Corporate

Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending   US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6).   Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened.   Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets.   Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around   Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13).   The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity   If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing   Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Special Trade Recommendations Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around

Highlights The incidents of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults late last year reflected deteriorating corporate balance sheets and exposed local governments’ weakening fiscal positions. Both were preexisting conditions that worsened due to the pandemic. China’s policymakers have vowed to accelerate restructuring the SOE/corporate sector, but they face a dilemma between economic stability and painful reforms; the outcome will ultimately depend on policymakers’ pain thresholds. In the next 6 to 12 months, the policy tightening cycle will continue and credit growth will decelerate. Chinese stocks are already more expensive than before the start of the last policy tightening cycle. We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable stocks for now. Feature The days of China’s unconditional bailout of state firms may be over. In the past six months, Beijing has embarked on a series of reform agendas, including restructuring and stricter regulations targeting SOEs and the broader spectrum of the corporate sector. When three SOEs defaulted on bond payments late last year, neither the central nor the local government supported those firms. Allowing market forces to allocate capital to more productive firms by driving out the less efficient companies is structurally positive for the Chinese economy.  However, the pursuit of meaningful SOE and broader corporate reforms will be a tough choice for Chinese policymakers this year while the economic recovery is underway. Ultimately, the degree and speed to reform SOEs will depend on how much near-term pain policymakers are willing to endure. We recommend a neutral position in Chinese stocks for now. We expect the financial markets to experience frequent mini-cycles in 2021 due to policy zigzags. Risks for policy miscalculations cannot be ruled out; equity prices will falter if Chinese authorities push for deeper reforms and tighter industry regulations while scaling back stimulus at the same time. Chinese stocks are already expensive and are vulnerable to authorities opting for much smaller stimulus and harsher corporate/SOE reforms. SOE Defaults: Policy Response Matters More Than Defaults Chart 1Policy Zigzags And Market Mini-Cycles Policy Zigzags And Market Mini-Cycles Policy Zigzags And Market Mini-Cycles A flurry of high-profile defaults by state firms late last year unnerved investors and pushed up onshore corporate bond yields. Beijing’s move to allow SOEs to fail forced investors to reprice bonds issued by state firms as much riskier propositions. Following the defaults in November, the PBoC injected unusually large interbank liquidity; the de jure policy rate dropped and Chinese stock prices rallied (Chart 1). In our view, the recent liquidity injections do not provide enough evidence that macro policy is shifting to an easier bias. Despite a retreat in the short-term interbank rate, the authorities have plowed ahead with reforms and initiated more restrictions in key industries. In the coming months, investors should expect the following: SOE reforms will tolerate more bond defaults. Bank loans and local government bonds make up nearly 80% of China’s total domestic credit, whereas corporate bonds (including SOEs and local government financing vehicles (LGFVs)) account for only 10% of the total (Chart 2). Thus, even if corporate bond defaults push up yields, Beijing may see this as a small price to pay in the near term, in exchange for a market-driven system cleansing to eliminate inefficient SOEs. This outcome will be negative for corporate bonds (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Bond Issuance Make Up Only A Small Portion Of Total Financing Corporate Bond Issuance Make Up Only A Small Portion Of Total Financing Corporate Bond Issuance Make Up Only A Small Portion Of Total Financing Chart 3Periods Of Financial Tightening Dampen Corporate Bond Market Periods Of Financial Tightening Dampen Corporate Bond Market Periods Of Financial Tightening Dampen Corporate Bond Market Chart 4Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Policymakers may underestimate the unintended consequences of SOE defaults on credit flow and the broader economy. The central bank was able to engineer a sharp drop in its policy rate last month, which may prompt policymakers to believe that interbank liquidity injections are efficient market-calming measures and rising corporate bond yields will not impede overall credit growth. This may be true in the short term, however, tightened policy in the name of reforms has previously pushed up both the 3-month SHIBOR and bank lending rates, leading to a significant slowing in credit growth and an eventual slowdown in economic expansion (Chart 4). Reasons for such chain reactions are twofold. First, banks become more risk averse during a tightening cycle and charge higher premiums when lending to smaller financial institutions and the private sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Secondly, although Chinese SOEs can borrow from banks at much lower interest rates than private-sector entities (Chart 5), their heavy indebtedness makes them hyper-sensitive to even a slight uptick in financing costs. Chinese SOEs rely more on bank lending than bond issuance for financing and SOE borrowers dominate China’s bank credit to the corporate sector.1  Chart 6 shows that the rise in the weighted average lending rate in 2017 was relatively minor compared with levels that prevailed in the past decade. Nonetheless, a less than one percentage point hike in the lending rate materially slowed credit growth and the investment-driven sectors of China's economy. Chart 5SOEs Tend To Have Lower Borrowing Costs, Partially Reflecting Implicit Government Guarantees China's SOE Reform Dilemma China's SOE Reform Dilemma Chart 6Small Rise In Lending Rate, Large Fall In Credit Growth Small Rise In Lending Rate, Large Fall In Credit Growth Small Rise In Lending Rate, Large Fall In Credit Growth   Regulatory pressures will lead to de facto tightening. As outlined in our 2021 Outlook report, as part of the macroeconomic policy normalization, credit growth will likely decelerate by two to three percentage points this year from 2020. The extended Macro Prudential Assessment (MPA) System will wrap up by year-end and financial institutions will need to start slowing their asset balance sheets to meet the assessments. Moreover, last week the central government revised Measures for the Performance Evaluation of Commercial Banks. The modified version factors lending to the new-economy sectors and micro and small enterprises into the performance evaluation and salaries of the state-owned and controlled commercial banks’ management.2 The new measures will likely dampen the banks’ propensity to lend to old-economy sectors, such as real estate and traditional infrastructure. All in all, a faster-than-desired slowdown in credit growth will ensue if policymakers simultaneously allow more SOE/corporate defaults, undertake industry reforms, and implement tighter banking regulations in 2021. This is negative for both economic growth and the equity market. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers will likely allow more SOE defaults in the coming months. In addition to an increased number of SOE defaults that is negative for the corporate bond market, sped up industry restructuring and more stringent regulations may lead to a sharp fall in credit growth and stock prices. Worsening Old Economy SOEs’ Financial Positions Chart 7SOEs Are Less Efficient Than Private Firms In Profitability And Productivity China's SOE Reform Dilemma China's SOE Reform Dilemma An acceleration in SOE reforms may trigger near-term risks, but a delay in restructuring China’s loss-making SOEs will have repercussions in the long term. The explicit and implicit government protections for SOEs have eroded their efficiencies compared with the private sector (Chart 7). The most significant side effect is a rapid rise in SOE leverage and diminishing profitability in some of the old economy sectors. It may be a dead end for the government to continue bailing out state firms with inefficient operations and financial losses. A Special Report we previously published  showed that among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors, which account for half of all SOEs in China, the adjusted return on assets (ROA) versus borrowing costs has been negative since 2013 (Chart 8). This suggests that SOE investment funded by higher leverage cannot produce sufficient income to repay debt. During the last tightening cycle that started in late 2016, policymakers managed to rein in local SOE debt growth, but it reversed course in 2018 due to a collapse in domestic demand (Chart 9).  As Chart 8 illustrates, ROA among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors has significantly deteriorated since then. Chart 8SOEs Financial Gains From Debt Are In Deep Contraction SOEs Financial Gains From Debt Are In Deep Contraction SOEs Financial Gains From Debt Are In Deep Contraction Chart 9China Was Successful In Reining In SOE Debt, But Only Briefly China Was Successful In Reining In SOE Debt, But Only Briefly China Was Successful In Reining In SOE Debt, But Only Briefly Bottom Line: A continued capital misallocation by perpetually leveraging SOEs and LGFVs with negative marginal operating gains will eventually lead to a self-reinforcing debt trap. In turn, that would precipitate a default en masse and necessitate a larger government bailout. Another Layer To The SOE Reform Dilemma The central government’s SOE reform agenda is further complicated by the involvement of local governments (LGs). We have several observations: First, a meaningful SOE restructuring, which would require consolidating/liquidating some of the unprofitable SOE assets, may expose the LGs’ fiscal vulnerabilities to both investors and regulators. The fiscal weakness of China’s provincial-level governments is illustrated by the bond-payment default of Yongcheng Coal, a SOE from Henan Province. Henan is economically sound with GDP growth above the national average. However, when considering the province’s direct and hidden debt, debt servicing costs, and liquidity availability, Henan is in a group of 10 provinces with the worst fiscal conditions in 2020.3 This implies that LG officials may not have been able to bail out Yongcheng even if they wanted to. Moreover, cash-strapped LGs have reportedly formed reciprocal and entrenched relationships with local SOEs. These SOEs may carry debt for LGs and in turn, free up an LG’s borrowing capacity. When these SOEs fail, the credibility of LG officials may be questioned and investigated by the central government. As such, LGs are incentivized to protect their local SOEs.  Chart 10More Defaults, More Bank Lending China's SOE Reform Dilemma China's SOE Reform Dilemma Secondly, removing the government’s bailout of SOE debt defaults does not negate the underlying factor eroding SOE productivity: the government’s support of local SOEs with easier access to bank loans. Banks, which heavily influence LGs, are not always vigilant about risks associated with local SOE debt. Banks provide loans at preferential rates to localities and their affiliated SOEs. In return, LGs often award banks financing opportunities for profitable infrastructure projects. In this regard, local SOE bond defaults are not necessarily detrimental to bank profits because banks can make up their losses through financing more lucrative projects. Studies show that even when some LGs have experienced large-scale SOE bond defaults, lending to these LGs from commercial banks actually increased relative to other forms of financing (Chart 10). Beijing must take bold measures to break up the long-standing relationship between LGs and SOEs in order to achieve any market-oriented reform of local SOEs. The LGs will likely strongly resist severing the connection. Lastly, given that SOEs are often deployed to support the central government’s economic, political and strategic initiatives, LGs can use those grand initiatives to help justify their local SOEs’ existence - even unprofitable ones. Bottom Line: Beijing faces a tough choice between implementing effective SOE reforms and worsening local governments’ fiscal conditions with negative implications for economic growth. While allowing more SOE bond defaults can force investors to reprice SOE credit risks, as long as the implicit government support for SOEs through bank lending still exists, allocating capital to more efficient private-sector companies will be a formidable task. Investment Conclusions Some economists argue that China’s SOE debt should be considered part of public-sector leverage because many SOE investments are affiliated with government projects. Additionally, Chinese SOEs have accumulated massive assets, which can more than offset their debt4 and make SOE bonds and debt low- risk propositions. Moreover, even though the government may allow more SOE bond defaults, if the defaults threaten China’s financial stability, then the government can move non-performing debt from LGs and SOEs to the balance sheets of the central bank or central government. There are several issues with this argument. The stock of assets in a large portion of Chinese SOEs5 has persistently failed to generate sufficient cash flow to service debt, which implies that the true value of the assets may be low and will likely be sold at below cost when liquidated. It is not useful to compare book value of assets with debt because the true value of assets is contingent on the income/cash flow that they generate. We agree that public-sector leveraging/deleveraging is fundamentally a political choice in countries with control over their own monetary policy and debt is in local currency. Theoretically, a country can monetize public and private local currency-denominated debt via a central bank or government- controlled commercial banks. In such a case, the authorities will have little control over inflation, the exchange rate, and the long-term productivity.   For now, Chinese policymakers seem to be on a path of accelerating reform, an indication that they want to avoid bailing out state firms and private-sector companies. In addition, President Xi’s “dual circulation” mantra emphasizes the importance of improving the country’s corporate efficiency and productivity. We think that consolidating some inefficient SOE sectors in the old economy fits such initiative. Our baseline view is that the SOE consolidation process will be gradual and the PBoC will provide sufficient liquidity in an effort to prevent market jitters. At the same time, the sharp turns in the policy rate in the past six months are prime examples of the periodic oscillation in China’s policymaking between maintaining economic stability and pursuing meaningful reforms. The policy swings will create mini-cycles for Chinese risk asset prices. Chinese stocks are not cheap compared with values at the start of the last policy tightening cycle (Chart 11A and 11B). We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable equities for the time being. CHART 11AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle Investable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle Investable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle CHART 11BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Are Still Elevated China's SOE Reform Dilemma China's SOE Reform Dilemma   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Based on the OECD estimates, SOEs’ share of China’s total corporate debt escalated from 46% in 2013 to roughly 80% in 2018.  2Banks included in the new appraisal system are state-owned and state-controlled commercial lenders, and other commercial banks may also refer to the guidelines. Lenders will be evaluated yearly and the results will be factored into the annual reviews of top bank executives as salary determinants. Each of the four new categories will carry an equal weighting. The “national development goals and real economy” category has four benchmarks: serving the government’s “ecological civilization strategy” to encourage lending for green industries and companies; serving strategic emerging industries; implementing the “two increases” - inclusive lending to micro and small enterprises; and implementing the “two controls” - nonperforming loans and borrowing costs of micro and small enterprises. The category “controlling and preventing risks” includes metrics on bad loan ratios, the nonperforming loan growth rate, provision coverage, liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios. 3“Seeing Through the Frosted Glass: Assessing Chinese Local Governments’ Creditworthiness”, Pengyuan Rating Public Finance Report, June 2020 4Chinese SOE assets are estimated to have reached 2.3 times China’s 2019 GDP, whereas their debt is close to 130% of GDP. 5IMF estimated that about a quarter of Chinese SOEs were operating at a loss in 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out… November 2020 November 2020   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want November 2020 November 2020   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds November 2020 November 2020 A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists ...And Populists ...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Treasuries: Bond yields held steady in September, even as the stock market sold off sharply. This leads us to conclude that long-maturity Treasury yields have room to fall in the near-term if progress towards a fiscal stimulus package moves too slowly. We continue to recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon. Corporates: Corporate spreads widened significantly in September, but they still embed a relatively optimistic default outlook. While corporate leverage has peaked, some labor market indicators have stalled. This makes us question whether defaults can improve enough to meet lofty market expectations. Continue to overweight investment grade corporates and Ba-rated junk on a 6-12 month horizon, while avoiding junk bonds rated B and lower. A Fed-Driven Sell-Off? Chart 1Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September It might seem odd to think of this month’s market weakness as a reaction to an overly hawkish Fed. With the funds rate pinned at its effective lower bound and no rate hikes expected until 2024 (at least), monetary conditions have never been more accommodative. However, the relative performance of different asset classes in September leads us to only one conclusion. Financial markets had been priced for even more central bank dovishness this month, and came away disappointed. Equity Sectors Responded To Monetary Tightness, Not Weaker Growth First, consider the simple observation that risk assets (equities and credit) have sold off sharply since September 2nd but the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index actually underperformed a position in cash (Chart 1). Investors have seen none of the usual hedging benefits from bonds. Some of this can be chalked up to the relative performance of different equity sectors (Table 1). Tech stock underperformance was responsible for the bulk of September’s market weakness, particularly early in the month. Meanwhile, the most cyclical (or growth-sensitive) sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – performed only slightly worse than traditionally defensive sectors. Typically, cyclical sectors perform worst when the stock market is responding to a negative re-rating of economic growth expectations. The fact that cyclicals weren’t the worst performers this month suggests that the sell-off had a different catalyst. Table 1Equity & Treasury Returns: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets The sector composition of the sell-off has important implications for bond yields because the relative performance between cyclical and defensive equity sectors explains more of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield than the overall performance of the stock market (Chart 2). Chart 2Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Commodities Suggest A Hawkish Policy Surprise … Table 2Commodities & Bond Yields: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets Second, consider the performance of industrial commodities and gold (Table 2). Growth-sensitive industrial commodities held up pretty well this month, but gold fared poorly. The relatively strong performance of industrial commodities suggests that markets were not pricing-in a significant shock to global growth expectations. Weakness in gold suggests that investors started to price-in less long-run inflation risk. This is the exact sort of performance you would expect if the central bank delivered an unexpected dose of monetary tightening. Along with the relative performance of equity sectors, the relative performance between industrial commodities and gold also helps explain why Treasury yields remained stable. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials Index and gold is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3). Chart 3Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio … As Do Inflation-Linked Bonds Third, we can look at relative movements in nominal yields, real yields and inflation breakevens. Recall that we like to think of nominal yields as being driven by fed funds rate expectations and of inflation breakevens as being driven by inflation expectations. Real yields have no independent driver, but can be calculated using the Fisher Equation:1 Real Yield = Nominal Yield – Inflation Expectations With that in mind, look at how yields have moved since the stock market’s September 2nd peak (Table 2). The 10-year TIPS breakevens rate is down sharply but the 10-year nominal yield is unchanged. This suggests that the market moved to price-in less long-run inflation risk alongside an unchanged path for the policy rate. The result of the interaction between those two drivers is a sharp move up in the 10-year real yield. Credit Performance Also Looks Policy Driven Table 3Corporate Bond Excess Returns*: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets Finally, we can look at the relative performance of different corporate bond credit tiers (Table 3). In a typical risk-off market driven by greater pessimism about the outlook for economic growth, we would expect to see the bulk of underperformance concentrated in the lowest credit tiers where bonds are most likely to default. However, since September 2nd, Ba-rated issuers have underperformed all lower-rated credit tiers, even distressed Ca/C-rated issuers. One possible explanation is that Ba-rated and higher corporate bonds generally benefit from the Fed’s emergency lending facilities while B-rated and lower credits are mostly locked out. It could be that September’s market moves reflect some increased pessimism about the Fed’s ability or willingness to stick with its emergency facilities. Or more likely, there had been some hopes that the Fed would somehow expand its current emergency lending facilities. Hopes that were dashed when Chair Powell testified to Congress last week and seemed to suggest that the Fed has already done all it can in this regard. Investment Implications For us, this is the main takeaway from September’s strange market moves: Fed policy is certainly in no rush to tighten, but equally, the Fed can’t deliver any further easing on its own. All it can do is continue to support credit markets with its current emergency facilities and refrain from lifting rates even if inflation starts to rise. Those looking for an additional dose of economic adrenaline should look to fiscal policymakers, not the Fed. With regards to markets, since September’s moves don’t appear to reflect expectations for weaker economic growth, we fret that such a shock could still emerge. The most likely near-term catalyst would be the failure of Congress to pass a new stimulus package. We have previously written that consumer spending will not be able to sustain a decent growth rate without additional income support from Congress.2 If it looks like a deal is not forthcoming or we see some negative consumer spending data, there is room for cyclical equity sectors and bond yields to move lower. We view this as a material near-term risk. September’s junk bond weakness was unusual in that higher-rated credits performed worse than lower-rated ones. Beyond the near-term, on a 6-12 month horizon, we continue to believe that the economic recovery will continue. Congress will ultimately deliver sufficient stimulus, though it may not come in time to prevent a near-term market reaction. The conflict between these near-term and medium-term views leads us to maintain our cautious cyclical investment stance. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while holding duration-neutral yield curve steepeners that are designed to profit from higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon.3 More specifically, we advise medium- and long-run investors who are already exposed to curve steepeners to stay the course. But if you aren’t yet exposed, it is a good idea to wait until a follow-up stimulus bill is announced before moving in. An Update On Corporate Sector Health And The Default Rate As noted above, September’s junk bond weakness was unusual in that higher-rated credits performed worse than lower-rated ones. As with our Treasury call, the fact that markets appeared to react to a policy shock and not a growth shock makes us nervous that a near-term growth shock is still not in the price. We see low-rated junk bonds as looking particularly complacent, especially when you consider that spreads continue to embed a relatively optimistic default outlook. Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Our workhorse valuation tool for junk bonds is the Default-Adjusted Spread. This is the average index option-adjusted spread less default losses observed over the subsequent 12-month period. For example, the Default-Adjusted Spread came in at -301 basis points for the 12-month period ending August 2020. This is equal to the August 2019 index spread of 393 bps less realized default losses of 694 bps that occurred between August 2019 and August 2020. Over time, we have found that the Default-Adjusted Spread does a good job of explaining excess junk returns and that, typically, a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps is required for high-yield to outperform duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon (Chart 4).4 Chart 4Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate With that knowledge, we can set a target Default-Adjusted Spread of 150 bps and calculate the default rate that would have to occur during the next 12 months to hit that target. We call this the Spread-Implied Default Rate, and it is presented in the bottom panel of Chart 4. As of today, the Spread-Implied Default Rate is 5.1%. This means that if the speculative grade default rate comes in below 5.1% during the next 12 months, then our Default-Adjusted Spread will be above 150 bps and junk bonds will likely outperform Treasuries. If the default rate turns out to be above 5.1%, then the prospects for junk bond outperformance look dimmer. Can The Default Rate Fall To 5%? The logical question then becomes whether it’s possible for the default rate to fall to 5% during the next 12 months. This would certainly be a rapid improvement from its current level of 8.7%, but not one that is without historical precedent. In fact, the default rate tends to fall very quickly when the economy is coming out of recession and, already, August saw only six default events. This is down from above 20 in May, June and July (Chart 5). Chart 5Only Six Defaults In August Only Six Defaults In August Only Six Defaults In August Obviously, whether August’s gains can be maintained depends on the speed of economic recovery. In particular, we focus on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage – the ratio between total debt and pre-tax profits – and job cut announcements (Chart 6). Chart 6Default Rate Drivers Default Rate Drivers Default Rate Drivers Looking first at leverage, corporate profits plunged in the second quarter but that will probably represent the cyclical trough (Chart 7, top panel). Already, we see that analysts are revising up their earnings expectations (Chart 7, panel 2). Typically, positive net earnings revisions coincide with positive profit growth. On the debt side, firms issued massive amounts of debt in the first and second quarters (Chart 7, panel 3), but that process is also over. We note that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – dipped into negative territory in Q2 (Chart 7, bottom panel). This means that firms retained more earnings than they needed to cover capital expenditures and suggests that further debt issuance is not necessary. When the Financing Gap moved below zero in 2009, it ushered in a lengthy period of corporate deleveraging. Chart 7Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex It is therefore quite likely that both corporate sector leverage and the default rate have already peaked. The question is whether both can fall quickly enough to meet market expectations. Of this, we are less certain. When the Financing Gap moved below zero in 2009, it ushered in a lengthy period of corporate deleveraging. Job Cut Announcements – another predictor of corporate defaults – have also improved markedly since April, but they remain well above pre-COVID levels (Chart 8). Further, an array of other employment indicators suggest that labor market improvement has stalled during the past few weeks. Initial unemployment claims have flattened off and remain well above pre-COVID levels (Chart 8, panel 2). What’s more, high frequency data from scheduling firm Homebase show that the total number of employees working for companies using the Homebase software is no longer rising and is far below its pre-COVID level (Chart 8, bottom panel). It’s important to note that the Homebase data are biased toward small businesses, mostly in the restaurant, food & beverage, retail and services sectors. Those sectors have obviously been hit the hardest by COVID, but those are also the sectors where we are likely to see the bulk of corporate defaults. Chart 8Labor Market Indicators Labor Market Indicators Labor Market Indicators Investment Conclusions We are confident that the default rate has peaked, but we aren’t yet confident enough to recommend owning B-rated and below junk bonds. To make that recommendation we would need to have confidence that the default rate will move to 5% or lower during the next 12 months. The default rate was already 4.5% in the 12 months prior to COVID, and it now appears that most labor market data are stalling at worse than pre-COVID levels. An array of employment indicators suggest that labor market improvement has stalled during the past few weeks. We reiterate our recommendation to overweight investment grade and Ba-rated corporate bonds, while avoiding high-yield bonds rated B and lower. We will consider adding exposure to low-rated junk bonds if spreads rise to more attractive levels in the near-term and/or if Congress announces a significant stimulus package that looks poised to boost the economic recovery and labor market. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this forecasting framework please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our yield curve recommendations please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 To calculate the Spread-Implied Default Rate we also need to estimate the 12-month recovery rate. We assume a recovery rate of 25%, slightly better than the 20% recovery rate seen during the past 12 months. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. We will also be hosting a webcast on Thursday, October 1st at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where we will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic outlook: Global growth faces near-term challenges from a resurgence in the pandemic and the failure of the US Congress to pass a stimulus deal. However, growth should revive next year as a vaccine becomes available and fiscal policy turns stimulative again. Global asset allocation: Favor equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon, while maintaining somewhat larger than normal cash positions in the short run that can be deployed if stocks resume their correction. Equities: Prepare to pivot from the “Pandemic trade” to the “Reopening trade.” Vaccine optimism should pave the way for cyclicals to outperform defensives, international stocks to outperform their US peers, and for value to outperform growth. Fixed income: Bond yields will rise modestly, suggesting that investors should maintain below average duration exposure. Favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Spread product will outperform safe government bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will weaken over the next 12 months. The collapse in interest rate differentials, stronger global growth, and a widening US trade deficit are all bearish for the greenback. Commodities: Rising demand and constrained supply will support oil prices, while Chinese stimulus will buoy industrial metals. Investors should buy gold and other real assets as a hedge against long-term inflation risk. I. Macroeconomic Outlook Policy And The Pandemic Will Continue To Drive Markets Going into the fourth quarter of 2020, we are tactically neutral on global equities but remain overweight stocks and other risk assets on a 12-month horizon. As has been the case for much of the year, both the virus and the policy response to the pandemic will continue to be key drivers of market returns. Coronavirus: Still Spreading Fast, But Less Deadly On the virus front, the global number of daily new cases continues to trend higher, with the 7-day average reaching a record high of nearly 300,000 this week (Chart 1). Chart 1Globally, The Number Of Daily New Cases Continues To Trend Higher Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift The number of daily new cases in the EU has risen above its April peak. Spain and France have been particularly hard hit. Canada is also seeing a pronounced rise in new cases. In the US, the number of new cases peaked in July. However, the 7-day average has been creeping up since early September, raising the risk of a third wave. On the positive side, mortality rates in most countries remain well below their spring levels. There is no clear consensus as to why the virus has become less lethal. Better medical treatments, including the use of low-cost steroids, have certainly helped. A shift in the incidence of cases towards younger, healthier people has also lowered the overall mortality rate. In addition, there is some evidence that the virus may be evolving to be more contagious but less deadly.1 It would not be surprising if that were the case. After all, a virus that kills its host will also kill itself. Lastly, pervasive mask wearing may be mitigating the severity of the disease by reducing the initial viral load that infected individuals receive.2 A smaller initial dose gives the immune system more time to launch an effective counterattack. It has even been speculated that the widespread use of masks may be acting as a form of “variolation.” Prior to the invention of vaccines, variolation was used to engender natural immunity. Perhaps most famously, upon taking command of the Continental Army in 1775, George Washington had all his troops exposed to small amounts of smallpox.3 The gamble worked. The US ended up winning the Revolutionary War, making Washington the first president of the new republic. Waiting For A Vaccine Despite the decline in mortality rates, there is still much that remains unknown about Covid-19, including the extent to which the disease will lead to long-term damage to the vascular and nervous systems. Thus, while governments are unlikely to impose the same sort of severe lockdown measures that they implemented in March, rising case counts will delay reopening plans, and in many cases, lead to the reintroduction of stricter social distancing rules. Chart 2Some States Have Started To Relax Lockdown Measures Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift This has already happened in a number of countries. The UK reinstated more stringent regulations over social gatherings last week, including ordering pubs and restaurants to close by 10pm. Spain has introduced tougher mobility restrictions in Madrid and surrounding municipalities. France ordered gyms and restaurants to close for two weeks. Canada has also tightened regulations, with the government of Quebec raising the alert level to maximum “red alert” in several regions of the province. In the US, the share of the population living in states that were in the process of relaxing lockdown measures has risen above 50% for the first time since July (Chart 2). A third wave would almost certainly forestall the recent reopening trend. Ultimately, a safe and effective vaccine will be necessary to defeat the virus. Fortunately, about half of experts polled by the Good Judgment Project expect a vaccine to become available by the first quarter of 2021. Only 2% expect there to be no vaccine available by April 2022, down from over 50% in May (Chart 3). Chart 3When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Premature Fiscal Tightening And The Risk of Second-Round Effects Even if a vaccine becomes available early next year, there is a danger that the global economy will have suffered enough damage over the intervening months to forestall a rapid recovery. Whenever an economy suffers an adverse shock, a feedback loop can develop where rising joblessness leads to less spending, leading to even more joblessness. Fiscal stimulus can short-circuit this vicious circle by providing households with adequate income to maintain spending. Fiscal policy in the major economies turned expansionary within weeks of the onset of the pandemic (Chart 4). In the US, real personal income growth actually accelerated in the spring because transfers from the government more than offset the loss in wage and salary compensation (Chart 5). Chart 4Fiscal Policy Has Been Very Stimulative This Year Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Chart 5Personal Income Accelerated Earlier This Year Personal Income Accelerated Earlier This Year Personal Income Accelerated Earlier This Year Chart 6Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments   Starting in August, US fiscal policy turned less accommodative. Chart 6 shows that regular weekly unemployment payments have fallen from around $25 billion to $8 billion since the end of July. At an annualized rate, this amounts to over 4% of GDP in fiscal tightening. While President Trump signed an executive order redirecting some of the money that had been earmarked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be given to unemployed workers, the available funding will run out within the next month or so. On top of that, the funds in the small business Paycheck Protection Program have been used up, while many state and local governments face a severe cash crunch. US households saved a lot going into the autumn, so a sudden stop in spending is unlikely. Nevertheless, fissures in the economy are widening. Core retail sales contracted in August for the first time since April. Consumer expectations of future income growth remain weak (Chart 7). Permanent job losses are rising faster than they did during the Great Recession (Chart 8). Both corporate bankruptcy and mortgage delinquency rates are moving up, while bank lending standards have tightened significantly (Chart 9).  Chart 7Consumer Expectations Of Future Income Growth Remain Weak Consumer Expectations Of Future Income Growth Remain Weak Consumer Expectations Of Future Income Growth Remain Weak Chart 8Permanent Job Losses Are Rising Faster Than They Did During The Great Recession Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift     Chart 9Corporate Bankruptcy And Mortgage Delinquency Rates Are Moving Up … While Bank Lending Standards Have Tightened Significantly Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fiscal Stimulus Will Return We ultimately expect US fiscal policy to turn accommodative again. There is no appetite for fiscal austerity. Both political parties are moving in a more populist direction, which usually signals larger budget deficits. Even among Republicans, more registered voters support extending emergency federal unemployment insurance payments than oppose it (Chart 10). Chart 10There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift As long as interest rates stay low, there will be little market pressure to trim budget deficits. US real rates remain in negative territory. Despite a rising debt stock, the Congressional Budget Office expects net interest payments to decline towards 1% of GDP over the span of the next couple of years, thus reaching the lowest level in six decades (Chart 11). Outside the US, there has been little movement towards tightening fiscal policy. The UK government unveiled last week a fresh round of economic and fiscal measures to help ease the burden on both employees, by subsidizing part-time work for example, and firms, by extending government-guaranteed loan programs. At the beginning of the month, the Macron government announced a 100 billion euro stimulus plan in France. Meanwhile, European leaders are moving forward on a euro area-wide 750 billion euro stimulus package that was announced this summer. In Japan, the new Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has indicated that he will pursue a third budget to fight the economic downturn, adding that “there is no limit to the amount of bonds the government can issue to support an economy battered by the coronavirus pandemic.” The Japanese government now earns more interest than it pays because two-thirds of all Japanese debt bears negative yields (Chart 12). At least for now, a big debt burden is actually good for the Japanese government’s finances! Chart 11Low Interest Payments Amid Skyrocketing Debt In The US Low Interest Payments Amid Skyrocketing Debt In The US Low Interest Payments Amid Skyrocketing Debt In The US Chart 12Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments China also continues to stimulate its economy. Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the broad-measure fiscal deficit to reach a record 8% of GDP this year and remain elevated into next year. The annual change in total social financing – a broad measure of Chinese credit formation – is expected to hit 35% of GDP, just shy of its GFC peak (Chart 13). Not surprisingly, the Chinese economy is responding well to all this stimulus. Sales of floor space rose 40% year-over-year in August, driven by a close to 60% jump in Tier-1 cities. Excavator sales, a leading indicator for construction spending, are up 51% over last year’s levels, while industrial profits have jumped 19%. A resurgent Chinese economy has historically been closely associated with rising global trade (Chart 14). Chart 13China Continues To Stimulate Its Economy China Continues To Stimulate Its Economy China Continues To Stimulate Its Economy Chart 14Chinese Economic Rebound Has Historically Been Closely Associated With Rising Global Trade Chinese Economic Rebound Has Historically Been Closely Associated With Rising Global Trade Chinese Economic Rebound Has Historically Been Closely Associated With Rising Global Trade Biden Or Trump: How Will Financial Markets React? Betting markets expect former Vice President Joe Biden to become president and for the Democrats to gain control of the Senate (Chart 15). A “blue wave” would produce more fiscal spending in the next few years. Recall that House Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill in May that was quickly rejected by Senate Republicans. More recently, Democratic leaders have suggested they would approve a stimulus deal in the range of $2-to-$2.5 trillion. Chart 15Betting Markets Putting Their Money On The Democrats Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift In addition to more pandemic-related stimulus, Joe Biden has also proposed a variety of longer-term spending initiatives. These include $2 trillion in infrastructure spending spread over four years, a $700 billion “Made in America” plan that would increase federal procurement of domestically produced goods and services, and new spending proposals worth about 1.7% of GDP per annum centered on health care, housing, education, and child and elder care. As president, Joe Biden would likely take a less confrontational stance towards relations with China. While rolling back tariffs would not be an immediate priority for a Biden administration, it could happen later in 2021. Less welcome for investors would be an increase in taxes. Joe Biden has proposed raising taxes by $4 trillion over ten years (about 1.5% of cumulative GDP). Slightly less than half of that consists of higher personal taxes on both regular income (for taxpayers earning more than $400,000 per year) and capital gains (for tax filers with over $1 million in income). The other half consists of increased business taxes, mainly in the form of a hike in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% and the introduction of a minimum 15% tax on the global book income of US-based companies. Netting it out, a blue sweep in November would probably be neutral-to-slightly negative for equities. What about government bonds? Our guess is that Treasury yields would rise modestly in response to a blue wave, particularly at the longer end of the yield curve. Additional fiscal support would boost aggregate demand, implying that it would take less time for the economy to reach full employment. That said, interest rate expectations are unlikely to rise as sharply as they did in late 2016 following Donald Trump‘s victory. Back then, the Fed was primed to raise rates – it hiked rates nine times starting in December 2015, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to 2.5% by end-2018. This time around, the Fed is firmly on hold, with the vast majority of FOMC members expecting policy rates to stay at rock-bottom levels until at least 2023.  The Fed’s New Tune In two important respects, the Fed’s new Monetary Policy Framework (MPF) represents a sharp break with the past. Chart 16The Mechanics Of Price-Level Targeting Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift First, the MPF abandons the Fed’s historic reliance on a Taylor Rule-style framework, which prescribes lifting rates whenever the unemployment rate declines towards its equilibrium level. Second, the MPF eschews the “let bygones be bygones” approach of past monetary policymaking. Going forward, the Fed will try to maintain an average level of inflation of 2% over the course of the business cycle. This means that if inflation falls below 2%, the Fed will try to engineer a temporary inflation overshoot in order to bring the price level back up to its 2%-per-year upward trend (Chart 16). Some aspects of the Fed’s new strategy are both timely and laudable. A Taylor rule approach makes sense when there is a clear relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate, as governed by the so-called Phillips curve. However, if inflation fails to rise in response to declining economic slack – as has been the case in recent years – central banks may find themselves at a loss in determining where the neutral rate of interest lies. In this case, it might be preferable to keep interest rates at very low levels until the economy begins to overheat. Such a strategy would avoid the risk of raising rates prematurely, only to discover that they are too high for what the economy can handle. Targeting an average rate of inflation also has significant merit. When investors purchase long-term bonds, they run the risk that the real value of those bonds will deviate significantly from initial expectations when the bonds mature. If inflation surprises on the upside, the bonds will end up being worth less to the lender as measured by the quantity of goods and services that they can be exchanged for. If inflation surprises on the downside, borrowers could find themselves facing a larger real debt burden than they had anticipated. An inflation targeting system that corrects for past inflation surprises could give both borrowers and lenders greater certainty about the future price level. This, in turn, could reduce the inflation risk premium embedded in long-term bond yields, leading to a more efficient allocation of economic resources. In addition, an average inflation targeting system could make the zero lower bound constraint less vexing by keeping long-term inflation expectations from slipping below the central bank’s target. This would give the central bank more traction over monetary policy. A Bias Towards Higher Inflation Despite the advantages of the Fed’s new approach, it faces a number of hurdles, some practical and some political. On the practical side, it may turn out that the Phillips curve, rather than being flat, is kinked at a fairly low level of unemployment. Theoretically, that would not be too surprising. If I have 100 apples for sale and you want to buy 60, I have no incentive to raise prices. Even if you wanted to buy 80 apples, I would have no incentive to raise prices. However, if you wanted to buy 105 apples, then I would have an incentive to raise my selling price. The point is that inflation could remain stubbornly dormant as slack slowly disappears, only to rocket higher once full employment has been reached. Since changes in monetary policy only affect the economy with a lag, the central bank could find itself woefully behind the curve, scrambling to contain rising inflation. This is precisely what happened during the 1960s (Chart 17). Chart 17Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Chart 18Something Has Always Happened To Preempt Overheating Something Has Always Happened To Preempt Overheating Something Has Always Happened To Preempt Overheating   Over the past three decades, something always happened that kept the US economy from overheating (Chart 18). The unemployment rate reached a 50-year low in 2019. Inflation may have moved higher this year had it not been for the fact that the global economy was clotheslined by the pandemic. In 2007, the economy was heating up only to be sandbagged by the housing bust. In 2000, the bursting of the dotcom bubble helped reverse incipient inflationary pressures. But just because the economy did not have a chance to overheat at any time over the past 30 years does not mean it cannot happen in the future.   The Political Economy Of Higher Inflation On the political side, average inflation targeting assumes that central banks will be just as willing to tolerate inflation undershoots as overshoots. This could be a faulty assumption. Generating an inflation overshoot requires that interest rates be kept low enough to enable unemployment to fall below its full employment level. That is likely to be politically popular. Generating an inflation undershoot, in contrast, requires restrictive monetary policy and rising unemployment. More joblessness would not sit well with workers. High interest rates could also damage the stock market and depress home prices, while forcing debt-saddled governments to shift more spending from social programs to bondholders. None of that will be politically popular. If central banks are quick to allow inflation overshoots but slow to engineer inflation undershoots, the result could be structurally higher inflation. Markets are not pricing in such an outcome (Chart 19). Chart 19Markets Are Not Pricing In Structurally Higher Inflation Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation: Despite Near-Term Dangers, Overweight Equities On A 12-Month Horizon An acceleration in the number of COVID-19 cases and the rising probability that the US Congress will fail to pass a stimulus bill before the November election could push equities and other risk assets lower in the near term. Investors should maintain somewhat larger than normal cash positions in the short run that can be deployed if stocks resume their correction. Chart 20The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices Provided that progress continues to be made towards developing a vaccine and US fiscal policy eventually turns stimulative again, stocks will regain their footing, rising about 15% from current levels over a 12-month horizon. Negative real bond yields will continue to support stocks (Chart 20). The 30-year TIPS yield has fallen by over 90 basis points in 2020. Even if one assumes that it will take the rest of the decade for S&P 500 earnings to return to their pre-pandemic trend, the deep drop in the risk-free component of the discount rate has still raised the present value of future S&P 500 cash flows by nearly 20% since the start of the year (Chart 21).   Chart 21The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Thanks to these exceptionally low real bond yields, equity risk premia remain elevated (Chart 22). The TINA mantra reverberates throughout the investment world: There Is No Alternative to stocks. To get a sense of just how powerful TINA is, consider the fact that the dividend yield on the S&P 500 currently stands at 1.67%. That may not sound like much, but it is still a full percentage point higher than the paltry 0.67% yield on the 10-year Treasury note (Chart 23). Chart 22Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 23S&P 500 Dividend Yield Is Above The Treasury Yield S&P 500 Dividend Yield Is Above The Treasury Yield S&P 500 Dividend Yield Is Above The Treasury Yield   Imagine having to decide whether to place your money either in an S&P 500 index fund or a 10-year Treasury note. Dividends-per-share paid by S&P 500 companies have almost always increased over time. However, even if we make the pessimistic assumption that dividends-per-share remain unchanged for the next ten years, the value of the S&P 500 would still have to fall by 10% over the next decade to equal the return on the 10-year note. Assuming that inflation averages around 1.9% over this period, the real value of the S&P 500 would need to drop by 25%. The picture is even more dramatic outside the US. In the euro area, the index would have to fall by over 30% in real terms for investors to make more money in bonds than stocks. In the UK, it would need to fall by over 50% (Chart 24). Chart 24 (I)Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Chart 24 (II)Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds A Weaker US Dollar Favors International Stocks Outside the US, price-earnings ratios are lower, while equity risk premia are higher. Cheap valuations are usually not enough to justify a high-conviction investment call, however. One also needs a catalyst. Three potential catalysts could help propel international stocks higher over the next 12 months, while also giving value stocks and economically-sensitive equity sectors a boost: A weaker US dollar; the end of the pandemic; and a recovery in bank shares. Let’s start with the dollar. The US dollar faces a number of headwinds over the coming months. First, interest rate differentials have moved sharply against the greenback (Chart 25). Second, as a countercyclical currency, the dollar is likely to weaken as the global economy improves (Chart 26). Third, the current account deficit is rising again. It jumped over 50% from $112 billion in Q1 to $170 billion in Q2. According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, the trade balance is set to widened further in Q3. This deterioration in the dollar’s fundamentals is occurring against a backdrop where the currency remains 11% overvalued based on purchasing power parity exchange rates (Chart 27). Chart 25Interest Rate Differentials Have Moved Sharply Against The Greenback Interest Rate Differentials Have Moved Sharply Against The Greenback Interest Rate Differentials Have Moved Sharply Against The Greenback A weaker dollar is usually good for commodity prices and cyclical stocks (Chart 28). In general, commodity producers and cyclical stocks are overrepresented outside the US. Chart 26The Dollar Is Likely To Weaken As The Global Economy Improves The Dollar Is Likely To Weaken As The Global Economy Improves The Dollar Is Likely To Weaken As The Global Economy Improves   Chart 27USD Remains Overvalued Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Chart 28A Weaker Dollar Is Usually Good For Commodity Prices And Cyclical Stocks A Weaker Dollar Is Usually Good For Commodity Prices And Cyclical Stocks A Weaker Dollar Is Usually Good For Commodity Prices And Cyclical Stocks   BCA’s chief energy strategist Bob Ryan expects Brent to average $65/bbl in 2021, $21/bbl above what the market is anticipating. Ongoing Chinese stimulus should also buoy metal prices. A falling greenback helps overseas borrowers – many of whom are in emerging markets – whose loans are denominated in dollars but whose revenues are denominated in the local currency. It is thus no surprise that non-US stocks tend to outperform their US peers when global growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 29). Chart 29Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening The outperformance of non-US stocks in soft dollar environments is particularly pronounced when returns are measured in common-currency terms. From the perspective of US-based investors, a weaker dollar raises the dollar value of overseas sales and profits, justifying higher valuations for international stocks. From the perspective of overseas investors, a weaker dollar reduces the local currency value of US sales and profits, implying a lower valuation for US stocks. This helps explain why European stocks tend to outperform their US counterparts when the euro is rising, even though a stronger euro hurts the European economy. It’s Value’s Turn To Shine Value stocks have often outperformed growth stocks when the US dollar has been weakening and global growth strengthening. Recall that value stocks did poorly during the late 1990s, a period of dollar strength and economic turbulence throughout the EM world. In contrast, value stocks did well between 2001 and 2007, a period during which the dollar was generally on the back foot. The relationship between value stocks, the dollar, and global growth broke down this summer. Growth stocks continued to pull ahead, even though global growth turned a corner and the dollar began to weaken. There are two reasons why this happened. First, investors were too slow to price in the windfall that growth stocks in the tech and health care sectors would end up receiving from the pandemic. Second, rather than rising in response to better economic growth data, real rates fell during the summer months. A falling discount rate benefits growth stocks more than value stocks because the former generate more of their earnings farther into the future. The tentative outperformance of value stocks in September suggests that the tables may have turned for the value/growth trade. Retail sales at physical stores are rebounding, while online sales growth is coming down from highly elevated levels (Chart 30). Bank of America estimates that US e-commerce penetration doubled in just a few short months earlier this year. Some “reversion to the trend” is likely, even if that trend does favor online stores over the long haul. Chart 30Are Brick-And Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Are Brick-And Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Are Brick-And Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Chart 31The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge   Meanwhile, PC shipments soared during the pandemic as companies and workers rushed out to buy computer gear to allow them to work from home (Chart 31). To the extent that this caused some spending to be brought forward, it could create an air pocket in tech demand over the next few quarters. A third wave of the virus in the US and ongoing second waves elsewhere could give growth stocks a boost once more, but the benefits are likely to be short-lived. If a vaccine becomes available early next year, investors will pivot from the “pandemic trade” to the “reopening trade.” The “reopening trade” will support companies such as banks, hotels, and transports that were crushed by lockdown measures and which are overrepresented in value indices. From a valuation perspective, value stocks are cheaper now compared to growth stocks than at any point in history – even cheaper than at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 32). Chart 32Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks The lofty valuations that growth stocks enjoy can be justified if the mega-cap tech companies that dominate the growth indices continue to increase earnings for many years to come. However, it is far from clear that this will happen. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. While all of these companies dominate their markets, this could change. At one point during the dotcom bubble, Palm’s market capitalization was over six times greater than Apple’s. The Blackberry superseded the PalmPilot; the iPhone, in turn, superseded the Blackberry. History suggests that many of today’s technological leaders will end up as laggards. Investors looking to find the next tech leader can focus on smaller, fast growing companies. Unfortunately, picking winners in this space is easier said than done. History suggests that investors tend to overpay for growth, especially among small caps. Based on data compiled by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, small cap growth stocks have lagged small cap value stocks by an average of 6.4% per year on a market-cap weighted basis, and by 10.4% on an equal-weighted basis, since 1970 (Table 1). Table 1Small Caps Vis-A-Vis Large Caps: Comparison of Total Returns Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Bank On Banks Financial stocks are heavily overrepresented in value indices (Table 2). Banks have made significant provisions against bad loans this year. If global growth recovers in 2021 once a vaccine becomes available, some of these provisions will end up being released, boosting profits in the process. Table 2Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Chart 33Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares A stabilization in bond yields should also help bank shares. Chart 33 shows that a fall in bank stocks vis-à-vis the overall market has closely matched the decline in bond yields. While we do not think that central banks will tighten monetary policy in the next few years, nominal bond yields should still drift modestly higher as output gaps narrow. What about the outlook for bank earnings? A massive new credit boom is not in the cards in any major economy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that global bank EPS was able to return to its long-term trend in 2019, until being slammed again this year by the pandemic (Chart 34). Global bank book value-per-share was 30% higher in 2019 compared to GFC highs (even though price-per-share was 30% lower). Chart 34Global Bank EPS Was Able To Return To Its Pre-GFC Peak In 2019 Until The Pandemic Hit Global Bank EPS Was Able To Return To Its Pre-GFC Peak In 2019 Until The Pandemic Hit Global Bank EPS Was Able To Return To Its Pre-GFC Peak In 2019 Until The Pandemic Hit Chart 35European Bank Earnings Estimates Have Lagged Credit Growth European Bank Earnings Estimates Have Lagged Credit Growth European Bank Earnings Estimates Have Lagged Credit Growth   Admittedly, the global numbers disguise a lot of regional variation. While US banks were able to bring EPS back to its prior peak, and Canadian banks were able to easily surpass it, European bank EPS was still 70% below its pre-GFC highs in 2019. The launch of the common currency in 1999 set off a massive credit boom across much of Europe, leaving European banks dangerously overleveraged. The GFC and the subsequent European sovereign debt crisis led to a spike in bad loans, necessitating numerous rounds of dilutive capital raises. At this point, however, European bank balance sheets are in much better shape. If EPS simply returns to its 2019 levels, European banks will trade at a generous earnings yield of close to 20%. That may not be such a hurdle to cross. Chart 35 shows that European bank earnings estimates have fallen far short of what would be expected from current credit growth. If, on top of all this, European banks are able to muster some sustained earnings growth thanks to somewhat steeper yield curves and further cost-cutting and consolidation, investors who buy banks today will be rewarded with outsized returns over the long haul.   Fixed Income: What Is Least Ugly? As noted above, a rebound in global growth should push up both equity prices and bond yields. As such, we would underweight fixed income within a global asset allocation framework. Within the fixed income bracket, investors should favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. They should underweight government bonds in favor of a modest overweight to spread product. Spreads are quite low but could sink further if economic activity revives faster than anticipated. The upper quality tranche of high-yield corporates, which are benefiting from central bank purchases, have an especially attractive risk-reward profile. EM debt should also fare well in a weaker dollar, stronger growth environment (Chart 36). Chart 36BB-Rated And EM Debt Offer Reasonable Risk-Reward Profiles BB-Rated And EM Debt Offer Reasonable Risk-Reward Profiles BB-Rated And EM Debt Offer Reasonable Risk-Reward Profiles Given that some investors have no choice but to own developed economy government bonds, which countries or regions should they buy from within this category? Chart 37 shows the 3-year trailing yield betas for several major developed bond markets. In general, the highest-yielding currencies (US and Canada) also have the highest betas, implying that their yields rise the most when global bond yields are rising and vice versa.  Chart 37High-Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift In economies such as Europe and Japan where the neutral rate of interest is stuck deep below the zero bound, better economic news is unlikely to lift policy rate expectations by very much. After all, the optimal policy rate would still be above its neutral level even if better economic data brought the neutral rate from say, -4% to -3%. In contrast, when the neutral rate is close to zero or even positive, better economic data can lift medium-to-long-term interest rate expectations more meaningfully. As such, we would underweight US Treasurys and Canadian bonds, while overweighting Japanese government bonds (JGBs) over a 12-month horizon. On a currency-hedged basis, which is what most bond investors focus on, 10-year JGBs yield only 20 basis points less than US Treasurys (Table 3). This lower yield is more than offset by the risk that Treasury yields will rise more than yields on JGBs. Table 3Bond Markets Across The Developed World Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift The End Game What will end the bull market in stocks? As is often the case, the answer is tighter monetary policy. The good news is tight money is not an imminent risk. The Fed will not hike rates at least until 2023, and it will take even longer than that for interest rates to rise elsewhere in the world. The bad news is that the day of reckoning will eventually arrive and when it does, bond yields will soar and stocks will tumble. Investors who want to hedge against this risk should consider owning more real assets. As was the case during the 1970s, farmland will do well from rising inflation. Suburban real estate will also benefit from more people working from home and, if recent trends persist, rising crime in urban areas. Gold should also do well. The yellow metal has come down from its August highs, but should benefit from a weaker dollar over the coming months, and ultimately, from a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  “More infectious coronavirus mutation may be 'a good thing', says disease expert,” Reuters, August 17, 2020.  2 Nina Bai, ”One More Reason to Wear a Mask: You’ll Get Less Sick From COVID-19,” University of California San Francisco, July 31, 2020.  3 Dave Roos, “How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War,” History.com, May 18, 2020.     Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Current MacroQuant Model Scores Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift Fourth Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: A Post-Pandemic Regime Shift

Dear Client, There will be no Weekly Report on August 10, as the US Equity Strategy team will be on vacation for the week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on Monday August 17, 2020 with a Special Report by my colleague Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Chief FX Strategist on the interplay of the style bias and the US Dollar. We trust that you will find this Report both informative and insightful. Kind Regards, Anastasios Feature Before getting to our analysis on why cyclicals will best defensives, we want to address our definition of cyclicals and defensives, where we think tech stands and why, discuss what our current positioning is and what time horizon we are targeting for this portfolio bent. Cyclicals And Defensives Definition Table 1 is a stripped down version of our current recommendations table and shows that our cyclicals definition is one of deep cyclicals including industrials, materials, energy and the information technology sector. Utilities, consumer staples, health care and telecom services (which is currently categorized as a GICS2) comprise our defensives universe. Table 1US Equity Strategy's Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Current Recommendations Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives Tech Is Still Cyclical Importantly, we still consider the tech sector a deep cyclical and not a safe haven sector. While the COVID-19 fallout has acted as an accelerant especially to a faster absorption of goods and services of the tech titans, that is not a de facto change in the behavior of these still cyclical stocks.  As a reminder tech stocks have 60% export exposure or 20 percentage points higher than the broad market. The implication is that US tech trends should follow the ebbs and flows of the global economy. Contrary to popular belief that technology equities behaved defensively recently, empirical evidence gives credence to our hypothesis that technology stocks remain cyclical: from the Feb 19 SPX peak until the March trough the IT sector underperformed all four defensive sectors (Chart of the Week). In marked contrast, tech has left in the dust defensive sectors since the March bottom, cementing its cyclical status. Chart of the WeekTech Remains A Cyclical Sector Tech Remains A Cyclical Sector Tech Remains A Cyclical Sector Current Positioning With regard to our broader technology positioning, we are currently neutral the S&P tech sector, overweight the S&P internet retail index (which Amazon dominates) that sits under the S&P consumer discretionary sector and underweight the S&P interactive media & services index (which includes Alphabet and Facebook) that falls under the newly formed S&P communications services sector. Thus, our broadly defined tech sector exposure remains neutral. Meanwhile, last week we boosted the S&P materials sector to overweight and that move pushed our cyclicals/defensives bent marginally to preferring deep cyclicals to defensives (please see market cap weights in Table 1). Timing Is Key This portfolio bent may run into some near-term trouble as we expect a flare up of (geo)political risks (please see here and here), but once the election uncertainty lifts, hopefully in late-November/early-December, from that point onward and on a 9-12 month time horizon cyclicals should really start to flex their muscles versus defensives.  The purpose of this Special Report is to identify the top ten drivers of the looming cyclicals versus defensives outperformance phase on a cyclical time horizon. What follows is one page one chart per key reason, in no particular order of importance. 1.)    Dollar The Reflator Time and again we have highlighted the boost that internationally exposed sectors get from a weakening greenback. Cyclicals are the primary beneficiaries of such a backdrop as a lot of these deep cyclical companies garner over 50% of their sales from abroad. We recently updated in a Special Report the breakdown of GICS1 sectors’ foreign sourced revenues and more importantly their performance during US dollar bear markets. Cyclicals clearly have the upper hand. Chart 1 shows this tight inverse correlation, irrespective of what USD index we use. Finally, looking ahead a falling greenback will act as a relative profit reflator (US dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 1), especially given that most of the defensive sectors are landlocked in the US and do not get a P&L fillip from positive translation gains. Chart 1CHART 1 CHART 1 CHART 1 2.)    Global Growth Recovery Not only does the debasing of the US dollar bode well for Income Statement (I/S) relative translation gains, but also serves as a tonic to global growth. In other words, a final demand recovery is in the works on the back of a pending virtuous cycle: a depreciating dollar lifts global growth, and an increase in trade brings more US dollars in circulation further weakening the greenback (top panel, Chart 2). Our Global Trade Activity Indicator also corroborates the USD message and underscores a global growth recovery into 2021 (second panel, Chart 2). Tack on the meteoric rise in the G10 economic surprise index (third panel, Chart 2) and factors are falling into place for a synchronized global economic recovery including a V-shaped US rebound from the depths of the recession in Q2 (ISM manufacturing survey shown advanced, bottom panel, Chart 2). Chart 2CHART 2 CHART 2 CHART 2 3.)    US Capex To The Rescue The latest GDP report made for grim reading. US capex collapsed 27% last quarter in line with the fall it suffered in Q1/2009. Not even bulletproof software investment escaped unscathed and contracted for the first time in seven years, albeit modestly. However, if the looming recovery resembles the GFC episode when real non-residential investment soared 40 percentage points from that nadir in the subsequent five quarters, then a slingshot rebound will ensue by the end of 2021. Importantly, our US capex indicator has an excellent track record in leading the relative share price ratio and confirms that a capex trough is already in store, tracing out the bottom hit during the Great Recession (top panel, Chart 3). Regional Fed surveys also signal that a capex boom looms in the coming quarters (middle panel, Chart 3). And, so do cheery CEOs that expect a sizable investment recovery in the next six months, according to the Conference Board survey (bottom panel, Chart 3). All of this is a harbinger of a cyclicals outperformance phase at the expense of defensives. Chart 3CHART 3 CHART 3 CHART 3 4.)   Chinese Capex On The Upswing (Fiscal Easing) Across the pacific, Chinese excavator sales have gone vertical. While we take Chinese data with a grain of salt, Komatsu hydraulic excavator demand growth in China has averaged 45% on a year-over-year basis in the quarter ending in June. This Japanese company’s data, which has been unaffected by the US/Sino trade war, corroborates the Chinese official statistics (top panel, Chart 4). Infrastructure spending is also on the rise in China following an abrupt halt in projects started early in 2020. This revving of the investment spending engine is bullish for the broad commodity complex including US cyclicals (bottom panel, Chart 4). Chart 4CHART 4 CHART 4 CHART 4 5.) Chinese Monetary Easing None of the above investment recovery would have been possible had the Chinese authorities not opened up the liquidity spigots. Monetary easing via the sinking reserve-requirement-ratio (RRR) has been instrumental in engineering an economic rebound (RRR shown inverted, third panel, Chart 5). The credit-easing channel has been also important in funneling cash toward investment, and the climbing Li Keqiang index is evidence that sloshing liquidity is being put to good use (bottom & second panels, Chart 5). Finally, Chinese loan demand data also confirms that an economic recovery is in the offing and heralds a US cyclicals versus defensives portfolio tilt (top panel, Chart 5).  Chart 5CHART 5 CHART 5 CHART 5 6.)   Firming Financial Market Data (Chinese And EM Equity Market Outperformance) Typically, financial market data are early in sniffing out a turn in economic data. This anticipatory nature of financial markets is currently signaling that EM in general and Chinese economic growth in particular will make a significant comeback in the coming quarters. Importantly, Chinese bourses and the MSCI EM equity index (in USD) have recently started to outperform the ACWI and the SPX (Chart 6). Both of these equity markets are more cyclically exposed than the defensive US and global indexes because of the respective sector composition and have paved the way for a sustainable rise in the US cyclicals/defensives share price ratio (Chart 6).   Chart 6CHART 6 CHART 6 CHART 6 7.)    Transition From Deflation To Inflation Similarly to the EM and Chinese equity market outperformance of their DM peers, commodity prices are putting in a bottom and forecasting a brighter global trade backdrop for the rest of the year (top panel, Chart 7). The depreciating US dollar is also underpinning the commodity complex and this should serve as a catalyst for an exit from the recent global disinflationary backdrop, especially corporate wholesale price deflation. Domestically, the prices paid subcomponent of the ISM manufacturing survey is firming and projecting that relative pricing power will favor cyclicals versus defensives (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7CHART 7 CHART 7 CHART 7 8.)   Profit Expectations Have Turned The Corner Sell-side extreme pessimism has given way to mild optimism as depicted by the now positive relative Net Earnings Revisions (NER) ratio (third panel, Chart 8).  Importantly, despite the spike in the relative NER ratio, the bar has not risen enough both on a relative profit growth and revenue growth basis in order to short circuit the recovery in the relative share price ratio (second & bottom panels, Chart 8).  Chart 8CHART 8 CHART 8 CHART 8 9.)   Alluring Valuations The relative Valuation Indicator remains below the neutral zone offering a cushion to investors that are contending to execute a cyclicals versus defensives portfolio bent (Chart 9).   Chart 9CHART 9 CHART 9 CHART 9 10.) Enticing Technicals Lastly, cyclicals are still unloved compared with defensives as our relative Technical Indicator (TI) highlights in Chart 10.  In fact, our relative TI also hovers below the neutral zone, near a level that has marked previous playable recovery rallies (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10CHART 10 CHART 10 CHART 10     But Monitor Three Key Risks Over the coming 12 to 18 months, investors should prepare their portfolios for an outperformance phase of cyclical sectors relative to defensives. Nonetheless, we are closely monitoring a number of key risks that can put our view offside. First, the relentless rise of ex-Vice President Biden in the polls on PREDICTIT, the rapidly increasing probability of a “Blue Sweep” in the upcoming elections, and the non-negligible risk of a contested election (as discussed in a joined Special Report with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service last week), all pose a short-term threat to the benign election backdrop priced into stocks. Were a risk-off phase to materialize in the next three months, as we expect, then cyclicals would take the back seat versus defensives, at least temporarily (bottom panel, Chart 11). Second, what worries us most is that Dr. Copper and crude oil (another global growth barometer), especially compared with gold, have yet to confirm the global growth recovery. In other words, the fleeting oil-to-gold and copper-to-gold ratios underscore that the liquidity-to-growth handoff has gone on hiatus. While we are not ready to throw in the towel yet, these relative commodity signals are disconcerting, and were they to deteriorate further, they would definitely undermine our optimistic view on global growth (top and second panels, Chart 11). Finally, it is disquieting that our relative profit growth models have no pulse. They represent a significant risk to the relative earnings-led rebound which the rest of the indicators we track are anticipating (third panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Three Key Risks We Are Monitoring Three Key Risks We Are Monitoring Three Key Risks We Are Monitoring Bottom Line: On balance, a looming global growth recovery and pending global capex upcycle, a softening US dollar, commodity price inflation and Chinese monetary easing will more than offset the trifecta of rising election-related risks, the current unresponsiveness of our relative profit growth models and the lack of confirmation of a liquidity-to-growth transition. This will pave the way for a cyclicals outperformance phase at the expense of defensives.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com  

Dear Client, Next Monday, July 20, we will be hosting our quarterly webcast, one at 10am EST for our US and EMEA clients and one at 9pm for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our regular weekly publication will resume on Monday July 27, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. A Biden presidency would lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. Democrats would remove the Senate filibuster. Yet the macro agenda is reflationary. A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps. While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Feature Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our “Blue Wave” scenario for the US election this year. The odds are closer to 50%-55% than 35%. Hence the equity market, especially the NASDAQ, is complacent about rising political risks to US equity sectors (Chart 1). The immediate risk to the rally is not politics but the pandemic, namely the COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, which is causing governors of major states like Texas, California, and Florida to slow down the economic reopening. The US’s failure to limit the spread of the virus has not yet led to a spike in deaths in aggregate, but it is leading to a spike in major states like Texas and Florida (Chart 2). Deaths are ultimately what matter to politicians and financial markets, since governments will not shut down all of society for less-than-lethal ailments. Fear will weigh on consumer and business confidence, including fear of a deadly second wave this winter. Near-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. Chart 1Blue Wave Expected, Equities Unconcerned Blue Wave Odds Rising, Equities Hesitate Blue Wave Odds Rising, Equities Hesitate Chart 2COVID-19 Outbreak Still A Risk Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Beyond this risk, the driver of the cyclical rally is the gargantuan monetary and fiscal stimulus – and more is on the way. President Trump wants another $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, while House Democrats already passed a $3 trillion package to demonstrate their election platform that government should take a greater role in American life. Senate Republicans (and reportedly Vice President Mike Pence) want a smaller $1 trillion bill but will capitulate in the face of a growing outbreak and any financial turmoil. Congress is highly likely to pass a new relief bill before going on recess on August 10. If COVID-19 causes another swoon in financial markets and the economy, then this congressional timeline will accelerate. America’s total fiscal stimulus for 2020 is rapidly approaching 20% of GDP, or 7% of global GDP (Chart 3). Thus it is understandable that the market has not reacted negatively to an impending blue wave election. Bipartisan reflation is overwhelming the Democratic Party’s market-negative agenda of re-regulation, tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, energy curbs, price caps, and anti-trust probes. Moreover the Democrats’ agenda also includes social and infrastructure spending, cheap immigrant labor, and less hawkish trade policy ex-China, which are all reflationary. Chart 3US Stimulus Greater Than Global – And Rising Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications In short, over the next year, the US is not lurching from massive stimulus to a mid-term election that imposes budget controls and “austerity,” as occurred in 2010, but rather from massive stimulus to a likely Democratic sweep that will be fiscally profligate (Charts 4A & 4B). After all, Democrats are openly flirting with modern monetary theory. Chart 4ADeficits Would Soar Under Democrats Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Chart 4BDemocrats Would Be Ultra-Dovish On Fiscal Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Debt monetization is the big change, regardless of the election, which makes investors cyclically bullish. China is also bound to provide massive fiscal-and-credit stimulus because its first recession since the 1970s is threatening the Communist Party’s source of legitimacy (Chart 5). The European Union is uniting under a banner of joint debt issuance to fend off deflation. Bottom Line: Near-term risks to the exuberant post-lockdown rally abound, but the cyclical view remains constructive due to the ultimate policymaker stimulus put. Chart 5China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps Pre-Election Volatility And Post-Election Equity Returns Volatility normally rises ahead of US elections and it could linger in the aftermath given extreme polarization and the risk of vote recounts, contested results, Supreme Court interventions, and refusals by either candidate to concede. This is a concern in the short run but not the long run. US equities will grind higher over the long run regardless of the election outcome. Stocks normally rise by 10% in the 12 months after a presidential election that yields single-party control, though the upside is smaller and the initial downside is bigger than is the case with a gridlocked government (Chart 6, top panel). In cases of gridlock – which is virtually assured if Trump wins – the equity pullback after the election is just as deep but tends to be later in coming. On average stocks rise by the same amount after 12 months in either case (Chart 6, bottom panel). Thus political risks are primarily relevant in their regional or sectoral effects, though investors should take note that a Democratic sweep probably limits next year’s upside. Chart 6Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep There are two likely scenarios. The first is the risk that President Trump makes a historic comeback and wins re-election, with Republicans retaining the Senate. Subjectively we put Trump’s odds at 35% though our quantitative model suggests they could be as high as 44%. The second scenario is our base case that the Democratic Party wins the Senate as well as the White House. In this scenario, the Democrats will prove more left-wing and anti-corporate than the market currently expects. Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. However, history shows that a clean sweep limits the market’s upside risk. And full Democratic rule entails major political risks that have a regional and sectoral character. Biden And The Blue Wave Our expectation of a blue sweep is not based only in polling – which is uniformly disastrous for Trump as we go to press – but in the surge in unemployment. The basis for investors to view Biden as a risk-on candidate is driven by the macro and market views outlined above, not political fundamentals. From the political point of view, Biden may prefer to govern as a centrist, but victory in the Senate would remove constraints on his party’s domestic agenda. He would move to the left. Indeed, a Democratic sweep would mark a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy that is negative for corporate profits and the capital share of national income. It would unleash pent-up ideological and generational forces in favor of redistributing wealth and restructuring the economy. Progressivism would have the tendency to overshoot and create negative surprises for investors (Chart 7). Unlike 2008-10, when Republicans were last out of power, Republicans this time would be divided over Trump and populism and would be unlikely to recuperate as quickly. Chart 7Democratic Party Would Focus On Inequality Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Biden would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration, promoting Big Government while restricting Big Business and re-regulating Wall Street banks. A sharp leftward turn would be in keeping with the trend in the Democratic Party and the generational shift in the electorate (Chart 8). Only if Republicans pull off a surprise and keep the Senate despite losing the White House (~10% chance) would Biden be forced to govern as a true centrist. Even then Biden would oversee a large re-regulation of the economy through executive powers alone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Generational Shift Favors Wealth Redistribution Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Chart 9Biden Would Re-Regulate The Economy Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Additional reasons to expect a left-wing policy overshoot:  · Presidents tend to succeed in passing their initial legislative priority after an election. This is incontrovertible when they control both chambers of Congress, as Obama showed in 2009 and Trump showed in 2017.2 · Biden will have huge tailwinds. He will not be launching a new agenda so much as restoring a policy status quo in most cases (laws and agreements that Trump either revoked or refused to enforce). He will also benefit from majority popular opinion and support of the bureaucracy and media (Chart 10). · Biden and the Democrats will be even more determined not to “let a good crisis go to waste” after having witnessed the Obama administration’s frustrations the last time the party took over in a sweeping victory on the back of a national disaster. · Democrats will not hesitate to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their first priority legislation with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. This is how Trump passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). This is also how progressive stalwart Howard Dean believed the party should have passed a public health insurance option in 2009. This means Biden will be capable of increasing the corporate tax rate higher than 28%, pass a minimum 15% tax rate for corporations, and raise the capital gains tax and individual taxes. Chart 10Popular Opinion Would Boost Biden Administration Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications · Contrary to consensus, Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster in the Senate – enabling bills to pass with a simple majority rather than the 60/100 votes required to close off debate. Yes, some moderate Democrats have already spoken out against “going nuclear” and changing such a critical norm. But populism and polarization are the driving forces in US politics today and we would advise investors not to bet heavily on “norms.” If Republicans prove capable of obstructing major legislative initiatives in the Senate, then Democrats, remembering obstructionism in the Obama years, will go nuclear to enact their progressive agenda. This would mark a massive increase in uncertainty for investors on everything from taxes to wages to anti-trust laws. Bottom Line: Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. If Republicans are obstructionist, Democrats will remove the filibuster. Biden’s Legislative Priorities First, Biden would seek to restore and expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The party has fixated on health care since 1992. Investors are complacent about Biden’s plan. A public health insurance option will be a major new progressive initiative that would undercut private health insurers over time (Chart 11). The bill will also impose caps on pharmaceutical prices and allow imports, reducing Big Pharma’s pricing power (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Insurers Will Be Undercut By Biden Public Option Health Insurers Would Be Undercut By Biden's Public Option Health Insurers Would Be Undercut By Biden's Public Option Investors are also complacent about taxation. Biden will pay for health care reform by partially repealing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. He has proposed raising the corporate rate from 21% to 28%, but this could go higher and still fall well below the 35% that Trump inherited in 2017. Chart 12Big Pharma Faces Price Caps Big Pharma Faces Price Caps Big Pharma Faces Price Caps A rate above 28% would be a major negative surprise for financial markets and yet it is an obvious way for Democrats to raise much-needed revenue. Biden also intends to pass a 15% minimum tax that would hit large firms adept at paying lower effective taxes. Capital gains taxes and individual income taxes for high-earners could also rise by more than is expected (Table A1 in Appendix). Second, Biden will seek to offset the negative growth impact of falling stimulus and rising taxes by enacting large “Great Society” fiscal spending on infrastructure, the Green New Deal, education, and other non-defense discretionary spending (Table A2 in Appendix). Even defense spending will be largely kept flat due to rising geopolitical conflicts. As mentioned, this part of the agenda is reflationary, especially relative to a scenario in which fiscal largesse is normalized more rapidly by a Republican Senate. The redistribution effects would be marginally positive for household consumption, but marginally negative for corporate investment. On immigration, Biden will follow the Obama administration in pursuing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” (illegal immigrants brought to the US as children) and taking executive action to allow more high-skilled workers and refugees, defer deportation of children and families, and reduce border security enforcement. There will be some constraints due to the risk of provoking another populist backlash, but comprehensive immigration reform is possible. This would be positive for potential GDP, agriculture, construction, and housing demand on the margin (Chart 13). On trade, Biden will have to steal some thunder back from Trump if he is to win the election and maintain the Rust Belt. He will concentrate his protectionist policy on China, while removing virtually all risk of a trade war with Europe, Mexico, or other partners. China may get a reprieve at first but Biden will ultimately prove hawkish (Chart 14). Investors are underrating the use of import duties to punish countries like China for carbon-intensive production. Chart 13Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden will take a multilateral approach and restore international agreements that Trump revoked. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not a massive change given that even Trump agreed to trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and Japan. But it is marginally positive for the US-friendly trade bloc while contributing to the US economic decoupling from China (Chart 15). Chart 14Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Chart 15Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China On foreign policy, Biden will face the ongoing US-China cold war. He will also seek to restore the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The removal of Iran risk is positive for European companies with a beachhead in Iran as well as for the euro more generally, since regional instability ultimately threatens the EMU with waves of refugees (Chart 16). Chart 16Biden Removes Tail-Risk Of Iran War Biden Would Remove Tail-Risk Of Iran War (But Still A Risk Under Trump) Biden Would Remove Tail-Risk Of Iran War (But Still A Risk Under Trump) Bottom Line: A Biden presidency will lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. But Biden’s agenda is mostly reflationary in other respects. Blue Wave Equity Market And Sector Implications The most profound implication of a blue sweep of government is an SPX profit margin squeeze that will weigh heavily on EPS. Importantly, there are two clear avenues through which net profit margins will suffer: An increase in the corporate tax rate. A rise in labor’s share of national income. As a reminder these are two of the four primary profit margin drivers we discussed in detail in our “Peak Margins” Special Report last October (Chart 17). The other two are selling price inflation and generationally low interest rates. Odds are high that all four drivers are slated to dent S&P 500 margins. With regard to corporate tax rates, the mirror image of the one time fillip that SPX EPS enjoyed in 2018, owing to Trump’s 1.2% increase in fiscal thrust that year, is a drop in S&P 500 profits given that a Biden presidency will boost the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% or higher. In early-December 2017 we posited that SPX EPS would jump 14% on the back of that fiscal easing package, which is very close to what actually materialized. Chart 18 compares S&P 500 EBIT growth with S&P 500 net profit growth. The 2018 delta hit a zenith of 16%. Chart 17Profit Margin Drivers Profit Margin Drivers Profit Margin Drivers Chart 18Spot Trump's Tax Cut Spot Trump's Tax Cut Spot Trump's Tax Cut Assuming a blue wave, the opposite would happen, i.e. net profit growth would suffer an 11% one-time contraction according to our calculations (Table 1). The bill would pass in 2021 and take effect in 2022. Importantly, Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications The second way SPX margins undergo a squeeze is via climbing labor costs. Labor costs have been increasing since 2008/09 (labor’s share of income shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17), coinciding with the apex of globalization (third panel, Chart 17). A Biden presidency would also more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers over six years. These policies would take a bite out of corporate profits by knocking down profit margins. While S&P 500 EPS maybe recover back to trend near $162 in 2021, they would gap lower in 2022 which is not at all priced in sell side analysts’ EPS expectations of $186. A blue sweep would produce some other US equity sore spots. Small caps would suffer disproportionately compared with their large cap brethren as would banks, health care, and parts of tech (see below). Chart 19 shows that according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners grew extremely concerned about higher taxes and red tape by the end of the Obama presidency. When President Trump got elected, he cut back these fears drastically. Today concerns about taxes and regulation are probing multi-decade lows, which implies that SMEs are not prepared for the regulatory shock that a Biden administration has in store for them (Chart 19). These small business concerns will resurface with a vengeance if there is a blue sweep this November. The implication is that at the margin small caps would underperform their large cap peers, especially given that small cap indexes sport 1.5x the financials sector market cap weight compared with the SPX (Table 2). Bottom Line: A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps as they will have to vehemently contend with rising red tape and taxes. Chart 19Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Historical Parallel Of Blue Sweeps And Select Sector Performance A more detailed discussion on banks, health care, and technology sectors is in order, as they are the likeliest candidates to be at the forefront of Biden’s regulatory, wage, and tax policies. There are two recent episodes when US presidential elections resulted in a blue sweep, namely in 1992 and 2008. Both times, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House but eventually surrendered this trifecta two years later during the 1994 and 2010 mid-term elections.3 Charts 20 & 21highlight the S&P banks, S&P health care, and S&P IT sectors’ performance during the last two blue waves. In both cases, banks remained flat to down; health care equities went down sharply; while tech stocks had mixed results. Tech took off in 1993-1994, but remained flat in 2009-2010 (excluding the recovery rally off the recessionary trough). Armed with this general roadmap, we now dive deeper into each of these three sectors for a more detailed discussion. Chart 20Not Everyone Is A Fan... Not Everyone Is A Fan… Not Everyone Is A Fan… Chart 21...Of The Blue Sweeps ...Of The Blue Sweeps ...Of The Blue Sweeps Banks Face High Risk Of Re-Regulation There is little doubt that Biden will re-regulate Wall Street, especially after the recent COVID-19-related watering down of the Dodd-Frank Act. Big banks are popular scapegoats. In fact, Biden already moved to the left on bankruptcy reform by adopting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s progressive proposal after a long drawn-out battle over this issue between them. Both of the earlier blue wave elections proved challenging for the banking sector. In addition, banks are already under pressure from the recent Fed stress tests. There are high odds that a number of banks will further cut or suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance, especially if profits take a big hit, as we expect. Currently, the market is underestimating the Biden threat to the banking sector as a substantial divergence has materialized between the banks’ relative performance and the blue sweep probability series (Chart 22). As the election draws closer, a repricing in the banking sector is likely looming. Chart 22Mind The Divergence Mind The Divergence Mind The Divergence Health Care Stands To Lose The Most From A Blue Sweep The health care sector was the only sector we analyzed that clearly underperformed in both 1992 and 2008 blue waves. Health care reform will be Biden’s top priority, as outlined above. Biden will also go after pharma manufacturers. As a reminder, while Medicare has substantial bargaining power with hospitals and other drug providers due to the number of Americans enrolled, it has no leverage when it comes to pharma manufacturers leaving them free to set prices at will. Biden intends to end such practices, enabling Medicare to bargain for prices. He also wants to link the rise in drug prices to inflation and allow foreign imports. These actions will put a cap on pharma manufacturers’ pricing power. Importantly, the S&P pharmaceuticals index is the dominant player within the S&P health care universe comprising 29% of the entire health care sector. A direct hit to pharma earnings will be a hard pill to swallow, especially if the S&P biotech index (comprising 17% of the S&P health care market cap weight) is included that are similar to Big Pharma as they manufacture blockbuster drugs. In fact, as the American electorate is getting more interested in Biden’s campaign, the market is pricing in a tougher environment for US pharmaceuticals (Chart 23). Markets can rely on the fact that Biden has rejected a single-payer government health system (“Medicare For All”) – this policy position helped him beat Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. However, he is proposing a public insurance option, which will have the ability to absorb losses indefinitely and will have the insurance regulators at its side. Thus private health insurers will be undercut. Chart 23Beginning Of The End Beginning Of The End Beginning Of The End A public option is also seen even by promoters as a “Trojan Horse” that will increase the odds that Democrats will move toward a single-payer system in 2024 or thereafter. Thus the risk/reward ratio skews further to the downside for the S&P health care sector. Will Technology Escape Unscathed? In the wake of COVID-19, and facing geopolitical competition in cyber space, a Biden administration will also seek a much stronger regulatory handle on Big Tech. Social media companies are already buttering up to the Democrats to ensure that Biden maintains the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley and does not pursue extensive anti-monopoly and anti-trust investigations. Yet the tech sector cannot avoid heightened scrutiny due to its conspicuous gains in the midst of an economic bust – this is what normally prompts anti-trust actions (Chart 24). The Democrats will pursue probes into data privacy and excessive market concentration and will demand stricter patrolling of the ideological space in battles that will be adjudicated by the courts. Chart 24How Much Is Too Much? How Much Is Too Much? How Much Is Too Much? Should the monopolistic tech stocks – including FB and GOOGL, which are now classified under the GICS1 S&P communication services index – be forced to sell their crown jewel assets, then a hit to earnings is a given. The S&P technology sector plus FB & GOOGL commands more than one third on the SPX index, meaning that a dent in tech earnings will have negative ramifications for the entire market. In previous research, we drew a parallel with the chemicals industry and the regulatory shock that came in 1976 when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was introduced.The bill pushed chemical stocks off the cliff as investments in the index became dead money for a whole decade – until 1985 when chemicals finally troughed (Chart 25) In the near future, a similar shock might come as a result of privacy-related regulation. A series of anti-monopoly or anti-trust probes, whether by the US or the EU, would make investors cautious about their tech exposure. While the probes may not result in a break-up, the heightened uncertainty would dampen the allure of tech stocks. The pattern of anti-trust probes in US history is that a probe first causes a selloff in the stock of the company investigated; then another selloff occurs when it is clear that a break-up is a real option under consideration; then a buying opportunity emerges either when the company is cleared or when the long dissolution process is completed. Bottom Line: While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Chart 25Will History Rhyme? Will History Rhyme? Will History Rhyme?     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten Years Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Table A2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications Blue Trifecta: Broad Equity Market And Sector Specific Implications   Footnotes 1     Republicans have 13 Senate seats at risk this cycle while Democrats have only four. More conservatively, Republicans have nine at risk while Democrats have two. Opinion polling has Democrats leading in seven out of nine top races, and tied in the other two – including states like Kansas where Democrats should have zero chance. Most of these races are tight enough that they will hinge on whether the election is a referendum on Trump. If so, Democrats will likely win the net three seats they need to control the chamber. Most likely they will have a 51-49 majority if Biden wins, though a 52-48 balance is possible.   2     The Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017 but success in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reflects the fact that political constraints are higher on taking away an entitlement than they are on giving benefits (tax cuts). 3    As noted above, however, investors today cannot be assured that Republicans will come roaring back in 2022 to impose constraints. Trump’s populism threatens to divide the party if he loses and delay its ability to regroup and recover.  

Dear Client, There will be no US Equity Insights from July 1-3 inclusive, as the US Equity team will be on vacation for the week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on Monday July 13, 2020 with our Weekly Report. Happy Independence Day.  Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Odds are high that stocks will move laterally in Q3, digesting the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. On all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress. Tack on the potential dividend cuts/suspensions and we were compelled to downgrade exposure to neutral. A dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions enticed us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Recent Changes Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral. These two moves also pushed the S&P financials sector weighting to neutral.1 Feature The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel, Chart 1). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, second panel, Chart 1). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Similarly, two Fridays ago we highlighted that the VIX and the S&P 500 were becoming positively correlated.2 The 20-day moving correlation between these two assets is shooting higher, approaching positive territory. Since late-2017 every time this correlation has hit the inflection point near the zero line, stocks has subsequently suffered a sizable setback (Chart 2). Chart 1Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Chart 2Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Tack on the public’s renewed interest in COVID-19 according to Google trends search results, and the odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer (top panel, Chart 1). Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Turning over to profits on the eve of earnings season, our four-factor macro EPS growth model for the SPX has tentatively troughed at an extremely depressed level (Chart 3). Our SPX EPS estimate for next calendar year remains near $162/share which we consider trend EPS and was last hit both in 2018 and 2019.3 Chart 3Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Moreover, drilling beneath the surface, this week Table 1 updates the sector and subgroup EPS growth expectations. First we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 1). The third columns in Table 1 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. Table 1Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings The final columns highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Tech, health care and communication services occupy the top ranks with positive EPS growth expectations, while financials, real estate and energy are forecast to contract in the coming 12 months and have fallen at the bottom of the table. Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Given that the tech sector has the highest profit weight in the SPX roughly 23% projected for next year (Table 2) it has really helped the broad market’s profit growth recovery (Chart 4). As a reminder, we continue to employ a barbell portfolio approach and prefer defensive (software and services) to aggressive tech (hardware and equipment). On the flip side, financials have the third largest profit weight roughly 16% in the S&P 500, trailing tech and health care, and pose a big threat to overall SPX profits next year, especially if there are any hiccups with the reopening of the economy (Table 2). Worrisomely, investors are not voting with their feet and are doubting that financials profits will deliver as the market cap weight relative to the profit weight stands at negative 540bps.  Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation via trimming the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral and this week we delve into more details on these two early cyclical subgroups. Chart 4Earnings Finding Their Footing Earnings Finding Their Footing Earnings Finding Their Footing Downgrade Banks To Neutral… We were compelled to downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral last Tuesday in advance of the Fed’s stress test results. There are high odds that a number of banks will cut/suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance in the latest round of stress test, especially if profits take a big hit as we expect. As a reminder, dividends are paid out below-the-line. Beyond the Fed’s stress tests and rising political risks,4 yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. First, it is disconcerting that bank relative performance has really not taken the yield curve’s steepening cue and has negatively diverged as we showed last week.5 The year-to-date plummeting 10-year yield is weighing heavily on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 5). The transmission mechanism to bank profits of this lower price of credit is via the net interest margin (NIM) avenue (third panel, Chart 5). NIMs will remain under downward pressure as long at the 10-year Treasury yield stays suppressed owing to the Fed’s immense b/s expansion. The rising likelihood of yield curve control could keep interest rates on the long end of the curve depressed for a number of years similar to what happened between 1942 and 1951. Second, on the credit growth front news is equally worrisome. The widening in the junk spread signals loan growth blues in the quarters ahead (second panel, Chart 6). Despite the initial knee jerk reaction, primarily by corporations, of tapping existing C&I credit lines and causing a surge in bank credit growth, bankers are not willing to extend credit according to the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey (third panel, Chart 6). The same survey revealed that banks are reporting lower demand for credit across the board, warning that future loan growth will be anemic at best, especially given the collapse in our economic impulse indicator (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Bank Yellow Flags Waving Bank Yellow Flags Waving Bank Yellow Flags Waving Chart 6Loan Growth Will Suffer Loan Growth Will Suffer Loan Growth Will Suffer Finally, with regard to credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel of Chart 7 highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 20mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel, Chart 7). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. In addition, there are “extend and pretend” clauses in the existing relief package especially on the residential mortgage front that aim to help homeowners make ends meet. But, the longer workers stay out of the labor force the higher the chances that their skills atrophy making it difficult for them to return to work. As a result, foreclosure risk is on the rise. While residential real estate loans are no longer the largest category in bank loan books they still comprise a respectable 21% of total loans or $2.3tn, a souring housing market could spell trouble for banks (Chart 8). Chart 7Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Chart 8Housing Arrears Are A Risk Housing Arrears Are A Risk Housing Arrears Are A Risk Already, residential mortgage delinquencies are rising and in May surged to the highest level since November 2011 according to Bloomberg. 4.3mn residential real estate borrowers are in arrears (this delinquency count includes borrowers with forbearance agreements who missed payments) and “more than 8% of all US mortgages were past due or in foreclosure” according to Black Night Inc., a property information service. Tack on the shattering consumer confidence and the consumer loan category (credit card, auto and student debt) is also under risk of severe credit quality deterioration (fourth panel, Chart 7). The commercial real estate (CRE) side of loan books is also likely to bleed. Anecdotes where landlords are demanding past due rent payment from tenants are mushrooming, at a time when the same landlords refuse to service their loan obligations. According to TREPP, CMBS delinquencies are skyrocketing across different REIT lines of business. Importantly, CRE loans add up to $2.4tn on commercial bank balance sheets or roughly 22% of total loans. Encouragingly, in Q1 banks started to aggressively provision for steep credit losses with commercial bank loan loss reserves now climbing just shy of $180bn according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile (second panel, Chart 7). This figure is almost twice as high as noncurrent loans and represents a healthy reserve coverage ratio. However, our fear is that if history at least rhymes NPLs will sling shot higher (bottom panel, Chart 7) rendering loan loss reserves insufficient. Putting this provisioning number in context, according to the Fed’s most adverse stress test scenarios banks’ losses could spring to $700bn: “In aggregate, loan losses for the 34 banks ranged from $560bn to $700bn”.6 As a result, banks will have to further provision for futures losses and thus take an additional hit to profitability. Our bank earnings growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and warns of a contraction in profit in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 9). Nevertheless, before getting too bearish on banks, there two key offsetting factors. Relative valuations are bombed out, signaling that most of the bad news is likely reflected in prices (bottom panel, Chart 5). Finally, technicals are also extremely oversold. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that relative momentum is as bad as it gets. Netting it all out, on all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress and compel us to downgrade exposure to neutral. Chart 9Dividend Cuts Are Looming Dividend Cuts Are Looming Dividend Cuts Are Looming …And Move To The Sidelines On Investment Banks & Brokers The S&P investment banks & brokers (IBB) group has a similar investment profile to the S&P banks index. But, given its more cyclical nature it typically oscillates violently around banks’ relative performance. Thus last Tuesday, we were also compelled to move to the sidelines on this higher beta financials subgroup.7 The COVID-19 accelerated recession has not only mothballed potential M&A deals that were in the works, but also a number of previously announced deals have been canceled. In addition, the outlook for M&A is grim, at least until the dust really settles from the coronavirus pandemic (second panel, Chart 10), weighing heavily on the sector’s profit prospects. While “Robinhood” (retail investor) trading stories abound, margin debt remains moribund and continues to contract, despite the V-shaped recovery in all major US stock markets since the March 23 lows (third panel, Chart 10). This coincident indicator speaks volumes in the near term direction of the broad market and any sustained contraction in trading related debt uptake will likely dent IBB profitability. According to the American Association of Individual Investors bullish retail investors have been absent from this quarter’s massive stock market rally and equity mutual fund and exchange traded fund flows corroborate this message (fourth panel, Chart 10). With regard to cyclicality, IBB are extremely quick to prune labor in times of duress and aggressively add to headcount during expansions. Recent trimming of IBB input costs signal that this industry is retrenching as it is trying to adjust cost structures to lower revenue run rates (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Related to the cyclical nature of the IBB industry, an accelerating stock-to-bond ratio has been synonymous with relative share outperformance and vice versa. In early June we turned cautious on the broad market’s near-term return prospects primarily on the back of rising (geo)political risks. The implication is that a lateral move in the broad market would push down the S/B ratio and weigh on relative share prices (Chart 11). However, there are some offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on this niche early-cyclical group. First relative valuations are extremely alluring. On a price-to-book basis IBB traded recently at 0.8x in absolute terms and at a steep 68% discount to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Chart 12Some Positive Offsets Some Positive Offsets Some Positive Offsets Second, volatility has gone haywire since late-February and it remains elevated with a VIX reading still north of 30. This is a fertile environment for IBB trading desks and should translate into higher profits (second panel, Chart 12). Third, equity trading volumes have exploded. True, volumes spike on downdrafts, but they have remained at an historically high level recently underscoring that IBB trading desk should be minting money (third panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, a dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions compelled us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral for a loss of 32.4% since inception. Trim the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral for a loss of 24% since inception. These moves also push the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT, and BLBG S5INBK – GS, MS, SCHW, ETFC, RJF, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Tales Of The Tape” dated June 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value ” dated April 27, 2020, and BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Debunking Earnings” dated May 19, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5    Ibid. 6    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200625c.htm 7    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps  June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights There are no atheists in foxholes, and no Austrians ahead of this election: Republican senators and White House staffers may grumble about giveaways, but they cannot risk being painted as the Grinch who Stole Essential Services in the homestretch of the campaign. A Biden victory will mean a leftward swing: Our geopolitical strategists believe markets are underestimating the extent to which a Biden victory would lead to a less friendly backdrop for investment capital. Tensions with China are likely to escalate: China-bashing is popular with the electorate, and a desperate White House may turn up the heat to recover its standing in the polls. The battle for great-power supremacy remains unresolved. The pandemic is causing the retreat from globalization to accelerate before our eyes: Curtailing offshoring and building new redundancies into supply chains will weigh on corporate profit margins and undermine earnings growth. Feature We had the pleasure of sitting down with Matt Gertken, the leader of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service, for a webcast last week. The timing could not have been better, as the pandemic has thrust Washington into the spotlight and the campaign will keep it there until Election Day. This report blends the US Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy teams’ takes on the broad themes we discussed and is a starting point for thinking about the 2020 election and its financial market implications. We will return to the topic throughout the summer and early fall as developments unfold. Republicans in the Senate can talk tough now, but they will have to knuckle under if they want to keep their majority (and the White House). Future Fiscal Largesse Though the scale of the CARES Act was huge, powering the United States to the head of the global class in terms of fiscal stimulus (Chart 1), both parties were discussing the next phase of COVID-19 relief before the ink on the bill was dry. Two months later, that momentum has stalled as Republicans have begun to push back against a fifth wave of spending (the CARES Act was the third). Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has taken direct aim at the $600 weekly federal unemployment benefit supplement, scheduled to expire at the end of July, calling unemployment benefits in excess of pay an “aberration,” and pledging that the program will be extended “over [his] dead body.” Chart 1A Massive Amount Of Fiscal Stimulus Elections Have Consequences Elections Have Consequences That benefit may be generous on a Scandinavian scale,1 but along with the direct $1,200 payments sent to nearly two-thirds of households, it is helping the economy withstand deleterious social distancing measures. Shoring up the finances of vulnerable households will help them stay current on their auto loans and rent or mortgage payments, staving off a wave of repossessions, evictions and foreclosures, and preventing a cascading chain of defaults that would intensify the economic pressure. Table 1The Battleground States Need Help Elections Have Consequences Elections Have Consequences Graham’s rhetorical flourishes aside, Republicans cannot hand the Democrats an opening to cast them as Scrooge when the campaign intensifies in late summer. Trump’s 2016 victory turned on flipping Florida and Rust Belt stalwarts Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin from the Democrats, and all those states are in play again except Ohio (Chart 2). Unemployment is elevated in the battleground Rust Belt states, and we think it must be higher than the official measure in a state as dependent on tourism as Florida (Table 1).2 Channeling the Grinch by taking unemployment benefits and essential workers away from put-upon voters in pivotal states3 is not a winning electoral strategy. Caught between an aid proposal that both Democrats and the White House want, Republican senators will ultimately have to concede. Chart 2The Midwest And Florida Are Crucial Elections Have Consequences Elections Have Consequences Rounding Out The Democratic Ticket Chart 3A New Obama-Biden Ticket? Elections Have Consequences Elections Have Consequences Presumptive Democratic nominee Biden is considering the pool of candidates to fill the number two spot on the ticket. Vice-presidential picks generate a lot of discussion when they’re made, but they typically have little influence on election outcomes. Among this year’s crop of contenders for the presidential nomination, only Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) could fulfill the typical VP function of helping to land a swing state. Klobuchar would likely appeal to soccer moms and suburban independents capable of being swayed back to the Democrats, but her moderate sensibilities wouldn’t expand Biden’s appeal to the party’s progressive wing or inspire younger voters. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) could help attract progressives and younger voters who see Biden as the status quo, but her antipathy toward big business could turn off swing voters and she would come at the cost of a senate seat.4 Voters have an unfavorable view of Kamala Harris (D-CA) and her contentious exchanges with Biden in the early debates could make for an awkward pairing. Stacey Abrams has recently entered the picture and would be an asset if she were able to increase African-American voter turnout, but she has a thin government resume. Michelle Obama is the only choice who would make a splash and significantly boost Biden’s prospects. She is viewed way more favorably than the rest of the field (Chart 3), would solidify Biden’s connection with Barack Obama, and increase turnout among the progressive, female, and minority voters the ticket needs to tip the scales in its favor. Unfortunately for the Democrats, she has unequivocally indicated that she does not wish to run. Biden has said he’d welcome her onto the ticket in a second, and he will likely put off his choice until efforts to draft her definitively fail. Michelle Obama could shake up the race if the Democrats can convince her to join the ticket. Investors should keep an eye on the Democratic ticket. Joe Biden will turn 78 in November. He will be a one-term president if he wins, and his public appearances suggest that he’s slower on the draw than he used to be. He may rely on his second-in-command much more than the average president and she will immediately become the odds-on favorite for the 2024 nomination. If the Democrats gain control of the Senate alongside a Biden victory, as our Geopolitical Strategy service projects, financial markets may have to begin discounting a future with materially less friendly regulatory and tax policy. China Tensions Will Not Go Away Chart 4The Middle Kingdom Is Out Of Favor Elections Have Consequences Elections Have Consequences Our geopolitical strategists have long flagged US-China tensions as the paramount geopolitical flashpoint. The only standalone nations with superpower potential are engaged in a long-term struggle for hegemony. The trade tensions that waxed and waned across all of 2019 were only one act of a longer-running play. Investors should not have been lulled into thinking the Phase 1 trade agreement would end the friction between the two countries. Politicians can be counted upon to give their constituents what they want, especially during election campaigns. China’s unpopularity with US voters has reached a new high in the wake of the pandemic (Chart 4), and candidates are likely to compete with one another to appear tougher on China. Between now and the election, there is a possibility that tensions could ramp up considerably. If the president finds his re-election prospects suffering from the COVID-19 outbreak and soaring unemployment, he may look to transform himself into a wartime president, boldly asserting American interests globally, and serially baiting an unpopular foe like China. Profit Margin Pressures Are Coming Except when interrupted by recessions, S&P 500 profit margins have climbed steadily higher since the early ‘90s (Chart 5). Several factors contributed to the increase in corporate profitability: the PC revolution, outsourcing, China’s entry into the WTO, the declining power of labor unions and, punctuating the rise in 2018, the 40% cut in the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 35% to 21%). If the Democrats take the White House and the Senate, we expect that corporate tax rates will swiftly rise. The top marginal rate may not go all the way back to 35%, but it has room to rise from its lowest level since before the US entered World War II (Chart 6), and any increase will represent a profit headwind. Re-configuring supply chains will reduce margins. Higher taxes will, too, if Democrats can take the White House and the Senate. Chart 5Corporate Profit Margins Are Vulnerable Corporate Profit Margins Are Vulnerable Corporate Profit Margins Are Vulnerable Chart 6A Democratic Sweep Will Lead To Higher Taxes A Democratic Sweep Will Lead To Higher Taxes A Democratic Sweep Will Lead To Higher Taxes Our Geopolitical Strategy service identified peak globalization as an important theme not long after it began publishing in 2012. The outbreak of the pandemic seems as if it will accelerate the retreat from globalization (Chart 7), and any reduction in outsourcing is likely to weigh on profit margins until automated inputs can supplant more expensive domestic labor. Onshoring is not the only factor likely to increase corporate costs after the pandemic, however. Companies are likely to seek to diversify their supply chains so that they are not so reliant on a single country or supplier. Building up redundancies within supply chains will make those chains more stable, but it will also increase costs. Chart 7The Pandemic Is Accelerating The Trend Away From Globalization The Pandemic Is Accelerating The Trend Away From Globalization The Pandemic Is Accelerating The Trend Away From Globalization A Biden victory is not the only source of election downside. If the president wins re-election, the odds of tariff conflicts with Europe will rise significantly. Unconstrained by having to contest another election, the administration could ratchet up the pressure on Europe, prompting certain retaliation from Brussels. Our strategists see a greater chance for trade peace, ex-China, if Biden captures the White House. Investment Implications The overriding questions on investors’ minds are why the stock market and the economy have parted company so decisively and how long they can continue to diverge. Our explanation turns on policy: the Fed has intervened mightily to hold down Treasury yields and keep financial markets functioning, while Congress has thrown open the federal coffers to keep laid-off workers and suddenly teetering businesses afloat. The social distancing measures imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19 caused economic activity to crater. Monetary and fiscal policy have been deployed to build a bridge over that crater, lest capital, people and businesses disappear into it like the Union troops at Petersburg. Ever since they began to rally in late March, financial markets have focused exclusively on the bridge. The Fed has the capacity and the will to install more monetary planks should the crater prove to be wider than initially estimated. Congress’ commitment is shakier, but the election will compel Republicans to provide more funding should it become necessary to prevent a dire outcome. The virus alone will dictate how long the bridge will have to be in place and investors can only guess at the virus' future course. Given the stock market’s pattern of surging on positive preliminary data for potential treatments or vaccines and barely easing when those data are shown to hold far less promise, it appears that its expectations are skewed to the right-hand side of the distribution. There appears to be considerable room for disappointment on the public health front. The possibility that markets are giving short shrift to a robust second wave of infections, or overestimating the speed with which a vaccine can be developed and distributed, is not a reason to short equities or be underweight them in balanced portfolios, though. The rally has been too strong, and there is a subset of right-tail outcomes that could well come to pass. We continue to expect a correction, and are carrying excess cash to prepare for it, but we are maintaining a neutral tactical outlook in the event of a positive surprise. We are optimistic about equities’ prospects over a twelve-month timeframe. Our rationale is that easy monetary policy and generous fiscal spending will outlive the social distancing measures they were prescribed to treat. Low interest rates, ample liquidity and pumped-up aggregate demand form a highly supportive backdrop for equities and should help them handily outperform bonds. The difference between our outlook and the equity market’s may simply be a matter of timing; the resurgent S&P 500 seems to be skipping ahead to the twelve-month conclusion and looking through the uncertainties that will arise along the way. The bears face daunting odds if Congress approves a meaningful fifth phase of fiscal stimulus: every trillion dollars extends the dark US bar in Chart 1 by another five percentage points. TIPS will eventually be the asset of choice when the debt has to be repaid but, in the meantime, equities have undeniable appeal.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 According to a new working paper, the median unemployed worker is eligible for benefit payments equivalent to 134% of his/her pre-layoff compensation. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27216 Accessed May 26, 2020. 2 Nevada, home to the Magic Kingdom for adults, has the nation’s highest unemployment rate (28.2%). 3 Most state constitutions mandate balanced budgets. In the absence of federal aid, local school, fire, police and public hospital payrolls will have to be pared in response to declining sales and income tax revenues. 4 Massachusetts’ Republican governor would get to appoint her replacement until a special election could be held.

Feature The SPX suffered its third 5.3-7.3% pullback since early April last week, which we deem a healthy development as markets cannot go up in a straight line. While there is a chance this latest pullback may morph into a correction, our sense is that equities will remain range bound in the near-term consolidating the vast gains made since the March 23 lows. Now that earnings season is practically over and macro data will remain backward looking, a large void signals that technicals will dominate trading. On that front, this looming lateral move will likely confine the SPX between the critical 50-day and 200-day moving averages – a roughly 10% range between 2,712 and 3,000 – until a catalyst breaks the stalemate (top panel, Chart 1A). With regard to the cyclical outlook, ultra-accommodative fiscal and monetary policies remain the dominant macro themes, and underpin our sanguine equity market view for the next year. Chart 1AConsolidating Gains Consolidating Gains Consolidating Gains Dollar The Reflator Importantly, King Dollar is a key macro variable that we are closely monitoring and as we highlighted last week, the Fed is indirectly aiming at jawboning the greenback.1 US dollar based liquidity is one of the most important determinants/drivers of global growth. The longer US dollar liquidity gets replenished, the more upward pressure it will put on SPX momentum and SPX EPS (Chart 1B). Sloshing US dollar based liquidity will serve as a much needed catalyst for a global growth recovery. Chart 1BHeed The Message From US Dollar Liquidity: Chart Of The Year Candidate Heed The Message From US Dollar Liquidity: Chart Of The Year Candidate Heed The Message From US Dollar Liquidity: Chart Of The Year Candidate The Yield Curve, Interests Rates And Profits Meanwhile, the yield curve, in fact a number of different yield curve slopes, troughed prior to the SPX in March, preserving its leading properties both near equity market tops and bottoms (middle & bottom panels, Chart 1A). The Fed orchestrated the steepening of the yield curve – which is typical during recessions – with the two preemptive cuts in March. Crucially, the yield curve is signaling that in the back half of the year SPX profits will also trough. True, a profit shortfall is upon us in Q2, and the steeper the fall, the higher the chance of a V-shaped recovery, owing to base effects (yield curve shown advanced, Chart 2). Chart 2Steep Yield Curve Slope Will Reflate Profits Steep Yield Curve Slope Will Reflate Profits Steep Yield Curve Slope Will Reflate Profits Encouragingly, the Fed reiterated last week that it will remain ultra-accommodative. While it will refrain from delving into NIRP, QE5 can expand anew and sustain the perching of the 2-year and even the 5-year and 7-year Treasury yields near zero. In fact, the shadow fed funds rate is already below zero as we highlighted last week.2 This monetary backdrop coupled with rising fiscal deficits as far as the eye can see – which will put upward pressure on long-term Treasury yields – will ensure a steep yield curve, and thus engineer a profit recovery (Chart 2). With regard to the interplay of interest rates and profit growth, the two are tightly inversely correlated (Chart 3). Empirical evidence suggests that since the mid-1980s profit growth is the mirror image of the year-over-year change in 7-year Treasury yields, albeit with a significant lag. Chart 3Interest Rate Pummeling Is A Boon For EPS Interest Rate Pummeling Is A Boon For EPS Interest Rate Pummeling Is A Boon For EPS What EPS Growth Is Discounted? Currently, if the relationship between profits and yields were to hold, then SPX EPS growth would stage a sizable come back in 2021. Chart 4 depicts the sell side’s quarterly EPS forecasts all the way to end 2021. Indeed, following a steep contraction, a brisk V-shaped profit recovery is looming in 2021 as we first argued three weeks ago that “historical precedents show an explosive year-over-year growth increase in EPS from recessionary troughs”.3 In more detail, Chart 5 breaks down 12-month forward EPS growth per sector. Tech comes out on top and by a wide margin with a near double-digit profit growth rate in absolute terms. This gulf is even more pronounced relative to the contracting SPX EPS growth rate. In fact, tech relative profit growth just reached the highest level since 2004 and explains the broad market’s tech dependence. As a reminder, tech market cap is back to the 2018 peak despite the fact the GOOGL and FB have now moved to the newly formed S&P communication services index. If one were to add the pair and AMZN back to the tech sector’s weight, it would comprise over 36% of the SPX, higher even than the dotcom bubble era (Chart 6)! Chart 4V-Shaped Profit Recovery V-Shaped Profit Recovery V-Shaped Profit Recovery Chart 5Tech… Tech… Tech… Chart 6…Reigns Supreme …Reigns Supreme …Reigns Supreme Tech Titans Digression A brief digression is in order as it pertains to the tech titans. We have been inundated with requests recently on the subject of valuations and the concentration of returns in the top five SPX stocks. We first commented on this in January, and reiterate today that the current tech sector’s supposed overvaluation is nowhere near the dotcom excesses .4 Back then, the top five SPX stocks commanded a forward P/E over 60, but today’s valuation pales in comparison with the late-1990s, as the equivalent P/E is roughly half that multiple (please refer to Chart 2 of the January 27, 2020 Weekly Report). Why? Because at the turn of the millennium, tech stocks had very little earnings to show for, but now the tech sector has the largest profit weight among its GICS1 peers. Thus, tech stocks trade at a modest 9% premium to the broad market whereas in 1999 they were changing hands at more than twice the SPX multiple (Chart 7). Chart 8 attempts to shed more light on the subject. The top panel shows the overall SPX market cap and also excluding the top five stocks. Then we subtract the top five stocks’ forward P/E from the broad market and show where the S&P 500 ex-top five stocks P/E trades (second panel, Chart 8). Since the FB IPO, these stocks have indeed increased their influence on the broad market’s valuation (third panel, Chart 8). Chart 7What Relative Overvaluation? What Relative Overvaluation? What Relative Overvaluation? Chart 8Top Five Are Pricey, But For Good Reason Top Five Are Pricey, But For Good Reason Top Five Are Pricey, But For Good Reason Sectorial Profit Growth Breakdown Circling back to the breakdown of 12-month forward EPS growth per sector, traditional defensive sectors (utilities, staples and health care) all enjoy positive 12-month forward profit growth in absolute terms, and so do communication services that just kissed off the zero line. All other sectors are contracting at differing degrees (Chart 5). On a longer-term basis, as expected no GICS1 sector is slated to contract, but their five-year growth rates are widely dispersed. Consumer discretionary, real estate, materials and tech occupy the top ranks with double digit growth rates, while utilities, consumer staples, energy, industrials and financials are in mid-single digits and at the bottom of the pit. Communication services and health care hover in the middle, on a par with the broad market (Chart 9). Chart 9Long-Term Growth Has Reset Lower Long-Term Growth Has Reset Lower Long-Term Growth Has Reset Lower Higher Profits Are Synonymous With Higher Returns Intuitively, the higher the forward profit growth rate, the higher each sector’s trailing return. Chart 10 depicts this positive correlation on the GICS1 sectors and corroborates that the laggard energy sector has the lowest year-to-date return, whereas tech stocks lead the pack. Importantly, SPX sector profit weights are extremely important. Chart 11 ranks the GICS1 sectors 12-month forward profit weights. Tech, health care and financials comprise roughly 60% of total S&P 500 earnings for the coming year. Whereas the drubbing in the energy sector (83% projected EPS contraction) has drifted into oblivion within the SPX context and has a mere 0.5% profit weight (Chart 11). Chart 10Higher Growth = Higher Returns Debunking Earnings Debunking Earnings Chart 11Top three Comprise 60% Of Profit Weight Debunking Earnings Debunking Earnings Bottom Line: While the top three sectors inherently carry the bulk of the risk on the SPX earnings front courtesy of the high concentration, our sense is that both tech (neutral) and health care (overweight) will deliver according to the messages from our macro EPS growth models (Chart 12). Financials (overweight) profits are a question mark, and therefore pose the greatest risk to our still constructive 9-12 month broad equity market view.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chart 12EPS Growth Models Emit Positive Signals EPS Growth Models Emit Positive Signals EPS Growth Models Emit Positive Signals   Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bottomless Punchbowl” dated May 11, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Ibid. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value” dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.          4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Reports, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020 and “When The Music Stops...” dated January 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.