Developed Countries

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (November 16 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET and November 17 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Special Report

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).  

Highlights Despite strong economic activity throughout most of 2021, economic surprises have decreased considerably. This helped the US equity market outperform Europe. It also significantly contributed to the euro’s depreciation versus the dollar. Even though growth will slow in 2022, economic surprises should increase. Growth expectations are much lower than they were entering 2021, and some key headwinds will fade. This picture is not without risks. China’s credit slowdown and the US’s elevated inflation represent the greatest threats. Based on the outlook for economic surprises, the euro will stage a rebound next year and small-cap stocks are attractive. Feature Global economic activity has been exceptionally robust this year, boosted by the re-opening of the world economy, as well as by the considerable fiscal and monetary stimuli injected globally over the past 20 months. However, market participants also anticipated such a rebound; as a result, global economic surprises peaked in September 2020, and they are now in negative territory. Unanticipated developments have a substantial effect on market prices. Under this lens, the deterioration in economic surprises has had a strong impact on financial markets. It helps explain why the defensive US market has outperformed, why the dollar has been strong, and why bond yields have been flat since March 2021, even though inflation has risen, growth has been high by historical standards, and many major central banks have been eschewing their accommodative biases. Going forward, the evolution of economic surprises will remain crucial to market trends. While we anticipate global economic activity will decelerate in 2022, it will likely remain above trend and surprise to the upside, which will allow global economic surprises to recover. There are significant risks to this view, with large unanswered questions about the Chinese economy and the outlook for inflation in the US. In this context, despite near-term risks, we continue to expect EUR/USD to appreciate in 2022 and European small-cap stocks to outperform large-cap equities. Deteriorating Surprises Matter This year, the underperformance of global equities (both EM and Europe) relative to the US, the weakness in the euro, and the limited increase in yields have all caught investors off guard. At the beginning of 2021, investors were massively short the greenback and duration, while surveys showed a large preference for non-US equities. These views grew out of the expectation that global growth would be strong. Global growth turned out to be strong but began to disappoint expectations by the middle of the year. Expectations had become extremely lofty, suggesting that the bar had been set too high. Additionally, the tightening credit conditions in China and the growing supply constraints around the world caused growth to decelerate somewhat. The deterioration in short-term economic momentum and in surprises harmed European equities relative to the US. As Chart 1 highlights, the relative performance of European stocks is greatly affected by the earnings revision ratio of cyclicals stocks vis-à-vis defensive ones. This relationship reflects the greater pro-cyclicality of European equities compared to those of the US. Moreover, the earnings revision ratio of cyclical stocks relative to that of defensive equities mimics the fluctuations in economic surprises (Chart 1, bottom panel), as weaker-than-expected growth invites analysts to lower their relative earning expectations. The dynamics in the economic surprise index also weighed heavily on the FX market. The dollar is a highly counter-cyclical currency; therefore, it performs poorly when growth is not only increasing, but also doing so at a rate faster than anticipated. However, economic surprises did the exact opposite this year, which boosted the dollar’s appeal and pushed EUR/USD lower (Chart 2). While the strength in the dollar was accentuated by the increasingly aggressive pricing of Fed hikes in the OIS curve, relative interest rate expectations between the US and the Euro Area are also influenced by global economic activity because of the European economy’s greater cyclicality than that of the US. Chart 1Where Surprises Go, European Stocks Follow Chart 2Surprises Matter For The Dollar And The Euro Bottom Line: Global growth has been very strong in 2021, but it has begun to decelerate. Moreover, economic surprises are now in negative territory. The evolution of economic surprises this year was a key component of the strength in the dollar, the weakness of the euro, and the underperformance of European equities. Improving Surprises In 2022? We anticipate economic surprises to pick up in 2022. First, investors and analysts around the world rightfully expect a slowdown in global growth next year. This means that the bar for the economy to generate positive surprises is lower than it was in 2021. Second, we are already seeing signs that global economic surprises are trying to stabilize. A GDP-weighted aggregate of 48 countries is forming a trough at a low level, which historically precedes a pick-up in broader aggregate measures (Chart 3). Third, economic surprises move closely with the global PMI diffusion index. The diffusion index has fallen to levels historically associated with a rebound (Chart 4). Moreover, the share of countries whose Leading Economic Indicator is rising is still very depressed for a mid-cycle slowdown (Chart 4, bottom panel). As vaccination rates are improving around the world, including those in emerging markets, and as the global economy continues to re-open, we anticipate both the PMI and LEI diffusion indexes to improve next year, which will boost economic surprises. Chart 3A Budding Rebound? Chart 4The dispersion Of Growth Matters or Surprises Fourth, the global capex outlook remains very positive. Capex intentions in the US and in the Euro Area are highly elevated and cash flows are strengthening. Moreover, US and European credit standards are very loose (Chart 5). This combination suggests that companies have the desire and the wherewithal to increase their investments next year, especially as capacity constraints limit their ability to meet final demand. Additionally, companies around the world need to rebuild inventory levels, which are depressed relative to sales, while customer inventories are still woefully low (Chart 6). Chart 5Capex Tailwinds Chart 6Not Enough Inventories Chart 7Households Are Rich Fifth, households globally also have ample firepower to support their spending, despite some weakness in real income caused by rising inflation. As Chart 7 shows, household net worth in the US is up by 128% of GDP since December 2019. Additionally, the accumulated stocks of household excess savings have reached USD2.4 trillion in the US, EUR150 billion in German, EUR130 billion in France and GBP180 billion in the UK. With respect to the Eurozone specifically, fiscal and monetary policy will remain very accommodative. The fiscal thrust in 2022 will be negative 2.1%, which is significantly less onerous than the US’s -5.9% of GDP. Moreover, economies like Italy and Spain may have a negligible fiscal thrust because of the NGEU program’s disbursements. In addition, while the fiscal thrust will be slightly negative next year, government deficits will remain wide, which indicates that fiscal policy in Europe continues to support demand. Meanwhile, monetary policy still generates deeply negative interest rates on the continent, which sustains demand further. This view is not without risks. The first threat stems from the Chinese credit slowdown. BCA’s China strategists expect credit flows to bottom out by the second quarter of 2022, which implies that Chinese domestic activity should accelerate meaningfully in the second half of the year.  Already, we are seeing tentative signs that authorities in China are trying to curb the credit slowdown. For example, Beijing cut the reserve requirement ratio last summer and excess reserves in the banking system are moving back up as liquidity injections grow (Chart 8). The problem is that, so far, Chinese credit demand is not responding to these small measures designed to ease policy. More will be needed as the tightening in financial conditions for real estate developers points to significant downside ahead in construction activity (Chart 9). For now, it is difficult for Beijing to ease policy much more than it has done so far: PPI has reached a 25-year high at 13.5%. Chart 8Not Enough... Chart 9... Especially With Such A Drag These Chinese inflationary pressures are likely to decline in the first months of 2022, which will allow Beijing to become more aggressive in its support to economic activity. First, Chinese demand is weak, unlike demand in the US. Second, the surge in the PPI is mostly driven by a 17% increase in the energy PPI and a 66% surge in the mining component. These jumps are unlikely to repeat themselves, which will reduce overall inflationary numbers in that economy. The second major risk is global inflation, which is hurting real wages. As a case in point, US real wages are contracting at a 3.2% annual rate, or their deepest cut in six decades. In Europe too, real wages are weak because of the increase in inflation. While these inflationary pressures have had limited effect on European consumer confidence so far, US consumer confidence is breaking down (Chart 10), driven by a collapse in the willingness to buy. If this trend continues, we might see a significant deceleration in global real consumer spending. Chart 10Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front We still expect the European inflationary risk to start dissipating in the first half of 2022. Unlike in the US, the spike in core CPI mostly reflects an increase in VAT and remains narrow, with trimmed-mean CPI lingering near record lows. Moreover, the 24-month rate of change of core CPI remains within the historical norm, which is not the case in the US. The US situation is more tenuous. Last week’s inflation data showed a broadening of inflationary pressures across major sectors of the economy unaffected by the pandemic, with shelter inflation being of particular concern. However, there are positives. Long-term inflation expectations, as approximated by the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rate, are still below the levels that prevailed before the oil price crash of 2014 (Chart 11, top panel). Additionally, shipping costs have started to ebb, with global container freight rates losing steam and the Baltic Dry index collapsing by 50% since beginning of October (Chart 11, bottom panel). Moreover, as health restrictions are being relaxed in Asia, Asian PMI’s are improving, while the production of semiconductors is rising again in the region (Chart 12). As a result, although there is still significant inflation risk over the next five years, 2022 is likely to witness a temporary pullback in CPI growth. Chart 11Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front Chart 12Semiconductor Production Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Global investors are right to anticipate a decline in global growth next year. However, even if growth slows, it will remain above trend. Moreover, the considerable stimuli in the global economy and the decreased expectations of investors improve the odds that global economic surprises will increase in 2022. China’s domestic weakness and the rise in US inflation constitute the two greatest risks to this view. Investment Implications The level of the global economic surprise index as well as its evolution have important implications for many key European assets. Table 1 highlights the performance of various financial markets at three months, six months, and a year following various ranges of readings of the surprise index (the categories are based on one standard-deviation intervals from the mean). We highlight this methodology, because there remains significant uncertainty about the near-term outlook of the surprise index. Table 1Level Of Surprises And Subsequent Returns Currently, the global economic surprise index stands at -20, or between its -1-sigma and its historical average. This level offers limited clear results for investors when it comes to the performance of the Eurozone benchmark relative to the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), and no clear results in terms of the performance of value stocks relative to growth. However, the current reading of the surprise index is consistent with an outperformance of growth stocks relative to momentum over both the three- and six-month horizons. It is also showing a 74% probability of small-cap equities beating large-cap ones over a 12-month basis. Table 2 shows the performance of the same assets over the same windows, following three consecutive months or more of an improving global economic surprise index. This is consistent with our main hypothesis that global economic surprises are set to increase by early next year. Table 2Surprise Upticks And Subsequent Returns Using this method again shows no strong call for the Euro Area equity benchmark relative to the ACWI. There is a small improvement in performance, but Europe on average still underperforms, which reflects the thirteen years of a relative bear market in European equities. Similarly, results for European value stocks compared to growth equities are limited, as the sample is dominated by the structurally poor performance of value equities. However, this method highlights that the euro is likely to appreciate against the USD on both the three- and six-month investment horizon. This message is consistent with that of our Intermediate-Term Timing Model. Finally, this approach once again underscores the attractiveness of European small-cap equities on a three-, six-, and twelve-month investment horizon. Consequently, we maintain our buy recommendation on the euro. As we wrote three weeks ago, the near-term outlook for the common currency is fraught with risks and the low readings of the global economic surprise index confirm this reality.  Moreover, markets might enter a phase when they aggressively discount Fed rates hikes next year, which would further hurt the euro. However, the outlook for global growth will ultimately put a floor under EUR/USD. Chart 13Small-Caps: Almost There We also view European small-cap stocks as the premier equity vehicle in Europe over the coming 18 months because of their heightened pro-cyclicality.  However, the timing around shifting toward overweighing small-cap remains risky in the near-term, as they have not fully worked out the overbought conditions we flagged four weeks ago (Chart 13). Thus, we maintain small-cap equities on an upgrade alert, and we are looking to pull the trigger very soon.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com     Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance