Equities

Highlights The highly uncertain backdrop calls for taking less near-term risk: It may be boring, but it’s only prudent for asset allocators to limit risk exposures when the distribution of economic and public health outcomes is so unusually wide. The US reported record daily COVID-19 infections last Wednesday and Thursday: Several southern and western states that led the way in easing social distancing measures are now experiencing record-high infection rates. Some states are pausing their reopening plans, and the recovery may be more drawn out than expected. Bank stocks sold off after the stress tests, but we’re still a fan of the SIFIs: The year-over-year increases in projected losses weren’t that large, and we still think the SIFIs will suffer smaller credit losses than the market expects. Feature Neutral is dull, neither hot nor cold, neither here nor there, and recommending a benchmark equity weighting in a balanced portfolio makes us restless. We see an equity equal weight as no more than a temporary pause while we wait for the balance between risk and reward to shift enough to merit an underweight or an overweight. When conditions are unusually uncertain, however, we recognize that staying within sight of the shore is prudent. Investors should only take risks when they judge that they will be adequately compensated for doing so. The IMF titled last week’s update to its World Economic Outlook, in which it lowered its 2020 global GDP growth forecast to -4.9% from April’s -3%, “A Crisis Like No Other, An Uncertain Recovery.” As the 1918-19 influenza outbreak is the only global public health threat approaching COVID-19 in terms of its seriousness and its reach, investors have to proceed without a ready basis of comparison. Six months after its emergence, there is still a great deal that we don’t know about the virus. It remains uncertain if developed economies have the hospital capacity and resource stockpiles to combat it, though many emerging economies clearly do not. Modeling the economic impact is further complicated by human vagaries. Public officials can make careful plans for the phased relaxation of activity restrictions, but there is no guarantee that the populace will abide by them. Clusters of unmasked patrons enjoying takeout service on the sidewalk outside the lower Manhattan bars that are open suggest that even likely Democratic voters are as tired of social distancing as the attendees packing the seats at the president’s recent rallies. It turns out that there is something that both sides can agree on, after all. The unpredictability of how well citizens will take direction can go the other way, as well. Just as steadily declining infection rates emboldened people to emerge from their cocoons sooner than officials wished, they may be reluctant to quit them even after officials sound the all-clear signal. As our European Investment Strategy colleagues have noted, economic activity in Sweden, which imposed barely any virus restrictions, was just as weak as it was in neighboring countries that sharply limited movement. The takeaway is that government officials may not have all that much say over how citizens change their behavior amidst a pandemic. There is a possibility, then, that even if officials become comfortable with fully reopening the economy, participants may balk at returning to some corners of it. Officials might throw a party, only to find that very few people will come. The bottom line is that economic conditions are still extremely uncertain, and we will remain in our tactically neutral limbo until we get some clarity about the virus’ path or until equity prices move significantly. Ready Or Not, Here We Come US equities stumbled last week as new COVID-19 infections staged a comeback, with the 7-day moving average rising for 13 straight days and counting (Chart 1). Increases in infections are an inevitable consequence of the expiration of temporary stay-at-home orders that stymied transmission by keeping people apart. The locus has begun to shift from a still largely limited New York City to the southern and western states that were among the first to reopen their economies. As infection rates surged beyond Gotham, the US set consecutive daily infection records last Wednesday and Thursday. Chart 1US Daily New Infections We reiterate that rising cases are no surprise. It is a certainty that more people will contract a communicable disease once large swaths of the population are released from quarantine. But the sharp increases in cases may inspire investors to ask some uncomfortable questions. The lockdowns were meant to buy time for officials to design a testing, tracing and isolation framework that other countries have successfully wielded to short-circuit the spread of the virus. Did the United States use that time to build a workable framework? If not, are conditions materially different than they were in March, when stay-at-home orders began to be issued? The testing process continues to be beset by snags. The US is now capable of administering half a million tests a day, according to health officials’ testimony before Congress last week, and they expect capacity to triple by the fall. That capacity is fragmented across several small labs and testing facilities, however, and it can take as much as a week to obtain results, hampering attempts to isolate those who test positive. The absence of a central authority to direct resources where they’re most needed as new nodes emerge undermines the aggregate national capabilities.1 Turnabout Is Fair Play New York City quickly became the global epicenter once the pandemic entered the United States on account of its density, its residents’ reliance on public transportation and its position as an international crossroads. Counties across the entire metropolitan area, stretching into New Jersey and Connecticut, suffered high per-capita infection rates. Nowhere else in the US needed lockdown measures more than New York City, and it only entered the second stage of a four-stage phased re-opening last week. Other states, observing how the virus besieged New York in March and April, imposed restrictions on New York residents traveling to their states, fearing that they could potentially spread the virus far and wide. The rise in infection rates isn't surprising, but its steepness might cause investors to revisit their virus assumptions. The shoe is now on the other foot. New York has steadily reduced its new infection rate for two months and its 7-day moving average of new infections is just one-fifteenth of its early April peak (Chart 2, top panel). It is now nervously eyeing states suffering new outbreaks, and it announced 14-day quarantine measures for visitors from nine states – Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington – last week. The visitor quarantines are a voluntary measure, and thus likely to have little practical effect, but they highlight the way that several states that have reopened are seeing sharply rising per-capita infection rates relative to the entire country. Alabama’s stay-at-home order ended on April 30th. Its relative per-capita infection rate began to rise immediately (Chart 3, bottom panel). Its 7-day moving average of new infections has since experienced three surges, with the last and most potent causing it to more than double across nine days from June 8th to June 16th (Chart 3, top panel). That span included four consecutive days of record infections. Chart 2New York Daily New Infections Chart 3Alabama Daily New Infections Arizona’s outbreak has been remarkably swift. Its stay-at-home order expired on May 15th, and both its 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 4, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 4, bottom panel) inflected sharply higher fourteen days later. The former series has risen sixfold since residents regained their ability to circulate freely outside of their homes. Arkansas did not have a statewide stay-at-home order, but several measures to slow the virus’ spread were imposed. Restaurants re-opened with capacity limits on May 11th, and by month’s end Arkansas’ 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 5, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 5, bottom panel) had begun to inflect sharply higher. Chart 4Arizona Daily New Infections Chart 5Arkansas Daily New Infections The story is similar across the rest of the states subject to New York’s quarantine. Stay-at-home orders end, stores, bars and restaurants reopen, and infection rates surge with a lag of about two weeks. Florida and Texas, the two most populous states on New York’s list, fit the general pattern, though the rate at which their infections has grown has been striking. Last Wednesday, Florida topped its previous single-day new infection record by 36%2 (Chart 6, top panel), while Texas surpassed its daily high by 30% (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6Florida Daily New Infections Chart 7Texas Daily New Infections What’s That Have To Do With The Price Of Stocks In New York? Some of the increase in infection rates is surely a function of more widely available testing. An assessment of what increased state infection rates mean for the course of the virus in any individual state or the entire country is beyond the scope of this report, not to mention our qualifications. Our intention is simply to assess whether US equities are vulnerable to the rising state case counts. We think they could be. Combined daily new infections in Florida and Texas now exceed New York's worst levels in the first half of April. We have previously written that the political will for social distancing measures has dissipated. For many state and local leaders, a return to lockdowns is not an option, and both Missouri’s and Texas’ governors have said as much, in no uncertain terms. There must be an infection level, however, that would force their hands, no matter the depth of their personal opposition. On Thursday, Texas’ governor halted any further easing of restrictions and signed an order suspending elective procedures at hospitals in the counties encompassing Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, all the while reiterating that rolling back reopening measures was a last resort.3 A resurgence in infection rates isn’t an investment concern per se, but it could become one if it encourages state and/or municipal authorities to reinstitute strict social distancing measures or freeze steps toward reopening local economies. There is also a potential threat to consumer confidence, which could be much harder to combat. Reopening an economy too soon could produce a more persistent drag than locking it down for too long. Premature easing that leads to a widely observed surge in infections may make individuals wary of leaving their homes lest they encounter the virus. Hasty measures meant to unshackle economic activity could backfire by sapping confidence that takes a long time to restore. The bottom line is that the combination of virus risks and an elevated forward earnings multiple keeps us from changing our neutral tactical stance to overweight. We are not inclined to underweight stocks, however, unless the S&P 500 approaches its all-time high around 3,400, given the potential for a positive virus surprise and individual and institutional investors’ ample cash holdings. Over a one-year horizon, we remain overweight equities as we do not see the pandemic exerting a permanently negative impact on corporate earnings. SIFI Bank Update The Fed released the results of its annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST) after the close last Thursday. The verdict was decidedly mixed. Investors and the financial media were keenly focused on the fate of bank dividends, and while the Fed did not forbid dividend payments, it capped third-quarter distributions at the lesser of a bank’s second-quarter dividend payment or the average of its trailing four-quarter earnings. It also said it would not allow any share repurchases in the third quarter, extending the largest banks' voluntary buyback pause. Among the SIFIs, Wells Fargo (WFC) is most likely to be constrained by the dividend cap, but its stock, lagging the rest of its peers’, already discounted that possibility. Our thesis that the SIFI banks will not incur credit losses as large as the market expects is still intact, provided Congress doesn’t abandon pandemic-stricken businesses, state and local governments or the unemployed in its follow-up to the CARES Act. The Fed's stress tests highlighted the many risks the banking system still faces, but we stand behind our call to overweight the SIFIs. If Congress plays its part, reserve builds roughly equivalent to half of the credit losses projected under the severely adverse scenario should prove to be more than sufficient. Table 1 updates the table we created after first quarter earnings releases to assess the adequacy of each bank’s loan-loss reserves. It shows that the total projected stress-test losses for the SIFIs are just 8.6% larger than they were in 2019, with only JP Morgan (JPM) facing a material increase in its loan-loss rate. A modest increase in maximum projected losses suggests only a modest increase in future provisions, and we still believe that another two quarters of provisions equivalent to the first quarter’s will be enough for each bank ex-WFC, which continues to look under-provisioned alongside its peers. Table 1Loan-Loss Reserves Vs. Updated Stress Test Projections Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kliff, Sarah, “Arizona ‘Overwhelmed’ With Demand for Tests as U.S. System Shows Strain,” New York Times, June 25, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/virus-testing-shortfall-arizona.html 2 As we went to press Friday afternoon, Florida announced over 8,900 new cases, 60% above Wednesday's high. 3 As we went to press Friday afternoon, the governor had just issued an order closing all Texas bars.

Special Report

Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, we are publishing a Special Report on the geopolitical implications of COVID-19 from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt discusses the rise of nationalism with each successive global crisis and the negative implications for globalization. I hope you find his report insightful. Next week, we will publish our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.

The market gapped to fresh recovery highs in early June, but the Fed’s June meeting that lacked any additional easing measures, undermined the overshoot phase since the March 23 lows. In fact, once the Fed had to ease off the QE gas pedal, the market almost immediately paused for breath (bottom panel). In addition, the recent news flow has not helped speculators, as interest in COVID-19 is on the rise anew (google search shown inverted, top panel). While there is uncertainty with regard to how many of the rising infections will lead to actual deaths, we doubt the global economy will come to a screeching halt again. Nevertheless, these marginally negative developments as well as the increase in (geo)political risks that we have been flagging since the June 8 Weekly Report can serve as a catalyst for a consolidation phase in the broad market at least until the November Presidential election. Bottom Line: While we remain cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market in the near-term, our bullish thesis remains intact on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon.  

One of the sectors that benefits from a falling greenback is the S&P energy sector. The energy sector enjoys a tight inverse correlation with the US dollar (top panel) as the sector has 8 percentage points higher foreign sales exposure than the S&P 500. As nearly all of the global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, a weakening USD underpins the price of crude oil (second panel). In turn, US energy sector exports rise reflecting the fall in the greenback (third panel). Finally, the S&P energy companies enjoy a boost to their income statements (bottom panel). In fact, the S&P energy sector was the best performing sector during three US dollar bear markets we analyzed in the most recent Special Report.  

In this Monday’s Special Report, we examined which S&P 500 GICS1 sectors have historically benefited from a falling greenback. Currently, piling evidence suggests that the path of least resistance will be lower for the US dollar. Looking at structural (five years+) dynamics, swelling twin deficits emit a bearish USD signal. In more detail, prior to COVID-19 outbreak, the US twin deficits were estimated to gradually rise towards the 7.5% mark (top panel), but now the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US fiscal deficit alone will be approximately 11% of nominal GDP for 2020 if not higher. In other words, the recent pandemic has exacerbated already structurally bearish dynamics for the US dollar. Switching gears from a structural to a medium term horizon (2-3 years), BCA’s four-factor macro model, is sending an unambiguous bearish message regarding the greenback’s fate (middle panel). Finally, on a short-term time horizon, the USD is lagging the money multiplier by approximately 3 months. The COVID-19 catalyzed recession and resulting money printing will likely exert extreme downward pressure on the US dollar (bottom panel).  

Please note that yesterday we published Special Report titled Do Not Overlook China’s Innovation Drive. Please click on it to access it. Today, we publish analysis on Brazil and Ukraine.   Chart I-1Brazilian Share Prices And Commodity Prices Move In Tandem A FOMO (fear-of-missing-out) mania has pushed equity prices higher around the world. Brazilian stocks, currency and credit markets, likewise, have been staging a rebound. There is evidence that in Brazil equity purchases by local investors have been driving up share prices.1 The absolute performance of Brazilian share prices and the exchange rate trend will likely depend on commodities prices and a global rally in risk assets (Chart I-1). In relative terms, Brazilian financial markets will underperform their EM counterparts because of the following: Brazil is on track for its worst economic contraction in the past century following the deep recession of 2014-2016 (Chart I-2). This is the first nominal GDP contraction in Brazil. Growth was feeble even before the pandemic struck, but the COVID-19 lockdowns were the last nail in the coffin for the economy. Given that Brazil has not been able to control the spread of the virus – having hit another high in daily new infections last Friday – major cities will be forced to maintain social distancing measures for longer, delaying a recovery in consumer and business confidence. Chart I-2The Level Of Economic Activity In Real And Nominal Terms Table I-1Brazil's Fiscal Package Is The Largest In The Region   While Brazil has deployed the largest COVID-19 fiscal package in the region (Table I-1), its economic recovery will lag behind the majority of EM and DM countries. State-sponsored loans have not been reaching small and micro businesses, which employ over half of the working force. Moreover, informal workers amount to about 20% of the country’s total population, and they also have not been receiving any economic benefits other than a $120 US dollar monthly stipend. Household income growth was subdued during the 2017-2019 recovery. To support their living standards, families were aggressively borrowing before the pandemic (Chart I-3, top panel). Now, with their income contracting and household debt servicing costs above 20% of disposable income, consumer loan defaults will mushroom (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Chart I-4 shows that non-performing loans (NPL) for households are rising as a share of total consumer loans. Chart I-3Household Income, Credit And Debt Service Chart I-4Mushrooming Consumer Delinquencies   The private banks’ NPL provisions are set to surge due to rising defaults. Consumer loans make up 53% of private banks’ non-earmarked (non state-directed) lending. Chart I-5 shows that bank share prices are highly correlated with the annual change in provisions (shown inverted). Hence, the further rise in provisions will continue undermining bank share prices. We published a Special Report on Brazilian banks on March 31 and their outlook remains dismal. Besides, facing high credit risks, private banks have tightened credit standards and loan origination is plummeting, further hurting the economy. The sheer size of the fiscal stimulus and the historic nominal GDP contraction will push the gross public debt-to-GDP ratio well above 100% by end-2020. As discussed in our previous reports,2 and provided local currency interest rates remain above nominal GDP growth, public debt is on an unsustainable trajectory (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Do Not Chase Brazilian Bank Stocks Chart I-6Government Bond Yields Are Well Above Nominal GDP Growth   Chart I-7The Social Security Deficit Is Widening The only way to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio in Brazil is via the central bank conducting substantial quantitative easing, i.e. monetary authorities purchasing local government bonds. This will push local bond yields much lower and over time boost nominal GDP growth. With interest rate on government debt below nominal GDP growth over several years, the condition of public debt sustainability will be achieved. However, this amounts to monetization of public debt and, if carried on a large scale, it will suffocate the exchange rate – the currency would depreciate a lot. Furthermore, the projected BRL 800 billion (11% of GDP) in savings from the infamous pension reform will be impossible to achieve. Chart I-7 shows that the social security deficit has widened since March due to the shortfall in revenues. Given social security revenues are derived from taxes on workers and businesses, this deficit will continue to increase as employment and wages collapse while pension payouts remain fixed. Finally, the political situation is in disarray and a presidential impeachment might be inevitable. President Bolsonaro has become even more radical and is in conflict with various branches of power. Meanwhile, corruption and electoral fraud investigations against him and his allies continue to develop. The key risk to our negative view is as follows: One could argue that investors have lost faith in the Bolsonaro administration and are actually looking forward to his removal from office. Hence, the escalating political crisis culminating in Bolsonaro’s impeachment would be bullish for financial markets. This is a valid perspective given Vice-president Mourão – who has the backing of the army and adheres to a more centrist view on a wide range of issues - would assume the presidency in the case of impeachment. He would maintain orthodox economic policies and cooperate with Congress. This kind of thinking from investors might be taking its cues from the political dynamics and market actions in early 2016, when Brazilian markets bottomed seven months before then President Dilma Rousseff was impeached. Brazil is on track for its worst economic contraction in the past century following the deep recession of 2014-2016. In addition, the long-term political outlook for Brazil might be turning positive. The quite popular ex-Justice Minister Sergio Moro hinted last week that he could run in the 2022 presidential race. While he did not explicitly announce his candidacy, he stated that he wants to “participate” in the public debate by presenting a pro-market and anti-corruption alternative to Bolsonaro. If Moro runs, he will likely win given his enormous popularity. His victory will be accordingly cheered by international and domestic investors as he would run on a platform of structural reforms. Chart I-8The Brazilian Real Is Only Modestly Cheap Nevertheless, in the near term Bolsonaro will try to maintain his grip on power as long as he can. Foreseeing the risk of impeachment, he has strengthened his ties with the big coalition of small centrist parties in Congress. For now, it is not clear if Congress will vote for his removal. Importantly, the more radical and autocratic Bolsonaro becomes in a bid to save his presidency, the higher the odds of Economy Minister Paulo Guedes resigning. This was the case with the Ministers of Health and Justice and the Secretary of the Treasury. The latter was a key figure in drafting economic reforms. If Guedes resigns, it will send shockwaves throughout the nation’s financial markets. Bottom Line: Continue underweighting Brazilian equities and fixed income within their respective EM universes. We took profits on our short BRL/long USD position on June 4th due to tactical considerations. Investors should consider shorting the BRL again. The BRL is somewhat but not very cheap (Chart I-8). Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ukraine: An Opportunity In Bonds Is Still Present Investors should stay long local currency government bonds and continue overweighting the nation’s sovereign credit within the EM sovereign credit universe. Ukraine is pursuing prudent fiscal policy under the auspices of the IMF. With the government refraining from announcing a large-scale fiscal spending package amid the COVID-19 outbreak, its fiscal overall and primary deficits will widen to 8% and 4% of GDP, respectively. In particular, the increase in healthcare and social spending will be partially offset by both a reduction in discretionary spending and a cap on public wages. Such a conservative policy approach is negative for growth but will result in lower inflation and a stable exchange rate. Critically, a prudent fiscal policy will allow the central bank to cut interest rates. Both headline and core consumer price inflation are well below the lower end of the central bank’s target band (Chart II-1). Nominal wage growth is heading toward zero and will probably deflate by the end of this year (Chart II-2). Falling domestic demand will ensure that any rise in inflation due to currency depreciation will be modest. Chart II-1Inflation Is Undershooting Chart II-2Wage Growth Is Subdued!   As a result of considerable disinflation, real interest rates are still very high. Elevated real rates warrant large interest rate cuts by the central bank. Deflated by core consumer inflation, the real policy rate is 8% and the real lending rate is 12% for companies and over 30% for consumer credit (Chart II-3). A conservative policy approach is negative for growth but will result in lower inflation and a stable exchange rate. High real rates will entice foreign portfolio capital. Chart II-4 demonstrates that foreign investors have reduced their holdings of local bonds from $5.2 billion at the end of 2019 to $3.75 billion currently. Given the very low real rates worldwide, Ukraine is one of few markets offering high real rates with decent macro policies, at least in the medium term. Chart II-3Elevated Real Rates Warrant More Rate Cuts By CB Chart II-4Foreign Inflows Could Resume   With regard to the balance of payments, the recently announced $5 billion IMF loan should help ease short-term funding for the country. The 18-month arrangement will provide the immediate disbursement of $2.1 billion with a second disbursement of $0.7 billion expected by the end of September after the IMF program review. Importantly, plummeting imports and relatively resilient exports will narrow the current account deficit (Chart II-5). Exports should remain supported by food exports, which represents close to 40% of overall exports. Besides, the central bank also carries $25 billion in foreign exchange reserves, which compares with $18 billion in foreign funding requirements for 2020 (Chart II-6). So far, the central bank has refrained from selling foreign exchange reserves but might do so if the currency depreciates significantly. Chart II-5Current Account Will Balance Soon Chart II-6Foreign Funding Requirements Are Covered By FX Reserves   Bottom Line: We continue to recommend holding 5-year local currency government bonds currently yielding 11%. Even though moderate currency depreciation cannot be ruled out, on a total return basis domestic bonds will deliver decent returns to foreign investors in the next 6-12 months.  EM fixed income investors should continue overweighting domestic bonds and sovereign US dollar credit within respective EM portfolios. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Investors ignore triple crisis and bet on equities 2     Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Countries In-Depth "Brazil: Deflationary Pressures Warrant A Weaker BRL," dated November 28, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Countries In-Depth "Brazil: Just Above "Stall Speed"," dated September 27, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did have a lockdown. This proves that the current recession is not ‘man-made’, it is ‘pandemic-made’. While the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios: favouring US T-bonds in bond portfolios, and technology and healthcare in equity portfolios. The technology sector has become defensive, largely because it has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Fractal trade: short AUD/CHF. Feature Chart I-IASweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Chart I-1B...But Led To Many More ##br##Infections Sweden and Denmark are neighbours. They speak near-identical languages and share a broadly similar culture and demographic. Yet the two countries have followed completely different strategies to halt the coronavirus pandemic. Sweden chose not to impose a lockdown. Instead, it opted for a ‘trust based’ approach, relying on its citizens to act sensibly and appropriately. Whereas Denmark imposed one of Europe’s earliest and most draconian lockdowns. The contrasting approaches of Sweden and neighbouring Denmark provide us with the closest thing to a controlled experiment on pandemic strategies. The Recession Is Not ‘Man-Made’, It Is ‘Pandemic-Made’ The surprising thing is that the economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did. This year, the unemployment rates in both economies have surged by 2 percentage points (albeit the latest data is for May in Sweden and April in Denmark). Furthermore, high-frequency measures of consumption show that Sweden suffered almost as severe a contraction as Denmark (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Chart I-2Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark This surprising result challenges the popular view that this global recession is man-made. This view argues that without the government-imposed lockdowns, the global economy would not have entered a tailspin. But if this view is right, then why did consumption crash in Sweden? The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behaviour to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behaviour is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark. People will shun public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, and even think twice about letting their children go to school. In a pandemic, the majority of people will change their behaviour even without a lockdown. But if the cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why impose a lockdown? The answer is that without a lockdown, the majority will behave sensibly to avoid catching the virus, but a minority will take a ‘devil may care’ attitude. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all coronavirus infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. All of which brings us back to Sweden versus Denmark.  As a result of not imposing a mandatory lockdown to rein in its super-spreaders, Sweden now has one of the world’s worst coronavirus infection and mortality rates, four times higher than Denmark (Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark Chart I-4Avoiding A Lockdown Meant More Infections… Chart I-5…And More ##br##Deaths Put simply, containing the pandemic depends on reining in a minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark. In contrast, the economy depends on the behaviour of the majority. In a pandemic the majority will voluntarily exercise caution. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in consumption. Looking ahead, will the widespread adoption of face masks and plexiglass screens change the public’s cautious behaviour? To a certain extent, yes – it will permit essential activities and let people take calculated risks. That said, if you are forced to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops, and you have to spread out in restaurants while being served by a masked waiter, then – rightly or wrongly – you are getting a strong signal: the danger is still out there. Meaning that many people will continue to shun discretionary activities and spending. The upshot is that while the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Explaining Why Technology Is Now Defensive A defensive bias to your portfolio now requires an exposure to technology – because in 2020 the tech sector is behaving like a classic defensive. Its relative performance is correlating positively with the bond price, like other classic defensive sectors such as healthcare (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... Chart I-7...Like Healthcare The behaviour of the technology sector in the current recession contrasts with its performance in the global financial crisis of 2008. Back then, it behaved like a classic cyclical – its relative performance correlated negatively with the bond price (Chart I-8). Begging the question: why has the tech sector’s behaviour flipped from cyclical to defensive? Chart I-8In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical The main reason is that the tech sector’s composition has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. In 2008, the sector market cap had a 65:35 tilt to technology hardware. But today, it is the mirror-image: a 65:35 tilt to computer and software services (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Computer and software services have many defensive characteristics suited to the current environment: For many companies, enterprise software is now business critical. It is a must-have rather than a like-to-have. Computer and software services use a subscription-based revenue model, minimising the dependency on discretionary spending. Computer and software services are helping firms to cut costs through automation and back-office efficiencies as well as facilitating the boom in ‘working from home’. The sector is cash rich. Despite these defensive characteristics, there remains a lingering worry: is the tech sector overvalued? The Rally In Growth Defensives Is Not A Mania  Some people fear that the recent run-up in stock markets does not make sense, other than as a ‘Robin Hood’ day-trader fuelled mania. After all, the pandemic is still very much in play, and so are other geopolitical risks, so how can some stock prices be near all-time highs? Yet the recent run-up in growth defensives such as tech and healthcare does make sense. Their valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield, implying that the rally is based on fundamentals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Simply put, if the 10-year T-bond is going to deliver a pitiful 0.7 percent a year over the next decade, then the prospective return from growth defensives must also compress. It would be absurd to expect these stocks to be priced for high single digit returns. Since late 2018, the decline in growth defensives’ forward earnings yield has broadly tracked the 250bps decline in the 10-year T-bond yield. Given that the forward earnings yield correlates well with the 10-year prospective return, the depressed bond yield is depressing the prospective return from growth defensives – as it should. Tech and healthcare valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield. But with the pandemic and geopolitical risks menacing in the background, shouldn’t the gap between the prospective return on stocks and bonds – the equity risk premium – be larger? This is open to debate. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the appeal of owning bonds also diminishes because bond prices have limited upside. Nevertheless, the gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield has gone up this year and is much larger than in 2018 (Chart I-11). This suggests that valuations are taking some account of the pandemic and other risks. Moreover, in a longer-term perspective the current gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield, at +4 percent, hardly indicates a mania. In the true mania of 2000, the gap stood at -4 percent! (Chart I-12) Chart I-11The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 Chart I-12Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania In summary, until the pandemic is conquered, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Bond investors should overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Equity investors should overweight the growth defensives, technology and healthcare, which implies overweighting the technology-heavy US versus Europe. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Stay overweight healthcare-heavy Switzerland, and bank-light France and Germany (albeit expect a technical 5 percent underperformance of Germany versus the UK in the coming weeks). And stay underweight bank-heavy Austria. Fractal Trading System* The AUD is technically overbought and vulnerable to a tactical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/CHF, with a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 4.2 percent. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-13AUD/CHF 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.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@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