Elections

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 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 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 Chart 4Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Chart 5Discounting 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 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 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 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 Chart 10More 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 Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights According to betting markets, Joe Biden is likely to become the 46th US president, with the Republicans maintaining control of the Senate. Such a balance of power could produce less fiscal stimulus than any of the other possible outcomes that were in play on Tuesday. Nevertheless, public opinion still favors a more expansionary fiscal policy. There is also an outside chance that Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House could craft a “grand bargain” that raises spending while making Trump’s corporate tax cuts permanent. The combination of continued easy monetary policy, modestly looser fiscal policy, and progress on a vaccine should be enough to keep global growth on an above-trend path next year. Bank shares have been the big losers since the election, but should start to outperform as yield curves re-steepen, worries about soaring bad loans subside, and lending growth outpaces bleak expectations. Investors should remain overweight global equities versus bonds. Be prepared to increase exposure to value stocks when clearer evidence emerges that the latest wave of the pandemic is cresting. Another Election Rollercoaster Last week, we highlighted that BCA’s geopolitical quant model was predicting a much closer election than most pundits were expecting. This indeed turned out to be the case. For a brief while on Tuesday night, betting markets were giving Donald Trump a greater than 75% chance of being re-elected. Unfortunately for the president, the good news did not last long. As more mail-in ballots and ballots cast in large urban areas were counted, the needle began to swing towards Joe Biden. At the time of writing, betting markets are giving Biden an 88% chance of becoming President. Trump still has a chance of winning, but assuming he loses Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin, he would need to win Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia. That is a tall order. According to PredictIt, the latter three states are all leaning towards Biden (Chart 1). Chart 1The Distribution Of Electoral College Votes According To Betting Markets More positively for the GOP, the Republicans gained a net six seats in the House of Representatives, and held onto the Senate thanks to surprise victories for their candidates in Maine and North Carolina. That said, the Senate could still revert to Democratic hands depending on the final vote tally in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alaska; PredictIt assigns a 22% probability to the Democrats taking the Senate. Moreover, even if they fall short this time around, the Democrats still have a chance of winning a 50-seat de facto majority in the Senate if both Georgia races go to a run-off election on January 5. Stimulus In Peril? Assuming that Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate, tax hikes will remain off the table. This is good for stocks. Joe Biden would also lower the temperature on trade tensions with China. This, too, is good for stocks. Conversely, the odds of a major fiscal stimulus package have dropped. Donald Trump is not averse to big spending programs. In contrast, the Republicans in the Senate have rejected calls for a large stimulus bill. With Joe Biden as President, Republican senators would have even less incentive to give the Democrats what they want. Nevertheless, there are three reasons to think that Republicans will agree on a new stimulus bill. First, the economy needs it. While US growth should remain reasonably firm in the fourth quarter, this is only because households were able to build up some savings earlier this year which they can now draw on. As Chart 2 shows, since April, labor earnings have only grown one-third as much as personal spending. Transfer income has also plunged, resulting in a renewed drop in savings. Once households run out of accumulated savings, there is a risk that they will cut back on spending. Second, government borrowing rates remain extremely low by historic standards. Real rates are negative across the entire yield curve (Chart 3). Chart 2Savings Have Dropped Since April As Transfers Declined Chart 3Real Rates Are Negative Across The Entire Yield Curve   Third, and perhaps most politically salient, public opinion favors more expansionary fiscal policy. About 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 1). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. It is noteworthy that when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Table 1Strong Support For Stimulus All this suggests that Republicans will accede to a medium-sized stimulus bill in the neighbourhood of $700 billion-to-$1 trillion in order to avoid being perceived as stingy and obstructionist. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted on Wednesday that getting a deal done was “job one.” While not our base case, a significantly larger bill is also possible. Most Republicans are not opposed to bigger budget deficits per se. It is increased social spending that they do not like. Budget deficits in the service of tax cuts are perfectly acceptable to the majority of Republicans. This raises the possibility that Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House could strike a grand bargain that raises spending while also promising additional tax relief. Most of Trump’s corporate tax cuts expire in 2025. A sizeable stimulus bill that makes these tax cuts permanent while increasing long-term spending on infrastructure, health care, education, and other Democratic priorities could still emerge from a divided Congress.   Wall Street Versus Main Street If one needed any more proof that what is good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for Main Street, the last three trading days provided it. The S&P 500 is up 6% since Monday’s close, spurred on by the reassurance that corporate taxes will not rise. In contrast, the 10-year bond yield has fallen 8 basis points on diminished prospects for a big stimulus package. The drop in bond yields since the election has raised the present value of corporate cash flows, leading to higher equity valuations. Growth companies have benefited disproportionately from falling bond yields. In contrast to value companies, investors expect growth companies to generate the bulk of their earnings far in the future. This makes their valuations highly sensitive to changes in discount rates. It is not surprising that tech shares – the FAANGs in particular – soared following the election (Chart 4). Chart 4Growth Equities Benefited Disproportionately From A Post-Election Drop In Yields A Bottom For The Big Banks? Bank shares tend to be overrepresented in value indices. Unlike tech, banks normally lose out when bond yields fall. As Chart 5 shows, net interest margins have collapsed for banks this year as bond yields have cratered. The drop in yields since the election has further punished bank shares. Chart 5Bank Net Interest Margins Have Collapsed As Bond Yields Have Cratered This Year Chart 6Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check Yet, as our earlier discussion suggests, bond yields could rise again if the US Congress delivers more stimulus than currently expected. This would help banks, while potentially taking some of the wind from the sails of tech stocks. The combination of further fiscal easing and a vaccine next year could help banks in another way. If the global economy bounces back, banks would suffer fewer loan defaults. The biggest US banks have set aside more than $60 billion to cover potential loan losses. They have done so even though commercial bankruptcies have declined so far this year (Chart 6). A stronger economy would allow banks to release some of those provisions back into earnings.   Bank Regulation Is Not A Major Worry Anymore Wouldn’t the potential benefits to banks from more fiscal support and higher bond yields be outweighed by a greater regulatory burden under a Biden administration? Probably not. For one thing, a Republican Senate could block legislation that expanded regulation. Moreover, Biden hails from Delaware, a state that derives more than a quarter of its GDP from the finance and insurance sectors. He was only one of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it more difficult for households to discharge their debts. It should also be stressed that most of the regulatory reforms that the Democrats sought after the financial crisis have already been encoded in the Dodd-Frank Act. The Act was passed during the Obama administration. While the Trump administration did water down some of its provisions, the changes were modest and had bipartisan support. Big Banks Are More Resilient Than Small Ones Today, US banks are better capitalized than they were in the years leading up to the financial crisis (Chart 7). The largest banks – the so-called Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) – are required to hold an additional capital buffer, which arguably makes them even safer. Unlike the smaller regional banks, the SIFIs have only modest exposure to the troubled commercial real estate sector. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, big banks have only 6% of their assets tied up in commercial real estate compared to 25% for smaller banks (Table 2). Chart 7US Banks: Better Capitalized Today Than Right Before The Financial Crisis Table 2Most US Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Held By Small Banks The largest US banks have more exposure to residential real estate than to commercial real estate. The US housing market has been firing on all cylinders recently. Single-family housing starts were up 24% year-over-year in September. Building permits and home sales are near cycle highs. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index rose 5.2% in August, up from 4.1% in July. The FHFA index surged 8.1% in August over the prior year. Homebuilder confidence hit a new record in October (Chart 8). Homebuilder stocks are up more than 20% versus the broad market this year. Chart 8US Housing Market: Firing On All Cylinders According to TransUnion, consumer delinquencies have been trending lower across most loan categories (Table 3). Notably, the 60-day delinquency rate on residential mortgages stood at 1% in September, down from 1.5% the same month last year. Table 3A Snapshot Of Consumer Delinquencies The Forbearance Time Bomb? Some investors have expressed concern that various pandemic-related forbearance programs are distorting the delinquency data. Reassuringly, that does not appear to be the case. Summarizing the results from the latest round of earnings calls with top bank executives, BCA’s Chief US Investment Strategist Doug Peta wrote: “Last week’s calls assuaged our concerns … It now appears that consumer requests for forbearance at the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak were analogous to businesses’ credit line draws: exercises of emergency options that turned out not to be necessary, and are on their way to being unwound with little ado.”1 Banks Are Cheap From a valuation perspective, relative to the broad market, US banks trade at one of the largest discounts on record on both a price-to-book and price-to-earnings basis (Chart 9). Earnings estimates are also starting to move in the banks’ favor. Relative 12-month forward earnings estimates for US banks are trending higher even against the tech sector (Chart 10). This largely reflects the expectation that bank earnings will grow more quickly than other sectors in 2021/22. Chart 9Bank Stocks Are Cheap Chart 10Bank Earnings Estimates Are Catching Up   A Few Words About Global Banks Chart 11Euro Area Banks Have Fared Especially Badly Since The GFC Chart 12Banks: A Low Bar For Success Banks in a number of markets outside the US face greater structural challenges than their US counterparts. Most notably, euro area bank earnings remain well below their pre-GFC highs (Chart 11). That said, investors are not exactly expecting European bank profits to recover to their glory days anytime soon. Chart 12 shows that if euro area bank EPS were to simply go back to last year’s levels, banks would trade at 5.4-times earnings. This implies a very low bar for success. Investment Conclusions Stocks have run up a lot over the past few days on fairly weak breadth. A short-term pullback would not be surprising. Nevertheless, investors should remain overweight global equities versus bonds over a 12-month horizon. The combination of ongoing fiscal and monetary support, together with a vaccine, will buoy global growth. As Chart 13 shows, it’s rare for stocks to underperform bonds when the global economy is strengthening. Chart 13Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 14Value Stocks Typically Do Well When Economic Activity Is Picking Up   Value stocks typically do well when economic activity is picking up (Chart 14). That said, we are less sure about when the inflection point in the value/growth trade will arrive. As we have noted before, the “pandemic trade” benefits growth stocks, while the “reopening trade” benefits value stocks. For now, the number of new infections has not shown signs of peaking in either the US or Europe (Chart 15). Investors should continue monitoring the daily Covid data and be prepared to increase exposure to value stocks when clearer evidence emerges that the latest wave of the pandemic is cresting.   Chart 15The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally... But Mortality Rates Are Lower Than Earlier This Year Chart 16The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency As a countercyclical currency, the dollar should weaken next year as policy remains accommodative and pandemic risks recede (Chart 16). EM Asian currencies are especially appealing. A hiatus in the trade war should allow the Chinese yuan to strengthen even further. This will drag other regional currencies higher. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, October 2020,” dated October 19, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Biden’s chances of winning the US election are rising, but it is still unsettled and could bring negative surprises to financial markets. The fiscal cliff will not subside immediately as the Senate Republicans have been vindicated for their fiscally hawkish approach. We doubt Democrats will win both Senate seats in Georgia to restore the lost “Democratic Sweep” scenario that offered maximum policy reflation. President Trump’s lame duck period, if he loses, lasts for three months and could bring negative surprises on China, the Taiwan Strait, Big Tech, Iran, or North Korea. The US remains at “peak polarization,” though we expect a growing national consensus over the long haul. Go long a basket of Trans-Pacific Partnership countries on a strategic time horizon to capitalize on what we believe will be Biden’s pro-trade-ex-China policy. Feature Chart 1Market Response To US Election The US presidential election remains undecided despite former Vice President Joe Biden’s increasing likelihood of victory. Votes will be recounted in several states while one potential tipping-point state, Pennsylvania, could easily swing on a Supreme Court decision. The Senate is likely to remain in Republican hands, though there is still a ~20% chance that it will flip if Democrats win both of the likely Georgia runoff elections on January 5. Thus our base case is the same as in our final forecast: Biden plus a Republican Senate. Financial markets first rallied and have now paused (Chart 1). The pause makes sense to us. Ultimately the best-case scenario of this election was always Biden plus a Republican Senate – neither tariffs nor taxes would increase. But this same scenario also always posed the highest risk of near-term fiscal tightening that would undermine the US recovery and global reflation trade. GOP Senators will insist on a smaller fiscal relief bill and may wait too long to enact it. Below we discuss these dynamics and why we maintain a tactically defensive position amid this contested election. We will not go full risk-on until the critical short-run risks subside: the contested election, the fiscal impasse, Trump’s “lame duck” executive orders, and the international response. Biden Not Yet President-Elect Biden is leading the vote tally in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as we go to press. To all appearances he has reclaimed the “Blue Wall” (MI, PA, WI) and made inroads in the Sun Belt (AZ, GA). We will not go full risk-on until the critical short-run risks subside. Map 1 shows tentative election results. Unsettled states are colored lightly while settled states are solid red or blue. This map points to a Biden victory even if Georgia and Pennsylvania slip back to Trump. The President would need to reclaim the latter two and one other state to reach 270 Electoral College votes. Map 1US 2020 Election Results (Tentative) Chart 2 shows the final prediction of our quantitative model. While our model predicted a Trump victory at 51% odds, we subjectively capped Trump’s odds at 45% because we disagreed that Trump would win Michigan.1 We did not do the same for our Senate model as the results matched with our subjective judgment that Republicans would keep control. Chart 2Our Presidential Quant Model Versus Actual Results Investors cannot yet conclude that the contested election risks have abated. If Biden wins only AZ, NV, MI, and WI, then he will end up with 270 Electoral College votes. This is the minimal vote needed for a victory. It is legitimate, but it means that a net of one faithless elector, or a disqualified elector, could throw the nation into a historic and nearly unprecedented crisis. If the Electoral College becomes indecisive for any reason, the House of Representatives will decide the election. Each state will get one vote. The results of the election suggest Republicans have four-to-ten seat majority of state delegations in the House (Table 1). Trump would win. Polarization and unrest would explode. Not for nothing did we brand this election cycle “Civil War Lite.” Table 1State Delegations In US House Of Representatives The greater the margin of victory in the Electoral College, the less vulnerable the nation is to indecision in the college, or to a result decided in the courts. The Republicans have a strong case in Pennsylvania that votes that arrived after November 3 should not be counted. It is not clear if the Supreme Court will revisit the case, having left it unresolved prior to the election. If Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes become the fulcrum of the election, and the Supreme Court rules to exclude votes received after November 3, and if Trump thereby wins the count, a national crisis will erupt. This is not high probability at the moment because Biden can afford to lose Pennsylvania if he wins Nevada or Georgia. But the history of contested elections teaches that investors should not rush to conclusions. Senate Gridlock Will Survive Georgia Runoffs The most likely balance of power is a Democratic president with a Republican Senate and Democratic House, i.e. gridlock. Chart 3 shows the likely balance of power in Congress. Democrats would need to win both runoff elections in Georgia to win 50 seats, which would give them a de facto majority if Biden wins, since Vice President Kamala Harris would become President of the Senate and break any tie votes there. They are unlikely to do so. Chart 3AGridlock In US Government Chart 3BGridlock In US Government Why do we doubt that Democrats will win both Georgia seats, given that Trump is now falling short in the statewide presidential vote? First, Republicans tend to do well in runoffs as Georgia is a conservative-leaning state (Chart 4). Second, the Republican vote was greater than the Democratic vote in both Senate elections, though falling short of 50%. Third, exit polls show that voters leaned Republican in the suburbs and were mostly concerned about the economy, not the coronavirus. Fourth, also clear from exit polls, Republican voters will be more motivated to retain control of the Senate with Trump out, while Democratic voters will be less motivated with Biden in (Chart 5). Voter turnout will drop in the special election as usual. Neither Trump nor the presidency will be on the ballot on January 5. Still, it is possible for Democrats to win both seats and hence de facto control of the Senate. We would say the odds are roughly 20% (0.5 x 0.4 = 0.2). Chart 4GOP Does Well In Georgia Runoffs Chart 5Georgia 2020 Election Results (So Far) If Democrats pulled off two victories in Georgia, the “Blue Sweep” scenario would be reaffirmed and several legislative proposals that had a 0% chance of passage in a Republican Senate would become at least possible. Certainly taxes would go up – the Democrats would be able to use the reconciliation process to push through reforms to the health care system paid for by partially repealing the Trump Tax Cut and Jobs Act. They would also be able to pass legislation that is popular with moderate Democrats who would then hold the balance in the Senate. The Green New Deal would become possible, if highly improbable. There would be a small chance of removing the filibuster in an exigency, but a vanishingly small chance of other radical structural changes, like creating new seats on the Supreme Court or granting statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico. A 50-50 count in the Senate, with Harris breaking the tie, would produce a larger increase in the budget deficit than otherwise. Stocks would have to discount the tax hike but they would recover quickly on the prospect of combined monetary and fiscal ultra-dovishness. Fiscal Impasse Prolonged Biden plus a Republican Senate is positive for the US corporate earnings outlook over the 24 months between now and the 2022 midterm election. It is also positive for the global earnings outlook over the four-year period due to the drastically reduced odds of a global trade war. But it is negative in the near term because it will result in a smaller and delayed fiscal relief package – and sooner than later the market will need a signal that the government will not pull the rug out from under the recovery. Biden plus a GOP Senate is negative in the near term due to fiscal risks but positive beyond that. True, the US economy continues to bounce back rapidly, which is why the Republicans performed so well in this election despite a recession, a pandemic, and a failure to pass another round of stimulus beforehand. In October the unemployment rate fell to 6.9%. Yet previous rounds of fiscal support are drying up. The job market is showing some signs of underlying weakness and these will worsen as long as benefits run out and COVID-19 cases discourage economic activity (Chart 6). Personal income has dropped off from its peak when the first round of stimulus was passed in March. Without the dole it will relapse (Chart 7). Chart 6US Job Market Weakening Sans Stimulus Chart 7US Personal Income Will Drop Sans Stimulus Will Senate Republicans agree to a fiscal deal in the “lame duck” session before the new Congress sits on January 3? We have no basis for a high-conviction view. They might agree to a deal in the range of $500 billion to $1 trillion, but only if the Democrats come down to these levels in the talks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of the big winners of the election. He held his seat and likely maintained Republican control of the Senate without capitulating to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s demands of a $3 trillion-plus relief bill. He wagered that Republicans would do better with voters if they concentrated on reopening the economy (and confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court) while limiting any fiscal bill to targeted COVID response measures. He drew a hawkish line against broad-based social spending and bailouts for state and local governments. The gambit appears to have worked. House Democrats, far from gaining seats, lost five. We would not be surprised if Pelosi were replaced as speaker in 2021. Her plan backfired so badly that if Trump had stayed on message in his campaign, he might even have won. The implication is that unless Pelosi comes down to McConnell’s number, the fiscal impasse will extend into January and February. The American public approves of fiscal relief, but that did not force McConnell’s hand earlier, as the economy was recovering regardless (Table 2). Unless the economy slumps or financial markets selloff drastically, he will likely insist on a skinny deal that includes liability protections for businesses while minimizing bailouts for indebted blue states. Table 2Americans Support Fiscal Stimulus Package Hence investors are likely to get bad news before good news on the US fiscal front. And if other bad news arises, the absence of fiscal support will be sorely felt. This motivates our tactically defensive posture until the fiscal impasse is resolved. Peak Polarization Polarization is at peak levels in the US and the election result suggests it will remain elevated. Whichever party wins will win with a narrow margin. There is simply no commanding mandate for either party, as has been the case this century, so the struggle will continue (Chart 8). Chart 8Polarization Will Continue With Narrow Margins Of Victory Of course, polarization may subside temporarily, assuming Trump loses. At least under Biden the Electoral College vote will coincide with the popular vote, improving popular consent. Biden will have a lower disapproval rating, probably throughout his term. High disapproval tends to coincide with crises in modern US history, but in 2021, after the dust clears from this election, the country may catch its breath (Chart 9). Chart 9Presidential Disapproval Will Fall Much will depend on whether the presumed Biden administration is willing to sideline the left-wing of the Democratic Party to court the median voter. Exit polling in the swing states strongly suggests that the Biden administration won the election (if indeed it did) by improving Democratic support among the majority white population, non-college educated voters, and senior citizens, all groups that delivered Trump the victory in 2016. The Democrats had mixed results among ethnic minorities and suburban voters. Their biggest liability was their focus on issues other than the economy (Chart 10). Chart 10Exit Polls Say Focus On Bread And Butter Over the coming decade we think the combination of (1) cold war with China and (2) generational change on fiscal policy will produce a new national consensus. But we are not there yet. The contested election is not guaranteed to end amicably. If Trump wins on a technicality, the country will erupt into mass protests; if he loses and keeps crying stolen election, isolated domestic terrorist incidents are entirely possible. Moreover the battle over the 2020 census and redistricting process will be fierce. Democrats will be hungry to take the Senate in 2022, failing Georgia in January, to achieve major legislative objectives while Biden is in office. And the 2024 election will be vulnerable to the fact that Biden may have to bow out due to old age, depriving the Democrats of an incumbent advantage. The bottom line is that Republicans outperformed and will not be inclined to help the Biden administration start off on strong footing. The implication is the fiscal battle will extend into the New Year unless a stock market selloff forces Republicans to compromise. Fiscal cliffs will be a recurring theme until at least the 2022 election. A deflationary tail risk will persist. Obama’s Legacy Secured? The sole significance of a gridlocked Biden presidency will lie in regulatory affairs, foreign policy, and trade policy. These are the policy areas where presidents have unilateral authority and Biden can act without the Senate’s approval. In this context, Biden’s sole focus will be to consolidate the legacy of the Barack Obama administration, in which he served. 1. Obamacare (ACA): Republicans failed to repeal and replace this bill despite a red sweep in 2016. Biden’s election ensures that Obamacare will be implemented, if not expanded, as he will have the power to enforce the law at the executive level. The risk is that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could strike it down. Based on past experience, the health care sector will benefit from the drop in uncertainty once the court’s decision is known (Chart 11). For investors the lesson of the past four election cycles is that Obamacare is here to stay, but Americans will not adopt a single-payer system until 2025 at the earliest conceivable date. We are long health equipment and see this outcome as beneficial to the health sector in general, particularly health insurance companies. Big Pharma, however, will suffer from bipartisan populist pressures to cap prices. 2. Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPA): Biden will seek to restore Obama’s signature foreign policy accomplishment, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, i.e. the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. The purpose of the deal was to establish a modus vivendi in the Middle East so that the US could “pivot to Asia” and focus its energy on the existential strategic challenge posed by China. Biden will stick with this plan. The Iranians also want to restore the deal but will play hard to get at first. Israel and Saudi Arabia could act to thwart Iran and tie Biden’s hands in the final three months of Trump’s presidency while they have unmitigated American backing. Chart 11Obamacare Preserved The implication is that Iranian oil production will return to oil markets (Chart 12), but that conflict could cause production outages, and Saudi Arabia could increase production to seize market share. Hence price volatility is the outcome, which makes sense amid fiscal risks and COVID risks to demand as well. 3. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): Biden claims he will “renegotiate” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was the Obama administration’s key trade initiative. The idea was to group like-minded Pacific Rim countries into an advanced trade deal that addressed services, the digital economy, labor and environmental standards, and pointedly excluded China. Trump withdrew from the deal out of pique despite the fact that it served the purpose of diversifying the American supply chain away from China. The impact of rejoining is miniscule from an economic point of view (Chart 13), but it will be a boon for small emerging markets like Mexico, Chile, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Chart 12Restoring The Iran Nuclear Deal Chart 13Rejoining The Trans-Pacific Partnership The bigger takeaway is that Biden will continue the US grand strategic shift toward confronting China, which will be a headwind toward Chinese manufacturing and a tailwind for India, Latin America, Southeast Asia. The US will cultivate relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a more coherent economic bloc and a manufacturing counterweight to China (Chart 14). A lame duck Trump will  attempt to cement his legacy by targeting China/Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, or Big Tech. When it comes to on-shoring, Biden’s focus will be reducing dependency on China and improving the US’s supply security in sensitive areas like health and defense. Trade and strategic tensions with China will persist, but a global trade war is not in the cards. Manufacturing economies ex-China stand to benefit. 4. The Paris Climate Accord: Biden will not be able to pass his own version of the Green New Deal without the Senate, so investor excitement over a government-backed surge in green investment will subside for the time being (Chart 15). He will also moderate his stance on the energy sector after his pledge to phase out oil and gas nearly cost him the election. He was never likely to ban fracking comprehensively anyway. Chart 14ASEAN's Moment Biden will be able to rejoin the international Paris Agreement and reverse President Trump’s deregulation of the energy sector. He will re-regulate the economy to lift clean air, water, environment, and sustainability standards. This is a headwind for the energy sector, but stocks are already heavily discounted and congressional gridlock is a positive surprise. Chart 15Returning To The Paris Climate Accord There may be some room for compromise with Senate Republicans when it comes to renewables in a likely infrastructure package next year. Post-Trump Republicans may also be interested in Biden’s idea of a “carbon adjustment fee” on imports, which is another way of saying tariffs on Chinese-made goods. Like the health care sector, the election is tentatively positive for US energy stocks – especially once fiscal risks are surmounted. Investment Takeaways Chart 16Lame Duck Trump Risk: Taiwan Strait Three near-term risks prevent us from taking a tactically risk-on investment stance. First, the contested election, which could still throw up surprises. Second, the fiscal stimulus impasse, which could persist into January or February and will reduce the market’s margin of safety in the event of other negative surprises. Third, a lame duck Trump will attempt to cement his legacy via executive orders. He could target China/Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, or even Big Tech. On China, Trump is already tightening export controls on China and selling a large arms package to Taiwan (Chart 16). The lame duck period of any presidency is a useful time for the US to advance strategic objectives. Trump will also blame China and the coronavirus for his defeat. He could seek reparations for the virus, restrictions on Chinese manufacturing and immigration to the US, export controls or sanctions on tech companies, secondary sanctions over Iran or North Korea, delisting of Chinese companies listed in the US, sanctions over human rights violations in China’s autonomous regions, or travel bans on Communist Party members. During these three months, Big Tech will face crosswinds – risks from Trump, but opportunities from gridlock. Polarization has helped support US equity and tech outperformance over the past decade. Frequent hold-ups over the budget in Congress weigh on growth and inflation expectations, thus favoring growth stocks and tech. Internal divisions have prompted the US to lash out abroad, increasing risks to international stocks and driving safe-haven demand into the dollar and tech. More broadly the second wave of the pandemic is a boon for tech earnings and Biden will restore the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley. But tech is already priced for perfection and this favorable trend will be cut short when COVID restrictions ease and Biden works out a compromise with the Senate GOP over stimulus and the budget (Chart 17). Beyond these near-term risks, we have a constructive outlook for risk assets over the next 12 months. Chart 17Biden, Peak Polarization, And Big Tech Chart 18Global Stocks, Cyclicals Benefit When US Fiscal Impasse Resolved Insofar as Biden seeks to restore US commitment to global free trade, and more stable and cooperative relations with allies and partners ex-China, global policy uncertainty should fall relative to the United States. Once near-term fiscal hurdles are cleared, the dollar’s strength can subside and global stocks and global cyclicals can start to outperform (Chart 18). Chart 19Trump An Exclusively Commercial President We also favor stocks over bonds on a strategic horizon. Trump was an exclusively commercial president whose approval rating had a tight correlation with the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 19). A surge in stocks would help power Trump’s approval. This relationship is not standard across presidents. But it does make sense during periods of policy change that affect earnings. Trump’s tax cuts are the best example. Equities outpaced bonds in anticipation of tax cuts in 2017. Trump’s approval rating recovered once the bill was passed. President Obama’s approval rating also correlated somewhat with the stock-to-bond ratio during the critical fiscal cliff negotiations under gridlock from 2010-12. Once Biden works out a compromise with GOP Senators, bond yields will rise and stocks will power upward. The takeaway from these points is that volatility can remain elevated over the next 0-3 months (Chart 20). We would not expect it to go as high as in 2000, when the dotcom bubble burst, but Trump’s lame duck maneuvers against China could generate a massive selloff. But this cannot be ruled out. Indeed, Trump’s constraints have almost entirely fallen away regardless of whether he loses or wins. Investors should take a phased and conservative approach to adding risk in the near term. The outlook will brighten up when the president is known, a fiscal deal is reached, and President Trump’s legacy as the Man Who Confronted China is complete. Chart 20Volatility Will Stay Elevated In Short Run Chart 21Go Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Given our view that Biden will be hawkish on China, especially amid gridlock at home, we are maintaining our short CNY-USD trade. We also recommend buying a basket of Trans-Pacific Partnership bourses, weighted by global stock market capitalization, on a strategic time-frame to capture what we expect will be Biden’s pro-trade-ex-China policy (Chart 21). Finally, to capture the views expressed above regarding Biden’s likely market impacts, over the short and long run, we will go long US health care relative to the broad market on a tactical basis and long US energy on a strategic basis.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As things stand, the model overrated the Republicans in Arizona and Georgia as well, though really Georgia looks to be the only state Democrats won that the model gave high odds of staying Republican. If we had used the level rather than the range of Trump’s approval rating – or if we had neglected opinion polling altogether – the model would have called a Biden win.

Highlights Our base case of a Biden win with a GOP Senate may come to pass. But the US election is not over yet. Trump still has a chance of victory by winning Pennsylvania and one other state. If the vote count does not settle the outcome clearly this week, a full-fledged contested election will emerge that may not be settled until just before December 14 (or even January). Risk-off sentiment will prevail in the interim, given the importance of the executive-legislative configuration for the pandemic response and the fiscal policy outlook. What we know is that Republicans kept the Senate, in line with our final forecast last week. This means gridlock is assured – which is positive for US stocks beyond near-term fiscal risks. Stay long JPY-USD, short CNY-USD, long stocks over bonds, long health care equipment, and long infrastructure plays. Keep dry powder for the presidential outcome, as global trade hangs in the balance. Feature The US presidential election is unsettled as we go to press, but we know that Republicans will keep control of the Senate and hence that American government will be divided or “gridlocked” for the next two years. As things stand, Democrats picked up two senate seats, Arizona and Colorado, but fell short everywhere else. They may even have lost a seat in Michigan. This leaves the balance of power at ~52-48 in favor of Republicans – which is one seat better than our final 51-49 forecast in their favor (Chart 1).1 Chart 1Our Senate Election Model Correctly Predicted Republican Control Table 1Gridlock Is Inevitable Regardless Of Presidential Outcome Gridlock is the inevitable consequence. If President Trump pulls off a victory in any two of the upper Midwestern states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin), then he will still face a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. If former Vice President Joe Biden pulls off a victory in two of these states, then he will face a Republican controlled Senate (Table 1). Chart 2Gridlock More Favorable Than Sweep For Wall Street, But Fiscal Risks Abound In Short Run Historically gridlock offers more upside for the S&P 500 than a single-party sweep (Chart 2), and we agree with this expectation when it comes to the long-run impact of this election. However, we have also warned against the fiscal risks of a Biden win with a Republican Senate in the short run. The status quo Trump gridlock is reflationary at first but later problematic due to trade war. The Biden gridlock is deflationary at first but the best outcome for investors over the long run. Consider the following: Trump with Senate Republicans: Trump is a spendthrift and he and his party joined the House Democrats in blowing out the budget deficit from 2018-20. Trump’s victory will force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to concede to a Republican-drafted ~$1-$1.5 trillion new COVID-19 fiscal relief bill right away. For the second term, Trump will push an infrastructure bill, border security, and make his tax cuts permanent. The fiscal thrust in 2021 will be flat-to-up. The budget deficit will probably end up somewhere between the Republican “high spending” scenario and the Democratic “low spending” scenario in our budget deficit projections (Chart 3). This is positive for US growth and especially corporate earnings, but it comes with a catch: Trump will be emboldened in his trade wars, which could expand beyond China to Europe or others. Tariffs and currency depreciation will weigh on global growth. Still, Trump’s second term will occur in the early stages of the business cycle and the Fed is committed not to hike rates until 2023, so the overall picture is reflationary.   Chart 3Trump Gridlock Reflationary, Biden Gridlock Deflationary Over Short Run Biden with Senate Republicans: Since Senate Republicans did not capitulate to large Democratic spending demands prior to the election, when their seats were at risk, they will have less incentive to do so afterwards when the president hails from the opposing party. The only way they will agree to a new fiscal stimulus in the “lame duck” session (November-December) is if the Democrats concede to their skinny proposals for the time being. But Democrats will probably insist on their demands having made electoral gains. In this case, either financial markets will sell off, forcing Republicans to capitulate, or investors will have to wait until early 2021 to receive a new fiscal bill that is uncertain in size and timing. The first battle of Biden’s presidency will be with the GOP Senate. The Republican “low spending” scenario in Chart 3 is most likely. It is not realistic that Congress will allow the baseline scenario, in which the budget deficit contracts by ~7.4% of GDP. Republican senators today are not the Tea Party House Republicans of 2010, who were rabid fiscal hawks. Still, uncertainty will weigh heavily and markets will have to fall before GOP senators wake up to the underlying risk to the economic recovery. The consolation is that beyond this 3-6 month period of negative sentiment and deflationary fiscal risk, the outlook will be fairly positive. Biden will not use broad-based unilateral tariffs the way Trump did, with the possible exception of China later in his term. And the Republican Senate will not agree to tax hikes at any point, making taxes a concern for 2023 or thereafter. This is the best of both worlds for US business sentiment and the corporate earnings outlook over the two-year period. Risk-off sentiment will prevail until the election is decided. This could be in a couple of days if the vote count is clear in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Or it could extend until just before December 14, when the Electoral College votes, if the litigation and court rulings in these critical states drag on, which we discuss below. The reason risk-off sentiment will prevail is that the US economy is burning through its remaining stimulus funds rapidly, the fiscal trajectory is unclear until the presidency is decided, Europe is going into partial lockdowns over the pandemic, and a Biden victory would imply more US lockdowns. Diagram 1 outlines the macro and market implications as we see them, depending on the presidential outcome. We never took the view that a Democratic sweep of White House and Senate would be the best outcome for the overall investment outlook, though we conceded that it was the most reflationary and bullish in the short term. But now this point is moot. Investors will have to wait another two years at minimum for the full smorgasbord of Democratic spending proposals to have a chance at passage. Diagram 1Gridlock Rules Out Massive Fiscal Boost Bottom Line: The presidency is indeterminate as we go to press. What is clear is that Republicans retained the Senate. Therefore gridlock will prevail. This is generally market positive, though a Biden win would weigh on risk assets in the near term until financial markets force Republican senators to capitulate to a new fiscal bill. A Controversial Election Or A Contested Election? The critical battleground states are undecided as we go to press. Trump needs to win any two of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to retain the White House. The vote count will last through Wednesday and possibly beyond. The Republican and Democratic legal teams are preparing for trench warfare. Major legal challenges are highly likely and will delay the final outcome into December or even January. The first thing is to finish counting the absentee and mail-in ballots. Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona are not accepting ballots after election day, so they will finish counting soon. Then all that remains is to see if any legal disputes arise that prevent the Electoral College members from being settled in these states, which is still possible. For example, Wisconsin is within a percentage point. Nevada will accept ballots by November 10 and North Carolina by November 12 as long as they are postmarked by election day. It is likely but not certain that Democrats will keep Nevada (~75% counted) while Republicans will keep North Carolina (~100% counted). Thus Pennsylvania poses the biggest risk of a contested result – and this was anticipated. The deadline to receive mailed ballots is Friday, November 6, but a legal dispute is already underway as to whether the original November 3 deadline should be reinstated.2 We will not pretend to predict the final court verdict on Pennsylvania, but it would not be surprising at all if the Supreme Court ruled that ballots received after election day cannot be accepted. The constitution grants state legislatures the sole power of choosing a state’s electors. Each state passes its own election laws. The Pennsylvania state legislature clearly stated that ballots must be returned by election day. It was a court decision that extended the deadline. The Supreme Court could easily determine that a lower court does not have the power to change the deadline. But nobody will know until the court rules. The fact that Trump appointed several of the judges has little bearing on their decisions because they serve lifetime appointments. Once election disputes rise above state vote-counting to the federal level, Trump gets a lifeline. First, the two-seat conservative leaning on the Supreme Court should produce strict readings of the law that could favor his bid. Second, the GOP’s victory in the Senate means that Democrats cannot unilaterally settle disputed electoral votes in their own favor at the joint session of Congress on January 6, which they could have done with a united Congress. Third, the Republicans are likely to have maintained a one or two-state majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives (based on results as we go to press), which means that Trump would win if the candidates failed to reach a 270-vote majority on the Electoral College or tied at 269. Note that an Electoral College tie is a distinct possibility in this election. Right now, if Trump loses in Michigan and Wisconsin, but wins Pennsylvania, and nothing else changes, then an Electoral College tie could result at 269-269 electoral votes.3 Polls … And Exit Polls Before condemning the entire profession of opinion pollsters to death it will be important to receive the verified results of the election and compare them with the final polling averages. It is clear that Trump was widely underrated yet again, but it is not yet clear that this was primarily or exclusively the fault of pollsters. Right now Trump is down by 1.8% in the nationwide popular vote, whereas he lagged by 7.2% in the average of the national polls and 2.3% in the battleground average on election day. This is a big 5.4% gap in the national poll, but in the battleground poll it is a minor 0.5% polling gap and as such merely confirms what many observers knew, that the battleground polls were the ones that really mattered due to the Electoral College. Trump’s battleground support average was 46.6% and his approval rating was 45.9% on election day, which respectively is 1.8% and 2.5% below his tentative share of the national vote at 48.4%. These gaps are within the average 3% margin of error – and normally sitting presidents outperform their polling by around 1%. State opinion polling had huge errors like the national poll. Charts 4 and 4B shows the final election polling in the critical swing states along with a “T” or “B” to mark Trump’s and Biden’s tentative vote share as we go to press. Swing state polls showed Trump staging a major rally in the final weeks of the campaign, which is what prompted us to upgrade his odds to 45%. Neither major pundits nor the mainstream media paid enough attention to this shift. Several prominent outlets denied that there was any real tightening in the polls even in late October. Chart 4APundits Overlooked Trump’s Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Chart 4BPundits Overlooked Trump’s Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks What this demonstrates to us is the power of momentum in opinion polling, especially in the final week before an election when people’s attitudes harden and they bare more of their true opinions. It does not tell us that opinion polling is dead. What about the exit polls? Biden cut into Trump’s lead in key demographic groups just as the Democratic Party machinery anticipated, but it is not clear if it was enough to win the election. Trump lost ground and Democrats gained ground, relative to 2016, with white voters, old folks, and non-college-educated voters. But Trump improved his support among blacks and Hispanics, a signal point that gives the lie to much of this year’s media hype (Charts 5A and 5B). Chart 5ADemocrats Gained Ground With White, Elderly, And Non-College-Educated Voters; GOP Gained Among Blacks And Hispanics Chart 5BDemocrats Gained Ground With White, Elderly, And Non-College-Educated Voters; GOP Gained Among Blacks And Hispanics By far voters cared most about the issues, not personalities, and the biggest issue was the economy (35% of voters versus 20% on racial inequality and 17% on the coronavirus, which was apparently overrated as an issue by Democrats). The economic focus is the only explanation for Trump’s outperformance – the law and order narrative was less popular. Trump’s vote share may end up exactly equal to the number of respondents who said the economy was “good” or “excellent” (48%). Otherwise Trump’s base is well known: it consists predominantly of white people, rural people, those in the Midwest and South, those who have been fairly successful in income, and those who think America needs a “strong leader” more than a unifier with good judgment who seems to care about the average person. If Trump is defeated, the clear implication is that he failed to expand his base. If he wins, the clear implication is that Democrats suffered in the key regions for their aggressive approach to COVID lockdowns, their condoning of lawlessness, and their divisive handling of racial inequality and police brutality. With such a close vote for the White House, sweeping narratives are questionable. It is not clear yet whether liberalism or nationalism won, and at any rate the margin was thin. What is clear is that Democrats substantially disappointed in the Senate and they might even have failed to gain the White House. Given that this year witnessed a recession, pandemic, and widespread social unrest – well-attested historical signs that point to the failure of the incumbent party and recession – Democrats apparently failed to capitalize. National exit polls suggest the fault lay in their relative neglect of bread and butter in favor of the coronavirus or left-wing social theory. This is true not so much in the House of Representatives but in the presidential and senate races. If Trump wins – especially through a contested election – then US political polarization will rise due to the continued divergence of popular opinion and the constitutional system. “Peak polarization” will last another four years at least. But if Trump loses, given that Republicans held the Senate, there is room for compromise that would reduce polarization. But it is too early to say. Investment Takeaways Trade and foreign policy hinge on the presidency. Trump is favored in several of the key states at the moment and he is especially favored in a contested election process, but it is too soon to make investment recommendations on the executive branch other than that US equity outperformance is likely to continue on both of the scenarios at hand. Table 2Earnings Shock From Partial Repeal Of Trump Tax Cuts Has Been Averted For now we recommend investors stay long JPY-USD, short CNY-USD, long health care equipment, and overweight stocks relative to bonds. On the Senate, the key takeaway is that Biden and the Democrats will not be able to raise taxes. This is a big benefit to the sectors that faced the greatest earnings shock from a partial repeal of Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – namely real estate, tech, health care, utilities, consumer discretionary, and financials (Table 2). A simple play on these sectoral benefits courtesy of Anastasios Avgeriou, our US equity strategist, would be to go long small caps versus large caps, i.e. S&P 600 relative to the S&P 500, but wait till the fiscal hurdle is cleared. The BCA infrastructure basket should benefit regardless, as infrastructure is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement, especially amid a large output gap.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We upgraded the Republicans to favored status last week based on our quantitative Senate election model, which showed a 51% chance that Republicans would maintain control, with 51-49 votes. Our presidential model also showed Trump winning with a 51% chance, but we subjectively capped his odds at 45% due to our doubts about his ability to win Michigan given Biden’s 4% lead in head-to-head public opinion polls there. 2 It is possible that Nevada’s November 10 deadline or North Carolina’s November 12 deadline could become relevant, but we doubt it. 3 Precise Electoral College outcomes cannot be predicted due to faithless electors, i.e. electoral college members who vote differently than required based on their state’s popular vote. In 2016 there were seven faithless electors and in 2020 there could be several and they could make the difference. Material punishments may not prevent an elector from making a conscientious decision to stray from his or her state’s results in an election viewed as having historic importance.

Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Have Upside In A Blue Sweep Today’s US election has important implications for the near-term path of bond yields. In particular, a “blue sweep” outcome where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House will probably cause yields to jump (Chart 1), as such an outcome virtually guarantees a large fiscal relief package early next year. Fiscal negotiations will be more contentious if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and yields could decline this evening if that occurs. However, no matter the election outcome, our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration recommendation will not change tomorrow. The economic recovery appears to be on track and some further fiscal stimulus is likely next year no matter who prevails tonight. The stimulus will just be smaller if a divided government necessitates compromise. In any case, bond investors should keep portfolio duration below-benchmark and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. They should also maintain positions in nominal and real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 99 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -300 bps. Corporate bonds are certainly not as cheap as they were back in March, but we still see acceptable value in the sector. The corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its 20th percentile since 1995 and the equivalent Baa spread is at its 28th percentile (Chart 2). Both levels appear somewhat expensive at first blush. However, considering the strong tailwinds from the Fed’s extraordinarily accommodative interest rate policy and emergency lending facilities, we see a lot of room for further tightening. Corporate bond issuance increased in September, though it remains well below the extreme levels seen in the spring (panel 4). The fact that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – turned negative in the second quarter suggests that firms have enough cash to cover their investment needs (bottom panel). This will keep issuance low in the coming months. At the sector level, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to subordinate bank bonds,1  Healthcare and Energy bonds.2  We also advise underweight allocations to Technology3 and Pharmaceutical bonds.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 86 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -373 bps. Ba-rated bonds outperformed lower-rated credits in October, and they remain the best performing corporate credit tier since the March 23 peak in spreads (See Appendix A). In terms of value, if we assume a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses, then the High-Yield index is priced for a default rate of 4.8% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). Such a large drop in the default rate cannot be ruled out completely, but it would necessitate a rapid pace of economic recovery. We are not yet confident enough in the recovery to position for such a fast drop-off in defaults, especially with Job Cut Announcements still well above pre-COVID levels (bottom panel). We therefore continue to recommend an overweight allocation to the Ba-rated credit tier – where access to the Fed’s emergency lending facilities is broadly available – and an underweight allocation to bonds rated B and below. At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology5 and Energy bonds.6 We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.7   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 11 bps on the month to land at 72 bps. This is now slightly below the 76 basis point spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but well above the 62 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 29 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the relatively attractive OAS, we remain concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk is greater than what is currently being priced in the market (Chart 4). Yes, the mortgage spread has tightened during the past few months, but it remains 35 bps above its average 2019 level. This suggests that the mortgage rate could fall another 35 bps due to spread compression alone, even if Treasury yields are unchanged. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. The recent spike in the mortgage delinquency rate does not pose a near-term risk to spreads as it is being driven by households that have been granted forbearance from the federal government (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders only comes into play if many households are unable to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period expires early next year. But even in that case, further government intervention to either support household incomes or extend the forbearance period would mitigate the risk. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -284 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 151 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -420 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 18 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -690 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 21 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -362 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -33 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, this year’s dollar weakness has been relative to other Developed Market currencies. In recent months, the dollar has actually strengthened versus EM currencies (Chart 5). Value also remains poor for EM Sovereigns, which continue to offer a lower spread than Baa-rated corporate debt (panel 4). We looked at EM Sovereign valuation on a country-by-country basis in a recent report.8 We concluded that Mexican and Russian bonds offer the most compelling risk/reward trade-offs relative to the US corporate sector. Of those two countries, Mexican debt offers the best opportunity as US politics remain a concern for the Russian currency. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -464 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries tightened in October, but value remains exceptional with most maturities trading at a positive before-tax spread. As we showed in a recent report, municipal bonds are also attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum.9 On a duration-matched basis, the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation and Revenue Bond indexes trade at before-tax premiums relative to corporate bonds of the same credit rating, an extremely rare occurrence (Chart 6). Extraordinary valuation is the main reason for our recommendation to overweight municipal bonds. The severe ongoing state & local government credit crunch is a concern, but it is a risk we are willing to take. If the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House this evening – a fairly likely scenario – federal aid for state & local governments will be delivered in January. This would alleviate a lot of concern. But even in the absence of federal assistance, the combination of austerity measures (bottom panel) and all-time high State Rainy Day Fund balances should help stave off a wave of municipal downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in October, largely due to rising expectations of a “blue sweep” election outcome. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes steepened 18 bps and 9 bps, respectively, to reach 74 bps and 127 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. More bear steepening is likely if the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House tonight, as this would mean that a large amount of fiscal stimulus is coming early next year. But we will stick with our curve steepening recommendation regardless of the election outcome. No matter who wins the election, some further fiscal stimulus is likely on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -93 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 7 bps and 5 bps on the month. They currently sit at 1.71% and 1.82%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.19% in September and the year-over-year rate held steady at 1.73%. The 12-month trimmed mean CPI ticked down from 2.48% to 2.37%, so the gap between core and trimmed mean continued to narrow (Chart 8). We anticipate further narrowing in the months ahead, and therefore expect core CPI to come in relatively hot. For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is no longer cheap according to our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).10 Inflation pressures may moderate once core and trimmed mean inflation measures converge, and this could give us an opportunity to tactically reduce TIPS exposure sometime next year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +59 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 29 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +157 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a June report.11  We noted that stimulus received from the CARES act caused disposable income to increase significantly since February. Then, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used much of that windfall to pay down consumer debt (panel 4). Granted, further income support from fiscal policymakers is needed now that the CARES act’s enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. But given the substantial boost to savings that has already occurred, we are confident that more stimulus will arrive in time to prevent a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -250 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 10 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -73 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 72 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -738 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate (CRE) continues. Without Fed support, non-Aaa CMBS will struggle to deal with tightening CRE lending standards and falling demand (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +17 bps. The average index spread tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 62 bps, well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). At its last meeting, the Fed decided to slow its pace of Agency CMBS purchases. It will no longer seek to increase its Agency CMBS holdings, but will instead purchase only what is “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. This is nonetheless a Fed back-stop of the market, and it does not change our overweight recommendation. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. TablePerformance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 30TH, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 30TH, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 63 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 63 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 30TH, 2020)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market”, dated September 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market”, dated October 13, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights A surge in the number of Covid cases worldwide and the failure of the US Congress to forge a stimulus deal has cast doubt on the “reflation trade.” European governments have responded to rising case counts with a flurry of restrictions. While not quite as extreme as those introduced in March, the new lockdown rules will still weigh on growth over the coming months. The good news is that progress on a vaccine continues, with the vast majority of experts expecting one to be widely available within the next 12 months. The degree to which US fiscal policy will turn stimulative again depends on the outcome of the election. A “blue wave” would produce the most fiscal stimulus, while a Biden victory coupled with continued Republican control of the Senate would produce the least. However, even in the latter scenario, popular support for further fiscal easing – including among Republican voters – will help catalyze a deal. The near-term picture for stocks is murky. Nevertheless, investors should remain overweight global equities on a one-to-two year horizon, while shifting exposure to non-US markets and value stocks. Worries About The Sanguine Narrative Chart 1The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally... But Mortality Rates Are Lower Than Earlier This Year Equities recovered some of their losses on Thursday, but remain down on the week. Investors have become increasingly concerned about the viability of the so-called reflation trade. Stocks rallied in the spring and summer on hopes that the worst of the pandemic was over and that fiscal stimulus would continue to prop up employment and spending. Now, both assumptions are being challenged. The number of coronavirus cases continues to rise worldwide (Chart 1). In both Europe and the US, the daily tally of confirmed new cases exceeds its March peak. The only saving grace is that the number of deaths has not risen by as much as many had feared. Governments are reacting to rising case counts by tightening social distancing rules. The German government ordered bars, clubs, theaters, concert halls, museums, cinemas, sit-down restaurants, and most athletic facilities to close in November. Hotels will no longer be able to cater to tourists, while private meetings of over 10 people will be prohibited. Along the same lines, France has imposed a comprehensive nationwide lockdown until December 1st, with President Macron stating the nation has been “overpowered by a second wave.” Earlier this week, the Italian government announced that bars and restaurants must close by 6pm. News reports indicate that the UK government is preparing a slate of new restrictions. While the most recent lockdowns in Europe are not as severe as those introduced earlier this year, they will still weigh on growth over the coming months. There has been less movement toward shuttering the US economy in response to what is now the third wave of the pandemic. This may be partly because the latest cluster of cases has been fairly localized, concentrated mainly in the central north of the country. So far at least, the heavily populated south and coastal states have been spared the brunt of the wave. However, if more states start seeing rising case counts, stricter restrictions could be introduced across most of the country. Fiscal Food Fight Meanwhile in Washington, both Republican and Democrat leaders conceded that there will be no stimulus deal before the election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Trump had “failed miserably” in his handling of the pandemic, the economy, and everything else. The President, for his part, claimed that “Nancy Pelosi is only interested in bailing out badly-run, crime-ridden Democrat cities and states,” adding that “After the election, we will get the best stimulus package you have ever seen.” Of course, whether Trump can fulfill his “best ever” pledge depends on the outcome of the election. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty over how the political landscape in Washington will look after November 3rd. Nevertheless, most roads still lead to more stimulus. The Election Homestretch Chart 2Opinion Polls Favor The Democrats ... Chart 3... As Do Betting Markets As the US election campaign winds down, both opinion polls and betting markets suggest that Joe Biden will become the next president while the Democrats will regain control of the Senate (Chart 2 and Chart 3). That said, this is not the only possible outcome. As this handy applet from The Cook Political Report makes clear, small changes in the assumptions about either voter preferences or turnout can shift the results significantly. For example, Trump saw his approval among African Americans rise from 25% last week to around 40% this week according to Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll. Such a large move in this one particular poll undoubtedly overstates the true magnitude of the trend, but it is consistent with the analysis that Matt Gertken and BCA’s geopolitical team has done showing that Trump has reduced the Democrats’ lead among minority voters relative to 2016. If Trump can improve his vote share among black voters from the meager 8% he received in the 2016 election to 11% this time around, it would be enough to tip the entire race in his favor. The quant model developed by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service, which elevates recent economic data over polling numbers in its computations, gives Donald Trump a 51% probability of remaining president and an equivalent chance of the Republicans picking up the Senate (Chart 4). Subjectively, Matt thinks Trump has a 45% chance of winning. While lower than his quant model, this is still above the 39% probability that betting markets assign to a Trump victory (Chart 5). Chart 4BCA’s Quant Model Points To Trump Victory And Favors Republicans In The Senate Chart 5Election Odds: BCA's Geopolitical Team Versus Betting Markets What Would The Stock Market Prefer? From the equity perspective, stocks would likely rise if Trump won and the Democrats took over the Senate. If re-elected, President Trump would block any efforts to raise taxes or tighten business regulations. However, unlike a number of Republican senators, Trump is not averse to increasing government spending. Earlier this month, the President proposed a $1.8 trillion stimulus bill. Senate Republicans have offered only $500 million for pandemic relief. The stock market would welcome both easier fiscal policy and the implicit guarantee that taxes will not rise. The stock market would also be content with a Democratic sweep, provided it did not result in a blowout victory. A narrow Senate victory would still allow the Democrats to pass a fiscal stimulus bill through the creative use of the “reconciliation process.” However, it would curb the influence of the party’s more left-leaning members. Several Democratic senators have expressed reservations about scrapping the filibuster rule which requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass most non-budget related legislation. If the filibuster rule is eliminated, it would make it easier to strengthen antitrust law, tighten labor and environmental standards, and raise the minimum wage, all of which could dampen corporate profits. Investors would likely deem a continuation of the existing political configuration in Washington – where Donald Trump remains president and the Republicans maintain a slim majority in the Senate – as neutral for stocks. On the one hand, such an outcome would take the prospects of tax hikes off the table. On the other hand, it could prolong the trade war and extend the stalemate over a stimulus bill. Lastly, stock market investors might frown upon a scenario involving a Biden victory and continued Republican control of the Senate. Of all the scenarios mentioned above, the prospects for a major stimulus package would be lowest for this configuration of political outcomes. This is because Republican senators would have even less incentive to accede to more spending if Joe Biden, rather than Donald Trump, were pressing for it. Still, even in this scenario, it is unlikely that the US will shift to fiscal austerity anytime soon. As Table 1 shows, 72% of voters support the broad outline of the Democrat’s stimulus proposal. Strikingly, even most Republican voters support it, at least when the question is posed in nonpartisan terms. This suggests that a Democratic House could still find a way to strike a stimulus deal with a Republican Senate, perhaps by agreeing to further cut taxes in exchange for more government spending. Table 1Strong Support For Stimulus Investment Conclusions While governments have understandably tightened restrictions to control the latest surge in Covid cases, they are unlikely to fully revert to the extreme measures taken in March. Back then, there was considerable uncertainty over how fatal the virus was, with estimates for the mortality rate ranging from 0.5%  to over 5%. The latest research suggests that the true number is near the bottom of that range, and perhaps even below it.1 Progress continues to be made on a vaccine. Close to 95% of professional forecasters surveyed by The Good Judgement Project expect a vaccine to be widely available within the next 12 months (Chart 6). Chart 6When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Chart 7Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening The combination of a vaccine and further fiscal support against a backdrop of ultra-easy monetary policy should be enough to lift global equities by about 15% towards the end of 2021. While the near-term picture for stocks is murky, investors should remain overweight global equities over a one-to-two year horizon. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar is poised to weaken next year. Typically, non-US stocks outperform when global growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 7). Value stocks also tend to do better in such macro environments (Chart 8). Once the latest wave of the pandemic crests, as it inevitably will, investors should look to shift their equity portfolios from stocks that benefited from lockdowns towards those that will benefit from reopenings.   Chart 8 (I)... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks Chart 8 (II)... Ditto For Value Stocks Versus Growth Stocks 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. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).6 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates.  In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We are upgrading Trump’s odds of winning to 45%. We have bet on a Democratic sweep all year. Incumbent parties rarely survive recessions, and President Trump has mishandled the pandemic. However, our updated quantitative election model – which relies heavily on short-term changes in the 50 states’ economies – points to a Trump victory with 279 Electoral College votes. The model puts Biden’s odds at 49%, i.e. “too close to call.”    Opinion polls still favor Biden – and polls are generally accurate with sitting presidents. Yet Biden’s lead in swing states is comparable to Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. And we all know how that ended.   Trump’s comeback, successful or not, will increase the chances of a contested election and will boost Republicans in Senate races. Our Senate model is also now flagging Republican control. The US fiscal policy outlook hinges on control of the Senate. Democrats would add 4%-7% of GDP to the fiscal thrust next year. We give 28% odds to a risk-off scenario, leaving a 72% chance that the policy setting will favor reflation.   Feature We are upgrading President Trump’s odds of winning the US election from 35% to 45%. Looking at opinion polls, Biden is still favored as we go to press. But according to our quantitative election model, which relies heavily on the economy, Trump will eke out an Electoral College victory. What matters is that the media and financial markets are once again underrating Trump. The race is getting closer in the final days. Not only is our model flagging a Trump win, but the V-shaped economic recovery is boosting Trump’s popular support in the battleground states critical to winning an Electoral College majority. At very least investors should hedge their bets on former Vice President Joe Biden, who is not, after all, an extraordinarily charismatic challenger. Biden is not polling much better than Hillary Clinton polled against Trump four years ago (Chart 1). Chart 1ABiden Not Polling Much Better Than Clinton … Chart 1B… Against Trump   The polling so far suggests that Trump suffered permanent damage from this year’s crisis and his support will hit a ceiling and relapse over the next week, confirming the month’s general tendency of a Biden win. But our confidence in the outcome is lower than before. The implication for investors is that the current volatility and risk-off sentiment could extend for one-to-three months, particularly given Congress’s failure to pass a new COVID relief package. However, beyond the near term, most scenarios are reflationary, positive for global equities and negative for low-yielding government bonds. There Are Still Undecided Voters Trump beat expectations in the final presidential debate on October 22, according to CNN polls. But debate performance does not accurately predict the winner of US elections. Moreover around 58 million voters have already voted based on prior information.1 Chart 2Still Enough Undecided Voters To Turn Election Still, Trump’s recovery in swing state polling is simultaneous with a lot of early voting in October, and there are enough undecided voters to change the outcome in critical swing states. About 6% of voters are undecided – virtually the same as in 2016. While the number of third-party supporters has fallen by 5.7 percentage points (ppt), this trend will not hurt Trump (Chart 2). In swing states in 2016, Libertarian Party voters outnumbered Green Party voters by a ratio of four to one, which does not suggest that these voters will all flock to Biden. They could even lean Trump. A large third party vote points to popular discontent, which hurts the incumbent party, as in 1980 and 1992. A lower third party vote is thus neutral for Trump. This is a major difference in 2020 from 1980 and 1992, which are the only two modern examples of a president losing after his first term. The best demographic projections have long shown that a rerun of the 2016 election, albeit with a normalization of the third-party vote share, would lead to an Electoral College tie. While it is virtually impossible for Trump to win the popular vote, he has a lifeline if state results are contested and/or the Electoral College is indecisive. Quant Model Gives Trump 279 Electoral College Votes Economic activity in the US continues to bounce back, according to flash PMIs in services and manufacturing as well as the latest data release from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s Coincident Economic Index. This index is the key input in our quantitative US election models for the White House and Senate, both of which now flag Republican victories. The latest reading pushes Trump’s odds of winning re-election up by 2ppt, to 51%, thus predicting that he will win with 279 Electoral College votes, an increase of 20 votes since our September update (Chart 3). Obviously this is not a high-confidence reading but rather an outcome that says the election is “too close to call.” Our model correctly predicts all election outcomes since 1984 during in-sample back testing, and all elections since 2000 on an out-of-sample basis.   Chart 3Quant Model Points To Trump Victory … A Risk To Our View A Trump victory would be a massive upset – as in 2016. According to PredictIt.org, there is a 40% chance that Republicans will keep the White House. Other prominent forecasting groups, like FiveThirtyEight and The Economist, give Trump much lower odds, at 12% and 4%, respectively. In our model, Michigan has moved comfortably toward a Republican win (74% odds), opposite the conventional wisdom. Michigan is the crux of our subjective difference with our quantitative model – we don’t see a path for Trump to win as the polls currently stand. New Hampshire is the model’s only toss-up state, with a 53% chance of switching to Republicans, another surprising find, albeit one punctuated by President Trump’s decision to campaign in the state over the weekend. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states won by the Republicans in 2016, are still expected to flip to the Democrats. State-level coincident economic indices have the largest impact in determining the outcome in the model. Our other explanatory variables are state-by-state margins of victory in 2016, a “time for change” variable that favors incumbent parties, and the range of Trump’s approval rating. These variables have not changed recently and will not change in the final days of the election. Improving economic activity across the US is the basis for our model’s finding. Chart 4Improvements In Swing State Economies The Philly Fed data show that 48 out of 50 states’ coincident economic indices increased over the past three months, an increase by 10 states since the previous month’s release. All swing states rose, while the previous toss-up state, Michigan, turned positive, according to our weighting method, which takes the three-month changes in the economic indicators and weights the final months of useable data more heavily than previous months in an election year (Chart 4). Michigan and New Hampshire account for 20 electoral votes, raising Trump from 259 to 279.  Clients have asked us why we use the range of President Trump’s approval rating rather than the level (Chart 5). We found this measure more statistically significant than other measures. If we manipulate the data we find that the model would still favor Trump if we looked at the two-year change of the approval rating or the October momentum of the approval rating. However, the model flags a Trump loss if we judge by the July or October level of his approval rating (which is historically low), or if we exclude the approval rating data altogether. The result of these alternate versions of our model is a Trump loss, with 246 Electoral College votes and Florida and Michigan remaining the critical toss-up states (Table 1). We are sticking with our original model, as the range of approval predicts electoral votes with a higher confidence level than other measures. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Range Is Narrow, Stable Table 1Variations In Quant Model Show Range Of Possibilities Bottom Line: Our quant model now favors Trump for re-election with 279 Electoral College votes. This economy-heavy model suggests that Trump is once again underrated, that the odds of a contested election are rising (in which Trump has some institutional advantages), and that Senate Republicans will benefit from the final sprint. Uncertainty and volatility will affect the market if the election result is indecisive, delayed, or if the GOP keeps the Senate (see below). Why We Do Not Favor Trump Outright Biden has been our pick since March based on the year’s huge external shock. The pandemic and recession have been harmful to the material wellbeing of the American public and therefore have sharply reduced the odds that the current president and ruling party will be re-elected. Looking at the level of Trump’s approval rating, he is comparable to George Bush Sr, who lost re-election in 1992 after a recession and race riots in Los Angeles. He is well beneath George Bush Jr and Barack Obama, who were re-elected handily in 2004 and 2012 (Chart 6). Chart 6Trump’s Approval Rating Level Is Relatively Low Joe Biden has a 7.9ppt lead in average national opinion polling. Looking at the breakdown across demographic groups reveals Trump’s serious liabilities. Biden has a 17ppt lead among women, compared to Clinton’s 15ppt lead in 2016 exit polls, and he is tied with Trump among men, compared to a 11ppt Trump lead in 2016 (Chart 7).2 Chart 7Trump Lagging In Key Demographic Groups Ethnic white voters still favor Trump by 5ppt but Trump has lost ground with this group since 2016, when he had a 15ppt advantage. Biden leads among voters who have some college education, while Trump’s lead among non-college graduates has fallen from 7ppt in 2016 to 4ppt this year. Chart 8Consumer Confidence Sounds Warning For President However, Black and Hispanic voters support Biden by a 74ppt and 31ppt margin, respectively, down from Clinton’s larger margins of 85ppt and 38ppt in 2016. While Trump is an exclusively commercial president, his approval rating never rose above 47% even when the economy was booming and consumer confidence soared. The collapse in consumer confidence has taken a toll on his approval, which struggles to break above 45% (Chart 8). Expectations have shot up, but voters are unhappy about current conditions. Consumer spending has not fully recovered and disposable income is in a freefall due to the failure of Congress to agree to a new fiscal relief deal since August, when benefits began to expire (Chart 9). Trump wanted a deal but so far Senate Republicans have proven unable to capitulate to House Democrats’ demands. Median family income has fallen over the course of Trump’s term. It spiked on the fiscal relief but then fell back when the latest phase of stimulus fell through (Chart 10). Chart 9Lack Of Fiscal Stimulus Weighs On Households Chart 10Median Income Down Over Four Year Term   Under Trump’s watch the unemployment rate has risen from 4.7% to 7.9%. Obviously the surge was due to the pandemic and unemployment has fallen from its peak. But rising joblessness weighs on a president’s approval rating in the final reckoning – this is a good rule of thumb for identifying one-term presidents (Chart 11). Permanent unemployment is also rising, creating a group of unhappy voters that could make a difference in elections with thin margins.   Chart 11AUnemployment Often Predicts … Chart 11B... The Election End-Game   The pandemic is not over. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are climbing in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 12). Trump’s net approval rating is deeply negative with regard to his handling of the crisis, as opposed to the economy where his approval is still net positive (Chart 13). Chart 12Pandemic Re-Emerging, Hurts Trump Chart 13Trump Ailing On Pandemic Handling     Biden, a traditional Democrat, is an acceptable alternative to Trump. His lead over Trump is 7.9% in national polling and 4% in swing state polling. He polls considerably better than Hillary Clinton did. In Arizona his polling is rising; elsewhere it is flat (Chart 14A & B).  Chart 14ABiden Polling Stable … Chart 14B… And Better Than Hillary   Can the opinion polls be trusted? National polling is generally close to the mark – especially for incumbent presidents – and the winner of the national vote wins the Electoral College 91% of the time. Challengers who lose elections typically outperform their final polling by 1.4%. Those who win outperform by 3%. Whereas incumbent presidents who win outperform by 0.8% and those who lose outperform by 1% – i.e. they do better than expected but still lose (Chart 15A & B). Presidents are well known so they don’t tend to bring big surprises. However, there are major exceptions, namely Harry Truman.   Chart 15AOpinion Polls Fairly Accurate On Sitting Presidents Chart 15BOpinion Polls More Often Underrate Challengers Chart 16Trump Is Rising In Battleground State Polls What about state level polls? The big errors in 2016 occurred on the state level. However, swing state pollsters have improved their methods. This can be confirmed by the fact that Trump’s performance in battleground opinion polls closely aligns with his job approval rating (Chart 16). The approval rating is the most reliable of all US political polls. The fact that these two are in lockstep, as against Trump’s national support rate (which is weighed down by dyed-in-the-wool Democrats in populous states), suggests that swing state polling is not wildly off the mark. On the other hand, Biden’s 4ppt lead is not very large. Voter turnout will be very high this year. Both Professor Michael McDonald from the US Elections Project and Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight expect turnout to be around 65%. High political polarization, get-out-the-vote campaigns by both parties, and expanded access to mail-in voting due to the pandemic have created a high-turnout environment. High turnout does not necessarily disfavor Trump, given that his political base consists of many low turnout groups. But it should hurt him in the context of higher unemployment, as was the case for the incumbent party in 1992 and 2008 (Chart 17). Bottom Line: History suggests the incumbent party will lose the White House. So do opinion polls, which tend to be accurate when it comes to sitting presidents. Trump’s momentum has picked up in swing state opinion polls this month, though it is pausing as we go to press. If he gains momentum in the final week then he could still win the election.  Chart 17AHigh Turnout Amid High Unemployment … Chart 17B…Hurts Incumbent   Trump’s Path To Victory Biden’s 4ppt lead in swing states is within the range of polling error. A last-minute Trump comeback is a risk. While presidents usually lose re-election if they suffer a recession, especially during the year of the election, there have been exceptions – namely in 1900, 1904, and 1924. The basis for Trump to make a comeback is the economic snapback and the fact that voters consistently rate the economy as the most important issue in the election. The crisis struck early enough in the year that the massive fiscal relief package has propped up demand in what could be the nick of time for the president (Chart 18).3 Chart 18Trump’s Biggest Help Is V-Shaped Recovery Trump is generally polling better than he did in 2016 and his polling is ticking up in the final weeks of the race despite a disastrous year (Chart 19). His polling is improving in Florida and Arizona, meaning that a single victory in the upper Midwest would keep him in the White House. Chart 19ATrump Rallying In Some Swing States … Chart 19B… Critical Trend If It Continues   Wage growth is also seeing a V-shaped recovery – particularly in the blue states, where services and knowledge-based sectors drive the economy, but also in “purple” swing states (Chart 20), though admittedly the purple states that voted for Trump are the laggards.  The manufacturing sector is also bouncing back, which is critical for the Midwestern Rust Belt that got pummeled by Trump’s trade war prior to the pandemic. The surge in credit fueled by the Federal Reserve’s liquidity provisions is a positive for this region (Chart 21). Chart 20Swing State Wage Growth Bounces Back Chart 21Midwestern Economy Snaps Back   The stock market rally is also positive for the incumbent. The S&P 500 predicts the election result 77% of the time going back to 1896. Specifically, its year-to-date performance as of October 31 of an election year is positively correlated with an incumbent party’s likelihood of winning the White House and is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level. Back in May, with the S&P down 13%, the stock market gave Trump a 16% chance of re-election. Today, up 6% YTD, it gives him a 66% chance (Chart 22). Chart 22Simple Stock Market Model Says Trump Favored For Re-Election We would not put too much emphasis on this measure, as the market also rallied prior to Carter’s and Bush’s losses in 1980 and 1992. But Trump is uniquely tied to the stock market and it is clearly good for him if the market does not collapse (though the failure to pass fiscal stimulus is a liability). Simply put, Trump is stronger than Mitt Romney 2012 and Biden is weaker than Barack Obama. The 3.9ppt margin of victory in the popular vote that year should be narrower this year. Run-of-the-mill Democrats have not received more than 49% of the popular vote in recent memory. And that was the popular Bill Clinton in 1996 (Table 2). If Trump clocks in at 46%, as in 2016, then he could squeak through the Electoral College once again.     Bottom Line: We are upgrading Trump’s odds to 45%.   Table 2US Presidential Election Popular Vote The Senate Is Too Close To Call Even if Trump’s comeback is “too little, too late,” it increases the chance of a contested election – in which he could get a lifeline through the Supreme Court or the House of Representatives – and also gives a boost to Republican Senators in tight races. Our Senate election model, like our presidential model, uses the Philly Fed coincident economic indicators. It has also flipped from favoring Democrats to narrowly predicting Republican control, with 51-49 seats. Specifically, Montana and North Carolina shifted into the Republican camp, though North Carolina remains a toss-up and would turn the overall balance of power (Chart 23).4   Chart 23Quant Model Says Senate Favors Republicans – A Risk To Reflation Trade Again the proper way of interpreting this reading is that the election is “too close to call,” with a 49% chance of Democratic control. Notably our Senate model relies more heavily on opinion polling than our presidential model – it incorporates the president’s approval rating level as well as the incumbent party’s net support rate in the generic congressional ballot (a poll that measures which party voters generally prefer for Congress). The economic recovery is the source of the boost for Republicans but marginal improvements in Republican polling do not hurt. The Senate race is critical to the overall policy significance of the US election. You cannot pass major legislation in the US without control of the Senate. And the Senate races are clearly tightening. This means uncertainty is rising, not falling, as the election approaches. Position For Reflation, The Likeliest Policy Outcome In particular the US fiscal outlook depends on the Senate. Chart 24 simulates the different courses of the deficit depending on election scenarios. If the Democrats win the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, the budget deficit will rise from 16% of GDP in FY 2020 to 23% of GDP in FY 2021, as Biden will largely execute his policy agenda. Chart 24Democratic Sweep Offers Massive Fiscal Boost If Trump and the Republicans win the White House and retain the Senate, they will keep cutting deals with House Democrats as in recent years, and the deficit will at least remain flat. The only scenario in which the budget deficit contracts – i.e. a negative fiscal thrust threatens the US economic recovery – occurs if Biden wins the White House but Republicans obstruct his agenda. Realistically, this would result in something like the Republican status quo scenario in Chart 24 above, rather than the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline scenario. The baseline scenario would produce an intolerable 7.4% contraction in fiscal thrust under baseline scenario in 2021. GOP senators would not go so far. They are not the same as the House Freedom Caucus members who were so hawkish in 2010-16. Nevertheless investors cannot rule out the baseline scenario – which could cause a double-dip recession – until GOP senators allay their fears. The market will cheer if President Trump and the Republicans retain the White House and Senate, as the fiscal thrust will be neutral or slightly expansive. It will especially cheer if the Democrats win a clean sweep, adding anywhere from 4%-7% of GDP in fiscal thrust for FY 2021 – the most reflationary outcome. It will even cheer in the odd chance that Trump wins with a unified Democratic Congress, which would also be reflationary. But the market will not cheer if the election threatens premature fiscal tightening via Republican obstructionism under a Biden presidency. This is the only scenario that is deflationary. The market would have to riot to force Republican senators to cooperate with a Democratic president – and this would be the case in the lame duck session as well as for each new stimulus package and budget over 2021-22. Based on our updated quant models, this Biden+GOP scenario is about a 28% probability, a slight increase from our previous view. The flip side is that there is about a 72% probability of a reflationary outcome. Beyond the near term, a Biden presidency with a Republican senate is actually market positive. Republican senators would eventually have to agree to House-drawn budgets, but would prevent tax hikes and legislative overreach (the downside of a Democratic sweep). Meanwhile a President Biden would avoid sweeping unilateral tariffs against China and the EU (the downside of any Trump victory). Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep is the most fiscally proactive scenario but the odds have fallen from around 45% to 27% according to our quant models. The odds of Biden plus a GOP Senate have risen from 20% to 28%. The market would have to digest significant new fiscal risks in this case, so the dollar and US treasuries would initially rally.  The other scenarios combine to a 72% probability and are initially reflationary, albeit less so than a Democratic sweep, with the likelihood of massive trade war risk in 2021.  Trade Recommendations Courtesy Of The BCA Equity Analyzer As the US election approaches and the effects of the global pandemic linger, economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Equity markets tend to behave very differently in times of acute uncertainty. In order to gauge the effects of uncertainty at the individual stock level, we turn to BCA’s stock-picking engine, the Equity Analyzer. We looked at factor performance when economic policy uncertainty (as defined by Baker, Bloom and Davis) exceeds the 150-line (Chart 25). This is quite high compared to history. Chart 25Policy Uncertainty: How High Will It Go? We look at the 30 factors included in the BCA Equity Analyzer and examine the Sharpe Ratio (Chart 26). The Sharpe ratio expresses the risk adjusted performance of long/short strategies based on each factor. Long/short strategies, in turn, are defined as going long the top 25% based on a factor and going short the bottom 25%. Chart 26Equity Analyzer Shows Key Traits For Navigating Uncertainty The results show that the best performing factors in times of high uncertainty are: Relative earnings yield  Low accruals5 BCA Style, which is an in-house combined measure for (1) value versus growth and (2) small caps versus large caps. One-month momentum With these results, we go back to the BCA Equity Analyzer to extract the top 25 stocks filtered by our top 4 factors during times of uncertainty. The results are shown in Table 3.6   The BCA score in this table ranges from 0 to 100% (from a strong sell to a strong buy). It is based on 30 factors distributed among seven broad categories: Macro, Value, Safety, Sentiment, Technical, Quality, Payout. These picks will improve performance during the upcoming spike in uncertainty, which is now even more likely than it was given the rising odds of a contested election and/or deflationary partisan gridlock. Table 3BCA Equity Analyzer Stock Picks For Election Uncertainty Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com David Boucher Chief Quantitative Strategist DavidB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  See Lauren King and Lauren Lantry, “More than 58 million Americans have already voted,” ABC News, October 25, 2020, abcnews.go.com.  2  See “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters,” Pew Research Center, August 9, 2018, pewresearch.org. 3  Back in April, former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman predicted that the likely timing of the economic snapback would be very favorable for President Trump: “We’re about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” he said. See Ryan Lizza and Daniel Lippman, “The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading,” Politico, May 26, 2020, politico.com.    4  Given the Senate’s critical importance to US fiscal policy, we weren’t joking when we said that Democratic candidate Cal Cunningham’s sex scandal in North Carolina could end up making the difference for the election’s overall consequences as well as the global macro outlook! 5  Accounting accruals are the non-cash component of a firm’s earnings and can be used as a metric to gauge the overall quality of a firm. Firms with high accruals tend to underperform firms with low accruals because of the potential to mask poor performance through the practice of accrual accounting. 6  Screener is based on US exchanges, top 30% based on market cap, Relative Earning Yield Score above 50%, Accruals Score above 50%, 1-month Momentum above 50%, and BCA Style above 50%.

Special Report

Highlights The US saves too much to achieve full employment but not enough to close the current account deficit. According to the “Swan diagram,” a weaker dollar would move the US economy closer to “external” and “internal” balance. Structural forces are unlikely to have much effect on the value of the dollar over the next few years: The neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in most other developed economies; the US still earns more on its overseas assets than it pays on its liabilities; and there is no meaningful competition to the dollar’s reserve currency status. Cyclical forces, in contrast, will become more dollar-bearish over the coming months: A vaccine would buoy the global economy next year; interest rate differentials have moved sharply against the dollar; and further fiscal stimulus should lift US inflation expectations. Stocks tend to outperform bonds when the dollar is weakening. Investors should remain overweight global equities on a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US stocks and cyclical sectors. A Clash Of Views? Today marked the last day of BCA’s Annual Investment Conference, held virtually this year in light of the pandemic. As in past years, it was a star-studded cavalcade of the who’s who in financial and policymaking circles. I always find it interesting when two of our speakers seemingly disagree on a critical issue. Such was the case with Larry Summers and Stephen Roach. Larry kicked off the proceedings with an update of his secular stagnation thesis. He argued that his thesis had gone from “a hypothesis that needed to be considered” to a “presumptively accurate analysis of the status quo.” In Larry’s mind, the core problem facing the US and most other economies is a surplus of savings. Excess savings results in a chronic shortfall of spending relative to an economy’s productive capacity. Faced with the challenge of maintaining adequate employment, central banks have been forced to cut rates to extraordinarily low levels. Perpetually easy monetary policy has periodically spawned destabilizing asset bubbles. Larry recommends that governments ease fiscal policy in order to take the burden off central banks. Later that morning, we heard from Stephen Roach. Stephen expects the real US trade-weighted dollar to weaken by 35% by the end of next year. What’s behind this bearish forecast? The answer, according to Stephen, is that the US economy suffers from a shortage of savings. Unable to generate enough domestic savings to cover its investment needs, the US has ended up running persistent current account deficits. How can the US be saving too much, as Larry Summers claims, while also saving too little, as Stephen Roach insists? The two views seem utterly unreconcilable. In fact, I think there is a way to reconcile them with something called the Swan diagram. The Swan Diagram True to the reputation of economics as the dismal science, the Swan diagram – named after Australian economist Trevor Swan – depicts four “zones of economic unhappiness” (Chart 1). Each zone represents a different way in which an economy can deviate from “internal balance” (full employment and stable inflation) and “external balance” (a current account balance that is neither in deficit nor in surplus). Chart 1The Swan Diagram And The Four Zones Of Unhappiness The four zones are: 1) high unemployment and a current account deficit; 2) high unemployment and a current account surplus; 3) overheating and a current account deficit; and 4) overheating and a current account surplus. The horizontal axis of the Swan diagram depicts the budget deficit. A rightward movement along the horizontal axis corresponds to an easing of fiscal policy. The vertical axis depicts the real exchange rate. An upward movement along the vertical axis corresponds to a currency appreciation. The external balance schedule is downward sloping because an easing of fiscal policy raises aggregate demand (which boosts imports, resulting in a current account deficit). To restore the current account balance to its original level, the currency must weaken. A weaker currency will spur exports, while curbing imports. The internal balance schedule is upward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a stronger currency in order to keep the economy from overheating. The US presently finds itself in the top quadrant of the Swan diagram: It saves too much to achieve internal balance, but not enough to achieve external balance. From this perspective, both Larry Summers and Stephen Roach are correct. Unlike the US, the euro area, Japan, and China run current account surpluses. Rather than pursuing currency depreciation, the Swan diagram says that all three economies would be better off with more fiscal easing. What It Would Take To Eliminate The US Trade Deficit By how much would the real trade-weighted US dollar need to weaken to achieve external balance? According to the New York Fed, a 10% dollar depreciation raises export volumes by 3.5% after two years, while reducing import volumes by 1.6%.1 Given that exports and imports account for 12% and 15% of GDP, respectively, this implies that a 10% dollar depreciation would improve the trade balance by 0.12*0.035+0.15*0.016=0.7% of GDP. Considering that the trade deficit is around 3% of GDP, the dollar may need to weaken by 30%-to-50% to eliminate the trade deficit, a range which encompasses Stephen Roach’s projection for the dollar’s decline.  Don’t Hold Your Breath In practice, we doubt that the dollar will decline anywhere close to that much. Despite a net international investment position of negative 67% of GDP, the US still generates substantially more income from its overseas assets than it pays to service its liabilities (Chart 2). This reflects the fact that US foreign liabilities are skewed towards low-yielding government bonds, while its assets largely consist of higher-yielding equities and foreign direct investment (Chart 3). Chart 2The US Generates More Income From Its Overseas Assets Than It Pays On Its Liabilities Chart 3A Breakdown Of US Assets And Liabilities Given that the Fed will keep rates on hold at least until end-2023, it is unlikely that US government interest payments will rise substantially in the next few years. Faster Growth Helps Explain America’s Chronic Current Account Deficit The neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in most other developed economies. Economic theory suggests that global capital will flow towards countries with higher interest rates, producing current account deficits (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Interest Rates And Current Account Balances The higher neutral rate in the US can be partly attributed to faster trend GDP growth. There are three reasons why faster growth will raise investment while lowering savings, thus leading to a current account deficit: Faster-growing economies require more investment spending to maintain an adequate capital stock. For example, if a country wants to maintain a capital stock-to-GDP ratio of 200% and is growing at 3% per year, it would need to invest (after depreciation) 6% of GDP. A country growing at 1% would need to invest only 2% of GDP. Governments may wish to run larger budget deficits in faster-growing economies in the belief that they will be able to outgrow their debt burdens. To the extent that faster growth may reflect productivity gains, households may choose to spend more and save less in anticipation of higher real incomes in the future. While trend growth is just one of several factors influencing the balance of payments, in general, the evidence does suggest that fast-growing developed economies such as the US and Australia have tended to run current account deficits, while slower-growing economies such as the euro area and Japan have generally run current account surpluses (Chart 5). Chart 5Fast-Growing Developed Economies Tend To Run Current Account Deficits, While Slower- Growing Economies Tend To Run Surpluses The Dollar’s Reserve Currency Status Is Not In Any Jeopardy Even if many commentators do tend to overstate the importance of having a reserve currency, the dollar’s special status in the global financial system will still provide it with support. The US dollar’s share of global central bank reserves stood at 61.3% in the second quarter of 2020, only modestly lower than where it was a decade ago (Chart 6). While the euro area is not at risk of collapse, it remains an artificial political entity. China’s role in the global economy continues to increase. However, the absence of an open capital account limits the yuan’s appeal. Chart 6The US Dollar’s Share Of Global Central Bank Reserves Has Barely Fallen Then there’s the dollar’s first mover advantage. During our conference, Marc Chandler likened the greenback to the QWERTY keyboard: It may not be perfect, but like it or not, it has become the default choice for typing.  I like to equate the dollar’s role with that of the English language. When a Swede has a business meeting with another Swede, they will speak in Swedish. However, when a Swede has a business meeting with an Indonesian, chances are they will speak in English. By the same token, when a Swede wants to purchase Indonesian rupiah, the bank is unlikely to convert krona directly to rupiah since the probability is low that many people will just happen to be looking to exchange rupiah for krona at precisely the same time. Rather, the bank will first convert the krona to US dollars and then convert the dollars to rupiah. The dollar is the hub of the global financial system. Just like the pound remained the global currency long after the sun had set on the British Empire, King Dollar will endure for many years to come. Cyclical Forces Will Drive The Dollar Lower Chart 7The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The discussion above suggests that structural forces are unlikely to have much effect on the value of the dollar for the foreseeable future. Cyclical forces, in contrast, will become more dollar-bearish over the coming months. The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 7). According to the Good Judgment Project, there is a 43% chance that a Covid vaccine will be available by the first quarter of 2021, and a 91% chance it will be available by the end of the third quarter (Chart 8). A vaccine would supercharge global growth, causing the dollar to weaken.   Chart 8When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Interest rate differentials have moved considerably against the dollar – more so, in fact, than one would have expected based on the fairly modest depreciation that the greenback has experienced thus far (Chart 9). Chart 9A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials Chart 10Stocks Tend To Outperform Bonds When The Dollar Is Weakening... As Do Non-US Stocks Versus US   An open question is how additional fiscal support will affect the dollar and other financial assets. Equity investors have brushed off the dwindling prospects for a pandemic relief bill before the election on the assumption that a “blue sweep” will allow the Biden administration to enact even more stimulus than was possible under President Trump and a Republican senate. The dollar rallied in the weeks following Donald Trump’s victory. The dollar also surged in the early 1980s after Ronald Reagan lowered taxes and raised military spending. A key difference between now and then is that real interest rates rose during both of those two prior episodes. Today, the Fed is firmly on hold. This implies that real rates are unlikely to rise much, and could even fall if inflation expectations move up in response to easier fiscal policy. Stocks tend to outperform bonds when the dollar is weakening (Chart 10). In particular, stock markets outside the US often do well in a soft-dollar environment. Investors should remain overweight equities on a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US stocks and cyclical sectors.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Mary Amiti, and Tyler Bodine-Smith, “The Effect of the Strong Dollar on U.S. Growth,” Liberty Street Economics, (July 17, 2015). 2 There are many different ways to measure the neutral rate. As depicted in Chart 4, capital flows tend to equalize the neutral rate across countries. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate would be higher in the US were it not for the fact that the US runs a current account deficit.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores ​​​​​​​