Financial Markets

Highlights It’s true that rising rates often precipitate bear markets, but it takes a while, … : We subscribe to the view that expansions are more likely to be murdered by the Fed than die of old age. It’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the Fed could hike rates enough in 2022 to kill this one, though, and even the first half of 2023 would be a reach.  … because the Fed only seeks to slow the economy when it’s firing on all cylinders: Earnings are typically growing at a rapid clip and risk aversion is a distant memory when the Fed begins the process of draining the punch bowl. The fed funds rate tipping point can only be definitively identified after the fact, but our estimate has an impressive track record: No one knows for sure where the line of demarcation between easy and tight monetary policy lies, but equities have shined when the fed funds rate is below our equilibrium estimate. We do not share the view that Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates: Although it lacks empirical support outside of a small subset of observations, the Tech vulnerability view has spread more widely than the Omicron variant. Feature Last week’s report discussing the equity impact of impending rate hikes elicited a lot of reaction. A discussion with one investor usually has relevance for other investors, so we are sharing a composite of the questions we received, along with our responses. It gives us the chance to elaborate on some points that we did not previously address in full, but our conclusion remains unchanged. History argues that equities have little to fear from an incremental rate hike campaign, and we expect that they will generate sizable positive excess returns above Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. The Fed, With Rate Hikes, In The Board Room Why shouldn’t investors be concerned about rate hikes when you yourself have said that the Fed precipitates recessions? As the last expansion stretched on for a record length of time, we regularly repeated the line that expansions don’t die of old age, they die because the Fed murders them. It fits well with our tipping point view of rate hikes and we wholly subscribe to it. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Fed’s tools act much more slowly than the lethal array of objects in the game of Clue. As we highlighted last week, monetary policy acts with long and variable lags and the Fed accordingly tightens it in increments allowing for real-time feedback that might help it tailor its actions to evolving economic conditions. Ex-the pandemic, tight monetary policy has been a necessary, albeit not sufficient, recession condition for the 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate. Although not every instance when the fed funds rate exceeded its equilibrium level preceded a recession, no recession occurred when the funds rate was below equilibrium (Chart 1). Owing to monetary policy’s lagged effects, however, the recessions didn’t begin until well after the Fed began to tighten policy. On average, each recession arrived 26 months after Phase I kicked off and 12 months after the policy cycle entered Phase II (Table 1). Peak growth occurs in the early stages of rate hikes, while the Fed is merely easing up on the gas; deceleration only ensues in the latter stages, when the Fed pushes down on the brake pedal. Chart 1Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Table 1... And It Takes A While For The Economy To Feel Their Full Effect Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Index P/E Multiples Don’t Collapse Overnight It’s often said that the Fed hikes rates until something breaks. If equities are ultimately going to break in the process, why wouldn’t a prudent investor read the first rate hike, or even the run-up to it, as a sign to begin reducing exposure? We showed last week that signal measures of economic activity – hiring, lending, spending and GDP – grow well above their through-the-cycle pace while the Fed is tightening policy. Corporate earnings do, too, and S&P 500 earnings expectations have risen most rapidly when the Fed is hiking rates, with Phase I growth nearly doubling aggregate growth (Chart 2, middle panel). Earnings gains are vulnerable to dilution from multiple de-rating, but Phase I multiples have been roughly flat in the aggregate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Perhaps investors recognize that equities don’t break until well after the Fed starts hiking rates, or double-digit earnings growth makes them lose sight of the likelihood that they eventually will. Chart 2Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Based on the empirical record, investors judged by their relative performance should not reduce equity exposure until the rate hiking campaign is well advanced. Phase I has produced the best returns of any phase in the 42 years that earnings expectations have been compiled and missing out on them could be harmful to a professional investor’s career (Chart 2, top panel). Today’s Starting Point Is Unusually Demanding Have equities ever been this expensive at the start of a tightening cycle? History suggests that equities can rally in a “normal” Phase I even after some initial turbulence, but how much scope do they have to rise from current valuation levels? There is unfortunately scarcely any empirical data to address this question. The nine Phase I episodes account for just eight years of the 42-year earnings expectations era and several of them are very short (Table 2). The one instance when forward multiples were at or above today’s levels, from June through October of 1999, they were able to hold their ground, falling less than a half of a multiple point, or 1.5%. Earnings expectations grew by 6.3% over that period, allowing the S&P 500 to advance at the rate of about 1% per month, in line with its overall Phase I performance since 1979. Table 2Multiples Have Held Their Ground In Phase I Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Empirically, however, robust growth in earnings expectations is the basis for overweighting stocks in Phase I, not multiple expansion. We do not expect re-rating as the Fed pushes the funds rate toward its equilibrium level, and we are alert to the certainty that stocks will de-rate sometime in the future if forward multiples are still subject to mean reversion. History shows it won’t necessarily happen in Phase I, though, and TINA may stave it off while there is a dearth of non-equity options offering positive prospective real returns. Disclaimer (BCA Is Human, Too) How can you be certain that your estimate of the equilibrium rate is accurate? We are not certain at all about the level of the equilibrium rate, and nothing we’ve ever written or said should be construed as implying that we are. As we’ve said many times before, the equilibrium rate is a concept. It cannot be directly observed and our attempts to estimate it are no more than our best effort to gain a sense of where the tipping point for financial markets and the economy might be. Our current 3.25% estimate likely sounds quite high, but we take the estimates at any given point in time with a grain of salt. We are not so full of ourselves that we believe we can pin down an amorphous concept to two decimal places in real time, and we have found that thinking of the point estimate as falling within a plausible range is the best way to proceed. Right now, the US Investment Strategy team views the equilibrium rate as somewhere around 2.5% or higher. That’s all the precision we need to assert with high conviction that monetary policy is accommodative and will remain so for all of 2022 and much, if not all, of 2023. For all the inherent uncertainty of attempts to quantify the equilibrium rate, however, the sharp disparity in equity performance across easy and tight monetary policy settings suggests that we’re on the right track. We’re further encouraged by the clear distinctions in earnings and multiples growth across phases (Figure 1), which suggest that monetary policy settings exert a persistent influence on fundamentals and investor appetites. Given that equities have flourished when policy is easy, overweighting stocks in multi-asset portfolios should contribute to outperformance over the next twelve months. Monetary policy settings are not the be-all and the end-all, but we have found that they offer a very useful default guide to asset allocation. Chart Fooled By Randomness? The results have been robust over a lengthy period, but how do you know they’re not random? Why does the relationship you’ve cited work? We are convinced that the observed strong-growth/tighter-policy, tepid-growth/easier-policy relationship has a durable structural foundation. The through line is the fact that monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags. Its limitations influence the way the Fed deploys it and impose a predictable pattern on its economic and market impacts. The Fed is not quite the meddler that its Libertarian-minded critics make it out to be, hovering over the economy in a continuous effort to fine-tune it. Instead, it acts on a limited basis to ensure that the harms embedded in cyclical extremes do not prevent the economy from reaching its long-run potential. It deploys accommodative measures during recessions to keep hysteresis from turning a cyclical soft patch into a structural albatross and restrictive measures during high-revving expansions to keep the inflation genie from getting out of the bottle. The Fed does not want to root out green shoots before they can take hold, so it does not begin Phase I, or assiduously pursue it, until it is certain that the economy can withstand higher rates, especially while (lagging) inflation readings are tame (Chart 3). It therefore launches tightening cycles with a predictable bias to err on the side of being too easy. Chart 3Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... That bias allows the economy to gather momentum in Phase I, in line with cyclical peaks in activity and earnings growth, and outsized equity and credit returns. Left unchecked, the momentum could produce higher inflation, and the Fed is typically compelled to dial up intervention to counter it. Wielding a blunt instrument that works with a lag, however, the Fed is at risk of going too far, and Phase II hikes often induce a recession. Investors sniff out the looming downturn and de-rate equities. By the time the Fed reverses field and initiates a new easing campaign (Phase III), earnings growth has stalled out and measured inflation is peaking (Table 3). Equities mark time and credit spreads widen until, with a slowdown plainly evident and measured inflation sliding, the Fed shifts to full-on accommodation (Phase IV). It maintains market-friendly settings until the economy begins to look too strong, upon which it intervenes to hold it back, kicking off a new policy cycle. Table 3... Managed With Policy That Works With A Lag Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks As we showed last week, the direct relationship between activity and rates is immediately apparent in the real economy. Robust activity translates to robust earnings growth, but it is possible that equity multiples will behave differently in the approaching fed funds rate cycle than they have in the past. Although we expect that TINA will protect equities from meaningful de-rating pressure this year, investors should not lose sight of the fact that the earnings estimate era began with the S&P 500’s forward P/E multiple at 7. That rock-bottom starting point paved the way for an annualized 2.6% valuation increase over the last 42 years, but it cannot continue indefinitely, if at all. We are confident that multiples will continue to fare better when the Fed is cutting rates than when it is hiking them, but the cutting tailwinds will likely weaken going forward, while the hiking headwinds will stiffen. Don’t Believe The Hype Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates and the fate of US indexes is intimately bound up with them. Aren’t you dismissing the threat from higher rates a little too easily? The Tech sector’s outsized presence in the S&P 500 has surely contributed to market anxieties over looming rate hikes. We are firmly of the view, however, that popular concerns over Tech stocks’ interest rate vulnerability are way overdone. The idea that their back-loaded earnings profile makes them acutely vulnerable to a higher discount rate in the manner of long duration bonds ignores the fact that their future cash flows are not fixed. Unlike bonds, their owners' claims on earnings ebb and flow as rates rise and fall in line with economic conditions. Chart 4Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Chart 5 We recently devoted a Special Report to pushing back against the idea that Tech stocks are hostage to interest rates. In it, we argued that a stock’s price can be viewed as the product of its earnings per share and its P/E ratio. The biggest Tech companies’ earnings have a low interest rate sensitivity because they have little debt and do not sell big-ticket items that their customers have to finance, so the purported inverse relationship between Tech stocks’ relative performance and interest rates must be a function of relative P/E multiple changes. Relative Tech multiples and interest rates consistently moved together in the ten years through 2018, however, and were only sporadically negatively correlated over the last three years (Chart 4). Duration is essential for describing the sensitivity of risk-free bond returns to changes in interest rates, but it is an uncomfortable fit with equities. Treasuries exhibit a nearly perfect inverse correlation with changes in interest rates (Chart 5, top panel), but the cash flow uncertainty introduced by even the modest credit risk associated with investment grade corporate bonds reduces the correlation considerably (Chart 5, second panel). Interest rates’ impact on equities is even more attenuated. The S&P 500 is only weakly – and positively – correlated with rates (Chart 5, third panel), just like its Tech sector constituents (Chart 5, bottom panel).                Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The most important question is whether the Fed will hike interest rates by more than what is currently discounted in markets, or less. More hikes will trigger a set of cascading reactions. US bond yields will initially jump, boosting the dollar. But this process could also undermine growth stocks, and the US equity market leadership. Equity portfolio flows have been more important in financing the US trade deficit, than Treasury purchases, since 2020. Hence, a reversal in these flows will undermine a key pillar of support for the dollar. On the flip side, less rate hikes will severely unwind higher interest rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets, especially in the euro area and Japan. This means we could be witnessing a shift in the dollar, where upside is capped, and downside is substantial. Feature Chart 1The Dollar In 2021 The Dollar In 2021 The Dollar In 2021 The two most important drivers of the dollar over the last few months have been the spread between US interest rates and other developed markets, as well as the relative performance of US equities (Chart 1). Rising interest rate expectations in the US have led to substantial speculative flows into the US dollar. The outperformance of the US equity market has also coincided with notable portfolio inflows into US equities in 2021. This cocktail of macro drivers has pinned the US dollar in a quandary. If rates rise substantially in the US, and that undermines the US equity market leadership, the dollar could suffer. If US rates rise by less than what the market expects, record high speculative positioning in the dollar will surely reverse. The Dollar And The Equity Market The traditional relationship between the dollar and the equity market was negative for most of the first half of the pandemic. Monetary easing by the Federal Reserve stimulated global financial conditions setting the stage for an epic bull market. The correlation between the S&P 500 and the DXY index was a near perfect inverse correlation for much of 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 3US Equity Portfolio Inflows Have Been Substantial Since 2020 US Equity Portfolio Inflows Have Been Substantial Since 2020 US Equity Portfolio Inflows Have Been Substantial Since 2020 Chart 2The Dollar In ##br##2020 The Dollar In 2020 The Dollar In 2020 The big change in 2021 is that this correlation has shifted, as the Fed has pivoted on monetary policy. This means that investors have been betting on higher stock prices in the US, as well as higher interest rates. In short, portfolio flows into US equities have surged (Chart 3). For the long-duration US equity market, higher interest rates could push it to a tipping point, where it starts to underperform other developed market bourses. This will reverse these equity portfolio flows, hurting the dollar in the process. Profits, Interest Rates And The Dollar The key driver of equity markets is profits in the short run, with valuation starting to matter over the longer run. This in turn becomes the key driver of cross-border equity flows. These flows help dictate currency movements. For much of the previous decade, US profits did much better than overseas earnings. For this reason, the US equity market outperformed, pulling the dollar up, as foreign equity purchases accelerated (Chart 4). The post-pandemic era has seen inflation rising across the world, changing the paradigm for US profits. High inflation, and consequently, higher bond yields, have been synonymous with an underperformance of US profits (Chart 5). Banks profit from higher rates, as they benefit from rising net interest margins. Materials, energy, and industrial stocks, benefit from higher inflation via rising commodity prices that boost their pricing power. In a nutshell, rising inflation tends to be better for value stocks and cyclicals, sectors that are underrepresented in the US. This means portfolio flows into US equities, one of the key drivers of the capital account surplus, could be on the cusp of a substantial reversal. Chart 4The Dollar And Relative Profits The Dollar And Relative Profits The Dollar And Relative Profits Chart 5Bond Yields And Relative Profits Relative Profits And Bond Yields Relative Profits And Bond Yields Second, valuation in the US has become extended as interest rates have fallen. More importantly, US valuations have been more sensitive to changes in interest rates, compared to other developed markets (Chart 6). This is because the US stock market has become increasingly overweight long duration sectors, like technology and healthcare. Higher rates will undermine the valuation premium these sectors command. This will cause the US equity market to derate relative to other cyclical bourses. Chart 6Relative Multiples And Bond Yields Relative Multiples And Bond Yields Relative Multiples And Bond Yields The key point is that the US equity market has been the darling of the last decade, and leadership is at risk from higher rates, via a reset in both relative valuation and relative profits. So, while the US market could perform well in 2022, higher rates could undermine its relative performance to overseas bourses. This will curtail equity portfolio inflows, as capital tends to gravitate to markets with higher expected returns. The Dollar And Relative Interest Rates Over the long term, bond flows are the overarching driver of the currency market. Most market participants expect the Fed to be among the most hawkish in 2022. This is clear in the pricing of the Eurodollar versus Euribor December 2022 contract, or just the relative path of two-year US bond yields versus other markets. This in turn has helped drive speculative positioning in the US dollar towards record highs (Chart 7). Correspondingly, US Treasury inflows have accelerated in recent months, even though real interest rates have not risen that much (Chart 8). In level terms, the trade deficit (that hit a record low of -US$80bn in November) is being helped financed by renewed foreign interest in US Treasurys. Chart 8Interest Rates And Treasury Flows Interest Rates And Treasury Flows Interest Rates And Treasury Flows Chart 7Record Dollar Speculative Positions Record Dollar Speculative Positions Record Dollar Speculative Positions We see two major contradictions in the pricing of US interest rates, relative to other developed markets. First, rising inflation is a global phenomenon and not specific to the US. If inflation proves sticky, other central banks will turn a tad more hawkish to defend their policy mandates. If inflation subsides, the Fed might not be as aggressive in tightening policy as the market expects. This will unwind speculative long positions in the dollar. It will also slow portfolio inflows into US Treasuries. Second, the reality is that outside the ECB and the BoJ, most other developed market central banks have already tightened monetary policy ahead of the Fed. The ability of any central bank to tighten policy will depend on the health of the labor market, and the potential for a wage inflation spiral. One data point that has caught our attention is the participation rate across G10 economies - it is notable that the US has one of the lowest participation rates (Chart 9A). Given that many countries have seen their participation rate recover to pre-pandemic levels, it suggests upside in the US rate. This will be especially the case if fiscal stimulus, which could wane, has been a key reason why the US participation rate has stayed low. In a nutshell, the low participation rate in the US could be a reason the Fed lags market expectations for aggressive rate increases this year. On the flip side, a higher participation rate in places like Canada, Norway, and Australia, could allow their central banks to normalize policy faster than the market expects. There has been a loose correlation between relative changes in the participation rate, and relative changes in inflation across G10 economies (Chart 9B).  Chart 9BThe US Relative Participation Rate And Relative Inflation The US Relative Participation Rate And Relative Inflation The US Relative Participation Rate And Relative Inflation Chart 9AUS Labor Force Participation Is Low, But Improving US Labor Force Participation Is Low, But Improving US Labor Force Participation Is Low, But Improving Finally, relative monetary policy tends to be driven by relative growth. US growth remains robust but has been rolling over relative to other developed markets (Chart 10). This is occurring at a time when China is easing monetary policy, which tends to buffet non-US growth. Higher non-US growth could also tip the bond and currency market narrative that the Fed will tighten much faster than other G10 central banks. Chart 10Non-US Growth Is Improving, Relative To US Growth Non-US GROWTH Is Improving, Relative To US Growth Non-US GROWTH Is Improving, Relative To US Growth Conclusion The above analysis suggests we could be entering a paradigm shift in the dollar, where any response by the Fed could eventually trigger the same outcome. Higher rates than the market expects will initially boost the US dollar. But this process will also undermine the US equity market leadership, reversing substantial portfolio inflows in recent years. On the flip side, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind higher rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets. Our concluding thoughts from our 2022 outlook, which are consistent with our views herein, were as follows: The DXY could touch 98 in the near term but will break below 90 over the next 12-18 months. An attractiveness ranking reveals the most appealing currencies are JPY, SEK, and NOK, while the least attractive are USD and NZD. Policy convergence will be a key theme at the onset of 2022. Stay long EUR/GBP and AUD/NZD as a play on this theme. Look to buy a currency basket of oil producers versus consumers. We went long the AUD at 70 cents. Terms of trade are likely to remain a tailwind for the Australian dollar. The AUD will benefit specifically in a green revolution.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Forecast Summary

Highlights Chinese stocks are currently trading close to their fair value in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the direction of the next move in stocks depends on the profit outlook. Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next six months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Historically, share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months. Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in the coming months at a lower level. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. The secular outlook for corporate profitability among listed Chinese companies remains uninspiring. Hence, a structural re-rating of China stock indexes is unlikely. Feature With Chinese share prices down considerably in the past 12 months, a pertinent question is whether they offer an attractive entry point. Dissecting both valuations and the corporate earnings outlook are the key to getting the cyclical view right. This report aims to do this for both the MSCI Investable and MSCI A-share equity indexes. Our conclusion is as follows: in absolute terms, the Chinese MSCI Investable and A-share indexes have neutral valuations. Yet, the risk window for share prices remains open because corporate profits are set to contract. Also, bottoms and peaks in the money/credit cycle lead share prices by several months as illustrated in Chart 1. Hence, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies Valuations Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral. Specifically: 1. According to our aggregate composite valuation indicators, onshore A shares are fairly valued while the MSCI Investable index is slightly above its historical mean (Chart 2). This aggregate composite valuation indicator for both equity indexes is composed of three components: based on (1) median multiples; (2) 20% trimmed-mean multiples; and (3) equal-weighted multiples. The latter uses equal weights rather than market cap weights for sub-sectors in the calculation. In turn, each component is constructed using the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and the bottom 10% of sub-sectors, i.e., it removes outliers. 2. We have also calculated a cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for both A shares and MSCI Investable stocks. The CAPE ratio for A shares is slightly below its historical mean (Chart 3), and the one for the MSCI Investable index is one standard deviation below its mean (Chart 4). China A-shares: CAPE Ratio China A-shares: CAPE Ratio Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove the cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. The CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS converges to its trend line. Importantly, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works over the long run. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Below, we discuss the risks to Chinese corporate profits from both cyclical and structural viewpoints. We contend that a low CAPE ratio might not be unreasonable for listed Chinese companies, as their profitability has deteriorated over the past 10-12 years and their secular profit outlook is very uncertain. 3. The equity risk premium incorporates interest rates into valuations. We computed the equity risk premium by subtracting Chinese onshore government bond yields in real terms (deflated by headline CPI) from the trailing earnings yield of stocks. Chart 5 demonstrates that the equity risk premiums for A shares and investable stocks are near their historical mean, signifying neutral Chinese equity valuations at present. Relative to DM and EM equities, Chinese valuations appear to be attractive as Chinese share prices have massively underperformed their EM and DM peers in the past 12 months (Chart 6). Equity Risk Premium For China Equity Risk Premium For China Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Bottom Line: Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the next move in share prices depends on the profit outlook. If profits expand/contract, stocks will rally/sell off. Corporate Earnings: The Cyclical Outlook Chinese corporate profits are set to contract in this downturn. Chart 7 shows that Chinese aggregate industrial profits will shrink by single digits in the next nine months from a year ago. This model is based on a regression of aggregate industrial profits on China’s credit impulse. A similar model that regresses A-share non-financial companies’ net profits on narrow money (M1) growth is also pointing to a roughly 5% corporate earnings contraction in the months ahead (Chart 8). China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction Chinese A-share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Chinese A-share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Is government stimulus sufficient to produce a recovery in the business cycle and in company earnings? So far, government stimulus has been insufficient to produce a meaningful recovery in H1 2022. In particular, the changes in the excess reserve ratio lead the credit impulse by six months, and the latter signifies only a stabilization, but not a meaningful improvement in the credit impulse prior to May 2022 (Chart 9). Given that the credit impulse leads industrial companies’ earnings by about nine months (please refer to Chart 7 above), odds are that corporate profits will not bottom until H2 2022. As for service industries, online retail sales of goods and services remain weak, reflecting sluggish household income growth (Chart 10). Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impluse Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impluse China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing There has also been another factor weighing on China’s business cycle – a declining marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies (Chart 11). The marginal propensity to spend depends on sentiment and confidence among consumers and companies. A declining propensity to spend will dampen the positive effects from government stimulus. Notably, there has been a dramatic profit divergence in industrial sectors. Commodity-producing sectors – metals and mining, steel, energy and coal – have posted an earnings windfall. In contrast, industries consuming commodities – machinery, construction materials, autos, IT and food/beverages – have seen their profits plunge (Chart 12). Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining       Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically     The reason for this industrial earnings dichotomy is that commodity prices have not fallen despite the weakness in China’s business cycle and its commodity imports (Chart 13). Critically, commodity users have not been able to pass on higher input costs to their customers due to weak demand. Consequently, commodity users have experienced a drastic profit margin squeeze and their earnings have plummeted. If commodity prices drop meaningfully, the profit divergence between these two groups of industrial enterprises will narrow. Yet, it will not improve the level of overall industrial profits in China. The rationale is that in the past six months, industrial profits of commodity users have accounted for 20% of aggregate industrial profits, while those of commodity producers have accounted for 80%. This reinforces the importance of commodity prices in driving China’s industrial profit cycles. Our view on commodity prices is as follows: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of a meaningful recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months, as we discussed in last week’s report. Bottom Line: As policy stimulus gets more aggressive, China’s growth and corporate earnings will recover in H2. Yet, in H1 corporate profits are set to disappoint. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain in a risk window for now. Corporate Profitability: The Structural Outlook Investors reward companies with high or rising return on equity by bidding up their equity multiples, and vice versa. One of the main reasons why the structural valuation measures for Chinese equity indexes (like the CAPE ratio) have declined in the past 10 years is worsening corporate profitability. Specifically, the return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for non-financial companies included in the MSCI A-share and Investable indexes have been falling since 2011 (Chart 14, top and middle panels). Periodic government stimulus improved corporate profitability temporarily. Yet, as stimulus waned, corporate profitability deteriorated. Consistently, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have produced zero price appreciation in absolute terms since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In the past 10 years, there has been a structural deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. Their RoE and RoA have fallen as have turnover in account assets (sales/assets), inventory (sales/inventory) and account receivables (sales/account receivables) (Chart 15). It is unclear if this secular trend of deteriorating corporate financial performance will reverse if authorities repeatedly rescue the economy by unleashing large stimulus. Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance As for technology/internet/platform companies, we maintain that the regulatory changes affecting Chinese internet stocks are structural rather than cyclical in nature. There could be periods when the pace of regulatory clampdown eases, but these regulations will not be rolled back in any meaningful way. Authorities will cap these companies’ profitability like regulators do with monopolies and oligopolies, which heralds a lower return on equity and low multiples. For very different reasons, US and Chinese authorities do not want Chinese companies to be listed in the US. And when Chinese and US authorities do not want to see some of these stocks listed in the US, they will not be. Odds are rising that a few of them might be delisted in the coming years. In such a scenario, many US institutional investors will likely offload their holdings of these companies. Finally, Chinese bank stocks are cheap for a reason. They have not recognized a massive amount of non-performing loans and have not provisioned for them. Going forward, another roadblock to shareholders of Chinese stocks is the common prosperity policies that the Chinese government has championed. These policies will redistribute income away from shareholders to the general population. Chart 16 illustrates the share of labor compensation has been rising since 2011 while the share of profits has been declining. Not surprisingly, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have been doing very poorly since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). National Income Composition: Labor"s Share Will Continue Rising National Income Composition: Labor"s Share Will Continue Rising The common prosperity policies will only reinforce the existing trend of a rising share of labor compensation at the expense of shareholders in the coming years. This bodes ill for structural profitability and justifies low equity multiples. In short, a low CAPE ratio for Chinese stocks might not be out of line with such a downbeat secular outlook. Bottom Line: Even if there have been – and still will be – great companies in China that deliver phenomenal performance, their shareholders might not be in a position to reap the benefits of such solid performance. In short, the structural outlook for profitability among listed companies remains uncertain. Investment Recommendations Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Chinese stocks, especially investable ones, are oversold and might rebound in the very near term in absolute terms. However, the three-to-six-month outlook for absolute performance remains poor. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities are very oversold and offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. Onshore Chinese stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Within the Chinese equity universe, we have been recommending the following strategies and they remain intact: Long A shares/short MSCI Investable index since March 4, 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This relative ratio is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term. However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Short Chinese investable value stocks/long global value stocks since November 26, 2020 (Chart 17, middle panel). This strategy remains intact. Short onshore and investable property stocks versus their respective benchmarks since May 9, 2019 (Chart 17, bottom panel). The woes of property developers are not over. Please refer to our Special Report on the Chinese property market. Long large banks/short medium and small listed banks since October 2016. Small and medium banks are exposed to the continuous woes in the property market much more than the large ones. Also, their profitability will be more negatively affected by the retrenchment in shadow banking activities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company.

Highlights This week we highlight key charts for US Political Strategy themes and views in the New Year. For H1 2022, we maintain a pro-cyclical, risk-on approach. We favor industrials, energy, infrastructure, and cyclicals. Foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The US Congress will pass one more spending bill as Democrats try to save their skin ahead of the midterm election. Yet other trends are not so inflationary: Fed rate hikes, an 8% of GDP fiscal drag, and a looming return to congressional gridlock. Midterm elections usually see defensive and growth stocks outperform cyclical and value stocks. This is a risk to our view and may require adjustments later this year. Feature This week we offer our updated US Political Strategy chart pack for the new year. Inflation and stagflation are the top concerns. But the Federal Reserve is kicking into gear, with the market now expecting three-to-four interest rate hikes in 2022 alone. We doubt that will come to pass but it is possible and there is no question that a 12-month core PCE print of 4.7% is forcing the Fed to move. Since the mega-stimulus of March 2020, markets have seen a 91% rally in the S&P 500 and a 114% rally in the tech sector. Ultra-low interest rates and stay-at-home policies created a paradise for tech stocks. But the 10-year Treasury yield surged from 1.45% in December, when Omicron emerged and the Fed turned hawkish, to 1.76% today. An inflation-induced pullback and rotation out of tech stocks was to be expected and has been our most consistent sectoral view. Long-term inflation expectations have not taken off, however. Many investors see secular stagnation over the long run – and even in the short run the resilient dollar should work against inflation. Not only will the Fed wind down asset purchases by $30bn a month starting January 2022 and start hiking rates in March, but also the budget deficit is contracting, making for an 8% of GDP fiscal drag in 2022. In addition the market no longer has any confidence that Congress will pass President Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan. We still think a reconciliation bill will pass, albeit in watered down form. But ultimately the looming midterm election will paralyze Congress, as we argued in our 2022 outlook report, “Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms.” Gridlock will ensure that whatever passes only modestly expands the long-term deficit and then that fiscal taps will be turned off in 2023. In the context of Fed hikes, this should reduce fears of inflation later in 2022, though we still see inflation as a persistent long-term problem. If history is any guide, stocks and bond yields will be flattish for most of the year due to election uncertainty. The difference between this year and other midterm years is that the US consumer is in better financial shape and yet foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The takeaway is to prefer industrials, energy, small caps, and cyclicals, even though we may not maintain these recommendations for the whole year. We are hedging by staying long health care stocks. Omicron: Less Relevant At Home, More Relevant Abroad American economic growth is declining but will likely settle at or above trend (Chart 1A). Money growth, a proxy for stimulus, is also coming off its peaks while credit growth is rising moderately. The long deleveraging of the American consumer since 2008 appears to have come to an end. But it is too soon to say how aggressively Americans will lever back up and whether a new private sector “debt super cycle” will begin (Chart 1B). Chart 1AEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Chart 1BEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend The Omicron variant of COVID-19 will have a modest negative impact early in the year. Hospitalizations are picking up in the wake of a surge in new cases following Christmas gatherings. Only 61% of Americans are fully vaccinated and only 23% have received the booster shot that is most effective against Omicron (Chart 2A & Chart 2B). Yet new deaths from the disease remain subdued and only about a fifth of those hospitalized go to the intensive care unit today. Chart 2 Chart 2BCOVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes COVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes COVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes Pharmaceuticals, both vaccines and anti-viral medications, are saving the day and Americans are becoming resigned to the likelihood of getting the virus at some point. Social mobility has dropped off since summer 2021 but will boom in the springtime and consumer confidence is already picking back up (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). The Biden administration is not likely to impose unpopular social restrictions during an election year unless a variant is deadlier, more contagious, and resistant to vaccines, which is not the case with Omicron. Chart 3AOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery The resilience of the US will come with persistent inflation in goods given that Omicron will still cause supply disruptions abroad. Not all countries have as effective vaccines when it comes to Omicron – if they maintain tighter social restrictions, prices of imported goods will continue to rise. The Fed cannot resolve foreign bottlenecks. While manufacturing surveys show bottlenecks easing from last year’s highs, foreign supply constraints will remain a problem throughout the year. Chart 3BOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Buy The Rumor, Sell The News Of “Build Back Better” The Biden administration and Democratic Party are still likely to pass one last blast of fiscal spending – the “Build Back Better” budget reconciliation act, a social welfare bill. The output gap is virtually closed and the economy does not need new demand stimulus. However, the Democratic Party needs a legislative win ahead of the midterm election. Thin majorities in both chambers of Congress enable a single senator to derail the bill. But the bill’s provisions are popular among political independents and especially the Democratic Party’s base, which is lacking in enthusiasm about the election as things stand (Charts 4A & 4B). Moderate Democrats in the Senate are still negotiating: their goal is to chop the plan down to size and pass only the most popular provisions, rather than to sink the president and their own party. Chart 4 Chart 4 This means the bill’s top-line spending will be further reduced. The final size should fall from the earlier range of $2.5-$4.7 trillion to $2.3 trillion or less. Add a few tax hikes, like the minimum corporate tax, and the deficit impact will be around $600 billion (Table 1). Table 1"You’ve Gotta Pass It To See What’s In It" Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Ultimately we cannot have high conviction on the BBB plan because we cannot predict what a single senator will do. That is a matter of intelligence, not macro analysis. Chart 5 Chart 5 But subjectively we still give 65% odds that the Democratic Party will circle the wagons and pass the bill. The party views itself as surrounded by populism on both its right and left flanks – a failure to compromise will whet the appetites of both the Sanderistas (left-wing populists) and the Trumpists (right-wing populists) (Chart 5A). The Republicans still have a better position in the states, and the states have constitutional control of elections, so establishment Democrats are more terrified than usual of flopping in the midterm elections (Chart 5B). Otherwise the midterms – which are already likely to be bad for the Democrats – will deal a devastating blow. Republicans are recovering in party affiliation and tentatively surpassing Democrats among independent voters (Chart 6A). Biden and the Democrats lashed out at former President Trump and the Republican Party on the anniversary of the January 6, 2020 rebellion, but this tactic will not lift their popularity in polls. Their current polling is not much better than that of Republicans in 2018, when the latter suffered a bruising defeat in the midterms (Chart 6B). Chart 6ADemocrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Democrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Democrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Chart 6 Biden’s legislation would reduce the fiscal drag marginally in fiscal year 2023 but overall the budget deficit will shrink and then lie flat over 2022-24 regardless of what Congress does (Chart 7). New spending would be marginally inflationary over the long run since the budget deficit is expected to expand again beyond fiscal year 2024. Chart 7 Republicans will not be able to slash the budget until they control both Congress and the White House, but in that case they are likely to prove big spenders as in the past. Populism will persist on all sides: the political establishment will keep trying to use fiscal profligacy to peel voters away from populists, who are even more fiscally profligate. Only an inflation-induced recession will restore some fiscal discipline – and that is a way off. Ultimately the significance of the BBB bill is to verify whether establishment politicians – fiscal authorities – are capable of moderating their spending plans according to the threat of inflation, as Modern Monetary Theory maintains. Otherwise the implication is that polarization and populism will produce fiscal overshoots regardless of near-term inflation, even with the narrowest of possible majorities in Congress. The latter, a BBB fiscal overshoot, is what we expect. If it happens it will probably be received negatively by the equity market, fearing faster Fed rate hikes, and it would add credibility to long-term concerns about inflation, because it would reveal that fiscal authorities are not good at adjusting in real time. The former, a BBB failure and a halt to fiscal spending, would suggest that fiscal extravagance remains a crisis-era phenomenon and will be reined in by Congress after a crisis passes, which is probably positive for equities. It would at least suggest that fiscal authorities will adjust when the facts change. Of course, how investors respond to any legislative outcome will depend on a range of factors. But the takeaway is this: Inflation fears may or may not peak in the short run but they will persist over the long run. The Fed: Focus On The Framework In the wake of the Great Recession the Federal Reserve as an institution – both the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors – shifted in a more accommodative or dovish direction (Chart 8). The shift culminated in the review of monetary policy strategy in August 2020, which produced average inflation targeting. Chart 8 In practice the dovish policy shift is apparent in a real Fed funds rate at -4%, the lowest level since the inflationary 1970s under Fed Chair Arthur Burns. But what is more remarkable is the simultaneous surge in the budget deficit, unlike anything since World War II, and unlike anything in peacetime (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Stagflation Risks Inflation And Stagflation Risks Inflation And Stagflation Risks The massive increase in federal debt, from 34% of GDP in 2000 to 75% before COVID-19 and 106% today, acts as a constraint on any future Fed hawkishness (Chart 10). A Fed chair who drives interest rates too high amid high debt levels will cause a recession and force the debt-to-GDP ratio up even higher. Yet the result of low rates is to stimulate indebtedness. While the private debt super cycle has subsided, a public debt super cycle is thriving. Chart 10A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness This brings us to today’s predicament. The Fed’s criteria for raising interest rates have mostly been met: 12-month core PCE inflation is running at 4.7% while the inflation breakeven rate in the Treasury market suggests that inflation is well anchored and likely to persist above the 2% inflation target for some time (Chart 11A). The economy is virtually at “maximum employment” (Table 2) – the Fed has set aside concerns about low labor force participation to focus on the collapsing unemployment rate, which is now within the range at which it will feed inflation (Chart 11B). Chart 11AThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff Table 2The Fed’s Criteria For Liftoff Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart 11BThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The takeaway is that the Fed is suddenly restoring the credibility of its 2% inflation target, with headline PCE rapidly coming up on the trajectory established in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart 12), as our US bond strategist Ryan Swift has demonstrated. Chart 12Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation The explosion of fiscal spending played a critical role in generating this new trajectory. The combination of monetary and fiscal accommodation has worked wonders. Assuming the BBB passes, Chairman Powell will face even greater pressure to prevent this correction of the inflation trajectory from overshooting and turning into a wage-price spiral. The unexpected risk would be if the BBB bill fails, the Fed hikes aggressively, global growth sputters, the dollar surges, and Republicans retake Congress — then Powell may yet see disinflationary challenges in his term in office. Our sense is that the BBB will pass, reinforcing Powell’s less dovish pivot, and yet the Fed’s framework will not permit too hawkish of a stance, resulting in persistent inflation risks over the long run. Three Strategic Themes In our annual strategic outlook, we highlighted three structural or strategic themes that are not beholden to the 12-month forecasting period: 1.   Rise Of Millennials And Generation Z: The sharp drop in labor force participation will gradually mend in the wake of the crisis but the aging of the population ensures that the general trend will decline over time as the dependency ratio rises (Chart 13A). Chart 13AStrategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Strategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Strategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Chart 13 Politically the millennials and younger generations are gaining clout over time, although their partisan identity will also evolve as they mature and gain a greater stake in the economy and become asset owners (Chart 13B). 2.   Peak Polarization: US political polarization stands at historic highs and will likely remain so over the 2022-24 political cycle (Chart 14A). Polarization coincides with the transformation of society amid falling bond yields and technological revolution (Chart 14B). Chart 14AStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Chart 14BStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization The pandemic era has been especially polarized due to the 2020 election and controversies over vaccination (Chart 15). Chart 15 Domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is possible (Chart 16). But any historic incidents will generate a majority opposed to political violence. Chart 16Risk Of Domestic Terrorism Risk Of Domestic Terrorism Risk Of Domestic Terrorism True, former President Trump is still likely to run on the Republican ticket, which will ensure that polarization remains elevated (Diagram 1). However, US elections hinge on structural factors, not individuals. Diagram 1GOP 2024 Is Up To Trump Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now So far structural factors point to policy continuity: not only are Democrats still slated to retain the White House, but President Biden has coopted many of Trump’s key policies, including infrastructure, protectionism, and big budget deficits (Chart 17). If Democrats falter, Trump’s policies will be reaffirmed. The implication is that a new national policy consensus is taking shape beneath the surface. Chart 17 3.   Limited “Big Government”: Americans have been turning away from “small government” and toward “big government” since the 1990s. Voters no longer worry so much about budget discipline and instead look for the “visible hand” of government to support the economy (Charts 18A & 18B). Chart 18 Chart 18 Both domestic populism and geopolitical challenges encourage this shift. Industrial policy and domestic manufacturing are making a comeback (Table 3). Table 3Strategic Theme #3: Limited “Big Government” Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now With extremely robust fiscal policy, the US has avoided the policy mistake of the period after the Global Financial Crisis, when premature fiscal tightening undermined the economic recovery (Chart 19). Policy uncertainty will increase as gridlock returns to Congress and fiscal policy will be frozen. But investors need not fear a slide back into deflation. The Republican Party’s populist base may prevent more Democratic social spending but they will not be able to repeal what is done.  Chart 19Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Three Key Views For 2022 The key views for the 12-month period are connected with the above but of a more short-term or cyclical duration: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: Republicans are highly likely to win back control of the House of Representatives and likely the Senate (Charts 20A & 20B). President Biden’s approval rating suggests that Democrats could lose 40 seats in the House (Chart 21) and three in the Senate (Chart 22), whereas they only need to lose five and one to lose control. Our quantitative Senate election model shows an even split but the model’s trend favors Republicans, as does the political cycle and partisan enthusiasm (Chart 23). Chart 20 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: Biden may still pass one more spending bill but otherwise the legislature will be frozen. Democrats will not succeed in ramming legislation through by abolishing the Senate filibuster. Biden will turn to executive decree, where he is already on track to make a historic increase in regulation, which will increase concerns among small business (Chart 24A & Chart 24B). Anti-trust laws are unlikely to be overhauled and Democrats will struggle to bring back the tough anti-trust posture of the 1900s-1950s without new legislation, meaning that Big Tech faces a bigger threat from inflation than regulation (Table 4). The green transition will continue but primarily in the form of any subsidies passed in the reconciliation bill, rather than new taxes or any carbon pricing scheme (Chart 25A & Chart 25B). Chart 24AKey View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Chart 24 Table 4Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart 25 Chart 25BGreen Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax Green Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax Green Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax   3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy Risks: Biden faces a slew of foreign policy and external risks that could damage the Democrats in the midterms. The surge in illegal immigration on the southern border is truly historic and will have significant policy ramifications over the long run (Chart 26A & Chart 26B). The surge in inflation will force Biden to contend with foreign policy challenges with one hand tied behind his back, since energy supply disruptions could derail his party ahead of the midterm election (Chart 27). While Biden could ease some inflationary pressure via reduced trade tariffs, protectionist impulses will prevail during an election year (Chart 28). Chart 26AKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 26BKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 27Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Chart 28Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Investment Takeaways The stock market tends to be flat, with risks skewed to the downside, during midterm election years due to policy uncertainty. The same is true for bond yields (Chart 29). Chart 29Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... When united or single-party governments approach midterms, stocks tend to perform worse than for divided governments in midterm years, while bond yields tend to be a bit higher (Chart 30). This trend is supercharged in 2022 due to the inflationary effects of the pandemic. Chart 30... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... ... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... ... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... Assuming Republicans regain at least the House, the US will transition from united to divided government (gridlock). In previous such transitions, stocks tend to perform in line with the average for a midterm election year, but bond yields skew higher – reinforcing the previous point (Chart 31). Chart 31... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise ... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise ... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise We will update our US Sector Political Risk Matrix to bring it better into line with our views, particularly in light of Table 5 below regarding sector relative performance during midterm election years. Normally defensives and growth stocks outperform in midterm years, Table 5ConDisc, Tech, Health Do Best During Midterms …But Waning Pandemic Makes An Exception Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now while cyclicals and value stocks underperform, but 2022 looks to be different due to inflation. Still over the course of the year we would expect the historic trend to reassert itself. Investors should favor cyclicals even though they probably cannot outperform defensives for much longer (Chart 32A). We recommend health care stocks as a hedge given that the dollar should still be resilient this year, Fed hikes should moderate inflation expectations, and midterm policy uncertainty will eventually weigh on risk appetite (Chart 32B). Chart 32AFavor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Favor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Favor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Chart 32BLong Health Care As Hedge Long Health Care As Hedge Long Health Care As Hedge Value stocks are forming a bottom relative to growth stocks, although this trend is less clear in the US, especially among US large caps, than it is abroad (Chart 33). We favor value over growth on a cyclical basis but midterm election uncertainties will pull the other way, making for a choppy bottom. Chart 33Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy The same process is visible on a sector basis, where energy and materials continue to outperform tech (Chart 34A). We recommend staying long energy on a cyclical basis, though its outperformance against tech could abate later in 2022. Infrastructure stocks – such as building and construction materials – also continue to outperform. Since Biden’s honeymoon period ended, the outperformance is largely relative to tech rather than the S&P as a whole. We still favor infrastructure stocks as the fiscal policy theme will continue even beyond the current legislation, which will barely start to be implemented in 2022 (Chart 34B). Chart 34AFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Chart 34BFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Highlights 2022 Key Views & Allocations: Translating our 2022 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions to begin the year. Target a moderate level of overall portfolio risk, maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, make developed market government bond country allocations based on relative expected central bank hawkishness (underweight the US, UK and Canada; overweight Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan), and be selective on allocations to global spread product (overweight high-yield with a bias toward Europe over the US, neutral global investment grade, underweight emerging market hard currency debt). Specific Allocation Changes: Much of the current positioning in our model bond portfolio already reflects our 2022 investment themes. The only significant changes we make to begin the year are reducing emerging market USD-denominated corporate bond exposure to underweight, and shifting some high-yield corporate bond exposure from the US to Europe. Feature In our last report of 2021, we published our 2022 Key Views, outlining the themes and investment implications of the 2022 BCA Outlook for global fixed income markets. In this report, our first of the new year, we translate those views into more specific recommendations and allocations within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that another year of expected above-trend global growth, even after the risks to start the year from the Omicron variant, will further absorb spare capacity across the developed economies. Realized inflation will slow from the elevated readings of 2021, but will remain high enough to force central banks – led by the US Federal Reserve – to incrementally remove highly accommodative monetary policies put in place during the pandemic. The backdrop for global bond markets will turn far less friendly as a result, with higher bond yields (led by US Treasuries), flatter yield curves and much weaker returns on spread products that have benefited from easy monetary policies like investment grade corporate debt and emerging market (EM) hard currency debt. Against this challenging backdrop for overall fixed income returns, bond investors will need to focus more on relative exposures between countries, sectors and credit ratings to generate outperformance versus benchmarks. Our recommended portfolio allocations to begin 2022 reflect that shift (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely A Review Of The Model Bond Portfolio Performance In 2021 Chart 12021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year 2021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year 2021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year Before we begin our discussion of the model bond portfolio for 2022, we will take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2021. Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a small negative total return (hedged into US dollars) of -0.51%, but this still outperformed its custom benchmark index by +36bps (Chart 1).1 It was a very challenging year for global fixed income markets, in aggregate, with significant swings in bond yields (i.e. US Treasuries were up in Q1, down in Q2/Q3, up then down in Q4) and credit spreads (US high-yield spreads fell in H1/2021 and were rangebound in H2/2021, while EM hard currency spreads were stable in H1/2021 before steadily widening during the rest of the year). Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +27bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +9bps (Table 2). The bulk of that government bond outperformance occurred during the first quarter of the year when global bond yields surged higher as COVID-19 vaccines began to be distributed and economic optimism improved in response – trends that benefited the below-benchmark duration tilt within the portfolio. The credit market outperformance was more evenly spread out during the final nine months of the year. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2021 Overall Return Attribution Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely In terms of specific country exposures on government debt (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) generated virtually all of the full-year outperformance of the government bond portion of the portfolio (+38bps versus the benchmark). The biggest underperformer was the UK (-9bps), concentrated at the very end of the year as Gilt yields declined on the back of the Omicron surge, to the detriment of our underweight stance. All other country allocations provided little excess return, in aggregate, over the full year in 2021 – although there was significant variance of those returns during the year. Chart 2 Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains were seen in US high-yield (+19bps) where we remained overweight throughout 2021. The largest drag on performance came from UK investment grade corporates (-9bps), although this all came in Q1/2021 where we maintained an overweight stance at the time and spreads widened. Other spread product sectors delivered little in the way of excess return, although that should not be a surprise as we maintained a neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates – which have a combined 18% weighting within the model bond portfolio custom benchmark index – throughout 2021. Chart 3 In the end, our recommended portfolio tilts during 2021 were generally on the right side of the market, with our overweights outperforming in an overall down year for bond returns (Chart 4). The numbers would have been even better without the drag on performance in the fourth quarter (-17bps for the entire portfolio). That came entirely from our two biggest government bond underweights – US Treasuries and UK Gilts – which saw significant bond yield declines in response to the emergence of the Omicron variant. (the detailed breakdown of the Q4/2021 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23). Chart 4 Importantly, the surge in bond yields seen in the first week of 2022 has already resulted in a full recovery of that Q4/2021 underperformance, providing a good start to the new year for our model portfolio. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: BELOW BENCHMARK As we concluded in our 2022 Key Views report, longer-maturity government bond yields are now too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment seen in many countries. While we expect inflation to come down this year from the very rapid pace of 2021, it will not be by enough to force central banks off the path towards rate hikes that already began at the end of last year in places like the UK and New Zealand. The Fed is now signaling that multiple US rate hikes are likely in 2022, while even some European Central Bank (ECB) officials are expressing concern over very high European inflation. Longer maturity bond yields remain too low, in our view, because investors are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. (Chart 5). An upward adjustment of global interest rate expectations is likely this year as central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE) deliver on expected rate hikes, with more tightening necessary beyond 2022. This will be the primary driver of the rise in global bond yields that we expect this year - an outcome that has already begun in the first week of 2022. Chart 5Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing ​​​​​​ Chart 6Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure ​​​​​​ We ended 2021 with a model bond portfolio duration that was -0.65 years below that of the custom performance benchmark (Chart 6). We feel comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, to begin the new year. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT THE EURO AREA (CORE & PERIPHERY), JAPAN & AUSTRALIA; UNDERWEIGHT THE US, UK & CANADA Our country allocation decisions within our model bond portfolio entering 2022 are based on a simple framework. We are overweighting countries where central banks are less likely to raise rates this year, and vice versa. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2022 to occur in the US, as markets are still not priced for the cumulative tightening that the Fed will likely deliver over the next couple of years. Markets are also underpricing how much the Bank of England and Bank of Canada will need to raise rates over the full tightening cycle, even with multiple hikes discounted for 2022. We see the necessary upward repricing of post-2022 rate expectations in all three of those countries – the US, UK and Canada – justifying underweight allocations in our model portfolio. Chart 7Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 The opposite is true in core Europe and Australia. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are discounting multiple rate hikes this year from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and even an ECB rate hike later in 2022. As we discussed in our Key Views report, there is still not enough evidence pointing to rapid wage growth in Australia or Europe that would force the RBA and ECB to turn more hawkish than their current forward guidance which calls for no rate hikes in 2022. While both central banks may talk about the possibility that monetary policy will need to be tightened, we expect the actual rate hikes to occur in 2023 and not 2022. Thus, both markets justify overweight allocations in our model bond portfolio. We are also maintaining an overweight to Japanese government bonds, as Japanese inflation remains far too low – even in an environment of high energy prices and global supply chain disruption – for the Bank of Japan to contemplate any tightening of monetary policy. The country allocations within the model portfolio as of the end of 2021 all fit with the above analysis, thus we see no major changes that need to be made to begin 2022 (Chart 7).2 The only significant move made was to slightly bump up the size of the overweights in Italy and Spain, to be funded by the reduction in EM corporate bond exposure (as we discuss below). We continue to see a positive case for owning Peripheral European government bonds for the relatively high yields within Europe, with the ECB maintaining an overall dovish policy stance in 2022 even as it scales back the size of its bond buying activity starting in March. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN A NEUTRAL OVERALL ALLOCATION TO GLOBAL LINKERS Chart 8Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Inflation-linked bonds have been a necessary part of bond investors' portfolios since the lows in global inflation breakeven spreads were seen in mid-2020. Now, with inflation expectations at or above central bank inflation targets in most developed market countries, and with realized inflation likely to subside from current levels this year, the backdrop no longer justifies structural overweights to linkers across all countries. We are sticking with our end-2021 overall neutral allocation to global inflation-linked bonds, focusing more on country allocations based on our inflation breakeven valuation indicators, as discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 8). This means maintaining a neutral stance on US TIPS and linkers (vs. nominal government bonds) in Canada, Australia and Japan. We are also staying with underweight positions in linkers (vs. nominals) in the UK, Germany, France and Italy where breakevens appear too high based on our indicators. Spread Product Allocation: MAINTAIN A SMALL OVERWEIGHT TO GLOBAL SPREAD PRODUCT FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN & US HIGH-YIELD CORPORATES, WHILE UNDERWEIGHTING EM CREDIT Chart 9Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Our expectation of above-trend global growth in 2022, with still relatively high inflation (compared to pre-pandemic levels), should be positive for spread products like corporate bonds that benefit from strong nominal economic (and revenue) growth. However, the less accommodative global monetary policy backdrop we also expect is a potential negative for credit market performance - specially as rate hikes put upward pressure on deeply negative real interest rates, most notably in the US (Chart 9). Thus, we are entering 2022 with a cautious, but still positive, overall position on spread product in our model bond portfolio. We are focusing more on credit valuation, however - both in absolute terms and between countries and sectors – to try and generate outperformance for the credit portion of the portfolio. We are maintaining a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and UK given the tight spread valuations in those markets. We prefer to focus our corporate credit exposure on overweights to high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, but with a marginal preference for European junk bonds over US equivalents as we discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 10). Within EM USD-denominated credit, we remain cautious entering 2022 given the poor fundamental backdrop for EM credit: slowing momentum of Chinese economic growth and global commodity prices, a firmer US dollar, and a less-accommodative global monetary policy backdrop (Chart 11). Thus, an underweight stance on EM credit is appropriate within the portfolio to start the year. Chart 10Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Chart 11Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight ​​​​​​ Chart 12   Finally, we are entering 2022 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that we maintained during the latter half of 2021, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Based on our outlook for 2022, we are immediately making two marginal changes to the spread product allocations to the model bond portfolio: Reducing the size of our US high-yield overweight and using the proceeds to increase the size of the European high-yield overweight Reducing our EM USD-denominated corporate bond allocation to underweight from neutral, and placing the proceeds into Italian and Spanish government bonds (hedged into USD) to limit the reduction in the portfolio yield from the EM downgrade. The above moves will lower our overall credit overweight versus government bonds from 5% to 4%, all coming from the EM to Italy/Spain switch (Chart 12). Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATE The changes made to our spread product allocations had no material impact on the estimated tracking error of the model portfolio – the relative volatility versus that of the benchmark. The tracking error is 78bps, still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps but above the lows seen in early 2021 (Chart 13). That higher tracking error is likely related to our underweight stance on US Treasuries, given the rise in bond volatility evident in measures like the MOVE index (bottom panel). Nonetheless, a moderate level of portfolio risk is reasonable given the combination of solid global economic growth, but with tighter global monetary policy, that we expect in 2022. Chart 13Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels ​​​​​​ Chart 14Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights ​​​​​​ The overweights to US high-yield, European high-yield and Italian government bonds all contribute to the model bond portfolio having a yield that begins 2022 modestly higher (+14bps) than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the changes to our model portfolio allocations, which can be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio during the first half of 2022. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). Chart Chart For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Base Case Omicron related economic weakness is visible in some major economies (euro area, Canada), but the US stays resiliently strong and the US labor market continues to tighten. China is a growth laggard, but this will lead to policymakers providing more macro stimulus (credit, monetary, fiscal) starting in Q2/2022. Inflation pressures from supply chain disruption remain stubbornly strong and realized global inflation rates stay elevated for longer. Developed market central banks continue dialing back pandemic-era monetary policy accommodation, led by Fed tapering and a June 2022 liftoff of the funds rate. There is a mild initial bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with additional widening of US inflation breakevens in Q1/2022, leading to bear flattening in Q2 in the run-up to liftoff – the net effect is a parallel shift higher in the entire yield curve. The VIX index stays near current levels at 20, both the US dollar and oil prices are broadly unchanged and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.25%. Hawkish Fed The Omicron wave is short-lived with limited impact on global growth, which remains well above trend. Global inflation only declines moderately from current elevated levels, both from persistent supply squeezes and faster wage growth. China loosens monetary/credit policies and announces new fiscal stimulus in late Q1/2022 – a positive surprise for global growth expectations. Developed economy central banks turn even more hawkish. Fed liftoff is in March, with another hike in June. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens as US inflation breakevens reach their cyclical peak. The VIX index climbs to 25, the US dollar depreciates by -3% (pulled in opposing directions by strong global growth but relatively higher US interest rates), oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.5%. Pessimistic Scenario The Omicron wave persists in many major countries (including the US) and leads to extended lockdowns and weaker consumer spending. Global growth momentum slows sharply. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration passes much smaller US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist and are made worse by Omicron, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed economy central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to economic weakness. The Fed goes for a slower taper that still ends in June, but liftoff is delayed until at least September. The US Treasury curve bull steepens modestly as the front end prices out 2022 hikes. US inflation breakevens remain sticky due to persistent realized inflation. The VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% on a safe haven bid, oil prices fall -10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 3B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 15 and Chart 16, respectively. Chart Chart Chart 15Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​ Chart 16US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​ The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over its performance benchmark during the next six months of +54bps in the Base Case and +31bps in the Hawkish Fed scenario, but is projected to underperform by -9bps in the Pessimistic scenario. Importantly, there is virtually no expected excess return from the credit side of model bond portfolio in the Hawkish Fed scenario, even with strong global growth. A faster-than-expected pace of Fed rate hikes in the first half of 2022 would be a clear signal to downgrade exposure to the riskier parts of the fixed income universe like US high-yield. Although in that Hawkish Fed scenario, greater-than-expected China stimulus and a weaker US dollar would also represent signals to begin adding back emerging market credit exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Our model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt and USD-denominated emerging market debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     We also made very slight adjustments within the US, Japan, Germany and France allocations to refine our allocations across the various maturity buckets while keeping the overall portfolio duration unchanged entering 2022. Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Global equities are poised to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Non-US markets are likely to outperform. We examine the four pillars that have historically underpinned stock market performance. Pillar 1: Technically, the outlook for equities is modestly bullish, as investor sentiment is nowhere near as optimistic as it usually gets near market tops. Pillar 2: The outlook for economic growth and corporate earnings is modestly bullish as well. While global growth is slowing, it will remain solidly above trend in 2022. Pillar 3: Monetary and financial conditions are neutral. The Fed and a number of other central banks are set to raise rates and begin unwinding asset purchases this year. However, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative well into 2023. Pillar 4: Valuations are bearish in the US and neutral elsewhere. Investors should avoid tech stocks in 2022, focusing instead on banks and deep cyclicals, which are more attractively priced. The Bedrock For Equities In assessing the outlook for the stock market, our research has focused on four pillars: 1) Sentiment and other technical factors, which are most pertinent for stocks over short-term horizons of about three months; 2) cyclical fluctuations in economic growth and corporate earnings, which tend to dictate the path for stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months; 3) monetary and financial conditions, which are also most relevant over medium-term horizons; and finally 4) valuations, which tend to drive stocks over the long run. In this report, we examine all four pillars, concluding that global equities are likely to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Pillar 1: Sentiment And Other Technical Factors (Modestly Bullish)   Chart 1US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern Scaling The Wall Of Worry Stocks started the year on a high note, before tumbling on Wednesday following the release of the Fed minutes. Market breadth going into the year was quite poor. Even as the S&P 500 hit a record high on Tuesday, only 57% of NYSE stocks and 38% of NASDAQ stocks were trading above their 200-day moving averages compared to over 90% at the start of 2021 (Chart 1). The US stock market had become increasingly supported by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks, a potentially dangerous situation in an environment where bond yields are rising and stay-at-home restrictions are apt to ease (more on this later). That said, market tops often occur when sentiment reaches euphoric levels. That was not the case going into 2022 and it is certainly not the case after this week's sell-off. The number of bears exceeded the number of bulls in the AAII survey this week and in six of the past seven weeks (Chart 2). The share of financial advisors registering a bullish bias declined by 25 percentage points over the course of 2021 in the Investors Intelligence poll. Option pricing is far from complacent. The VIX stands at 19.6, above its post-GFC median of 16.7.  According to the Minneapolis Fed’s market-based probabilities model, the market was discounting a slightly negative 12-month return for the S&P 500 as of end-2021, with a 3.6 percentage-point larger chance of a 20% decline in the index than a 20% increase (Chart 3). Chart 3Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Chart 2Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Equities do best when sentiment is bearish but improving (Chart 4). With bulls in short supply, stocks can continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry.   Whither The January Effect? Historically, stocks have fared better between October and April than between May and September (Chart 5). One caveat is that the January effect, which often saw stocks rally at the start of the year, has disappeared. In fact, the S&P 500 has fallen in January by an average annualized rate of 5.2% since 2000 (Table 1). Other less well-known calendar effects – such as the tendency for stocks to underperform on Mondays but outperform on the first trading day of each month – have persisted, however. Chart 4 Chart 5 Table 1Calendar Effects The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Bottom Line: January trading may be choppy, but stocks should rise over the next few months as more bears join the bullish camp. Last year’s losers are likely to outperform last year’s winners. Pillar 2: Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings (Modestly Bullish)   Economic Growth And Earnings: Joined At The Hip The business cycle is the most important driver of stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months. The reason is evident in Chart 6: Corporate earnings tend to track key business cycle indicators such as the ISM manufacturing index, industrial production, business sales, and global trade. Chart 6The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons Chart 7PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth Global growth peaked in 2021 but should stay solidly above trend in 2022. Both the service and manufacturing PMIs remain in expansionary territory (Chart 7). The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM exceeded 60 for the second straight month in December. The Bloomberg consensus is for real GDP to rise by 3.9% in the G7 in 2022, well above the OECD’s estimate of trend G7 growth of 1.4% (Chart 8). Global earnings are expected to increase by 7.1%, rising 7.5% in the US and 6.7% abroad (Chart 9). Our sense is that both economic growth and earnings will surprise to the upside in 2022. Chart 9Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Chart 8 Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand For Both Consumer And Capital Goods US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings (Chart 10). Around half of these savings will be spent over the next few years, helping to drive demand. Households in the other major advanced economies have also buttressed their balance sheets. Chart 10Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand After two decades of subdued corporate investment, capital goods orders have soared. This bodes well for capex in 2022. Inventories remain at rock-bottom levels, which implies that output will need to exceed spending for the foreseeable future (Chart 11). On the residential housing side, both the US homeowner vacancy rate and the inventory of homes for sale are near multi-decade lows. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Chart 11Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Chart 12Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Chart 13China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed Chinese Growth To Rebound, Europe To Benefit From Lower Natural Gas Prices Chinese credit growth decelerated last year. However, the 6-month credit impulse has bottomed, and the 12-month impulse is sure to follow (Chart 13). Chinese coal prices have collapsed following the government’s decision to instruct 170 mines to expand capacity (Chart 14). China generates 63% of its electricity from coal. Lower energy prices and increased stimulus should support Chinese industrial activity in 2022. Like China, Europe will benefit from lower energy costs. Natural gas prices have fallen by nearly 50% from their peak on December 21st. A shrinking energy bill will support the euro (Chart 15). Chart 14Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Chart 15A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro Chart 16 Omicron Or Omicold? While the Omicron wave has led to an unprecedented spike in new cases across many countries, the economic fallout will be limited. The new variant is more contagious but significantly less lethal than previous ones. In South Africa, it blew through the population without triggering a major increase in mortality (Chart 16). Preliminary data suggest that exposure to Omicron confers at least partial immunity against Delta. The general tendency is for viral strains to become less lethal over time. After all, a virus that kills its host also kills itself. Given that Omicron is crowding out more dangerous strains such as Delta, any future variant is likely to emanate from Omicron; and odds are this new variant will be even milder than Omicron. Meanwhile, new antiviral drugs are starting to hit the market. Pfizer claims that its new drug, Paxlovid, cuts the risk of hospitalization by almost 90% if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Bottom Line: While global growth has peaked and the pandemic remains a risk, growth should stay well above trend in the major economies in 2022, fueling further gains in corporate earnings and equity prices.   Pillar 3: Monetary And Financial Factors (Neutral)   Chart 17The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months Tighter But Not Tight Monetary and financial factors help govern the direction of equity prices both because they influence economic growth and also because they affect the earnings multiple at which stocks trade. There is little doubt that a number of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are looking to dial back monetary stimulus. However, there is a big difference between tighter monetary policy and tight policy. Even if the FOMC were to raise rates three times in 2022, as the market is currently discounting, the fed funds rate would still be half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 17). Likewise, even if the Fed were to allow maturing assets to run off in the middle of this year, as the minutes of the December FOMC meeting suggest is likely, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will probably not return to pre-pandemic levels until the second half of this decade.   A Higher Neutral Rate We have argued in the past that the neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than widely believed. This implies that the overall stance of monetary policy remains exceptionally stimulative. Historically, stocks have shrugged off rising bond yields, as long as yields did not increase to prohibitively high levels (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market If the neutral rate ends up being higher than the Fed supposes, the danger is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long. The question is one of timing. The good news is that inflation should recede in the US in 2022, as supply-chain bottlenecks ease and spending shifts back from goods to services. The bad news is that the respite from inflation will not last. As discussed in Section II of our recently-published 2022 Strategy Outlook, inflation will resume its upward trajectory in mid-2023 on the back of a tightening labor market and a budding price-wage spiral. This second inflationary wave could force the Fed to turn much more aggressive, spelling the end of the equity bull market. Bottom Line: While the Fed is gearing up to raise rates and trim the size of its balance sheet, monetary policy in the US and in other major economies will remain highly accommodative in 2022. US policy could turn more restrictive in 2023 as a second wave of inflation forces a more aggressive response from the Fed.   Pillar 4: Valuations (Bearish In The US; Neutral Elsewhere)   US Stocks Are Looking Pricey… While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short run, they are an excellent forecaster of stock prices in the long run. Chart 18 shows that the Shiller PE ratio has reliably predicted the 10-year return on equities. Today, the Shiller PE is consistent with total real returns of close to zero over the next decade. Chart 18 Investors’ allocation to stocks has also predicted the direction of equity prices (Chart 19). According to the Federal Reserve, US households held a record high 41% of their financial assets in equities as of the third quarter of 2021. If history is any guide, this would also correspond to near-zero long-term returns on stocks. Chart 19Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II)   … But There Is More Value Abroad Valuations outside the US are more reasonable. Whereas US stocks trade at a Shiller PE ratio of 37, non-US stocks trade at 20-times their 10-year average earnings. Other valuation measures such as price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yield tell a similar story (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) Cyclicals And Banks Overrepresented Abroad Our preferred sector skew for 2022 favors non-US equities. Increased capital spending in developed economies and incremental Chinese stimulus should boost industrial stocks and other deep cyclicals, which are overrepresented outside the US (Table 3). Banks are also heavily weighted in overseas markets; they should also do well in response to faster-than-expected growth and rising bond yields (Chart 21). Table 3Deep Cyclicals And Financials Are Overrepresented Outside The US The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Chart 21Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Bottom Line: Valuations are more appealing outside the US, and with deep cyclicals and banks set to outperform tech over the coming months, overseas markets are the place to be in 2022. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Image Special Trade Recommendations Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores Image

Highlights For the time being, US core inflation will not drop anywhere close to the Fed’s target range. The Fed will continue tightening until something breaks. US bond yields and the US dollar are heading higher. The S&P500 will need to drop meaningfully for the Fed to stop tightening. The Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in commodity prices in the coming months. Absolute-return investors should stay defensive on EM risk assets and asset allocators should continue to underweight EM versus DM in global equity and credit portfolios. Feature We are starting the year with a review of a few macro pillars of our view that will shape global financial markets in the coming months. US Core Inflation Will Prove Sticky… Chart 1Average Of All Core US Inflation Measures Average Of All Core US Inflation Measures Average Of All Core US Inflation Measures The average of seven various US core inflation measures – core CPI, core PCE, trimmed-mean CPI, median CPI, sticky core CPI, trimmed-mean PCE and market-based core PCE – has surged to 4% (Chart 1). Although the core inflation rate could decline in 2022 as supply bottlenecks ease and base effects become more favorable, it is unlikely to drop below 3%. Instead, it will remain well above the Fed’s inflation target. If the Fed adheres to its mandate, it will have to hike rates until inflation heads toward 2%. US core inflation will not drop toward 2% unless the economy slows materially. Consumer and business inflation expectations have risen substantially. US consumer inflation expectations for one and three years ahead have risen to 4-6%, and US non-farm businesses have been able to raise prices by 4.5% y/y in Q3 (Chart 2). We can say the genie – inflation and inflation expectations – is out of bottle and it will be hard to put it back in. Importantly, labor market shortages will persist, and employee wage demand will be strong. Employees’ current wage growth expectations are based on their inflation expectations in the next one to three years, not the next decade. Even though longer term inflation expectations remain somewhat muted, they will not prevent high wage growth. Critically, inflation has “eaten” into employee income: real wage growth – adjusted for headline consumer price inflation – has been negative in 2021 (Chart 3). Consistently, employees know their compensation has lagged inflation and will be demanding significant wage hikes in 2022. Chart 3Inflation Is "Eating" Into Wages In The US Inflation Is "Eating" Into Wages In The US Inflation Is "Eating" Into Wages In The US Chart 2US Inflation Expectations Have Risen Sharply US Inflation Expectations Have Risen Sharply US Inflation Expectations Have Risen Sharply   In short, a wage-price spiral of moderate proportions is unfolding. Given tight labor market conditions, businesses will have no choice but raise wages considerably and then try to pass the higher costs on to their consumers. … Prompting Higher US Bond Yields … Despite the surge in core inflation to a 30-plus year high, US bond yields have remained low. The long end of the US yield curve has continued to be suppressed even as the market participants raised their rate hike expectations. Not only has the expected terminal Fed funds target rate not risen much, but also the bond term premium has remained negative. The bond term premium is akin to the equity risk premium. Pronounced uncertainty about the US inflation outlook as well as elevated bond volatility warrant a higher bond term premium (Chart 4). … Which Will Push The US Dollar Higher… Rising US interest rate expectations will lead to a stronger greenback. Our US Dollar Liquidity Indicator points to continued firmness in the broad trade-weighted US dollar ( the latter is shown inverted in this chart) (Chart 5). Chart 5US Dollar Liquidity And The US Dollar US Dollar Liquidity And The US Dollar US Dollar Liquidity And The US Dollar Chart 4Inflation Uncertainty And High Bond Volitility Herald A Higher Term Premium Inflation Uncertainty And High Bond Volitility Herald A Higher Term Premium Inflation Uncertainty And High Bond Volitility Herald A Higher Term Premium   Our framework for the relationship between currencies and their interest rates is as follows: Scenario 1: When inflation is high or rising fast, the central bank is willing to hike rates and the economy can withstand higher borrowing costs, the currency will appreciate. Scenario 2: When inflation is high or rising fast and the central bank is unwilling to hike rates, the currency will depreciate. This is the case when the central bank falls behind the curve. Scenario 3: When the central bank is tightening but the economy cannot handle higher borrowing costs, the currency will depreciate. The US economy is presently able to handle higher interest rates. Hence, the US dollar is currently driven by the dynamics described in Scenario 1, i.e., rising interest rates will support the greenback. Chart 6US Household Finances Are Healthy US Household Finances Are Healthy US Household Finances Are Healthy Our rationale is that US interest rate sensitive sectors like housing and car sales have been restrained by supply shortages – not weak demand. In fact, there is large pent-up demand for both housing and autos and a reasonable rise in borrowing costs will not thwart this demand. Besides, US household debt and debt servicing costs have declined substantially in the past 10 years (Chart 6). US households are no longer highly indebted. This development – along with robust wage gains – will allow households to borrow more and service their debt. Finally, unlike in many other Anglo-Saxon countries, in the US it is long-term rates – rather than short ones – that matter for household debt servicing. Mortgages make up 70% of household debt in the US and the mortgage rate is tied to the 30-year bond yield. In many other advanced and emerging economies, mortgage rates are more influenced by the central bank policy rate than long-term bond yields. As a result, the US economy will be able to endure monetary tightening by the Fed better than other developed and emerging economies can handle rate hikes from their central banks. Specifically, mainstream EM economies (EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) will slow markedly as and if their central banks hike rates further (Chart 7). There is, however, a caveat: Even though Main Street America will be able to withstand a reasonable amount of rate hikes, Wall Street might not be able ride out these rate hikes. The difference is the starting point – US equity valuations are very high. … And Will Herald A US Equity Correction And Sector Rotation The spike in US core inflation is likely to engender a negative correlation between US share prices and bond yields, as was the case in 1966. We first made this argument in last year’s Special Report titled A Paradigm Shift In The Stock-Bond Relationship (Chart 8). Chart 7Mainstream EM: Monetary Tightening Will Dampen Growth Mainstream EM: Monetary Tightening Will Dampen Growth Mainstream EM: Monetary Tightening Will Dampen Growth Chart 8S&P500 And Bond Yields Correlation Will Turn Negative S&P500 And Bond Yields Correlation Will Turn Negative S&P500 And Bond Yields Correlation Will Turn Negative   The current episode in the US is akin to the second half of the 1960s when US core inflation and bond yields rose after decades of lingering at very low levels. Starting in 1966, US share prices became negatively correlated with US Treasury yields (Chart 9 – bond yields are shown inverted). Going forward, the S&P 500 will often take its cue from US bond yields: stocks will rally when bond yields decline, and tumble when bond yields rise. Given that we expect US Treasury yields to rise in the coming months (10-year yields will move well above 2%), the S&P 500 is likely to correct. The key risk to this view is the massive amount of cash on the sidelines, and widespread investor willingness to buy any dip in US equities. The absolute level of US retail money market funds currently stands at a formidable $1 trillion (Chart 10, top panel). However, this just represents a mere 2% of the US equity market cap (Chart 10, bottom panel). Hence, if institutional investors begin selling stocks, retail investors might not be able to support the market. Chart 9Early 2020s = Late 1960s? Early 2020s = Late 1960s? Early 2020s = Late 1960s? Chart 10Cash on Sidelines: A Lot Or Not So Much? Cash on Sidelines: A Lot Or Not So Much? Cash on Sidelines: A Lot Or Not So Much? Chart 11EM Relative Equity Performance Is Correlated With The USD, Not Bond Yields EM Relative Equity Performance Is Correlated With The USD, Not Bond Yields EM Relative Equity Performance Is Correlated With The USD, Not Bond Yields Furthermore, rising US bond yields will cause US value stocks to outperform US growth stocks. Will EM stocks outperform US or DM ones as US bond yields rise? The top panel of Chart 11 illustrates that there has been no stable correlation between US bond yields and EM versus DM relative equity performance. Yet, there is a strong relationship between EM relative equity performance and the US dollar (Chart 11, bottom panel). If the broad trade-weighted US dollar rallies, EM stocks will underperform their DM counterparts (the greenback is shown inverted in the bottom panel of Chart 11). A sell-off in US stocks and bonds and the greenback’s rally will tighten US financial conditions considerably. The Fed is putting a lot of weight on financial conditions, especially when they are becoming restrictive. As US financial conditions tighten, the Fed will likely pivot, i.e., soften its hawkish stance. The Fed would likely argue that tight financial conditions will slow growth, which will in turn bring down inflation. Such a Fed pivot will potentially mark the end of a US dollar rally, enable American share prices to rise again, and EM stocks to start outperforming. However, we are not there yet. Bottom Line: For the time being, US core inflation will not drop anywhere close to the Fed’s target range. Hence, the Fed will continue tightening until something breaks. It will take a meaningful drop in the S&P500 (~20%) to make the Fed stop tightening. Commodity Prices Commodity prices have been caught between two opposing forces: US inflation and China’s slowdown. Worries about US inflation have made investors buy inflation hedges, and commodities are traditionally viewed as an inflation hedge. Yet, there is a caveat: Inflation is proliferating in the US but not in China. On the contrary, Chinese imports of key commodities contracted dramatically in H2 2021 (Chart 12). We are surprised that commodity prices have been so resilient despite shrinking Chinese commodity imports. Our sense is that commodity prices have been held up by two forces: strong global manufacturing activity and financial demand from investors. As for the green revolution, we believe it will be a major bullish force for select commodities in a couple of years. At the moment, however, it is not large enough to offset the slowdown in the Chinese economy. It might take investor concerns about US demand and/or a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Rising US interest rates and a continued dollar rally will eventually result in a meaningful drawdown in commodity prices. Chart 13 demonstrates that the declines in the Swedish manufacturing PMI new orders-to-inventory ratio and the Swedish krona/Swiss franc cross rate point to downside risks in raw materials prices. Chart 12Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Chart 13A Red Flag For Commodities From Industrial Sweden A Red Flag For Commodities From Industrial Sweden A Red Flag For Commodities From Industrial Sweden   Bottom Line: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months. Investment Strategy For EM Chart 14EM Equities: No Profit Growth, No Bull Market EM Equities: No Profit Growth, No Bull Market EM Equities: No Profit Growth, No Bull Market EM share prices have been falling in absolute terms despite the strength in the S&P 500. The EM equity index will drop further due to the dismal EM profit outlook and the continued de-rating of Chinese TMT stocks. In absolute terms, the EM equity index is at the same level as it was in 2011 because EM EPS in USD has not expanded at all since 2011 (Chart 14). Investors are reluctant to pay high multiples for EM companies because they have produced zero earnings growth over the past 10 years. Besides, higher US bond yields and continued strength in the US dollar will lead to higher EM sovereign and corporate bond yields. EM non-TMT share prices typically wobble when EM US dollar borrowing costs rise (Chart 15). Chart 15Rising EM USD Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For EM Non-TMT Stocks Rising EM USD Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For EM Non-TMT Stocks Rising EM USD Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For EM Non-TMT Stocks We continue to recommend underweighting EM in a global equity portfolio. EM always underperforms DM when the greenback rallies. We maintain our short positions in a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. Rising US bond yields and a firm greenback will continue weighing on EM fixed income markets – both local currency and US dollar ones. Fixed-income investors should favor US corporate credit over EM corporate and sovereign credit, quality adjusted. In local rates, we are betting on yield curve inversion in Russia and Mexico, receiving rates in China and Malaysia and paying rates in the Czech Republic. For the full list of our fixed-income, currency and equity recommendations, please refer to the tables below. These are also available on our website. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights December’s PMI and our market-based China growth indicator improved slightly, but the underlying data send a mixed signal about the country’s business cycle and do not give a green light for cyclically overweighting Chinese stocks. Our research suggests that the odds of an earnings contraction for Chinese investable stocks over the coming year are high. In previous cycles, stocks only bottomed when the earnings adjustment process was well underway. In the next one to three months, investors may bid up Chinese stocks for their relatively cheap valuations and in expectation of further policy easing. A tactical rebound in Chinese stocks (in both the domestic and investable markets) in absolute terms is likely. However, we think it is premature to switch to an outright overweight stance on Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese stocks underperformed global equities last year. In particular, Chinese investable stocks were among the worst performing major equity indices last year, ending 2021 with a 23% loss (Chart 1). Lately China’s macro policies have begun to refocus on supporting the economy, and investors have been asking whether cheaper valuations in Chinese equities warrant an overweight stance versus global stocks. We think a tactical rally in Chinese stocks is likely, as investors may bid up the market in expectation of more stimulus. The Chinese offshore market remains deeply oversold in relative terms, and further easing in policy in the coming few weeks may significantly improve global investor sentiment towards the country’s bourse. However, we maintain our view that a legitimate improvement in domestic fundamentals is needed before we recommend investors to upgrade their cyclical equity allocation to China. Mixed Signals Over the past several weeks, we focused heavily on China’s cyclical economic conditions, and whether any “green shoots” are evident from the key indicators that we track. The official PMIs and our high-frequency, market-based growth indicator both improved slightly in December, but their underlying components point to continued weakness in the old economy sectors. Hence, for now, we regard the marginal improvement in these indicators as a mixed signal rather than a green light for upgrading Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis. The official PMI manufacturing index inched up to 50.3 in December from 50.1 in November. While the proxy for domestic demand – measured by the new orders component subtracting the new export orders – ticked up slightly last month, the overall new orders subindex remains below the 50 threshold (Chart 2). In addition, both new orders and business activity in the construction PMI subindex fell sharply in December, due to sluggish infrastructure activity as well as a significant drag from the housing sector (Chart 3). Chart 2Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Chart 3Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Chart 4Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Our market-based China growth indicator also rose slightly in December, although it remains in contraction. Chart 4 presents this growth indicator, its four asset class subcomponents, and the range between the strongest and weakest components. The chart shows that the recent rise in the indicator is not uniform. While most of the individual components have improved over the past month, a rise in metal prices and commodity-related equity and currency prices have accounted for most of the gains. As highlighted in China’s November and December PMIs, we think the improvement in the commodity component of the growth indicator reflects an easing in production-side constraints, rather than a sustained rebound in demand. Bottom Line: Data released recently point to a mixed picture regarding China’s economic fundamentals. It is premature to conclude that the current policy easing measures will suffice in reviving China’s slowing economy. The Negative Factors Impacting Cyclical Outlook There are two negative factors impacting our outlook for Chinese stocks. One is the effect of a slowing domestic economy on earnings; our model suggests that the odds of an earnings contraction over the coming year are high. The other negative factor is the ongoing regulatory and secular geopolitical risks on Chinese offshore-market stocks. Chart 5 presents the odds of a serious earnings contraction over the coming 12 months (defined as earnings growth falling below -5%). The chart shows that the model successfully warned of the three major earnings contractions over the past decade. Crucially, the odds of a major contraction did not rise above the 50% mark in 2012, when investable earnings growth decelerated significantly and fell briefly into negative territory. The current message from the model is clear: the odds of a significant earnings contraction over the coming 12 months are as high as 70%, implying that the deceleration in 12-month trailing earnings growth shown in the bottom panel of Chart 5 is likely to continue. In addition to the elevated risks of an earnings contraction, regulatory and geopolitical risks remain a major challenge for Chinese companies listed in the offshore equity markets (Chart 6). Big tech names like Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan still face regulatory pressures from authorities. Last week, Beijing further tightened scrutiny of overseas equity sales by unveiling regulations that bar Chinese companies in sensitive industries from receiving foreign investment.  Chart 5Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Chart 6Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Pressures from both Chinese and US regulators will continue to push Chinese firms to depart from US stock exchanges. The disputes between the US and China, which in our US Geopolitical Strategy's view are deep and structural, will likely culminate in the months leading up to the 20th National Party Congress in China and the mid-term election in the US in the fall of 2022. It is true that the delisted Chinese firms will likely migrate to Hong Kong, and in theory should offer global investors the same returns. However, we argue that as the delisted companies fail to comply with transnational disclosure standards and financial audit regulations mandated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), global investors will demand higher risk premiums (and hence lower valuations) to own Chinese investable stocks. In the next two to three months, it is possible that investors may bid up Chinese stocks in expectation of further policy loosening. Since data on the real economic activity in the first two months of the year will not be released until March, investors will likely focus on credit, monetary, and trade data. However, we caution against moving to an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks for investors with time horizon of 6 to 12 months. While easier macro policies are certainly welcome, we remain skeptical that: a) the existing policy support is enough to revive China’s economy; and b) Chinese policymakers will provide aggressive stimulus and allow a major acceleration in credit growth for the entire year of 2022.  Bottom Line: While in the near term, investors may find Chinese stocks attractive due to cheap valuations and expectations of further stimulus, Chinese stocks face challenges both from the impact of a slowing economy on earnings growth and ongoing regulatory and geopolitical risks.  Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks in both the onshore and offshore markets have cheapened relative to global equities. However, in absolute terms Chinese stocks are not unduly cheap and their valuations are higher than in both 2015/16 and 2018/19 (Chart 7). In previous cycles, Chinese stock prices bottomed when the earnings adjustment process was well underway or near the end of the process. Chart 8 presents some perspective on when investors are likely to anticipate an eventual bottom in stock prices, if an earnings contraction does indeed occur. The chart shows the level of 12-month forward earnings for investable and domestic stocks, and circles at what point share prices bottomed during the previous cycles. Chart 8The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started Chart 7Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms   The chart shows that onshore equities bottomed roughly halfway through the earnings adjustment process, whereas the investable market bottomed almost at the end of the process. The chart also shows that this adjustment process has barely begun in the current cycle, which argues against a cyclically overweight stance towards Chinese stocks.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Equity Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Elected officials’ antipathy for buybacks is unfounded, … : For the companies that are the primary drivers of buyback activity, returning cash to shareholders is more likely to have a positive impact on employment and investment than retaining it.  … and the idea that they boost stock returns may be, as well, … : Over the last ten years, a cap-weighted bucket of large-cap stocks that most reduced their share counts underperformed the bucket that most increased their share counts by 2% annually.  … especially within the Tech sector, which has most enthusiastically executed them: Despite the success of Apple, which has seen its market cap soar since embarking on a deliberate strategy to shrink its shares outstanding, a strategy buying Tech’s biggest net reducers and selling its biggest net issuers would have generated sizable negative alpha over the last ten years. The problem is the relative profile of net buyers and net issuers: In general, companies that consistently buy back their own stock are mature companies that cannot earn an accretive return by redeploying the capital their incumbent business generates. Net issuers, on the other hand, are often young companies seeking fresh capital to realize their abundant growth opportunities. The next year is likely to see a pickup of share buybacks nonetheless, … : Our US Equity Strategy service’s Cash Yield Prediction Model points to increased buyback activity in 2022.  … as management teams are wedded to them and buying back stock is the best use of capital for the mature companies executing them: Better to return cash to shareholders than to enter new business lines beyond the company’s area of expertise or embark on dubious acquisitions, even in the face of a potential 1% surtax. Feature Dear Client, This Special Report is the final US Investment Strategy publication for 2021. We will return with our first 2022 publication on Monday, January 10th. We wish everyone safe travels and a happy and healthy holiday season. Doug Peta Chief US Investment Strategist In Capitol Hill’s current polarized state, stock buybacks are in select company with the tech giants and China as issues that unite solons on both sides of the aisle. They are also a hot-button issue for some investors, who see them as telltale signs of a market kept aloft by sleight of hand. Although we do not think they’re worth getting worked up over – they do not promote the misallocation of capital and they may not actually boost stock prices – they come up repeatedly in client discussions and are likely to remain a feature of the landscape even if they are eventually subjected to a modest federal surtax. We have therefore joined with the BCA Equity Analyzer team to pore over its bottom-up database for insights into the buyback phenomenon. After ranking nearly 600 stocks in our large-cap universe in order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding across the last ten years, we were surprised to discover that the companies that most reduced their share count underperformed the companies that most grew it. We were also surprised to find that Tech was by far the worst performer among the six sectors with negative net issuance. Ultimately, the performance story seemed to boil down to Growth stocks’ extended recent edge over Value stocks. We present the data, our interpretation of it, and some future investment implications in this Special Report. Buybacks’ Bad Rap From Capitol Hill to the White House, prominent Washington voices bemoan buybacks. In a February 2019 New York Times opinion piece,1 Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Schumer (D-NY) argued that equity buybacks divert resources from productive investment in the narrow interest of boosting share prices for the benefit of shareholders and corporate executives. To counter the increasing popularity of buybacks, they proposed legislation that would permit buybacks only after several preconditions for investing in workers and communities had been met. Echoing their concerns, the White House's framework for the Build Back Better bill included a 1% surcharge on stock buybacks, “which corporate executives too often use to enrich themselves rather than investing in workers and growing the economy.” Buybacks’ opponents may mean well, but they seem to be missing an essential point: by and large, the companies that buy back their own stock lack enough attractive investment opportunities to absorb the cash their operations generate. Companies with more opportunities than cash don’t buy back stock; they issue it (and/or borrow) to get the capital to pursue them. The simple generalization that large, mature companies buy back shares while small, growing companies issue new ones is borne out by rolling 12-month percentage changes in shares outstanding by large-cap and small-cap companies (Chart 1). Chart 1The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back On an equal-weighted basis, large-cap companies’ rolling share count was flat to modestly down for ten years before the pandemic drove net issuance. Adjusting for market cap, rolling net issuance has been uninterruptedly negative, shrinking by more than 2% per year, on average. The equally weighted small-cap population has been a net issuer to the tune of about 4% annually, with the biggest small-caps issuing even more, pushing the cap-weighted annual average to north of 6%. The bottom line is that large-cap companies in the aggregate have been modestly trimming their share counts, with the biggest companies retiring more than 2% of their shares each year, while small-cap companies are serial issuers, led by their largest (and presumably most bankable) constituents. We are investors serving investors, not policymakers, academics or editorial columnists charged with developing and evaluating public policy. Our mandate is bullish or bearish, not good or bad. We point out the flaws in the prevailing criticism of buybacks simply to make the point that buybacks are not an impediment to productive investment and that no one should therefore expect that productivity and income will rise if legislators or regulators restrict them. On the contrary, since we believe that buybacks represent an efficient allocation of capital, we would expect that successful attempts to limit them will hold back growth at the margin. The Buyback Calculus A company that buys back more of its shares than it issues reduces its share count. All else equal, a company with fewer shares outstanding will report greater earnings per share and a higher return on equity. Increased earnings per share (EPS) does not necessarily ensure a higher share price; if a company’s P/E multiple declines by more than EPS rises, its price will fall. Distributing retained earnings to shareholders reduces a company’s capital buffer against shocks and limits its ability to fund investment internally, but companies that embark on the most ambitious buyback campaigns likely face limited investment opportunities and have much more of a buffer than they could conceivably require. Revealed preferences suggest that management teams like buybacks. They have every interest in getting share prices higher to maximize the value of their own compensation, which typically contains an equity component that accounts for an increasing share of total compensation the more they rise in the company’s hierarchy. It is unclear, however, just how much their attachment to buybacks is founded on an expectation that buying back stock will boost its price. The opportunity to extend their tenure by pursuing a shareholder-friendly policy may well offer a stronger incentive. Do Buybacks Boost Share Prices? Returning cash to shareholders is widely perceived as good corporate governance. It increases the effective near-term yield on an equity investment and denies management the cash to pursue dubious expansion schemes or squander capital on lavish perquisites. It facilitates the reallocation of capital away from cash cows to more productive uses. Buybacks are squarely beneficial in theory, but are they good for investors in practice? (Please see the Box for a description of the methodology we followed to answer the empirical question.) Box: Performance Calculation Methodology After separating stocks into large- and small-cap categories based on Standard & Poor’s market cap parameters for inclusion in the S&P 500 and the SmallCap 600 indexes, we ranked the constituents in each category in reverse order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding at the end of each month from 2011 through 2021. We then placed the top three deciles (the biggest reducers of their share counts) into the High Buybacks bucket and the bottom three deciles (the biggest net issuers) into the Low Buybacks bucket. We used the buckets to backtest a zero-net-exposure strategy of buying the stocks in the High bucket with the proceeds from shorting the stocks in the Low bucket, calling it the High-Minus-Low (“HML”) strategy. We computed two sets of HML results for the large-cap and small-cap universes. The first populated the buckets without regard for sector representation (“sector-agnostic”) and the second populated the buckets in line with the sector composition of the S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 Indexes (“sector-neutral”). We also track equal-weighted and cap-weighted versions of each HML bucket to gain a sense of performance differences between constituents by size. The experience of the last ten years fails to support the widely held view that stock buybacks boost share prices. Following a zero-net-exposure strategy of owning the top three deciles of large-cap companies ranked by the rolling 12-month percentage reduction of shares outstanding and shorting the bottom three deciles generated a modest positive annual return above 1% (Chart 2). Small caps merely broke even, largely because their biggest share reducers sharply underperformed in the first year of the pandemic. On a cap-weighted basis, however, the large-cap strategy generated a negative annual return a little over 1% during the period, indicating that the largest companies pursuing buyback programs lagged their net issuer counterparts. For small caps, the cap-weighted strategy also lagged the equal-weighted strategy, albeit by a smaller margin. Chart 2Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... On a sector-neutral basis, the large-cap HML strategy roundly disappointed. The equal-weighted version was never able to do much more than break even, slipping into the red when COVID arrived, while the cap-weighted version continuously lagged it, shedding about 1.5% annually (Chart 3). Though it was hit hard by the pandemic, the equal-weighted small-cap HML strategy managed to generate about 1% annually, and boasted a 3.5% annualized return for the eight years through 2019. Chart 3... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor Drilling down to the sector level offers some additional insights. While changes in shares outstanding vary across large-cap sectors, with six sectors reducing their shares outstanding and five expanding them, every small-cap sector has been a net issuer in every single year, ex-Discretionaries and Industrials in 2019 (Chart 4). Relative sector capital needs are largely consistent regardless of market cap, however, with REITs, which distribute all their income to preserve their tax-free status, unable to expand without raising cash in the capital markets, and Utilities, Energy and traditional Telecom Services being capital-intensive industries (Table 1). Many Tech niches are capital-light, and established Industrials and Consumer businesses often throw off cash. Chart 4 Table 1Sector Appetite For Capital Is Consistent Across The S&P 500 And The SmallCap 600 Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing There is less large- and small-cap commonality in HML relative sector performance than in relative sector issuance. Away from Real Estate, Tech and Discretionaries, small-cap HML sector strategies generated aggregate positive returns, led by Communication Services and Energy (Chart 5). For the large caps, most HML sector strategies produced negative alpha, though the four winners and the one modest loser (Financials) are among the six sectors that have net retired shares outstanding since 2012. Tech is the conspicuous exception, with its HML strategy yielding annualized losses exceeding 3%, contrasting with the sector’s enthusiastic buyback embrace. Chart 5 The Corporate Life Cycle Surprising as they may be on their face, negative cap-weighted ten-year HML returns do not mean that buybacks are counterproductive. We simply think they illustrate that net issuance activity follows from a company’s position in the corporate life cycle (Figure 1). Investors have prized growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and the companies with the best growth prospects are often younger companies just beginning to tap their addressable markets. They have a long pathway of market share capture ahead of them and need to raise capital to begin traveling it. Many of these strong growers populate the Low basket, especially in the Tech sector. Chart Companies that return cash to their owners via share repurchases are often more mature. Their operations are comfortably profitable and generate more than enough cash to sustain them. They have already captured all the market share they’re likely to gain in their primary business and may not have an outlet for its proceeds in a space in which they have a plausible competitive advantage. Lacking a clear path to bettering the returns from their main operations, they have been steadily accumulating cash for a long time. Chart Through the lens of the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) growth share matrix,2 a successful business in the Maturity stage of the business life cycle is known as a Cash Cow. Cash Cows have gained considerable market share in their industry, affording them a competitive advantage based on scale, brand and experience, but little scope for growth because they have saturated a market that is itself mature (Figure 2). BCG advises management teams with a portfolio of business lines to milk Cash Cows for capital to reinvest in high-share, high-growth-potential Stars or low-share, high-growth-potential Question Marks that could be developed into Stars. In the public markets, a mature large-cap company that retains its excess capital impedes its owners’ ability to redeploy that capital to faster growing investments, subverting the overall economy’s ability to redirect capital to its best uses. Walmart, Twentieth-Century Growth Darling Walmart fits the business life cycle framework to a T and has evolved into a textbook Cash Cow. It is a dominant player that executed its initial strategy so well that it has maxed out its share in the declining/stagnating brick-and-mortar retail industry. Its international attempts to replicate its domestic success have uniformly failed to gain traction, and it currently operates in fewer major foreign countries than it's exited. Given Walmart’s star-crossed international experience and the dismal history of large corporate combinations, returning cash may be the optimal use of shareholder capital. Walmart began life as a public company in fiscal 1971 squarely in the Growth phase. It was profitable from the start and grew annual revenues by at least 25% for every one of its first 23 years of public ownership (Chart 6, top panel). It was a modest issuer of shares during its Growth phase, conducting just one secondary common stock offering 12 years after its IPO and otherwise limiting growth in shares outstanding to acquisitions, management incentive awards and conversions of debt and preferred stock. Chart 6From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder ​​​​​​ Table 2From Growth To Maturity At Walmart Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Once its revenue growth slipped into the low double-digits in the late nineties, it began retiring its shares at a deliberate pace (Table 2). That retirement inaugurated a ramping up of Walmart’s annual payout ratio (Chart 6, bottom panel) and cash yield (dividend yield plus buyback yield), underlining its transition from Growth to Maturity. Walmart’s 2010 admission into the S&P 500 Pure Value Index marked its ripening into full maturity, and it has been a Pure Value fixture since 2013. Today’s stolid icon is a far cry from the ambitious disruptor on display in its 1980 Annual Report: Subsequent to year end, your Company’s directors authorized [a one-third] increase in the annual dividend[.] This continues your Company’s approach of distributing a portion of profits to our shareholders and utilizing the balance to fund our aggressive expansion program. [T]he decade of the ’70’s … has been a tremendous growth period for your Company. In January 1970, we … had 32 stores …, comprising less than a million square feet of retail space. In the next ten years, we added 258 … stores, … constructed and opened three new distribution facilities, and increased our retail space to 12.6 million square feet. During that same period of time, we increased our sales and earnings at an annual compounded rate well in excess of 40 percent. Reflecting upon the progress we have made in the ‘70’s makes it apparent that there is even more opportunity in the ‘80’s for your Company, and we are better positioned to maximize our opportunities … than ever before. The Exception That Proves The Rule Apple has shined so far in the twenty-first century much like Walmart did in the latter stages of the twentieth, growing its revenues and net income at compound annual rates exceeding 20% and 25%, respectively. Unlike Walmart, however, Apple hasn’t required a steady stream of capital to grow. While Walmart had to plow its earnings right back into the business to fund the acquisition and buildout of property to create stores, warehouses and distribution centers, Apple has simply had to make incremental improvements to its music players, phones and tablets while shoring up the moats around its virtual app and music marketplaces. As a result, cash and retained earnings began silting up on Apple’s balance sheet, lying fallow in short-term marketable securities and crimping a range of return metrics. Table 3Apple's Long Road To "Net Cash Neutral" Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Beginning in its 2013 fiscal year, Apple embarked on a lengthy strategy of returning that cash to shareholders, buying back stock at a rate that has allowed it to reduce its shares outstanding by 37.5% in the space of nine years (Table 3). It has reduced its retained earnings by more than $90 billion over that span and is on course to wipe them out completely in the fiscal year ending next September. Equity issuance in the form of incentive compensation augments Apple’s capital by about $5 billion per year, but if it continues to distribute more than 100% of its annual earnings in the form of dividends and repurchases, it could wipe out the rest of its recorded equity capital as well. Does this mean Apple is in danger of sliding into insolvency? Not in the least. The value of its assets dramatically exceeds the value of its liabilities, as evidenced by its nearly $3 trillion market cap and the top AAA credit rating Moody’s awarded it this week. Its reported book value is artificially suppressed by generally accepted accounting principles’ inability to value organically developed intellectual property (IP). Apple’s book value and that of other companies that generate similar IP, or benefit from internally generated moats, are dramatically undervalued. Takeaways For now, Apple is an anomaly when it comes to aggressively returning cash to shareholders while it is still in the Growth stage of its life cycle. Returning cash is typically the province of mature companies with steady operations that are unlikely to grow. It is generally good for the economy when those companies return excess cash to shareholders, freeing it up for more productive uses. If lawmakers or regulators manage to restrict the flow of capital from cash-cow companies to potential stars, we should expect activity to slow at the margin, not quicken. The experience of the last ten years suggests that companies that shrink their share counts do not outperform their counterparts that expand them. The trading strategy of shorting the biggest net share issuers to purchase the biggest net share reducers has produced negative returns. It is unclear if shareholders of companies who cannot redeploy their internally generated capital to augment the returns from their primary operations would be better served if their manager-agents retained the capital, though we suspect they would not. It seems inevitable that manager-agents with access to too much capital will eventually get into mischief. Table 4It Makes Sense That Insurers Would Buy Their Own Cheap Stock ... Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Chart 7... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To If buying back stock represents good corporate stewardship at mature companies, their shareholders should someday be rewarded for it. Given that the companies most suited to buying back stock tend to fit in the Value style box, the zero-net-exposure HML strategy may continue to accrue losses. Apple remains an outlier among Growth companies as an avid buyer of its stock; much more common are the S&P 500 Life and Multi-Line Insurer sub-industry groups, without which the S&P 500 Pure Value Index would have a hard time reaching a quorum (Table 4). Their constituents have assiduously bought back their stock over the last ten years, albeit to no relative avail (Chart 7). However, they should be better positioned once Value returns to favor and rising interest rates make investing their cash flow a more attractive proposition.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Opinion | Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed December 17, 2021. 2     https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix Accessed December 19, 2021.

Dear Client, This month’s Special Report is a guest piece by Doug Peta, BCA Research’s Chief US Investment Strategist. Doug’s report examines the impact of US stock buybacks using a median bottom-up approach, and presents a different perspective of the value vs. growth distribution of buybacks than we did in our October Section 2. I trust you will find his report interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Elected officials’ antipathy for buybacks is unfounded, … : For the companies that are the primary drivers of buyback activity, returning cash to shareholders is more likely to have a positive impact on employment and investment than retaining it.  and the idea that they boost stock returns may be, as well, … : Over the last ten years, a cap-weighted bucket of large-cap stocks that most reduced their share counts underperformed the bucket that most increased their share counts by 2% annually.  especially within the Tech sector, which has most enthusiastically executed them: Despite the success of Apple, which has seen its market cap soar since embarking on a deliberate strategy to shrink its shares outstanding, a strategy buying Tech’s biggest net reducers and selling its biggest net issuers would have generated sizable negative alpha over the last ten years. The problem is the relative profile of net buyers and net issuers: In general, companies that consistently buy back their own stock are mature companies that cannot earn an accretive return by redeploying the capital their incumbent business generates. Net issuers, on the other hand, are often young companies seeking fresh capital to realize their abundant growth opportunities. The next year is likely to see a pickup of share buybacks nonetheless, … : Our US Equity Strategy service’s Cash Yield Prediction Model points to increased buyback activity in 2022. … as management teams are wedded to them and buying back stock is the best use of capital for the mature companies executing them: Better to return cash to shareholders than to enter new business lines beyond the company’s area of expertise or embark on dubious acquisitions, even in the face of a potential 1% surtax. In Capitol Hill’s current polarized state, stock buybacks are in select company with the tech giants and China as issues that unite solons on both sides of the aisle. They are also a hot-button issue for some investors, who see them as telltale signs of a market kept aloft by sleight of hand. Although we do not think they’re worth getting worked up over – they do not promote the misallocation of capital and they may not actually boost stock prices – they come up repeatedly in client discussions and are likely to remain a feature of the landscape even if they are eventually subjected to a modest federal surtax. We have therefore joined with the BCA Equity Analyzer team to pore over its bottom-up database for insights into the buyback phenomenon. After ranking nearly 600 stocks in our large-cap universe in order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding across the last ten years, we were surprised to discover that the companies that most reduced their share count underperformed the companies that most grew it. We were also surprised to find that Tech was by far the worst performer among the six sectors with negative net issuance. Ultimately, the performance story seemed to boil down to Growth stocks’ extended recent edge over Value stocks. We present the data, our interpretation of it, and some future investment implications in this Special Report. Buybacks’ Bad Rap From Capitol Hill to the White House, prominent Washington voices bemoan buybacks. In a February 2019 New York Times opinion piece,1 Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Schumer (D-NY) argued that equity buybacks divert resources from productive investment in the narrow interest of boosting share prices for the benefit of shareholders and corporate executives. To counter the increasing popularity of buybacks, they proposed legislation that would permit buybacks only after several preconditions for investing in workers and communities had been met. Echoing their concerns, the White House's framework for the Build Back Better bill included a 1% surcharge on stock buybacks, “which corporate executives too often use to enrich themselves rather than investing in workers and growing the economy.” Chart II-1The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back Buybacks’ opponents may mean well, but they seem to be missing an essential point: by and large, the companies that buy back their own stock lack enough attractive investment opportunities to absorb the cash their operations generate. Companies with more opportunities than cash don’t buy back stock; they issue it (and/or borrow) to get the capital to pursue them. The simple generalization that large, mature companies buy back shares while small, growing companies issue new ones is borne out by rolling 12-month percentage changes in shares outstanding by large-cap and small-cap companies (Chart II-1). On an equal-weighted basis, large-cap companies’ rolling share count was flat to modestly down for ten years before the pandemic drove net issuance. Adjusting for market cap, rolling net issuance has been uninterruptedly negative, shrinking by more than 2% per year, on average. The equally weighted small-cap population has been a net issuer to the tune of about 4% annually, with the biggest small-caps issuing even more, pushing the cap-weighted annual average to north of 6%. The bottom line is that large-cap companies in the aggregate have been modestly trimming their share counts, with the biggest companies retiring more than 2% of their shares each year, while small-cap companies are serial issuers, led by their largest (and presumably most bankable) constituents. We are investors serving investors, not policymakers, academics or editorial columnists charged with developing and evaluating public policy. Our mandate is bullish or bearish, not good or bad. We point out the flaws in the prevailing criticism of buybacks simply to make the point that buybacks are not an impediment to productive investment and that no one should therefore expect that productivity and income will rise if legislators or regulators restrict them. On the contrary, since we believe that buybacks represent an efficient allocation of capital, we would expect that successful attempts to limit them will hold back growth at the margin. The Buyback Calculus A company that buys back more of its shares than it issues reduces its share count. All else equal, a company with fewer shares outstanding will report greater earnings per share and a higher return on equity. Increased earnings per share (EPS) does not necessarily ensure a higher share price; if a company’s P/E multiple declines by more than EPS rises, its price will fall. Distributing retained earnings to shareholders reduces a company’s capital buffer against shocks and limits its ability to fund investment internally, but companies that embark on the most ambitious buyback campaigns likely face limited investment opportunities and have much more of a buffer than they could conceivably require. Revealed preferences suggest that management teams like buybacks. They have every interest in getting share prices higher to maximize the value of their own compensation, which typically contains an equity component that accounts for an increasing share of total compensation the more they rise in the company’s hierarchy. It is unclear, however, just how much their attachment to buybacks is founded on an expectation that buying back stock will boost its price. The opportunity to extend their tenure by pursuing a shareholder-friendly policy may well offer a stronger incentive. Do Buybacks Boost Share Prices? Returning cash to shareholders is widely perceived as good corporate governance. It increases the effective near-term yield on an equity investment and denies management the cash to pursue dubious expansion schemes or squander capital on lavish perquisites. It facilitates the reallocation of capital away from cash cows to more productive uses. Buybacks are squarely beneficial in theory, but are they good for investors in practice? (Please see the Box II-1 for a description of the methodology we followed to answer the empirical question.) Box II-1 Performance Calculation Methodology After separating stocks into large- and small-cap categories based on Standard & Poor’s market cap parameters for inclusion in the S&P 500 and the SmallCap 600 indexes, we ranked the constituents in each category in reverse order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding at the end of each month from 2011 through 2021. We then placed the top three deciles (the biggest reducers of their share counts) into the High Buybacks bucket and the bottom three deciles (the biggest net issuers) into the Low Buybacks bucket. We used the buckets to backtest a zero-net-exposure strategy of buying the stocks in the High bucket with the proceeds from shorting the stocks in the Low bucket, calling it the High-Minus-Low (“HML”) strategy. We computed two sets of HML results for the large-cap and small-cap universes. The first populated the buckets without regard for sector representation (“sector-agnostic”) and the second populated the buckets in line with the sector composition of the S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 Indexes (“sector-neutral”). We also track equal-weighted and cap-weighted versions of each HML bucket to gain a sense of performance differences between constituents by size. The experience of the last ten years fails to support the widely held view that stock buybacks boost share prices. Following a zero-net-exposure strategy of owning the top three deciles of large-cap companies ranked by the rolling 12-month percentage reduction of shares outstanding and shorting the bottom three deciles generated a modest positive annual return above 1% (Chart II-2). Small caps merely broke even, largely because their biggest share reducers sharply underperformed in Year 1 of the pandemic. On a cap-weighted basis, however, the large-cap strategy generated a negative annual return a little over 1% during the period, indicating that the largest companies pursuing buyback programs lagged their net issuer counterparts. For small caps, the cap-weighted strategy also lagged the equal-weighted strategy, albeit by a smaller margin. On a sector-neutral basis, the large-cap HML strategy roundly disappointed. The equal-weighted version was never able to do much more than break even, slipping into the red when COVID arrived, while the cap-weighted version continuously lagged it, shedding about 1.5% annually (Chart II-3). Though it was hit hard by the pandemic, the equal-weighted small-cap HML strategy managed to generate about 1% annually, and boasted a 3.5% annualized return for the eight years through 2019. Chart II-2Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Chart II-3... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor   Drilling down to the sector level offers some additional insights. While changes in shares outstanding vary across large-cap sectors, with six sectors reducing their shares outstanding and five expanding them, every small-cap sector has been a net issuer in every single year, ex-Discretionaries and Industrials in 2019 (Chart II-4). Relative sector capital needs are largely consistent regardless of market cap, however, with REITs, which distribute all their income to preserve their tax-free status, unable to expand without raising cash in the capital markets, and Utilities, Energy and traditional Telecom Services being capital-intensive industries (Table II-1). Many Tech niches are capital-light, and established Industrials and Consumer businesses often throw off cash. Chart II-4 Chart II- There is less large- and small-cap commonality in HML relative sector performance than in relative sector issuance. Away from Real Estate, Tech and Discretionaries, small-cap HML sector strategies generated aggregate positive returns, led by Communication Services and Energy (Chart II-5). For the large caps, most HML sector strategies produced negative alpha, though the four winners and the one modest loser (Financials) are among the six sectors that have net retired shares outstanding since 2012. Tech is the conspicuous exception, with its HML strategy yielding annualized losses exceeding 3%, contrasting with the sector’s enthusiastic buyback embrace. Chart II-5 The Corporate Life Cycle Surprising as they may be on their face, negative cap-weighted ten-year HML returns do not mean that buybacks are counterproductive. We simply think they illustrate that net issuance activity follows from a company’s position in the corporate life cycle (Figure II-1). Investors have prized growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and the companies with the best growth prospects are often younger companies just beginning to tap their addressable markets. They have a long pathway of market share capture ahead of them and need to raise capital to begin traveling it. Many of these strong growers populate the Low basket, especially in the Tech sector. Chart II- Chart II- Companies that return cash to their owners via share repurchases are often more mature. Their operations are comfortably profitable and generate more than enough cash to sustain them. They have already captured all the market share they’re likely to gain in their primary business and may not have an outlet for its proceeds in a space in which they have a plausible competitive advantage. Lacking a clear path to bettering the returns from their main operations, they have been steadily accumulating cash for a long time. Through the lens of the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) growth share matrix,2 a successful business in the Maturity stage of the business life cycle is known as a Cash Cow. Cash Cows have gained considerable market share in their industry, affording them a competitive advantage based on scale, brand and experience, but little scope for growth because they have saturated a market that is itself mature (Figure II-2). BCG advises management teams with a portfolio of business lines to milk Cash Cows for capital to reinvest in high-share, high-growth-potential Stars or low-share, high-growth-potential Question Marks that could be developed into Stars. In the public markets, a mature large-cap company that retains its excess capital impedes its owners’ ability to redeploy that capital to faster growing investments, subverting the overall economy’s ability to redirect capital to its best uses. Walmart, Twentieth-Century Growth Darling Chart II-6From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder Walmart fits the business life cycle framework to a T and has evolved into a textbook Cash Cow. It is a dominant player that executed its initial strategy so well that it has maxed out its share in the declining/stagnating brick-and-mortar retail industry. Its international attempts to replicate its domestic success have uniformly failed to gain traction, and it currently operates in fewer major countries than it's exited. Given Walmart’s star-crossed international experience and the dismal history of large corporate combinations, returning cash may be the optimal use of shareholder capital. Walmart began life as a public company in fiscal 1971 squarely in the Growth phase. It was profitable from the start and grew annual revenues by at least 25% for every one of its first 23 years of public ownership (Chart II-6, top panel). It was a modest issuer of shares during its Growth phase, conducting just one secondary common stock offering 12 years after its IPO and otherwise limiting growth in shares outstanding to acquisitions, management incentive awards and debt and preferred stock conversions. Once its revenue growth slipped into the low double-digits in the late nineties, it began retiring its shares at a deliberate pace (Table II-2). That retirement inaugurated a ramping up of Walmart’s annual payout ratio (Chart II-6, bottom panel) and cash yield (dividend yield plus buyback yield), underlining its transition from Growth to Maturity. Walmart’s 2010 admission into the S&P 500 Pure Value Index marked its ripening into full maturity, and it has been a Pure Value fixture since 2013. Today’s stolid icon is a far cry from the ambitious disruptor on display in its 1980 Annual Report: Chart II- Subsequent to year end, your Company’s directors authorized [a one-third] increase in the annual dividend[.] This continues your Company’s approach of distributing a portion of profits to our shareholders and utilizing the balance to fund our aggressive expansion program. [T]he decade of the ’70’s … has been a tremendous growth period for your Company. In January 1970, we … had 32 stores …, comprising less than a million square feet of retail space. In the next ten years, we added 258 … stores, … constructed and opened three new distribution facilities, and increased our retail space to 12.6 million square feet. During that same period of time, we increased our sales and earnings at an annual compounded rate well in excess of 40 percent. Reflecting upon the progress we have made in the ‘70’s makes it apparent that there is even more opportunity in the ‘80’s for your Company, and we are better positioned to maximize our opportunities … than ever before. The Exception That Proves The Rule Apple has shined so far in the twenty-first century much like Walmart did in the latter stages of the twentieth, growing its revenues and net income at compound annual rates exceeding 20% and 25%, respectively. Unlike Walmart, however, Apple hasn’t required a steady stream of capital to grow. While Walmart had to plow its earnings right back into the business to fund the acquisition and buildout of property to create stores, warehouses and distribution centers, Apple has simply had to make incremental improvements to its music players, phones and tablets while shoring up the moats around its virtual app and music marketplaces. As a result, cash and retained earnings began silting up on Apple’s balance sheet, lying fallow in short-term marketable securities and crimping a range of return metrics. Chart II- Beginning in its 2013 fiscal year, Apple embarked on a lengthy strategy of returning that cash to shareholders, buying back stock at a rate that has allowed it to reduce its shares outstanding by 37.5% in the space of nine years (Table II-3). It has reduced its retained earnings by more than $90 billion over that span and is on course to wipe them out completely in the fiscal year ending next September. Equity issuance in the form of incentive compensation augments Apple’s capital by about $5 billion per year, but if it continues to distribute more than 100% of its annual earnings in the form of dividends and repurchases, it could wipe out the rest of its recorded equity capital as well. Does this mean Apple is in danger of sliding into insolvency? Not in the least. The value of its assets dramatically exceeds the value of its liabilities, as evidenced by its nearly $3 trillion market cap and the top AAA credit rating Moody’s awarded it this week. Its reported book value is artificially suppressed by generally accepted accounting principles’ inability to value organically developed intellectual property (IP). Apple’s book value and that of other companies that generate similar IP, or benefit from internally generated moats, are dramatically undervalued. Takeaways For now, Apple is an anomaly when it comes to aggressively returning cash to shareholders while it is still in the Growth stage of its life cycle. Returning cash is typically the province of mature companies with steady operations that are unlikely to grow. It is generally good for the economy when those companies return excess cash to shareholders, freeing it up for more productive uses. If lawmakers or regulators manage to restrict the flow of capital from cash-cow companies to potential stars, we should expect activity to slow at the margin, not quicken. The experience of the last ten years suggests that companies that shrink their share counts do not outperform their counterparts that expand them. The trading strategy of shorting the biggest net share issuers to purchase the biggest net share reducers has produced negative returns. It is unclear if shareholders of companies who cannot redeploy their internally generated capital to augment the returns from their primary operations would be better served if their manager-agents retained the capital, though we suspect they would not. It seems inevitable that manager-agents with access to too much capital will eventually get into mischief. If buying back stock represents good corporate stewardship at mature companies, their shareholders should someday be rewarded for it. Given that the companies most suited to buying back stock tend to fit in the Value style box, the zero-net-exposure HML strategy may continue to accrue losses. Apple remains an outlier among Growth companies as an avid buyer of its stock; much more common are the S&P 500 Life and Multi-Line Insurer sub-industry groups, without which the S&P 500 Pure Value Index would have a hard time reaching a quorum (Table II-4). Their constituents have assiduously bought back their stock over the last ten years, albeit to no relative avail (Chart II-7). However, they should be better positioned once Value returns to favor and rising interest rates make investing their cash flow a more attractive proposition. Chart II- Chart II-7... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist   Footnotes 1   Opinion | Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed December 17, 2021. 2   https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix Accessed December 19, 2021.