Financial Conditions What About DM? The impact of a weaker dollar on the stock markets of developed economies is more nuanced. Consider the euro area, for example. On the one hand, a stronger euro hurts the euro area economy, which can ultimately push down domestic profits. A stronger EUR/USD also reduces the profits of European companies with operations in the US when those profits are converted back into euros. That can also hurt European stocks. On the other hand, the overall reflationary effect of a weaker dollar on global growth tends to push up profits. In practice, the latter effect usually dominates the former. Thus, euro area stocks, just like stocks in most other markets, generally outperform the US when the dollar is weakening (Chart 18). Chart 18ANon-US Stock Markets Do Well Vis-À-Vis The US When The Dollar Is Weakening Chart 18BNon-US Stock Markets Do Well Vis-À-Vis The US When The Dollar Is Weakening Small Caps And Value Stocks Tend To Outperform When The Dollar Weakens Even though companies in the small cap Russell 2000 index generate less of their sales from abroad than those in the S&P 500, small caps still tend to outperform large caps in weak dollar environments (Chart 19). This is partly because smaller companies are more cyclical in nature. It is also because the US dollar performs best in a risk-off setting when investors are pouring money into the safe-haven Treasury markets. In contrast, small caps excel in a risk-on environment. Value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks in a weaker dollar environment (Chart 20). Like small caps, cyclical equity sectors are overrepresented in value indices. Financials also tend to punch above their weight in value indices. Chart 19Small Caps Tend To Outperform Large Caps During Weak Dollar Environments... Chart 20...The Same Goes For Value Stocks Small caps and value stocks outperformed between 2000 and 2008, a time when the US dollar was generally weakening. That period saw both a commodity boom and a wave of debt-fueled housing booms. The former lifted commodity prices, while the latter buoyed financials. Commodity prices should rise over the next 12 months thanks to a rebound in global growth and copious Chinese stimulus. Chart 21 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is on track to reach the highest levels since the Global Financial Crisis, while the fiscal deficit will probably hit a record 8% of GDP. The Outlook For Financial Stocks Gauging the outlook for financials is trickier. Credit growth has slowed sharply since the Global Financial Crisis, which has weighed on bank profits. The structural decline in bond yields has also been toxic for bank shares (Chart 22). Lower bond yields tend to translate into flatter yield curves, which can depress net interest margins. Chart 21China Has Opened The Spigots Chart 22The Structural Decline In Bond Yields Has Been Negative For Bank And Value Stocks A falling dollar has historically been associated with higher bond yields (Chart 23). As global growth recovers over the next 12 months, bond yields will edge higher. That said, central bank bond purchases, coupled with aggressive forward guidance, will keep bond yields from rising as much as they normally would. And even if nominal yields do rise, inflation expectations will rise even more, implying that real yields will fall further. Falling real yields tend to benefit growth stocks more than they benefit value stocks. Chart 23Bond Yields Tend To Rise When The Dollar Weakens Still, even a modest steepening of the yield curve will be good for bank earnings. A recovery in economic activity should also dampen concerns about a spike in bad loans. Credit spreads normally fall when economic growth is improving and the dollar is weakening (Chart 24). Banks have significantly increased provisions since the start of the year, which has depressed reported earnings. If some of those provisions are reversed, profits will jump. Chart 24Credit Spreads Tend To Fall When Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Chart 25Bank And Value Stocks Are Quite Cheap Moreover, bank stocks in particular, and value stocks in general, are extremely cheap by historic standards (Chart 25). Thus, while the case for favoring value over growth is not as clear-cut as it could be, it is strong enough that long term-oriented investors should consider moving capital from high-flying tech stocks to unloved value stocks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Will Bond Yields Ever Go Up?” dated July 24, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights The use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. We estimate that this restriction could wipe out 10 percent of jobs. Hence, as government lifelines to employers are cut, expect permanent unemployment to rise sharply. 30-year bond prices will soon hit all-time highs. Bank prices will soon hit all-time lows. While the pandemic remains in play, the European stock market will struggle to outperform the US stock market. The biggest risk to our positioning is that the pandemic suddenly ends. But our working assumption is that a credible vaccine will not be available until 2021. Fractal trade: Gold strength and dollar weakness are approaching trend exhaustion. Feature Table I-1Hospitality, Retail, And Transport Employ 25 Percent Of All Workers In many countries, face masks have become compulsory in public places where physical distancing is impractical – such as on public transport or in supermarkets. Physical distancing and face masks create a barrier either of distance or of material between your mouth and nose and other people’s mouths and noses. The worthy objective is to control the pandemic while allowing most aspects of normal life and economic activity to resume. Yet some aspects of normal life and economic activity cannot resume. To state the obvious, the use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. These activities fall under three broad categories: Social eating, drinking, talking, singing, and cheering – a category of activities which economists call ‘social consumption’. Activities that require social communication at close quarters. Such social communication is often reliant on facial expressions, which become impossible to identify at distance or under a face mask. Long-haul travel. After all, who wants to get on an aeroplane if it means wearing a face mask for 10 hours? This raises a crucial question: in an economy which prevents mouths and noses getting in proximity to others, how much activity will be destroyed? Permanent Unemployment Set To Rise Sharply Three sectors that are suffering are hospitality, retail, and transport. ‘Bricks and mortar’ retail is suffering because physical distancing limits footfall, and because discretionary shopping is often regarded as a social activity which becomes pointless with physical distancing and face masks. Using the US as a template, the three sectors sum to around 12 percent of economic activity. If we assume that physical distancing and the use of face masks forces them to operate at two-thirds capacity, then the economy will lose a tolerable 4 percent of activity. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news. The three sectors have a high labour intensity, so they employ 25 percent of all workers (Table I-1). Meaning that even with the optimistic assumption of operating at two-thirds capacity, more than 8 percent of jobs will get wiped out. And on less optimistic assumptions, the job destruction could rise to over 10 percent. The lockdowns were an emergency and temporary response to surging infection rates. They created massive temporary unemployment, as employers put their staff on state-subsidized furlough. As the lockdowns have eased, some of the these temporary unemployed have returned to work (Chart I-1). In contrast, the introduction of physical distancing and face masks forms a longer-term strategy to control the pandemic. As already explained, an economy without mouths and noses in proximity to others will increase the amount of permanent unemployment, which is already rising sharply (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Number Of Temporary Unemployed Down... Chart I-2...But Number Of Permanent Unemployed Sharply Up To make matters worse, state-subsidized furlough schemes are winding down. In France, the scheme will continue into 2021 but with a much-reduced subsidy per worker; in Germany the Kurzarbeit scheme finishes at the end of the year; and in the UK the furlough scheme finishes in October. As government lifelines to employers are cut, expect permanent unemployment to continue its climb. And expect this high level of structural unemployment to keep depressing 30-year bond yields. The good news is that in the coming months, 30-year bond prices will hit all-time highs (Chart I-3). But given the very tight connection between bond yields and bank share prices, the bad news is that bank prices will hit all-time lows (Chart I-4). Chart I-330-Year T-Bond Price Approaches All-Time High Chart I-4Banks Are Tracking The Bond Yield The Pandemic ‘Winners’ Are Not European To understand what has been happening in the stock market this year, you don’t need to think hard. You just need to think about how you spend a typical day in the pandemic era. Here’s a typical day for me, which I hope resonates with many of you. I participate in a series of virtual meetings using Microsoft Teams. My Apple iPhone and iPad have become my most constant and most needed work companions. I do most of my shopping on Amazon. And in the evening, I relax by watching movies on Netflix. All of which constitutes a major change from a typical day in the pre-pandemic era. In the pandemic era, I have a greater dependence on, loyalty to, and usage of Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix products and services. Assuming my experience represents the mass experience, it explains why these companies, and a few others, are the pandemic ‘winners’. In the greatest demand shock since the Depression, the profits of Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have held up well. While the profits of Netflix are up 40 percent1 (Chart I-5). The trouble for the European stock market is that the pandemic winners are all listed in the US, where they make an outsized contribution to stock market profits. This is the main reason why European profits are down 32 percent this year, while US profits are down ‘just’ 18 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-5The Pandemic 'Winners' Are Not European... Chart I-6...So European Profits Have Underperformed US Profits More remarkably, these four stocks explain more than half of Europe’s Stoxx 600 underperformance versus the S&P 500. Stop and reflect on that for a moment. The major European index comprises 600 stocks, and the major US index comprises 500 stocks. Yet pretty much all you need to explain the performance difference this year are four US growth defensive stocks: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Absence Of Pandemic 'Winners' Explains Most Of European Underperformance While the pandemic remains in play, the European stock market will struggle to outperform the US stock market. On Valuations And Risk Premiums What about rich valuations? Since the end of 2018, the forward earnings multiple of growth defensives – defined as global technology plus healthcare – is up from 16 to 23, a surge of almost 50 percent. Stated inversely, the forward earnings yield has collapsed from 6.2 percent to 4.4 percent.  Yet over the same period, the 10-year T-bond yield has collapsed from 3.2 percent to 0.6 percent, so the gap between the growth defensive earnings yield and the bond yield has barely changed. In other words, the huge rally in absolute valuations is entirely due to the collapse in the bond yield. Put simply, if the long-term return on bonds collapses to near-zero, then the prospective returns on competing investments must also collapse to pitiful levels, justifying richer valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Collapsed Bond Yield Entirely Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield Of Growth Defensives In this regard, we strongly dispute the popular narrative that Robinhood day traders are creating a speculative frenzy in growth defensives. Whilst the narrative sounds alluring, the facts strongly contradict it. As the charts show, we can explain all the recent price move in terms of the two fundamentals: resilient profits combined with the collapsed bond yield. One objection is that the gap between the earnings yield and the bond yield – a measure of the equity risk premium – needs to be much higher in the pandemic era. Yet as we have shown, the growth defensives are even more defensive now than they were before the pandemic, raising the reasonable rejoinder: why should the risk premium be higher for this segment of the market during the pandemic compared to before it? Moreover, the pandemic has simply accelerated structural trends that were already underway: for example, the shift to remote working and the demise of bricks and mortar retailers started well before the virus. These major structural trends will continue with or without the pandemic. Nevertheless, the biggest risk to our positioning is that the pandemic suddenly ends. In which case, growth defensives would quickly fall out of favour while old-fashioned cyclicals – like banks – would come roaring back into favour, albeit only briefly. We are closely monitoring this risk. Our working assumption is that it is not a high risk right now because a credible vaccine will not be available until 2021. In which case, structural unemployment is set to rise sharply later this year. This will depress ultra-long bond yields even more, and keep supporting an overweight to growth defensives, at least relative to other parts of the stock market. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Based on 12-month forward earnings per share.   Fractal Trading System* This week we highlight that both the sharp rally in gold and the sell-off in the dollar are approaching a short-term trend exhaustion. A potential catalyst for such a reversal would be Covid-19 infection rates re-accelerating in Europe to create a ‘second wave’. Given our open positions in short silver and short gold versus lead, there are no additional trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 60 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields     Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end. We are upgrading EM stocks from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. We reiterate the change in our US dollar outlook from bullish to bearish. The concentration risk in EM (specifically in North Asia) mega-cap stocks, poor fundamentals in EM outside North Asia, and a potential flare-up in US-China tensions are the reasons why we are reluctant to be overweight EM stocks. Feature We recommended the short EM equities / long S&P 500 position in late 2010,1 and have reiterated this strategy consistently over the past decade. Since its inception, this trade has produced a 193% gain with extremely low volatility (Chart 1). We recommend taking profits on this position for the reasons elaborated in this report. Chart 1Book Profits On Our Short EM Stocks / Long S&P 500 Strategy Chart 2Equity Strategy Of the Decade: The Risk-Reward Is No Longer Attractive Consistently, we are upgrading EM stocks from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. Our decade-long equity sector theme – introduced in our June 8, 2010 report2 – has been to underweight resources and overweight technology and healthcare (Chart 2). This sector strategy has been one of the reasons for underweighting EM and favoring the US market in a global equity portfolio over the past decade. Going forward, the risk-reward of this sector strategy is no longer attractive. Regarding EM absolute performance, we recommend that absolute-return investors remain on standby for a correction before going long the EM equity benchmark. The End Of US Equity Outperformance The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end.It is widely known that this decade’s US equity outperformance was largely due to FAANGM stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google and Microsoft). The FAANGM rally meets many of the criteria for a bubble, as we elaborated in our July 16 report. Our FAANGM equity index – an equal-weighted average of the six stocks – has increased almost 20-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since January 2010 (Chart 3). Chart 3Each Decade = One Mania Its rise is on par with the magnitude of the bull market in the Nasdaq 100 index through the 1990s, or of Walt Disney. through the 1960s, and it well exceeds other bubbles, as illustrated on Chart 3. All price indexes are shown in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. FAANGM stocks have greatly benefited from the recent “work from home” and other societal shifts and have been outperforming through the March financial carnage. It has made them unassailable in the eyes of investors. Yet, even great companies have a fair price, and considerable price overshoots will not be sustainable in the long term. We sense that a growing number of investors deem the US FAANGM and EM mega-cap stocks to be invincible. When some stocks are regarded as unbeatable, their top is not far. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the FAANGM will outperform in the next selloff. Rather, the odds are that they will underperform because these stocks are extremely expensive, overbought, over-hyped and over-owned. The decade-long US equity market outperformance versus the rest of the world could be nearing its end. Apart from technology and FAANGM, US equities are facing a mediocre profit outlook. As long as the pandemic is not contained, America’s consumer and business confidence will remain lackluster, and, as a result, a recovery in their spending will be subdued. Chart 4US Stocks Are Not Cheap After Removing Market-Cap Bias Notably, the broad US equity market is also expensive. The equal-weighted US equity index is trading at a 12-month forward P/E ratio of 21 (Chart 4, top panel). The risks associated with domestic politics are rising in the US. Social, political and economic divisions have been magnified by both the pandemic and the economic downtrend. Social and political tensions will likely flare up around the November elections. Our colleagues from the Geopolitical team argue that a contested election is possible and could lead to a crisis of presidential legitimacy in the US. Finally, the US equity market cap has reached 58% of the global market cap, the highest on record. Gravity forces are likely to kick in sooner than later, capping US equity outperformance. Bottom Line: The tailwinds supporting the US equity outperformance are fading. We are booking gains on the short EM stocks / long S&P 500 strategy. Consistently, we are also closing the short EM banks / long US banks and short Chinese banks / long US banks positions. They have produced a 75% gain and an 11% loss, respectively. Downgrading The US Dollar Outlook = Upgrading The EM View We had been bullish on the US dollar and bearish on EM currencies since early 2011 (Chart 5, top panel), but on July 9 made a major change in our currency strategy: we switched our shorts in EM currencies away from the US dollar to against an equal-weighted basket of the euro, Swiss franc and the yen. Since then, the EM ex-China equal-weighted currency index has rebounded versus the US dollar, but has depreciated against the basket of the euro, CHF and JPY (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5EM Currencies Have Bottomed Versus The US Dollar But Not Against Other Safe-Heavens While the US dollar could rebound in the short term, especially versus EM currencies, any rebound will likely prove to be short-lived. From now on, the strategy for the greenback should be selling into strength. Here is why: As US inflation rises in the coming years and the Fed refuses to raise interest rates, US real rates will drop further and, as a result, the US dollar will depreciate. A central bank that is behind the inflation curve is bearish for a nation’s currency. The main reason for turning negative on the US dollar structurally is the rising determination by the Federal Reserve to stay behind the inflation curve in the years to come. This strategy will instigate an inflation outbreak. Falling real interest rates have caused a plunge in the US dollar, as well as a surge in precious metal prices, in recent weeks. In fact, risk-on currencies have lately underperformed safe-haven currencies, such as the CHF and JPY (Chart 6). This market move confirms that the dollar’s recent plunge is due to fears of its debasement, not to robust growth in the world economy and in EM/China. As US inflation rises in the coming years and the Fed refuses to raise interest rates, US real rates will drop further and, as a result, the US dollar will depreciate.    Colossal debt monetization. The Fed is undertaking an immense monetization of public and private debt. The current situation, involving the Fed’s purchases of securities, is different from the one following the Lehman crisis. Back in 2008-2014, the Fed’s QE program did not produce an exponential rise in money supply. The US broad money supply (M2) was rising at a single-digit rate between 2009 and 2014 (Chart 7). Presently, US M2 growth has exploded to 24% from a year ago. Chart 6Risk-On Currencies Are Underperforming Safe-Heaven Ones Chart 7Helicopter' Money in the US The pace of US broad money growth is much higher than that of many advanced and developing economies. Chart 8 shows new money creation as a share of GDP across various economies. It demonstrates that Japan and the US are now experiencing the quickest rate of new money creation in the world.   In short, even though debt monetization is occurring in many advanced and EM economies, the US is doing it on an unprecedented scale. Chart 8Money Creation As % Of GDP In 2Q2020 “Helicopter” money will eventually lift inflation. The latest surge in the US money supply has only partially offset the collapse in its velocity. Consequently, America’s nominal GDP has plunged. This stems from the following identity: Nominal GDP = Price Level x Output Volume = Velocity of Money x Money Supply Solving the above equation for inflation, we get: Price Level = (Velocity of Money x Money Supply) / (Output Volume) Going forward, the velocity of US money will likely recover, for it is closely associated with consumers’ and businesses’ willingness to spend. At that point, rising velocity of money and greater money supply will work together to exert upward pressure on nominal GDP. Meantime, the pandemic will probably reduce potential output. The outcome of higher nominal spending and reduced potential productive capacity will be higher inflation. In sum, US inflation will rise well above 2% in the coming years. Yet, the Fed will stay put amid rising inflation. The upshot will be a structural downtrend in the US dollar. Whilst there are many arguments against rising inflation, we are leaning toward the view that US inflation will begin rising as of next year. We will elaborate on this inflation outlook in our future reports.     Rising political and social uncertainty in the US will weigh on the greenback. The failure by the US authorities to contain the spread of the pandemic will continue fueling political and social upheavals. This could culminate in a harshly contested presidential election and a reduction in the US dollar’s allure for foreign investors.    Portfolio inflows into the US will turn into outflows. The stellar performance of US equities attracted portfolio inflows into the US over the last 10 years. These capital inflows, in turn, boosted the greenback. But these dynamics are about to be reversed. Chart 9The US's Net International Investment Position Is At A Record Low The top panel of Chart 9 shows that the US’s net international investment position in equities is at its lowest point since 1986. This means that foreign ownership of US stocks exceeds US resident ownership of foreign equities by a record amount. This reflects the fact that investors have by a large margin favored the US versus other bourses. As American share prices outperformed their international peers, both domestic and foreign investors have poured more capital into US equities. As the US relative equity performance reverses, equity capital will flow out of the US, thus dragging down the US dollar. Chart 10 shows that the trade-weighted dollar tracks the relative performance of the S&P500 versus the global equity benchmark in local currency terms. Regarding debt securities, the US’s net international investment position has widened to  - US$8.5 trillion (Chart 9, bottom panel). Not all fixed-income investors hedge currency risk. As the dollar slides, there will be growing pressure on foreign fixed-income investors to hedge their dollar exposure or sell US and buy non-US debt securities. Chart 10A Top In The US$ = The End Of The US Equity Outperformance? Bottom Line: Immense public debt monetization leading to higher inflation down the road and the Fed falling behind the curve, will produce a lasting and considerable downtrend in the US dollar in the coming years. Why Not Overweight EM Stocks? There are a number of reasons why – for now – we are only upgrading EM equities to neutral, rather than to overweight within a global equity portfolio, and why we are still reluctant to recommend buying EM stocks for absolute-return investors:   Concentration risk in EM mega-cap stocks. As US FAANGM share prices come under selling pressure, contagion will spill over to EM mega-cap stocks. The latter have been responsible for a large share of gains in the EM equity index and, conversely, their pullback will considerably impact the EM benchmark’s performance. The top six companies combined account for about 24% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. To compare, US FAANGM (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft) also account for 24% of the S&P 500 market cap. Hence, the concentration risk in EM equity space is as high as in the US. Geopolitical risk. A potential flare up in in geopolitical tensions will weigh on Chinese, South Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Given that they make up about 65% of the MSCI EM index equity market cap, the EM benchmark will suffer in absolute terms and be unlikely to outperform the global equity index. Faced with decreased approval in regard to his handling of the pandemic, and to a lesser extent, the economy and other social issues, President Trump could well resort to geopolitics to “rally Americans behind the flag.” He may, for example, ramp up tensions with China in an attempt to make geopolitics and China the focal points of the forthcoming presidential election. China will certainly retaliate. The South China Sea, Taiwan, technology transfers, treatment of multinational companies in both China and the US, as well as North Korea, could be focal points of a confrontation. This will weigh on business confidence in Asia and on capital spending. In our opinion, markets are vulnerable to such geopolitical risks. Poor domestic fundamentals in EM outside China, Korea and Taiwan. Fundamental backdrops remain inferior in many EM economies outside the North Asian ones. The number of new infections continues to rise in India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru. Many EM economies will only slowly return to normalcy. In certain countries, banking systems were already in poor health, and things have gotten much worse after the crash in economic activity. As to the positives for EM, they are as follows: Rising Chinese demand will boost EM exports to China and help revive their growth. EM equity valuations are very appealing versus the S&P 500 (Chart 11). The bottom panel of Chart 11 shows that EM’s cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio relative to that in the US is over one standard deviation below its mean. Based on the 12-month forward P/E ratio for an equal-weighted index, EM stocks are cheaper than US ones (please refer to Chart 4 on page 4).  EM currencies are also cheap (Chart 12). While they might experience a short-term setback, as a global risk-off phase takes place, EM exchange rates have probably seen their lows versus the US dollar. Chart 11EM Stocks Offer Value Versus The S&P 500 Chart 12EM Currencies Are Cheap The US dollar’s weakness will mitigate risks for EM issuers of US dollar bonds and, thereby, induce more flows into EM sovereign and corporate credit markets. In short, EM local currency bonds will assuredly benefit from the US dollar’s slide. We have been neutral on both EM local currency bonds and EM sovereign and corporate credit, and are waiting for a correction before upgrading to overweight. In nutshell, little or no stress in EM fixed-income markets bodes well for EM share prices. Bottom Line: Risks to EM equity relative performance are presently balanced. A neutral allocation is warranted for now. EM relative equity performance versus DM is only slightly above its recent low (Chart 13, top panel). It is, therefore, a good juncture to move the EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In addition, both the EM equal-weighted and small-cap equity indexes are not yet signaling a broad-based and sustainable outperformance (Chart 13, middle and bottom panels). Chart 13EM Relative Equity Performance Is In A Bottom-Out Phase Some FAQs Question: Wouldn’t the US dollar rally if global stocks sell off? The greenback will likely attempt to rebound from current oversold levels when and as a global risk-off phase sets in. EM high-beta currencies could experience a non-trivial setback but will remain above their March lows. Yet, any rebound in the US dollar versus European currencies and the Japanese yen will be fleeting and moderate. On July 9, in anticipation of US dollar weakness, we booked profits on the short EM currencies/long US dollar strategy and recommended shorting several EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. This strategy remains intact for now. Our short list of EM currencies includes: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, IDR, PHP and KRW. Odds are that EM stocks will likely be broadly flattish relative to those in DM amid the next sell off. Chart 14EM Stocks Have Been Low Beta Question: Aren’t EM stocks high-beta and won’t they underperform if, and as, global stocks sell off? The EM equity index has had a beta lower than one since 2013 (Chart 14). Odds are that EM stocks will likely be broadly flattish relative to those in DM amid the next sell off. Within the DM equity space, the US will likely underperform both Europe and Japan in common currency terms. Question: Which equity markets do you favor within the EM space? Our current overweights are China, Thailand, Russia, Peru, Pakistan and Mexico. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa, Chile and Brazil. Question: Which currencies and local currency bond markets do you recommend overweighting for dedicated EM managers? We recommended going long the Czech koruna versus the US dollar last week. Other currencies that we favor within the EM space are SGD, TWD, THB, MXN and RUB. As for local currency bonds or swap rates, our top picks are Mexico, Russia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Peru, Ukraine and Pakistan. As always, the list of country recommendations for equities, fixed-income and currencies is available at the end of our reports (please refer to pages 14-15) or on the website.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Reports "Inflation, Overheating And The Stampede Into Bonds," dated November 30, 2010, and "Emerging Markets In 2011: Not The Best Play In Town," dated December 14, 2010. 2Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade," dated June 8, 2010   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations