Disasters/Disease

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. We will be back the week after with the GIS quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major investment themes and views we see playing out in 2021. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights While a vaccine, ironically, could dampen economic activity in the near term, it will pave the way for faster growth in the medium-to-long term. Inflation is unlikely to rise much over the next two-to-three years. However, it could gallop higher later this decade as unemployment falls below pre-pandemic levels and policymakers keep both monetary and fiscal policy accommodative. Many of the structural factors that have depressed inflation are going into reverse: Baby boomers are leaving the labor force, globalization is on the back foot, and social cohesion is fraying. The lackluster pace of productivity growth suggests that innovation is not occurring as fast as many people think. Rather, what seems to be happening is that the nature of innovation is changing in ways that are a lot more favorable to Wall Street than Main Street. Monopoly power has grown, especially in the tech sector. This has had a deflationary effect in the past but could take a more inflationary tone in the future. Investors should remain overweight stocks for the next 12 months, while shifting equity allocation away from growth companies towards value companies and away from the US towards the rest of the world. The Waiting Game This week brought some further good news on the pandemic front. The number of reported daily cases continues to trend lower in Europe. The 7-day average has now fallen by 30% from its November 8th peak (Chart 1). In the US, there are faint indications that the number of new cases is stabilizing, especially in the hard-hit Midwest (Chart 2). Chart 1Covid Cases In Europe: Past The Worst Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 2Covid Cases In The US: Approaching The Peak Of The Third Wave? Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Nevertheless, it is too early to breathe a sigh of relief. As with other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily in colder temperatures. Moreover, this week is Thanksgiving in the US, and with the holiday season approaching in the wider world, there will be more opportunities for the virus to propagate. Chart 3The US May Have To Follow Europe In Tightening Lockdown Measures Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Despite the cresting in new cases, the absolute number of confirmed daily infections remains extremely high. The 7-day average currently stands at about 175,000 in the US. Adjusting for the typical three-week lag between new cases and deaths, the case-fatality rate is approximately 1.8%. The CDC estimates the “true” fatality rate is 0.7%.1 This implies that for every one person who tests positive for Covid-19, 1.5 people go undetected. Thus, around 450,000 Americans are catching Covid every day. That is 3.2 million per week or about 1% of the US population. Other estimates from the CDC suggest that the true number of new infections may now be even greater, perhaps as high as 11 million per week.2 Unlike in Europe, where governments have implemented a series of stringent lockdown measures, the US has taken a more relaxed approach (Chart 3). If the number of new infections fails to fall much from current levels, more US states will have to tighten social distancing rules. The availability of vaccines will pave the way for stronger growth in the medium-to-long term. Ironically however, as we pointed out two weeks ago, vaccine optimism could dampen economic activity in the near term. With the light clearly visible at the end of the tunnel, more people may choose to hunker down to avoid being infected. After all, how frustrating would it be to contract the virus just a few months before one can be vaccinated? It is like being the last guy shot on the battlefield in a war that is drawing to an end. The Outlook For Inflation Could inflation make a comeback once a vaccine is widely available? The pandemic put significant downward pressure on prices in a number of areas, particularly air transport, accommodation, apparel, and gasoline. While prices in some categories, such as used cars, meats and eggs, and certain toiletries did rise briskly, the net effect was still a substantial decline in overall inflation (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impact Of Covid On US Inflation Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Core PCE inflation stood at 1.4% in October, well below the Fed’s target. As Chart 5 illustrates, core inflation is below central bank targets in most other economies as well. A bounce back in prices in the most pandemic-afflicted sectors should lift inflation over the next six months. Our US bond strategists expect core PCE inflation to peak at 2¼% in the second quarter of next year, before falling back below 2% by the end of 2021. Chart 5Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Chart 6Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Ignoring the temporary oscillations in inflation due to base effects, a more sustained increase in inflation would require that labor market slack be fully absorbed. In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the major economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 6). While a vaccine will expedite the healing of labor markets, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next three years. What about beyond then? The fact that long-term bond yields are so low today implies that most investors think that inflation will remain subdued for many years to come (Chart 7). This is confirmed by CPI swaps, which in some countries go out as far as 50 years. For the most part, they are all trading at levels below official central bank inflation targets (Chart 8). Chart 7Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Chart 8… As Are Long-Term Inflation Expectations Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Heading Towards The Kink Is inflation really dead, or is it just dormant? We think it is the latter. Contrary to the claim that the Phillips curve has become defunct, Chart 9 shows that the wage version of the Phillips curve – which compares wage growth with the unemployment rate – is very much alive and well. What is true is that rising wage growth has failed to translate into higher price inflation in most economies since the early 1980s. However, this may have simply been due to happenstance: Every time the global economy was starting to heat up to the point that a price-wage spiral could develop, something would happen to break it. In 2019, the unemployment rate in the G7 hit a 46-year low. Perhaps inflation would have accelerated this year had it not been for the pandemic? Likewise, inflation might have risen in 2008 had it not been for the financial crisis, and in 2001 had it not been for the dotcom bust. Chart 9Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 10Inflation Reached The ''Kink'' In 1966 Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Rather than being defunct, the price-version of the Phillips curve may turn out to be kinked at a very low level of the unemployment rate. Such was the case during the 1960s (Chart 10). US core inflation remained steady at around 1.5% in the first half of that decade, even as the unemployment rate drifted lower and lower. In 1966, with the unemployment rate nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, inflation blasted off, doubling to more than 3% within a span of six months. Core inflation would go on to increase to 6% by 1969, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s. A Less Deflationary Structural Backdrop Many pundits argue that the structural backdrop for inflation is vastly different today than it was during the 1960s, making any comparison with that decade next to worthless. They point out that unions had a lot more power back then, global supply chains were underdeveloped, and rapid population growth was creating more demand for goods and services than the economy could supply. We have addressed these arguments in the past and will not belabor the point this week other than to note that all three of these structural forces are now in retreat.3 Chart 11The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us Granted, unions are not as powerful as they were in the 1960s. However, public policy is still moving in a more worker-friendly direction. Witness the fact that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage in increments from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden has also pledged to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output moving sideways for more than a decade (Chart 11). At the same time, baby boomers are departing the labor force en masse. Rather than remaining net savers, these retiring workers will become dissavers. This means that the global savings glut, which has suppressed interest rates and inflation, could begin to dry up. Perhaps most ominously, social stability is at risk of breaking down. Homicides in the US have risen by nearly 30% so far this year compared to the same period a year ago.4 Historically, the institutionalization rate has tracked the homicide rate quite closely (Chart 12). As was the case in the 1960s, a lot of the well-meaning discussion about criminal justice reform today could turn out to be counterproductive. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but it is worth remembering that inflation exploded in the 1960s at exactly the same time that the murder rate shot up (Chart 13). Chart 12Dramatic Drop In Institutionalization Rate During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 13Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation The Role Of Innovation Technological innovation has been routinely cited as a driver of falling inflation. In many ways, this is rather odd. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real income. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Moreover, the fixation on technology as a deflationary force is a bit strange considering that measured productivity growth has been exceptionally weak in most advanced economies over the past 15 years – weaker, in fact, than it was in the 1970s (Chart 14). Chart 14US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years How, then, does one explain why tech stocks have fared so well? One often-heard answer is that productivity growth is mismeasured. We examined this argument carefully in our report entitled Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians, concluding that this does not appear to be the case. A more plausible answer is that while the pace of innovation has not sped up, the nature of innovation has changed dramatically in ways that have helped Wall Street a lot more than Main Street. The True Nature Of Corporate Profits Standard economics textbooks regard profit as a return on capital. This implies that if the price of capital goes down, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, that has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. While business investment did rise in 2018, this was all due to a rebound in energy spending. Outside of the oil and mining sector, business investment grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 15). Likewise, neither falling interest rates nor rising stock prices – two factors that should produce a lower cost of capital – have done much to buoy investment spending in recent years. Chart 15Overall Capex In 2017-2019 Was Boosted By The Oil And Mining Sector Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 16A Winner-Takes-All Economy Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate   Why did the standard economic relationship between investment and the cost of capital break down? The answer is that the traditional approach does not take into account what has become an increasingly important driver of corporate profits: monopoly power. A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely found that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997.5 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 that of the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 16). The dispersion in performance has been particularly stark within the tech sector. According to BCA Research’s proprietary Equity Analyzer, the shares of “value tech” companies – that is, companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales – have not only lagged the shares of other tech companies, but they have also lagged the shares of similarly valued financial companies (Chart 17). This underscores the point that the outperformance of growth stocks over the past 12 years has not just been a story about technology. Rather, it has primarily been a story about some tech companies doing much better than other tech companies. Chart 17Value Tech Lagged Value Financials Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate The Winner-Take-All Economy What explains the bifurcation in performance within the tech sector? Two reasons come to mind. First, 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. Second, tech companies 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. The role played by winner-take-all markets explains how a handful of companies were able to become mega-cap tech titans. Chart 18 and Chart 19 show that increased monopoly power, as reflected in rising profit margins and higher relative P/E ratios, has played a greater role in driving tech share outperformance since the mid-1990s than faster revenue growth. Chart 18Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Chart 19Decomposing Tech Outperformance (II) Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Reaching Adulthood History suggests that monopolists tend to experience an initial rapid growth phase in which they capture ever-more market share, followed by a mature phase where they effectively function as utilities – cranking out stable cash flows to shareholders without experiencing much further growth. While it is impossible to say how far along most of today’s tech leaders are in this cycle, it does appear that the period of rapid growth for many of them may be drawing to a close. As it is, 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. The shift away from “growth status” towards “utility status” for some tech monopolists could prompt investors to trim the valuation premium they assign to these stocks. In addition, it could lead to increased regulation by governments to ensure that monopoly power is not abused. This could further depress valuations. Monopolies And Inflation What about the implications for inflation? Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output could depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has emphasized,6 this implies that rising market power could simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment in new capacity. At least initially, this could be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment spending will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. This helps explain why falling real interest rates and rising profits have failed to trigger an investment boom. Further down the road, the impact of monopoly power on inflation could turn on its head. Less investment spending will curb potential GDP growth, making it easier for economies to run up against capacity constraints. Low real interest rates could also induce governments to run larger budget deficits, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Finally, an economy where monopoly power runs unchecked will eventually spur a populist backlash, leading to reflationary policies that favor workers over business oligarchs. Investment Conclusions Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 20). Given the likelihood that economic growth could surprise on the downside in the near term, equities are vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20A Lot Of Bullishness A Lot Of Bullishness A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 21European Banks: A Low Bar For Success European Banks: A Low Bar For Success European Banks: A Low Bar For Success   Equity investors should shift their allocation away from growth stocks towards value stocks and away from the US towards the rest of the world. We like European banks in particular. They currently trade at 0.6-times tangible book value and 7.2-times 2019 earnings. Earnings estimates for 2021 have been slashed but should rebound on the expectation of a vaccine-driven growth recovery later next year (Chart 21). Faster growth should produce a modest steepening in yield curves, boosting net interest margins in the process. Faster growth should also lead to stronger credit demand while reducing bad loans. Looking further out, this week’s report argues that inflation could accelerate meaningfully once unemployment returns to pre-pandemic levels in about two-to-three years. The departure of baby boomers from the labor market, sluggish productivity growth, fraying social cohesion, and a backlash against monopoly power could all push up inflation. These forces could also create a more challenging environment for stocks, particularly today’s mega-cap tech names.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 A recent systematic review of literature found that the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) stood at 0.7%. Similarly, in September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published age-specific IFRs in its Covid-19 Planning Scenarios. The population-weighted average of the CDC’s “best estimate” suggests a 0.7% IFR. Please see “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated September 10, 2020; and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and Lea Merone, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 29, 2020. 2 Please see “Covid live updates: CDC estimates only eighth of infections counted,” NBC News Live Blog, November 25, 2020; and “The Latest: South Korea has most daily cases in 8 months,” Associated Press, November 26, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Is The Entire World Heading For Negative Rates?” October 25, 2019; Special Reports “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1),” and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),”dated August 10 and 24, 2018; and Weekly Report, “Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?” dated September 22, 2017. 4 Please see this Twitter thread on the latest data from the 100 largest US cities by Patrick Sharkey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. 5 Gustavo Grullon, Yelena Larkin, and Roni Michaely, “Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?” Oxford Academic, Review of Finance (23:4), July 2019. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” dated June 27, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate

Highlights New recommendation: Go neutral growth versus value on a 6-12-month horizon… …and exploit the greater opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe. Within the growth universe, overweight healthcare versus technology. New recommendation: Within the value universe, overweight utilities versus banks. Downgrade tech-heavy Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Upgrade utilities-heavy Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal trade: Overweight Portugal versus Italy. Feature Chart of the WeekBank Profits In Structural Decline Bank Profits In Structural Decline Bank Profits In Structural Decline Last week, Fed Chair, Jay Powell explained: “We’re not going back to the same economy. We’re going back to a different economy.” What will the different economy look like? We will only really know when the pandemic ends and short-term palliatives like government-funded job furlough schemes and rent and debt payment moratoriums are removed. Only then will we get the true price discovery to know which activities, jobs, and debts are viable and which are not. At the very least, the now widespread acceptance of remote working, remote shopping, and remote business meetings means that city centres, bricks and mortar retailers, and business aviation will become pale shadows of their former selves. This is worrying because the retail sector, on its own, employs 10 percent of all workers. Furthermore, economic shocks give impetus to structural changes that were already underway. Case in point, the UK government has just announced a ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The lockdowns gave the British people the taste of clean air, and the British people liked it, so the government accelerated its initiative to abolish fossil fuels. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, there are two ways that sectors go bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly. A Textbook Market Slump… But Will We Get A Textbook Recovery? During an economic slump and the subsequent recovery, three fundamental drivers shape the evolution of stock prices. The first two drivers are well understood by any student of Financial Markets 101, but the third driver is not so well understood. More on that later. The first well understood driver of stock prices is the outlook for near-term profits. During a slump, the profits of ‘defensive’ sectors that are insensitive to fluctuations in the economy, outperform those of ‘cyclical’ sectors that are sensitive to the economy. For example, during this year’s slump, the profits of defensive healthcare remained remarkably resilient, whereas the profits of cyclical banks collapsed by 30 percent (Chart I-2). During the recovery, this should reverse, says the textbook. Cyclical profits should outperform defensive profits. Chart I-2Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? Defensive Profits Outperformed In The Slump, But What About The Recovery? The second well understood driver of stock prices is the discount rate applied to long-term profits. The present value of long-term profits is highly sensitive to the (inverted) bond yield. As discussed last week, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity at ultra-low bond yields. When the bond yield collapses to an ultra-low level, the present value of long-term profits surges. This favours ‘growth’ sectors like technology, whose profits are weighted to the distant future, versus ‘value’ sectors like utilities, whose profits are weighted closer to the here and now. ‘Cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, but markets do not always follow the textbook. During this year’s slump, the near-term profits of technology and utilities performed similarly (Chart I-3). But when the bond yield collapsed and boosted the value of long-term profits, the multiple paid for near-term profits surged by 20 percent for technology, while remaining unmoved for utilities (Chart I-4). When the bond yield rises, this relative move should reverse, says the textbook. Value sector multiples should outperform growth sector multiples. Chart I-3Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Tech And Utilities Profits Performed Similarly... Chart I-4But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities But 'Growth' Tech Got A Bigger Valuation Boost Than 'Value' Utilities So far, so good. The student of Financial Markets 101 will tell you that ‘defensive growth’ stocks outperform when the economy slumps, and bond yields collapse. Whereas ‘cyclical value’ stocks should outperform when the economy recovers, and bond yields rise. Yet as we all know, the real world is not that simple. Financial markets do not always follow the textbook. Major Economic Shocks Can Destroy Industries One real-world complication to the textbook recovery is that the bond yield might not be able to rise meaningfully before causing a relapse in the economy. This could be because of a high structural level of debt, a high structural level of unemployment, or a high structural level of risk-asset valuations. Any one of these three structural fragilities would make the economy incapable of tolerating a higher bond yield. Yet today the worry is not one fragility, it is all three of the above! Still, even if the bond yield cannot rise meaningfully, it might not fall much either, making the choice between value and growth unclear. The other real-world complication to the textbook is that major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. The point that Jay Powell made last week, and which forms the title of this report. Major economic shocks cause structural breaks from the past. This brings us to the third – less well-understood – driver of stock prices during and after a slump: the structural change in the sector’s long-term profit outlook. For some sectors, the long-term profit outlook phase-shifts down. Meaning that even if the bond yield does not keep falling, value sectors could continue to underperform as the collapse in their long-term profits gets recognised. For example, after oil and gas profits reached an all-time high in 2008, each slump has been followed by a progressively lower subsequent peak (Chart I-5). European banks look even worse. In the recovery following each slump since 2008, profits have regained only a third of the preceding slump’s losses. This implies that after each slump, the long-term profit outlook for the banks is phase-shifting down (Chart of the Week). Chart I-5Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Oil And Gas Profits In Structural Decline Hence, European banks have failed to generate sustained outperformance in any recovery, even though the textbook says that as ‘cyclical value’ stocks, they should. Only a brave person would bet that it will be any different this time (Chart I-6). Chart I-6European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery European Banks Have Failed To Generate Sustained Outperformance In Any Recovery The Big Opportunities Are Within The Growth And Value Universes After a major economic shock, a structural change in a sector’s long-term profit outlook renders any backward-looking valuation framework obsolete. In such cases we cannot use mean-reversion to inform our investment strategy, because the past will be a poor guide to the future. As European banks have taught us for fifteen years, it is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. It is extremely dangerous to follow the textbook recovery play of value versus growth on any sustained basis. Right now, there is a much smarter investment strategy. Go neutral growth versus value, and exploit the bigger opportunities within the growth universe and within the value universe where mean-reversion strategies are more justified. Specifically, within the growth universe, the valuation premium on technology versus healthcare is at its highest level since 2009 (Chart I-7). Even more extreme, the US technology versus US healthcare valuation premium is approaching the peak of the dot com bubble (Chart I-8). Hence, we reiterate last week’s recommendation. Chart I-7The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... The Valuation Premium On Tech Versus Healthcare Is High... Chart I-8...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak ...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak ...And In The US, Approaching The Dot Com Bubble Peak Go overweight healthcare versus technology. The regional and country allocation implications are to go overweight healthcare-heavy Europe versus technology-heavy Emerging Markets. And within Europe, to go overweight healthcare-heavy Denmark and Switzerland versus technology-heavy Netherlands. The upshot is that today we are downgrading Netherlands from overweight to neutral. Turning to the value universe, the performance of cyclical banks versus defensive utilities just tracks the bond yield (Chart I-9). This means that the recent snapback rally in banks versus utilities needs higher bond yields for support. Absent a sustained rise in bond yields, the rally is fragile and vulnerable to reversal. Chart I-9Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Banks Vs. Utilities = The Bond Yield Yet as we explained last week, the 10-year T-bond yield can rise by only 30 basis points or so before undermining the broad stock market. On this basis, we are making a new recommendation. Go overweight utilities versus banks. Within Europe, the implication is to go overweight utility-heavy Portugal versus bank-heavy Spain and Italy (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks Portugal Vs. Italy = Utilities Vs. Banks The upshot is that today we are upgrading Portugal from neutral to overweight. Fractal Trading System* Fractal analysis confirms that Portugal’s underperformance is approaching a potential reversal point if bond yields do not rise meaningfully. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is overweight Portugal versus Italy. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.6 percent. In other trades, long coffee versus corn achieved its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-11MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy MSCI: Portugal Vs. Italy   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Iran is second only to China as a target for President Trump during his “lame duck” two months in office. There is plenty of spare capacity to absorb oil supply disruptions, however. President-Elect Biden will rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, but the process will be rocky and we are far from a balance of power in the Middle East. The impact on oil supply is positive but the recovery of global demand will push oil prices up over time regardless. Now is not the right time to go long Middle Eastern equities as a reflation trade. We favor the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. Israeli stocks can continue outperforming Middle East bourses as a whole, but the rotation from growth to value stocks will benefit other bourses. Prefer the UAE to Turkey, where a large political risk premium will persist. Feature Dear Client, With the US election largely complete, this week marks the return to our regular coverage of global market-relevant political risks. Over the past several months we have focused heavily on every aspect of the US election. The effort was worth it: our final forecast of Democratic White House and a Republican Senate came to pass and our trade recommendations generally performed as expected. Nevertheless it is time to refresh and expand our views on other markets and topics. Geopolitical Strategy has always been – necessarily – a global service offering global coverage. Recent events in China, Europe, Russia, Turkey, and the Middle East demand greater attention – and clients have told us as much. Moreover, with promising vaccine candidates on the horizon, major questions are emerging about what the post-pandemic world will bring. To this end we are returning to our roots with weekly offerings on the full range of global affairs. This week we give you a Special Report on the future of the Middle East by one of BCA’s up-and-coming strategists, Roukaya Ibrahim. We know you will find her post-Trump outlook on the region insightful. As always, we look forward to hearing from you about your research needs and what we can do to answer your geopolitical and investment questions in a timely and actionable manner. Sincerely, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy The Middle East is about to become a major source of geopolitical risk again. First, President Trump remains in office for two months and is rushing to cement his legacy on the way out. Second, President-Elect Joe Biden will likely face gridlock at home and therefore concentrate the first two years of his presidency on foreign policy. Iran is a priority for both presidents. Biden will rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump pulled out of in 2018. The purpose of the JCPA was to wind down the US war in Iraq and then “pivot” to Asia, where the US has a much greater interest at stake in managing China’s rise (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden To Restore Obama's 'Pivot To Asia' Biden To Restore Obama's 'Pivot To Asia' Biden To Restore Obama's 'Pivot To Asia' Chart 2Squint To See Iran ... US Will Focus On China Squint To See Iran ... US Will Focus On China Squint To See Iran ... US Will Focus On China China poses a major challenge to the US while Iran poses a minor challenge (Chart 2). Biden’s aim will be to restore President Obama’s legacy. Given that the US president has unilateral authority on foreign policy, and that the 2015 deal was an executive deal without Senate approval, Biden has a good chance of success. But conditions are much less propitious than in 2015. He will not improve on the terms of the 2015 deal. Any return to a nuclear agreement and deeper understanding with Iran should ultimately reduce tensions in the Middle East. But the pathway to a new regional power equilibrium is rocky. So geopolitical risk is frontloaded and will be a near-term negative factor for Middle Eastern equities, which otherwise stand to benefit from global economic recovery. Restoring Iranian oil exports will increase global oil supply but geopolitical conflict will occasionally reduce supply. As always Iraq, wedged between Iran and US allies, is the central battleground for the power struggle in the Middle East (Map 1). Over a six-to-twelve month time frame, the global economy should recover and oil prices should trend upward. Map 1The Persian Gulf Is Filled With Black Swan Risks The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Biden Looks To Withdraw Like Obama And Trump Chart 3Biden May Regulate, But US Stays Energy-Independent Biden May Regulate, But US Stays Energy-Independent Biden May Regulate, But US Stays Energy-Independent The US’s ascent toward energy self-sufficiency and its geopolitical decline vis-à-vis China have forced Washington to revise its foreign policy over the past decade, resulting in a strategic divestment from the Middle East (Chart 3). The “Pivot to Asia” is a strategic reality evident in the shift in US military commitments – and Trump has ordered new drawdowns on his way out of office. China’s increasing geopolitical pressure on Australia and rising saber-rattling in the Taiwan Strait highlights the need for the energy-independent US to attend to allies elsewhere. The American public’s view of the Middle East as a strategic quagmire is now producing its third presidency. Obama, Trump, and Biden have all pledged to end the country’s “forever wars” in various ways. The risk to this trend, ironically, was Trump’s aggressive policy on Iran. He revoked Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement and tried to squash Iran’s regional role through “maximum pressure” sanctions and occasional military strikes. He also reinforced US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, rather than trying to rein them in as Obama had done. Biden’s victory implies that the US will once again favor diplomacy and détente with Iran. Although Iran may make a show of resistance to Biden’s overtures and raise its price so as not to appear to have capitulated to the US, it ultimately has little choice. Its economy is on its last legs, it faces widespread popular unrest, and its sphere of influence is crumbling. Hence constraints on both sides point to a restored nuclear deal. The first obstacle is immediate. President Trump’s “lame duck” period through January 20 is a window of opportunity for Israel or Saudi Arabia to make strategic gains while still enjoying full American support. We highlight the allies because they have much more to fear from Iranian power than the US, and more to lose if the Biden administration appeases Iran. The Trump administration has allegedly reviewed options to launch strikes against Iran since the election, but he has also allegedly ruled against them (as in June 2019). While Trump could still take some kind of action, he would likely face obstruction from the Department of Defense if he tried to do anything that would trigger a full-fledged war in his final two months. It falls to the allies then – or Iran – if conflict is to erupt in the near term. Obama, Trump, and Biden have all pledged to end the country’s "forever wars" in various ways. Cyber-attacks on Iranian nuclear sites this summer are a case in point (Table 1). Suspicious explosions, including at the preeminent Natanz nuclear site, were rumored to be the work of Israel and the United States and raised the specter of a military escalation. However, Iran stuck to its policy of “strategic patience,” hoping for a Biden win. Table 1US And Israel Suspected Of Sabotaging Iran This Year The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 It is possible that elements within the Iranian regime, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), could launch attacks to deter further sabotage against their infrastructure and capabilities. The IRGC is focused on rigging the 2021 presidential election and ensuring its ascendancy within the Iranian state ahead of the 82 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s succession, so it cannot be assumed to be quiet. The legacy of the outgoing President Rouhani – a relative moderate in Iran’s political scene – hinges on the success of the 2015 agreement, which he pledged would bring economic prosperity to Iran. The deal’s near-collapse has blighted this legacy and triggered a resurgence of hardliners in Iranian politics. This is clear from the February legislative elections in which hardliners won by a landslide (Chart 4). The hardening of the regime will continue, as Khamenei and the IRGC are increasingly focused on solidifying the regime’s security and authority prior to the succession. The next president will almost certainly be a hardliner reminiscent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oil price volatility should be expected, but over time the vaccine will secure the global economic recovery and oil prices will rise. Still, we assign low odds to Iran instigating a war or pulling out of the JCPA. The past two years have raised the specter of regime collapse. Khamenei is more likely to keep his eye on the prize: a diplomatic agreement with Biden that eases sanctions and thus enables the regime to live to fight another day. This would be his crowning achievement. The change in US leadership offers Tehran an excuse to renegotiate the 2015 deal and blame Trump as an idiosyncratic deviation from an agreement that lay in Iran’s interest. As long as Khamenei retains control of the IRGC this is our base case. Israel is limited in its ability to wage war against Iran alone, but it is not incapable of surgical strikes to set back the clock on the nuclear program, especially if the Trump administration is there to provide assistance in an exigency. The risk is not negligible. Trump’s former National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster has already warned that Israel could act on the “Begin Doctrine” of preemptive strikes against would-be nuclear powers in its neighborhood. While the near-term risk of conflict would remove oil supply, there is a simultaneous risk that cartel behavior would increase supply. Iran’s regional rivals have an interest in preventing a US-Iran deal, but they could not do so in 2015 and ultimately cannot do so today. Therefore they will seek to shore up their political strength in Iraq while undermining the Iranian economy. Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing GCC states benefit from the maximum pressure sanctions that have wiped out Iranian crude exports. The collapse in oil markets is weighing heavily on these economies. An Iranian deal would bring an additional 1mm b/d – 1.5 mm b/d of crude to global markets in short order. Arab petro-states will not cut back on their own production to make room for Iranian crude. They may try to grab greater oil market share ahead of any surge in Iranian exports. In the current oil market environment, Iran has more to lose from the status quo than do its Arab rivals. While ongoing conflict would add to the multiple crises facing Arab oil producers, the risk to oil production is less relevant today than it was at the top of the business cycle. OPEC 2.0 production is ostensibly capped at 36.42 mm b/d but there is plenty of spare capacity to make up for conflict-induced losses (Chart 5). Chart 4Hardliners Roaring Back To Power In Iran The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Chart 5Plenty Of Spare Oil Production Capacity Plenty Of Spare Oil Production Capacity Plenty Of Spare Oil Production Capacity Bottom Line: Biden’s election ensures that he will try to revive the Iranian nuclear deal and pivot to Asia. While this is positive for Middle Eastern stability over the medium term, it comes with near-term risks. A “lame duck” President Trump or Israel could strike out against Iran. The Gulf Arabs will do what they can to undermine Iran as well. Oil price volatility should be expected, but over the long run the main tendency will be for the global economy to recover and hence for oil prices to rise. Iraq: A Persistent Source Of Instability Iraq is the fulcrum of the US-Iran conflict, as witnessed in January with the US assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani. Torn between Tehran and Riyadh, Baghdad remains in political crisis and is the chief battleground in the regional power struggle. Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi is still struggling to bring Iraq’s various militias, many backed by Iran, under the control of the state. The US embassy, military bases, and other interests have been under attack throughout the summer, prompting Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to threaten to withdraw the US embassy from Baghdad (Table 2). As in the past any escalation between Iran and the US will likely occur in Iraq. Table 2Iran Adopting Deterrence Strategy In Iraq The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Beyond Trump’s lame duck period, if Washington looks to normalize relations with Iran, then various Iraqi and Saudi forces will try to make sure that Iraq remains independent. Iraq is the critical strategic buffer zone for Saudi Arabia and it will use its leverage with Sunni forces inside Iraq to oppose Iranian domination and warn the US against giving too much to Iran. The problem for Iraq is that the US is divesting from the region and Biden will focus on the Iranian deal to the neglect of other issues. As a result the Saudis will escalate their influence campaign and Iraq will remain unstable. Bottom Line: Iraq is ground zero for the creation of a new regional power equilibrium. If the US manages to secure its allies, even while reviving the Iranian deal, then Iraq has a prospect of stabilization. But the insecurity of US allies will predominate so Iraq remains at risk of instability, militancy, and oil supply disruptions. A New Dawn? Unification to counter Iran is the chief motive behind the Abraham Peace Accords signed between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan with the Trump administration’s mediation (Table 3). Table 3The Abraham Accords Unify Iran’s Regional Rivals The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Although Israel and the UAE had already been cooperating and sharing intelligence, the deal creates a formal diplomatic partnership against Iran that the countries will need even more as the US pivots to Asia. From Washington’s perspective, the deal enables it to reduce its direct management of the region and delegate authority to its ally and partners. While Saudi Arabia did not sign a deal with Israel, it has signaled a change in strategy. Bahrain is ultimately a Saudi proxy and would not have signed the agreement without Riyadh’s blessing. Moreover, the decision to open Saudi airspace to Israeli airplanes highlights closer cooperation. Additional motives that helped seal the deal: President Trump sought a foreign policy win ahead of the election. The deal reflects his promise to withdraw from the Middle East. Having won 48% of the popular vote, Trump’s approach will loom large over the Republican Party. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hoped the deal would secure him a political win amid unpopularity at home. Israel was not even forced to accede to the UAE’s demand to halt the annexation of the West Bank: Netanyahu merely announced that annexation was postponed. And on October 14, only a month after the accords were signed, Israel approved new settler homes in the occupied West Bank. For the UAE, the deal requires little effort but is economically and militarily beneficial. It improves its chances of purchasing long-sought F-35 fighter jets from the US. It is also consequential that the UAE was the first to sign the deal. Abu Dhabi is seeking to raise its stature as a regional power. It has engaged in various Middle Eastern conflicts including in Libya and Yemen and is the only Arab state to have committed troops to Afghanistan for security and humanitarian missions. The UAE has also expanded its influence by being the top source of capex investments in the region (Chart 6). It has emerged as a model Arab state and seeks to replicate that success in its geopolitical status (Chart 7). Chart 6UAE The Top Mideast Investor The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Ultimately the Abraham Accords reflect a shift in Middle Eastern politics to address the US’s withdrawal and changing landscape. The deal’s signatories seek to improve ties not only to face Iran but also to face Turkey, Russia, and even China. Chart 7UAE Leads The Pack The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Opinion polls suggest that young Arabs’ favorable perception of the US are linked to its involvement in the region. Their perception of the US as an ally, or somewhat of an ally, increased post-2018 when President Trump initiated his maximum pressure campaign on Iran (Chart 8). Chart 8US Image Has Bottomed Among Arab Youth The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Abraham Accords are also significant in that they mark a departure from the Arab Peace Initiative. The Initiative conditions normalization of Arab relations with Israel on Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Lebanon. Until recently, this initiative was a hallmark of regional diplomacy. Palestinians of course have rejected the Abraham Accords and expressed dismay at what they perceive to be disloyalty. Their sidelining could result in an increase in radicalism and militant activity in Israel, though Biden’s election will now blunt that effect and put new demands on Israel. Similarly, Turkey and Qatar oppose the agreement. The rift will widen between the authoritarian states (the GCC and Egypt) and those in favor of political Islam (Turkey and Qatar). Unlike Israel’s previous peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which did not result in any economic gains, bilateral economic cooperation is a cornerstone of the Abraham Accords (Table 4). Thus the agreement not only explicitly aligns geopolitical positions in the Middle East, it also weaves Israel into the region’s economies, generating gains for all sides and cementing the partnership. This is a positive example of Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy. Table 4The Abraham Accords By Sector The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Bottom Line: The Abraham Accords reflect long-developing structural changes in the Middle East. With the US reducing its direct management in the region, Israel and the Arab states are drawing together – particularly in opposition to Iran. If Biden restores the Iranian nuclear deal, there may be a semblance of balance in the region. But its durability will depend on the uncertain willingness of the US to keep the peace. Great Power Struggle Instability stemming from Washington’s shift away from the Middle East is being exacerbated by the competition by great powers and middle powers over filling the power vacuum. Russian and Turkish interference has had mixed results. Both are exerting their influence through greater military engagement in Syria and Libya, in which they have partially stabilized these countries. For instance, Moscow’s 2015 decision to send its air force and some ground troops to Syria reversed President Bashar al-Assad’s fate in Syria, giving him new life. Similarly, Ankara’s increased involvement in the Libyan crisis earlier this year helped the Tripoli-based government drive General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army back to its eastern enclave. Chart 9AChina Pivots To Middle East China Pivots To Middle East China Pivots To Middle East Yet Russia’s commitment is deliberately limited and likely to become more limited due to increasing domestic political risks. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party has been in power for two decades, is showing economic and political weakness, and is overreaching in international conflicts. Therefore these countries’ interventions do not have a high degree of staying power or predictability. A more durable trend is China’s growing influence in the region. China’s approach emphasizes soft power rather than hard power, but the latter will gradually come into play. China’s main motive is to secure oil supplies. It has emerged as the top oil importer, 46% of which are sourced from the Middle East (Charts 9A and 9B). Chinese interest in the region is evident in its “Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships” (the highest of China’s diplomatic levels) with several key regional actors (Table 5).   Chart 9BChina’s Mideast Dependency Grows The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Rather than interfering in regional politics, China has favored economic cooperation. It has emerged as a top foreign investor in the Arab region (Chart 10 and see Chart 16 below). Table 5China Cultivates Mideast Relations The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Chart 10Awaiting Return Of Chinese Investment The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 This approach has been well received by the Arab population, at least the younger generations. The Arab youth see China the most favorably among all the competing foreign actors (Chart 11). Chart 11Arab Youth Have Positive Views Of China The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 However, China is also becoming more scrutinizing of its investments in the region. The Belt and Road Initiative is no longer just a blank check. Beijing’s investments are starting to pick up and will continue to revive as its economy recovers in the coming years, but Middle Eastern states will not be able to assume they have China’s unconditional support (Chart 12). Chart 12China's Investment Just Starting To Revive, At Best China's Investment Just Starting To Revive, At Best China's Investment Just Starting To Revive, At Best While China has improved relations with Saudi Arabia and the GCC during the Trump administration’s conflict with Iran, Biden raises the possibility of China reviving its interest in Iran, which is a key linchpin of its Belt and Road Initiative and other strategies of deepening economic relations across Eurasia. Gradually China will take a more obtrusive role. It built its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017. Moreover, the strategic pact with Iran it is negotiating, which is likely to be very large even if lower than the official price tag of $400 billion over 25 years, also includes military cooperation. If US-China tensions persist at today’s high levels, China will try to improve its supply security in the Middle East, which will eventually become another front in the new cold war. Bottom Line: The power vacuum left by the US’s reduced commitment to the region has not been filled by any of the major or middle powers. Russian, Chinese, and Turkish actions are unclear and in some cases contradictory. China has the potential to fill in some of the vacuum, but at the moment Chinese strategic involvement is nascent. Détente between the US and Iran clears the way for China to revive relations with Iran, a linchpin of its global, regional, and Eurasian strategy. Economic Progress … Interrupted While these cyclical and structural geopolitical shifts play out, Middle Eastern states also find themselves in a weak economic situation. The double whammy of pandemic and the collapse in oil prices is weighing on household, corporate, and government budgets. It is exposing long-standing vulnerabilities, unwinding recent progress, and introducing new challenges. Arab petro-states face a funding gap in the midst of economic contraction. With oil prices significantly below those needed to balance their budgets, they are re-prioritizing their spending (Chart 13). Chart 13Fiscal Squeeze Hits Arab Petro-States The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 While this adjustment has come at the expense of strategic economic plans, in some cases it has also led to an acceleration of fiscal reforms. Oman and Saudi Arabia are cases in point. Oman has been implementing a 5% value-added tax (VAT) since April and plans to impose taxes on high-income earners beginning 2022. Similarly, Saudi Arabia tripled its VAT from 5% to 15%, eliminated a bonus cost-of-living allowance previously granted to public sector employees, and increased custom duties for several imported goods. The immediate aim of these measures is to offset some of the weakness in oil revenues (Chart 14). But over the long run they align with the strategic objective of transitioning from resource-dependent rentier states to economically diverse ones. While the economic shock has weighed on both household and government budgets, the GCC oil producers generally enjoy low debt-to-GDP ratios and comfortable government coffers. They are better positioned than their neighbors to survive the downturn without it morphing into a social, political, or economic crisis. Oil-importing Arab states, on the other hand, face limited fiscal space and have been forced to walk back recent structural reform progress while limiting their fiscal response to the recession (Chart 15). Egypt is highly dependent on tourism and remittances from Arab petro-states. The recession has reversed the improvement in its fiscal situation following austerity measures imposed as part of the three year IMF program. Chart 14Fiscal Reforms Underway The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Chart 15More Stimulus Needed The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 That said, as long as nominal GDP outpaces interest on the debt, these countries will avoid a debt crisis. Although Egypt’s 10-year yield is 14.8%, its expected nominal GDP growth of 19.7% this year will ensure debt sustainability. By contrast, Tunisia is more at risk, as the yield on its 10-year government bond is near 10% yet nominal growth lags in the single digits. While policymakers across the region have implemented measures to ease burdens on households through various policies, Gulf Arab states have in some cases limited the benefits to nationals. For instance, the Qatari government announced on June 1 that it would reduce non-Qatari employee wage bills by 30%. While this protects the incomes of GCC nationals, it puts non-nationals at risk of income loss, raising the possibility that weakness among oil-producers will be transferred to non-oil producers. Chart 16Iran Teetering On Edge Iran Teetering On Edge Iran Teetering On Edge This is not to say that GCC nationals are completely immune to income or employment loss. In fact, the unemployment rate among Saudi nationals, which was already higher than the overall unemployment rate, jumped 2.5 pp in the second quarter to 15.5%. The Shia Crescent remains the most vulnerable neighborhood in the Middle East. Syria collapsed over the past decade, Lebanon is in the process of collapse, and Iran and Iraq are teetering (Chart 16). The IMF estimates that Iran needs oil prices at $521.2/bbl to balance its fiscal account! Weakness in Iran has spread across its sphere of influence — i.e. other predominantly Shia states and non-state actors who depend on Tehran for informal funding. Mass protests against poor economic conditions and corruption afflicted Iraq and Lebanon in the fall of 2019, forcing both governments to resign late last year. The political and economic situations have only deteriorated since. The August 4 blast at the Port of Beirut was the final straw for Lebanon which is now facing financial meltdown. Meanwhile, Iraq’s stability continues to be tested. The collapse in oil markets has weighed on government revenues as well as on the current account, which is projected to record a deficit worth 12.6% of GDP this year, following surpluses in the previous years. The good news is that the discovery of a COVID-19 vaccine points to a rebound in global economic activity over the coming 12 months. The bad news is that the virus is breaking out again and the distribution of the vaccine will take time. Eventually the combination of vaccines and additional monetary and fiscal stimulus in the developed world will alleviate some of the Middle East’s deepest strains, but it will be a rocky road. Social and political problems will escalate for some time even after the economy bottoms. Regarding the outlook for oil markets, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategists see the confluence of steadily improving demand, a decline in US shale-oil production, and OPEC 2.0 production management pushing oil prices higher. They forecast Brent will average $63 per barrel next year, compared to $44 per barrel at current prices, and they make a good fundamental case for oil to average between $65 - $70 per barrel over the coming five years. The latest readings from global manufacturing PMIs send bullish signals, suggesting that Middle Eastern recovery is gradually underway (Chart 17). It is the near-term that is most treacherous. Chart 17Global Rebound Not A Moment Too Soon Global Rebound Not A Moment Too Soon Global Rebound Not A Moment Too Soon Chart 18New Lockdowns Pose Near-Term Risks The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 On the demand-side, COVID-19 cases globally are trending upward with several European countries imposing partial lockdowns (Chart 18). While the lockdowns are unlikely to be as severe as earlier this year, they threaten to delay the recovery in oil markets. In response, the OPEC 2.0 coalition of producers, which was planning to reduce production cuts to 5.7 mm barrel per day in January (leading to higher output) may instead extend the current 7.7 mm barrel per day cuts when it meets again in December 2020. This means petro-states will need to contend with low prices and revenues for longer, while oil importers see shortfalls in remittances. Aside from risks to the oil market, the resurgence in COVID-19 cases adds further uncertainty to the expected recovery in global growth through knock-on effects on activity. Even though not all Middle Eastern countries are experiencing the second wave of the disease, governments have generally tightened stringency measures recently (Chart 19). Chart 19COVID-19 Restrictions Vary By Country The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 Bottom Line: Middle Eastern economies have been hit hard by the double whammy of pandemic and oil price collapse. Policy responses have been measured to limit deviation from long-term goals. This is a positive for the long-term outlook. We expect improvements in the global economy and the recovery in oil markets over the coming 12 months to alleviate some of the pressure. However, risks are skewed to the downside and a protracted downturn could put to waste recent structural improvements. Countries that lie in the so-called “Shia Crescent” – Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon – are in dire need of resuscitation. Oil importers face the risk that the cyclical downturn unwinds recent economic improvements and uncovers structural vulnerabilities, weighing on the strategic outlook. Arab petro-states enjoy the most comfortable coffers. But even their economies are at risk, especially in the high-risk scenario in which oil markets do not recover anytime soon. Saudi Arabia and Oman are at a disadvantage versus Qatar in this sense given their outsized dependence on oil and higher fiscal breakeven oil price. Investment Implications Middle Eastern equity market capitalization is growing over time relative to the rest of the world (Chart 20). The region remains a reflation play, with a heavy sectoral focus on materials and financials as well as energy. Thus it stands to benefit over the long run as the global recovery gets underway. Chart 20Investors Gaining Interest In Mideast Over Time Investors Gaining Interest In Mideast Over Time Investors Gaining Interest In Mideast Over Time However, today is not an attractive entry point for the Middle East relative to other emerging markets. The rebalancing of oil markets, the current wave of COVID-19 before the vaccine rollout, and near-term geopolitical risks outlined above imply that the Middle East will face a period of heightened uncertainty and uninspiring equity performance. Protracted economic weakness will weigh on social stability. The oil-rich GCC is least vulnerable to popular unrest as it has the space to be generous to its citizens. But even these countries have had to cut some benefits. The pandemic will erode the social contract currently in place whereby monetary incentives are awarded to make up for the lack of political voice. The Shia Crescent is already in crisis as bouts of mass protests have been occurring in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon for the past year. And the pandemic has derailed the economic recovery of various states that had only recently gotten back on track after the Arab Spring. Another bout of economic weakness will push people back into the streets, threatening to topple governments again (Chart 21). Chart 21Unrest Will Rise Even After Economic Bottom The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 The Middle East After Trump And COVID-19 A good entry point into Middle Eastern equities will emerge once the global economy gets onto a better footing as the US and Iran will likely achieve a precarious balance. Geopolitics and the recession are forcing Arab states to adopt greater pragmatism in their economic and foreign policies. Reform policies are creating more diverse economies, as in the case of the UAE (Chart 22), which, unlike Saudi Arabia, is decoupling its equity performance from oil prices. Chart 22UAE About Financials, Saudi About Oil UAE About Financials, Saudi About Oil UAE About Financials, Saudi About Oil The risk to Israel, aside from politics, is that it is a tech-heavy bourse that could start to underperform neighbors like the UAE amid the likely global rotation into value stocks and cyclicals. Chart 23Israel Outperforms, But Beware Rotation To Value Israel Outperforms, But Beware Rotation To Value Israel Outperforms, But Beware Rotation To Value Israel has been outperforming the broad Middle East basket, including the UAE, and that trend looks to continue. But it does not look attractive relative to emerging markets as a whole. The risk to Israel, aside from politics, is that it is a tech-heavy bourse that could start to underperform neighbors like the UAE amid the likely global rotation into value stocks and cyclicals. Israel equity performance relative to Turkey closely tracks global growth versus value stocks (Chart 23). However, we do not recommend playing this specific pair trade. For that we would also need to see an improvement in Turkish governance. Turkey may benefit from global macro developments but its country risk will remain extreme. The recent change of central bank leadership temporarily improved Turkey’s relative performance but does not mark a fundamentally positive turning point in policy, according to BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategist Arthur Budaghyan. President Recep Erdogan is unlikely to adopt orthodox monetary policy and austerity prior to the 2022 elections. The approach of the elections, and several simultaneous foreign adventures, will keep the Turkish political risk premium elevated. Therefore the UAE provides the better long end of a value play on the Middle East.     Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Stocks jumped earlier this week on encouraging news on the vaccine front. While we remain positive on equities over a 12-month horizon, we would stress five vaccine-related risks that stock market investors should be cognizant of. First, immunizing most of the world’s population could prove logistically challenging, especially in light of widespread skepticism about the safety of the vaccine. Second, the virus could mutate in a way that undercuts the efficacy of the vaccine, as recent unsettling news from Denmark demonstrates. Third, vaccine optimism could, ironically, lead to weaker economic growth in the near term, even if it does lead to stronger growth in the medium and longer term. Fourth, improved prospects for a vaccine could reduce urgency around extending fiscal support. Fifth, bond yields could rise further in anticipation of an earlier return to full employment. This could pose a headwind for equities – especially growth stocks. V Is For Vaccine Stocks rallied this week on news that Pfizer’s trial of its Covid-19 vaccine had apparently immunized more than 90% of test participants. Such a high efficacy rate is on par with that of the childhood measles and smallpox vaccines, and well above the typical 30%-to-50% success rate for the seasonal flu (Chart 1). Chart 1Efficacy Rates Of Seasonal Flu Vaccines Are Not Exceptionally High Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Pfizer’s vaccine leverages messenger RNA (mRNA) technology developed by its German partner, BioNTech. The new technology is similar to the one being deployed by US-based Moderna. It uses synthetic genetic material to coax the body into producing antibodies, thus bypassing the time-consuming process of formulating a vaccine using dead or weakened forms of the actual pathogen. Pfizer began manufacturing the vaccine well before it knew it would work. It expects to ask the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency authorization to begin distribution by the end of November. If all goes well, the company will have 15-to-20 million doses available by the end of this year and enough to inoculate the entire US population by mid-2021. Ten other vaccines are in late-stage trials. It is widely expected that most of them will prove to be safe and effective (Chart 2). Chart 2When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Five Risks This week’s vaccine news is certainly encouraging, and it does pave the way for a rapid rebound in economic activity next year. Thus, we remain bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Nevertheless, investors should be cognizant of five vaccine-related risks: Table 1Skepticism Over Vaccines Has Been Growing Over The Past Two Decades Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Risk #1: Immunizing most of the world’s population is likely to prove logistically challenging, especially in light of widespread public skepticism about the safety of the vaccine Pfizer’s version of the vaccine needs to be refrigerated at -70°C, making it difficult to store and transport. It will also need to be administered twice over the course of 21 days (Merck is the only company working on a single-dose vaccine). All this will require health care providers to keep track of who received which dose of the vaccine and at which time. There is also considerable uncertainty about how long immunity from the vaccine will last. Pfizer is cautiously optimistic that it will be over a year, but the truth is that no one really knows. Vaccinating most of the global population repeatedly year in, year out could prove to be challenging. In addition, the rollout of the vaccine could face widespread public skepticism. Even before the pandemic struck, confidence in the safety of vaccines was waning in the United States. A Gallup study published on January 14th of this year revealed that the share of Americans who thought it was important to get their children vaccinated fell from 94% in 2001 to 84% in 2019. The drop was particularly steep among Americans with children under the age of 18 (Table 1).1 Ten percent of Americans believed the thoroughly debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, while 46% were “unsure.”2  Things do not appear to have improved since then. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in September, only 51% of Americans said they would probably or definitely take the vaccine, down from 72% in May (Chart 3). The most common reason given for refusing to take it was “concern about side effects.” Chart 3Many Americans Are Wary Of A Covid-19 Vaccine Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel The fact that all the Covid-19 vaccines under development do seem to produce worse side effects than the typical flu vaccine could amplify fears that “the cure is worse than the disease.” We could end up in a “You first; oh no you first; I insist you first” predicament where most people try to avoid being first in line to receive a vaccine. Still, it is important to keep in mind that not everyone has to be vaccinated for the virus to be eradicated. Suppose that 70% of the population needs to be inoculated to simulate herd immunity. If the vaccine works nine out of ten times, then 0.7/0.9 or 78% of the population would have to receive the vaccine. The true number could end up being less than that because some people who survived Covid will have antibodies for a while even if they remain unvaccinated. There is also tentative evidence that a few lucky souls may be naturally immune to the disease, perhaps by having contracted seasonal coronavirus colds in the past.3 Furthermore, both government and corporate policy are likely to push people to get vaccinated. For better or for worse, governments may require that children present vaccination certificates before being admitted to school. Airlines could also demand such certificates before one is allowed to travel. Insurance companies could cut off coverage for those who fail to get vaccinated. At any rate, it is difficult to see governments pursuing lockdown measures after a vaccine is widely available. The prevailing view will be that anyone who voluntarily chooses to remain unvaccinated cannot hold others hostage. Risk #2: The virus could mutate in a way that undercuts the efficacy of the vaccine Unlike most RNA-based viruses, coronaviruses carry an error-correction mechanism in their genomes. While this confers certain advantages to this family of viruses, it also means that they tend to mutate more slowly than notorious shape-shifters like the common flu. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, has mutated since it first emerged in China.4 Viruses tend to become less lethal but more contagious over time. This is not surprising. A virus that kills its host will also kill itself. The speed at which a virus mutates is partly a function of how much of it is in circulation. The more copies of the virus there are, the larger the number of adaptive mutations there are likely to be. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 has spread to virtually every corner of the earth raises the risk that it will readily produce strains that the current batch of vaccines is not equipped to target. Unfortunately, this may not just be an idle threat. In Denmark, 12 people have already been infected with a novel strain of the virus that first emerged from mink farms. Although the data is still sketchy, the virus seemingly jumped from humans to minks early on in the pandemic, mutated within the mink population, and then jumped back to humans. The mutation appears to have altered the virus’s spike proteins. These are the proteins that the virus uses to gain entry into human cells. They are also the proteins that Pfizer’s vaccine is targeting. It is still not clear if the mutated strain will be vaccine-resistant, but governments are not taking any chances. The UK barred entry to travelers from Denmark on November 5th. Other countries may follow suit. Risk #3: Vaccine optimism could lead to weaker economic growth in the near term The release of the results of Pfizer’s vaccine trial comes at a time when the number of new confirmed global cases has reached record highs (Chart 4). The latest wave of the pandemic has hit Europe especially hard. European governments have responded by tightening lockdown measures (Chart 5). Euro area GDP is likely to contract in the fourth quarter. Chart 4The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Chart 5Some Lockdown Measures Have Been Reintroduced Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel While the development of a vaccine is good news for the economy in the medium-to-long term, it is not clear if it will help growth in the near term. On the one hand, vaccine optimism could cause firms to invest more, while curbing household precautionary savings. This would boost aggregate demand. On the other hand, vaccine optimism could prompt people to make even more effort to avoid getting sick. If you take shelter under a tree during an unforeseen rainstorm, you’re better off staying put until the storm passes... provided, of course, that the rainfall does not last too long. But what if you check your phone and see that the rain is supposed to fall uninterrupted for the next three days? That is a long time to spend under a tree. At that point, you are better off proceeding ahead. After all, you are going to get wet in any case. Chart 6Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel The same logic applies to the pandemic. If you can avoid getting sick by hunkering down for a few more months until a vaccine becomes available, it is well worth doing so. However, if the prospects for a vaccine or effective treatment are poor, it makes less sense to hide from the rest of the world. Chances are you are going to get sick anyway. Risk #4: Improved prospects for a vaccine could reduce urgency around extending fiscal support So far, the pandemic has left only limited scarring on the global economy. For example, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, corporate bankruptcies are lower now than they were this time last year (Chart 6). The same is true for delinquency rates on most consumer loans (Table 2).   Table 2A Snapshot Of Consumer Delinquencies Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Many economies have displayed resilience so far thanks to ample fiscal and monetary support. In Europe and Japan, the combination of wage subsidies and job retention programs has kept unemployment from rising significantly (Chart 7). The unemployment rate rose rapidly in the US, Canada, and Australia early on in the pandemic, but has since declined. In the US, there are now fewer than two unemployed workers per job opening (Chart 8). It took the US over five years to reach that point following the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 7Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Chart 8The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession   The risk is that fiscal policy support will be withdrawn before lockdown measures can be lifted. While such a risk cannot be ignored, two things should help mitigate it. First, fiscal hawks are more likely to support a temporary stimulus package that lasts a few months rather than an open-ended support scheme that may be needed indefinitely. Second, public opinion still very much favors maintaining stimulus. According to a recent NY Times/Siena College poll, 72% of voters support a hypothetical $2 trillion stimulus package that extends emergency unemployment insurance benefits, distributes direct cash payments to households, and provides financial support to state and local governments (Table 3). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. Strikingly, when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Risk #5: Bond yields could rise further in anticipation of an earlier return to full employment If a premature tightening of fiscal policy is unlikely to sink the stock market, could higher bond yields do the trick? Central banks will not raise interest rates for the next few years. However, rate expectations could still rise further along the forward curve if investors believe that a vaccine will allow the output gap to close earlier than previously anticipated. Chart 9Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Investors expect US short-term rates to average only 1.25% in 2027-28. While this is higher than prior to the vaccine announcement, it is still well below where rate expectations were at the start of the year. Long-dated rate expectations are similarly below pre-pandemic levels in most other economies (Chart 9). Upward revisions to where policy rates will be later this decade could lift long-term bond yields. Higher yields, in turn, could raise the discount rate that stock market investors use to calculate the present value of future cash flows. This might lead to lower equity prices. The valuation of growth companies, whose earnings may not be realized for many years to come, is especially vulnerable to changes in discount rates. Despite the threat posed from rising bond yields, we suspect that the actual impact on equity prices will be fairly modest. There are three reasons for this. First, any increase in bond yields will probably occur alongside rising inflation expectations. As such, real yields may not increase that much. Conceptually, it is real yields, rather than nominal yields, that matter for equity valuations. Second, provided that higher yields are reflective of stronger growth, earnings estimates are likely to drift up. Rising profits will dampen the impact of higher bond yields on equity valuations. Third, central banks have both the tools, and just as importantly, the inclination to keep bond yields from spiking as they did during the 2013 “taper tantrum.” These tools include QE, aggressive forward guidance, and if necessary, yield curve control strategies. Investment Conclusions The path to ending the pandemic is likely to be a bumpy one. Nevertheless, the balance between risk and reward still favors overweighting equities versus bonds over the next 12 months. Within the equity portion of a portfolio, investors should reallocate funds from US stocks to overseas markets and from growth stocks to value stocks. Growth stocks benefited from the pandemic and from falling bond yields, but will suffer as yields rise modestly from current levels and investors shift exposure to stocks that will benefit from the reopening of economies. Chart 10Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Chart 11EM Stocks Are Cheap Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel As a countercyclical currency, the trade-weighted US dollar is likely to weaken further in 2021. Non-US stocks typically outperform their US peers when the dollar depreciates (Chart 10). A weaker dollar will provide an additional boost to emerging market equities, given that many EMs have a lot of dollar-denominated debt. Assuming Joe Biden becomes president, a de-escalation of the trade war would also help emerging markets, particularly China. Lastly, EM equities are still quite cheap based on cyclically-adjusted earnings (Chart 11). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Attitudes towards vaccines have shifted notably over the past two decades. The following survey captures the erosion of trust towards vaccines: RJ Reinhart, “Fewer in U.S. Continue to See Vaccines as Important,” Gallup, January 14, 2020. 2 One of the most widely known parental concerns about the safety of vaccines is linked to the hypothesis that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Since this hypothesis was published more than three decades ago, dozens of researchers have presented studies showing that the original claims are critically flawed. The evidence provided by the scientific community dismisses the link between vaccines and autism. Please see Jeffrey S. Gerber and Paul A. Offit, “Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses,” National Center for Biotechnology Information; and “Vaccines and Autism,” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, May 7, 2018. 3 There has been much debate over why some people are affected more than others by Covid-19. While much attention is given to personal characteristics (such as age, weight, or the presence of chronic illnesses), researchers have also investigated the possibility that prior exposure to coronaviruses have helped some to obtain a certain degree of natural immunity to Covid-19. Please see Yaqinuddin, Ahmed, “Cross-immunity between respiratory coronaviruses may limit COVID-19 fatalities,” Medical hypotheses, vol. 144 110049, (30 June, 2020). 4 One of the latent fears since the emergence of Covid-19 has been the possibility that it will mutate as it spreads. The following study suggests that different strains of the virus have been evolving on different continents, although it is not clear to what extend these mutations could affect treatment and immunization efforts. Please see Pachetti, M., Marini, B., Benedetti, F. et al., “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 mutation hot spots include a novel RNA-dependent-RNA polymerase variant,” Journal of Translational Medicine, 18:179 (2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Current MacroQuant Model Scores Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel

Highlights The vaccine promises an eventual return to “normal” life – just as Americans voted to “return to normalcy.” Markets are cheering and hinting at an eventual rotation into value stocks. The contested US election can still cause volatility even though Trump is highly unlikely to change the result. The fiscal stimulus cliff is still a risk to the normalcy rally in the short run. But gridlock is the best political outcome over the coming 12-24 months. Stay strategically long global stocks over bonds. Tactically maintain safe-haven positions, add risk gradually, and stay short China/Taiwan. Feature The news of Pfizer’s success in developing a COVID-19 vaccine galvanized financial markets this week. America’s leading public health official Anthony Fauci also predicted that Moderna’s vaccine candidate would be similarly effective. It will take time to distribute these vaccines but the world can look toward economic recovery next year. Stocks rallied, bonds sold off, and value outperformed growth on the back of the news (Charts 1A and 1B). Chart 1ABiden: Return To Normalcy Biden: Return To Normalcy Biden: Return To Normalcy Chart 1BVaccine: Return To Normalcy Vaccine: Return To Normalcy Vaccine: Return To Normalcy The vaccine announcement super-charged the “return to normalcy” rally that followed the US election. The election’s likeliest policy outcome is that President Elect Joe Biden will not raise sweeping tariffs while Republican senators will not raise taxes next year, the best-case scenario for markets. This is genuinely positive news. The benefits are very clear over the next 12 months. But the risks are also very clear over the next three months: the virus will remain a problem until the vaccine is widely distributed, the US is in the midst of a contested election that could still cause negative surprises, the Republican senators are less likely to agree to fiscal relief, and President Trump will take aggressive actions to cement his legacy during the “lame duck” period of his last 68 days in office. The takeaway is that the US dollar will see a near-term, counter-trend rally and developed markets will outperform emerging markets for a while longer. We are only gradually adding risk to our strategic portfolio as we keep dry powder and maintain tactical safe-haven trades. Is The Election Over Or Not? Yes, most likely the election is over. But our definitive guide to contested US elections will teach any reader to be sensitive to the tail risks. The counting of ballots is not finished and the Electoral College does not vote until December 14. First, it is still possible that President Trump could pull off a victory in Georgia, which will now recount ballots by hand. Biden’s margin of victory of 14,045 votes is not so large there as to make it impossible that Trump would come back with a win (though history suggests recounts only change hundreds, not thousands, of votes). Trump is also narrowing the gap in Arizona, where counting continues, though the latest reports suggest he is still falling short of the roughly 60% share of late ballots that he needs to close the 11,635 vote gap and win the state. Second, there is a 50/50 chance that the Supreme Court will rule that Pennsylvania must stick to the statutory November 3 deadline, i.e. not accept mail-in ballots that arrived in the three days after that date. While the high court would prefer to let Pennsylvania settle its own affairs, this case is of the sort that the court could feel compelled to weigh in. The constitution is crystal clear that legislatures, not courts, decide how a state’s electors are chosen. Such a ruling probably would not reverse Biden’s projected victory in Pennsylvania. Trump is currently trailing Biden by 53,980 votes in this state. State officials say that the ballots that arrived late amount to only 7,800 and would not be able to change the outcome.1 This may be understating the risk but it is probably accurate in the main. Table 1 shows the share of mail-in votes that arrived late in this year’s primary elections. The share was 1.07% in Pennsylvania and up to 3% in other states. Applying the high water mark of 3% to the November 3 general election mail-in ballots, it is possible that 77,187 votes arrived late and would be excluded by a Supreme Court ruling. However, 85% of those ballots would have to have gone to Biden in order for Trump to come out the winner. This is far-fetched. Table 1Share Of Ballots Arriving Late In Primary Election Extrapolated To General Election The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally It is also unlikely that Republican legislatures will take matters into their own hands and defy the election boards of their state by nominating their own slate of Republican electors – a scenario we entertained in our definitive guide. If Biden leads the statewide vote, then a state legislature would be politically suicidal to appoint the state’s electors to vote for Trump. It would invite a popular backlash. In the case of Pennsylvania, Republican leaders of the lower and upper chambers have explicitly denied any willingness or ability to choose electors other than those entailed by the popular vote. Thus the 1876 “Stolen Election” scenario is extremely unlikely in this critical state. It is just as unlikely in Arizona, Nevada, or Georgia.2 Nevertheless, if President Trump wins in Georgia or gets a favorable Supreme Court verdict, investors will have to increase the probability that the election result will be overturned, which currently stands at 16% (Chart 2). This will cause a bout of volatility even if it changes nothing in the end. If somehow Trump pulls off a Rutherford B. Hayes and overturn the result, markets should sell off. Yes, Trump is an exclusively commercial and reflationary president, but his election on a constitutional technicality would create nearly unprecedented social and political instability in the United States and it would presage major instability globally. Chinese, European, and Canadian assets would be hardest hit (Chart 3). Chart 2Trump’s Tiny Chance Of Reversing Election The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Otherwise Trump and the Republicans are trying to do four things with their litigation: (1) probing for weaknesses that can delay or change the Electoral College math (2) conducting due diligence in case fraud really did tip over one of the states (3) saving face for President Trump and his allies, who otherwise would be exposed as failures (4) keeping their base motivated for the showdown in Georgia on January 5, which will determine control of the Senate. Chart 3Trump's Loss Favors Euro, Renminbi, Loonie Trump's Loss Favors Euro, Renminbi, Loonie Trump's Loss Favors Euro, Renminbi, Loonie In Georgia, opinion polls show Republican David Perdue slightly leading Democrat Jon Ossoff, in keeping with his superior showing on November 3. However, Republican Kelly Loeffler is trailing Democrat Raphael Warnock (Charts 4A and 4B). Last week we argued that the odds of Democrats winning both races stood around 20%. If anything this view is generous – given that Perdue already beat Ossoff, and Warnock will continue to suffer attacks for associating with Fidel Castro – but it is in line with online betting markets (Chart 5). Chart 4AVoters Split On Georgia Senate Runoffs The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Chart 4BVoters Split On Georgia Senate Runoffs The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Chart 5Democrats Have ~20% Chance To Win Senate The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Investors should plan on the US government being gridlocked unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the Georgia race. Gridlock is positive, so if Trump’s election disputes keep the Republican political base spirited for the Georgia runoffs, then Trump’s activities have an ironic upside for markets. That is, as long as he doesn’t succeed in overturning the election result and the flames of discontent do not break out into a significant violent incident. Other fears about the transition period are less concerning. Several clients have asked us what should happen if President Elect Biden came down with COVID-19 or were otherwise incapacitated. The answer is that Vice President Elect Kamala Harris would take his place, as she now has popular consent to do exactly that. Prior to the Electoral College voting on December 14, the Democratic National Committee would have to nominate a candidate to replace Biden, almost certainly Harris. After December 14, the regular succession would apply under the twentieth amendment and Harris would automatically fill Biden’s shoes. Harris is only slightly more negative for equities than Biden: her regulatory pen would be more anti-business, but like Biden her main policies depend entirely on control of the senate. Bottom Line: It ain’t over till it’s over. The big picture is positive for risk assets but a surprise from ongoing election disputes or the unusually rocky transition of power would trigger a new bout of volatility. Stay long Japanese yen and health stocks on a tactical time frame. Trump’s Lame Duck Risk An investor in the Wild West has often criticized us for arguing that Trump would become a “war president” as he became a political lame duck at home. This war president view did pay off with Iran in January 2020, but otherwise the criticism is valid (see Trump’s Abraham Accords). Now Trump is almost certainly a lame duck so we will find out what he intends to do when unshackled from election concerns. Stay long Japanese yen and health stocks on a tactical time frame.  Since losing the election, Trump has fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, several defense officials have resigned, and CIA Director Gina Haspel is rumored to be next on the chopping block. Most of the officials to depart had broken with the president over the course of the election year, so he may just be dishing out punishment now that the campaign is over. But it is possible that Trump is planning a series of final actions to cement his legacy and that these officials were removed because they got in the way. Chart 6Trump's Lame Duck Risk To China And Taiwan Strait Trump's Lame Duck Risk To China And Taiwan Strait Trump's Lame Duck Risk To China And Taiwan Strait First, there is no doubt that Trump is already tightening sanctions on China and Iran. China was the origin of the coronavirus pandemic and Trump has called for reparations, which could mean more tariff hikes. His outstanding legacy in US history will be his insistence that the US confront China. We are fully prepared for this outcome and remain short the renminbi and Taiwanese equities, despite their strong performance year-to-date (Chart 6). Trump could also raise tariffs on Europe. However, investors should be used to tariffs and sanctions by now. The impact would be fleeting and the next administration could reverse it. In the case of the renminbi, or any tariffs that weigh on the euro, investors should buy on the dips. By contrast, there are some conceivable actions – we are speculating – that would be extremely destabilizing and possibly irreversible. These would include: Extending diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, potentially provoking a war with China. Sending aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait, like Bill Clinton did during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, to shore up US deterrence. Launching surgical strikes against Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear facilities or critical infrastructure. A prominent official has already denied that Trump intends anything of the sort. Launching surgical strikes against North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear facilities. No sign of this, but Kim Jong Un did enhance his capabilities after his meetings with Trump, thus embarrassing the president on a major foreign policy initiative ahead of the election. Providing intelligence and assistance to US allies like Israel who may seek to sabotage or attack Iran now or in future to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Withdrawing US troops from Germany or South Korea – which is much more consequential than hasty withdrawals from Afghanistan or Syria, which Trump clearly intends. War actions are largely infeasible. The bureaucracy would refuse to implement them. Assuming the Department of Defense would slow-walk any attempts to reduce troops in important regions like Germany or Korea, it would almost certainly avoid instigating a war. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan or Syria is manageable, and fitting with Trump’s legacy, but it would not be disruptive for financial markets. A diplomatic upgrade or a show of force to demonstrate the American commitment to defend Taiwan is possible and highly disruptive for global financial markets. The critical risk may come from US allies or partners that are threatened by the impending Biden administration and have a window of opportunity to act with full American support while Trump still inhabits the Oval Office. The likeliest candidate would be Israel and Saudi Arabia on the Iranian nuclear program. Trump’s onetime national security advisor, H. R. McMaster, has already warned that Israel could act on the “Begin Doctrine,” which calls for targeted preventive strikes against hostile nuclear capabilities.3 Even here, Israel is unlikely to jeopardize its critical security relationship with the United States, so any actions would be limited, but they could still bring a major increase in regional tensions. Saudi Arabia can do little on its own but President Trump could willingly or unwilling encourage provocative actions. Chart 7Big Tech Is Not Priced For Surprises Big Tech Is Not Priced For Surprises Big Tech Is Not Priced For Surprises Any number of incidents or provocations could occur in this risky interregnum between Trump and Biden. Some suggest Trump will release a treasure trove of documents to discredit Washington and the Deep State. If that is all that occurs, then investors will be able to give a sigh of relief, as revelations of government intrigue would have to be truly consequential for future events in order to cause a notable market impact. Last-minute executive orders on regulating domestic industries are just as likely to shock markets as any international moves. We speculate that Big Tech is in Trump’s sights for censoring his comments during the election. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security versus Regents of the University of California, the Trump administration is positively incentivized to issue a flurry of executive orders and write them in a way that makes them hard for the Biden administration to rescind them.4 Tech is priced for perfection, despite ruffles due to the vaccine this week, and investors expect Biden-Harris to maintain Obama’s alliance with Silicon Valley, not least because Biden has named executives from Facebook and Apple to his transition team and is considering putting former Google chief Eric Schmidt in charge of a Big Tech task force (Chart 7).5 Ultimately we have no idea what the Trump administration will do in its final two months. A lot of Trump’s attention will be focused on contesting the election. Drastic or reckless decisions will likely be obstructed by the bureaucracy. But the president still retains immense powers and there are executive orders that are legitimate and would benefit the US’s long-term interests even if disruptive for financial markets – and these would be harder for officials to disobey. Trump is an anti-establishment player who intends to shake up Washington, stay involved in politics, and cement his legacy. There is a reason for investors to take political risk seriously rather than to assume that the transition to a more market-friendly administration will be smooth. Bottom Line: Stay long gold on geopolitical risk, despite the potential for a counter-trend rise in the US dollar. We are neutral tech: polarization and fiscal risks are positive for tech shares but reopening and Trump lame duck risks are negative. Biden’s Cabinet Picks This “lame duck Trump” risk explains why we are not overly concerned about Biden’s cabinet picks. Insofar as Biden’s choices affect the market at all, they will confirm the “return to normalcy” theme and hence will be market-friendly. Take for example Biden’s just-announced chief of staff, Ronald Klain, who was chief of staff when Biden served as vice president from 2009- 16. The current transition is obstructed by election disputes, as occurred in November-December of 2000, but the cabinet picks are not likely to bring negative surprises. Already Biden has announced a coronavirus advisory board, a bipartisan transition team, and is pondering other picks, some of which will be known by Thanksgiving. None of the choices are in the least disruptive or radical – and most are acceptable to Wall Street. Biden will pick experts and technocrats who are known from his political career, the Obama administration, the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party, and academia. The market will invariably approve of establishment nominations after four years of anti-establishment picks and spontaneous firings. Since the Senate will remain in Republican hands, the cabinet members will have to be centrist enough to be confirmed. While Biden will inevitably nominate a few progressives, they will either fail in the Senate or take up marginal posts. Stay long gold on Trump “lame duck” geopolitical risks. Biden may have the opportunity to appoint three or even four members to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. The Trump administration failed to fill two seats, while Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term will expire in February 2022 (Diagram 1). If Biden appoints Lael Brainard to another post, such as Treasury Secretary, he will have a fourth space to fill. Diagram 1Biden Could Have Three-To-Four Fed Picks The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Chart 8Facing Gridlock, Biden Will Re-Regulate The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally The implication will be a further entrenchment of dovish policy, with greater attention to new concerns that fall outside of traditional monetary policy such as climate change and racial inequality. The Fed has already committed to pursuing “maximum employment,” refraining from rate hikes till the end of 2023, and targeting average inflation – all a major boon to the Biden administration as it attempts to revive the economy. What is negative for markets is that Biden will re-regulate the economy – after Trump’s deregulatory shock – and that this will bring about political risks for small business and key industries like health, financials, and energy (Chart 8). Biden has little other option given that his legislative agenda will be largely stymied. Nevertheless, the sectors most likely to be heavily impacted are attractively valued and stand to benefit from economic normalization if not from Biden’s version of normalcy. Bottom Line: Stay long health and energy. Yes, Gridlock Is Best For Markets Some clients have asked us about our view that gridlocked government is truly the best for financial markets. Wouldn’t Democrats winning control of the Senate in Georgia be better, as it would usher in greater political certainty and larger fiscal spending? We have addressed this issue in previous reports so we will be brief. First, yes, gridlock has higher returns than single-party sweep governments on average over the past 120 years (Chart 9). Clearly the normalcy rally can go higher, but it is equally clear that it will get caught by surprise when the political reality hits home.  Second, however, the stock market’s annual returns are roughly average under single-party sweeps during this period (Chart 10). Chart 9Gridlock Best For Markets The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Chart 10Single-Party Sweeps Generate Average Annual Returns The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally So while investors can cheer gridlock, it is not as if they should sell everything if Democrats do win control of the Senate on January 5. Chart 11Sweeps As Good As Gridlock Over 70 Years The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Indeed, looking at the period after World War II, sweep governments have witnessed average annual returns that are the same or slightly better than under gridlock (Chart 11). Whereas limiting the study to the post-Reagan era, gridlocks are clearly favored. If greater fiscal resources are needed then gridlock will quickly become a market risk rather than an opportunity. It is notable that over the past 120 years, there is not an example of a Democratic president presiding over a Republican senate and a Democratic House. There was only one case of the inverse – a Republican President, a Democratic senate, and a Republican House – which occurred in 2001-02 and coincided with a bear market. In fact, this episode should be classified as a Republican sweep, as in Table 2, since a sweep was the result of the 2000 election and the context of the key market-relevant legislation in 2001.6 Table 2Average Annual Equity Returns And Gridlock Government The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally Chart 12Market Predicted Gridlock In 2020 Market Predicted Gridlock In 2020 Market Predicted Gridlock In 2020 In 2020 the stock market clearly anticipated a gridlocked outcome – the market’s performance matches with the historical profile of divided government (Chart 12). We argued that this was the best case for the market because it meant neither right-wing populism nor left-wing socialism. But we also highlighted that any relief rally on election results (reduced uncertainty) would be cut short by the major near-term implication of gridlock: a delay of fiscal support for the economy in the near term. This was the only deflationary scenario on offer in this election. Hence bad news in winter 2020-21 would precede the good news over the entire 2020-22 period. This is still largely our view, but we admit that the vaccine announcement erodes near-term risk aversion even further. There is little substance to the discussion of whether Americans will take the vaccine or not. Evidence shows that Americans are no less likely to take vaccines than other developed country citizens – assuming they are demonstrated to be safe and effective (Chart 13). Chart 13Yes, Americans Take Vaccines The "Normalcy" Rally The "Normalcy" Rally So gridlock looks even better now than it did previously. Yet we still think the near-term fiscal risks will hit markets sometime soon. Senate Republicans have been emboldened by the fact that their relative hawkishness paid off in the election on November 3. If they would not capitulate to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prior to the election, they are even less likely to do so after gaining seats in the House, retaining the Senate, and crying foul over the presidential election. McConnell could agree to a $500 billion deal before Christmas – or not. There is no clear basis for optimism. A government shutdown is even possible if the continuing resolution expires on December 12. If the economic data turns sour and/or markets sell off dramatically then the Republicans will be forced to agree to a bigger deal, but as things stand they are not forced to do anything. And that presents a downside risk to the normalcy rally. Investment Takeaways Today’s post-election environment is comparable to the period after 2010, when a new business cycle was beginning and a new President Barack Obama had to face down Republican fiscal hawks in the House of Representatives. Today’s GOP senators may prove somewhat more cooperative with President Elect Biden, but that remains to be seen. Given how tight the election was, Republicans have an incentive to obstruct, slow down the economic recovery, and contest the 2022 midterms and 2024 election on the back of another slow-burn recovery. It worked last time. The debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2012-13 were different than the fiscal stimulus cliff that Washington faces today but the market implications are similar. At the climax of brinkmanship between the president and the senate, treasuries will rally, the dollar will rally, stocks will fall, and emerging markets will underperform (Charts 14A and 14B). Today there is a greater limit on how far the dollar will rise and how far treasury yields will fall, but a fiscal impasse will still drive flows into these assets. Chart 14AObama’s Debt Ceiling Crises… Obama's Debt Ceiling Crises... Obama's Debt Ceiling Crises... Chart 14B… Presage Biden’s Fiscal Cliffs ... Presage Biden's Fiscal Cliffs ... Presage Biden's Fiscal Cliffs ​​​​​​​This is what we expect over the next three months. The fact that President Trump could bring negative surprises only enhances this expectation. Therefore we are only gradually adding risk to our strategic portfolio and maintaining tactically defensive positions. Clearly the normalcy rally can go higher, but it is equally clear to us that it will get caught by surprise when the political reality hits home. Since this could be anytime over the next two months, we are only gradually adding new risk. We would not deny that the outlook is brighter over the 12-24-month periods due to the vaccine and election results.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Chris Matthews, "Alleging fraud, GOP seeks to overturn election results in Michigan, Pennsylvania," MarketWatch, November 10, 2020, marketwatch.com. 2 See Senator Jake Corman and Representative Kerry Benninghoff, "Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election," Centre Daily, October 19, 2020, centredailly.com. As for the 1876 “Stolen Election,” the initial election results suggested that Democrat Samuel Tilden had won 184 electoral votes while Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had won 165. The amount needed for a majority in the Electoral College at the time was 185, so Tilden fell one vote short while Hayes fell 20 votes short. After partisan litigation, actions by state legislatures, an intervention by the US House of Representatives, and a grand political compromise, Hayes won with 185 votes. 3 See Charles Creitz, "McMaster warns Biden on Iran deal: Don't resurrect 'political disaster masquerading as a diplomatic triumph,’" Fox News, November 12, 2020, foxnews.com. 4 In this ruling, which was decided on a 5-4 split with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with liberal justices, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s effort to overturn the Obama administration’s policy known as Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which stopped the US from deporting illegal immigrants who came to the US as children. The majority opinion argued that the Trump administration had merely asserted, not demonstrated, that the Obama administration’s executive orders were unconstitutional. In doing so, it established a precedent by which the court can determine whether one president’s executive orders should overrule another’s. While future administrations may follow better procedures in attempting to revoke their predecessors’ orders, this decision likely incentivizes the Trump administration to try to issue decrees that will be difficult to revoke. See John Yoo, "How the Supreme Court’s DACA decision harms the Constitution, the presidency, Congress, and the country," American Enterprise Institute, June 22, 2020, aei.org. 5 See Kiran Stacey, “What can Silicon Valley expect from Joe Biden?” Financial Times, November 8, 2020, ft.com. 6 The election produced a Republican sweep, with a 50-50 balance in the Senate, that led to the Bush tax cuts in May 2001. The business cycle was ending, however. In June, Democrats took the senate majority when Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and began caucusing with Democrats. In September terrorists attacked the World Trade Center causing a market collapse.

Highlights US Election & COVID-19: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Fixed Income Strategy: The big news announcements do not motivate us to change our fixed income investment recommendations. Stay below-benchmark on overall duration, and underweight the US in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US and Italy. Maintain an overweight stance on global spread product, focused on US corporates (investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield) and emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Yields Leading The Way Higher US Yields Leading The Way Higher US Yields Leading The Way Higher Investors have digested two major pieces of news over the past few days – the projected election of Joe Biden as the 46th US President and the positive results of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial. Both outcomes are bond-bearish, but the bigger response came after the news of a potential vaccine, with the 10-year US Treasury yield hitting an 8-month high of 0.96% yesterday. Yields in other countries rose by a lesser amount, continuing the recent trend of US Treasury underperformance (Chart of the Week). After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios.  The introduction of a successful vaccine would obviously be a game-changer for all financial markets, not just fixed income, as it would allow investors to see an end to the pandemic and a return to more normal economic activity. While we are heartened by the vaccine trial announcement, there are still many hurdles that need to be cleared before any vaccine is approved and distributed around the world. It is still too soon to adjust our bond investment strategy in anticipation of a post-COVID world. After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. While a Biden victory combined with the Republicans likely keeping control of the US Senate was the least bond-bearish outcome - thus avoiding the big surge in government spending likely after a Democratic “blue wave” - there is clear upward momentum in US economic growth that suggests more upside for Treasury yields on both an absolute basis and relative to other countries. Cross-Country Divergences Are Starting To Appear Our recent decision to cut our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark was motivated by our more bearish view on US Treasuries. However, a more defensive duration posture was justified by the rapid rebound in global growth seen since the depths of the COVID-19 recession. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic data, has been calling for a bottom in global bond yields toward the end of 2020 (Chart 2). The rise in global yields we are witnessing now appears to be right on cue. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. Chart 2Global Yields Are Bottoming Global Yields Are Bottoming Global Yields Are Bottoming Importantly, inflation expectations across the developed world have yet not risen by enough to force central banks to become less dovish. This suggests that global yield curves will have a steepening bias over at least the next six months, with longer-term yields rising more on the back of faster growth (and additional increases in inflation expectations) than shorter-maturity yields which are more sensitive to monetary policy shifts. Those trends will not be seen equally across all countries, though. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. For example, the October US manufacturing ISM and Payrolls data released last week showed robust strength, even in a month where new US COVID-19 cases rose sharply. Europe, on the other hand, has seen an even bigger surge in new cases, resulting in a wave of national lockdowns that has already begun to weigh on domestic economic activity. Thus, core European bond yields have remained stable, even with the euro area manufacturing PMI remaining elevated (Chart 3). We see similar divergences in other developed economies, with generally strong manufacturing PMIs and mixed responses from bond yields. When looking at the breakdown of nominal bond yields into the real yield and inflation expectations components, even more divergences are evident (Chart 4).1 Chart 3Mixed Responses To Rebounding Growth Mixed Responses To Rebounding Growth Mixed Responses To Rebounding Growth Chart 4Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Chart 5Discounting An Extended Period Of Negative Real Rates Discounting An Extended Period Of Negative Real Rates Discounting An Extended Period Of Negative Real Rates The real yields on benchmark 10-year inflation-linked bonds are slowly rising in the US and Canada, but remain stable in Germany, the UK and Australia. Market expectations for central bank policy rates, extracted from overnight index swap (OIS) curves, are currently priced for an extended period of low policy rates over the next few years. This is no surprise, as central banks have told the markets this would be the case via dovish forward guidance. Yet central banks are also projecting inflation rates to move higher between 2021 and 2023, even as they are signaling unchanged interest rates over that same period (Chart 5). Central banks are effectively telling markets that they want an extended period of negative real policy rates - a major reason why real bond yields are negative across the developed world. At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. Unemployment in the US and Canada has already declined sharply since spiking during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. In the US, the unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 14.7% to 6.9%; in Canada, the decline has been from 13.7% to 8.9% (Chart 6). This contrasts sharply to trends in Europe and Australia, where unemployment rates remain elevated. Chart 6Diverging Trends In Unemployment A Vaccine For Uncertainty A Vaccine For Uncertainty At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. With the Fed and Bank of Canada (BoC) projecting additional declines in unemployment over the next few years, markets are starting to discount a less dovish stance from both central banks. The US and Canadian OIS curves are now discounting one full 25bp policy rate hike by Aug 2023 and May 2023, respectively. This is a bit sooner than signaled by the forward guidance of the Fed and BoC. Thus, markets are now pricing in a less negative path for real policy rates – and, by association, real bond yields. Chart 7Markets Still Discounting Low Yields For Longer A Vaccine For Uncertainty A Vaccine For Uncertainty This contrasts to the euro area, Australia and the UK, where unemployment rates remain elevated. The recent surge in coronavirus cases across Europe means that the ECB and Bank of England will be under no pressure by markets to reconsider their current easy money policies. While in Australia, persistently weak inflation and, more recently, worries about an appreciating Australian dollar are keeping expectations for Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) policy ultra-dovish. Given the likely hit to longer-term potential growth from the COVID-19 pandemic, coming at a time of elevated debt levels (both government and private), markets are justified in pricing in a structurally lower level of policy rates for longer (Chart 7). Yet even in such a world, there will be cyclical upswings in growth and inflation that will upward pressure on bond yields. At the moment, those pressures seem greatest in the developed world in the US and Canada. This suggests that global bond investors should underweight both the US and Canada. However, the Fed seems more willing to accept a period of rising bond yields than the BoC, which has been very aggressive in the expansion of its quantitative easing (QE) program, which leaves us to only consider the US as a recommended underweight. Bottom Line: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Recommended Fixed Income Strategy After A Busy Few Days Joe Biden’s election victory and the potential COVID-19 vaccine do not lead us to make any changes to our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On duration, we continue to recommend a moderate below-benchmark overall exposure. Our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On country allocation, we remain underweight the US, neutral Canada and Australia, and overweight the UK, core Europe, Italy, Spain and Japan. The country allocations are determined by each country’s sensitivity to changes in US Treasury yields, particularly during periods of rising yields. We are overweight the countries with a lower “yield beta” to changes in US yields. We view Italy and Spain as credit instruments, supported by large-scale ECB purchases and more fiscal cooperation within Europe. We are not recommending underweights to higher-beta Canada and Australia, however, with both the BoC and RBA being very aggressive with bond purchases (Chart 8). On credit, the backdrop remains very conducive to spread product outperformance versus government bonds, particularly with the monetary policy backdrop remaining highly accommodative (Chart 9). Chart 8Global QE Has Been Aggressive Global QE Has Been Aggressive Global QE Has Been Aggressive We expect some additional spread tightening for developed market corporate debt as well also emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. In terms of regions and credit tiers, we prefer US investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield to euro area credit. Chart 9Central Bank Liquidity Still Supportive For Global Credit Central Bank Liquidity Still Supportive For Global Credit Central Bank Liquidity Still Supportive For Global Credit Chart 10More Global QE Is Good For Inflation-Linked Bonds More Global QE Is Good For Inflation-Linked Bonds More Global QE Is Good For Inflation-Linked Bonds Finally, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to inflation-linked bods versus nominal government debt in the US, Italy and Canada. Central banks will continue to err on the side of maintaining stimulative monetary policy settings to keep financial conditions easy to support economic growth. That means no hawkish surprises on the interest rate front, while also continuing to buy bonds via quantitative easing (Chart 10) – reflationary policies that should help boost inflation expectations.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have deliberately left Japan out of this analysis, as the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy has effectively short-circuited the link between Japanese economic growth, inflation and bond yields. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Vaccine For Uncertainty A Vaccine For Uncertainty Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns