Financial Markets

Highlights The great political surprises of 2016 are approaching key deadlines on November 3 and December 31. Investors should not let Brexit take their eye off the US election. Globalization will retreat faster under Trump regardless of what happens in the United Kingdom. The market is starting to price several clear risks: a failure to extend fiscal relief in the US (25% chance); a surprise Trump tariff move (40%); a contested election (20%); or a failure of the UK and EU to seal a deal (35%). Trump is unlikely to pull off a landslide like Boris Johnson in December 2019. The backdrop has darkened and Biden is an acceptable alternative for voters, unlike Jeremy Corbyn. Go long GBP-USD at the 1.25 mark; go long GBP-EUR volatility. Feature The end game is approaching for the two great political shocks of 2016 – Brexit and Trump. November 3 is the US election and December 31 is the deadline for an UK-EU trade deal. Investor sentiment is starting to show some cracks for various reasons, some technical (Chart 1). But we do not believe near-term volatility and risk-off sentiment have fully run their course yet. Either the US election cycle or the UK’s brinkmanship with the EU, or both, will agitate markets as the deadlines approach. The former is a much weightier factor. Chart 1Market Starts To Price Bevy Of Near-Term Risks ... But Cyclical View Still Constructive Market Starts To Price Bevy Of Near-Term Risks ... But Cyclical View Still Constructive Market Starts To Price Bevy Of Near-Term Risks ... But Cyclical View Still Constructive The risks in play are a failure to extend fiscal relief in the US (25% chance); a conflict between Trump and one of America’s foreign rivals such as China, whether due to Trump’s reelection or lame duck status (40%); a contested election (20%); or a failure of the UK and EU to seal a deal, setting back their economic recovery (35%). Maybe all of these risks will dissipate by mid-November, but maybe not. The market has not discounted any of them fully. So investors should buy insurance now. Vox Populi Is The Biggest Constraint For global investors Brexit is far less consequential than President Trump’s “America First” policy but the UK does punch above its economic weight in financial markets (Chart 2). Chart 2Brexit: Why Should We Care? UK Punches Above Its Economic Weight In Financial Markets Brexit: Why Should We Care? UK Punches Above Its Economic Weight In Financial Markets Brexit: Why Should We Care? UK Punches Above Its Economic Weight In Financial Markets Geopolitical analysis teaches that limitations on policymakers should be the starting point of analysis. For democracies, the biggest constraint of all is the vox populi – the voice of the people, or popular will. The Brexit movement faced a vociferous “Resistance” that won over the media and financial market consensus until reality struck in the general election of December 12, in which the Conservative Party won a historic victory. Chart 3Joe Biden Is Not Jeremy Corbyn The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The election vindicated Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s brinkmanship and “hard Brexit” terms, while once again chastening the elites and experts – including an innovative Supreme Court. Johnson’s single-party majority, combined with COVID-19 and the surge in domestic economic stimulus, have increased the odds that the UK will choose sovereignty over the economy and walk away from trade talks. Trump’s supporters show the same enthusiasm as Brexiteers and the same scorn for conventional wisdom and opinion polls. Will they be similarly vindicated? Beyond any knee-jerk equity rally, that would entail a “Phase Two” trade war with China – and possibly a new trade war with Europe or a global trade war. However, Trump faces much worse odds than Boris Johnson did. First, Johnson’s snap election took place at the top of the business cycle, back when a novel coronavirus was just starting to be discovered in Wuhan, China. This is how Harry Truman won his surprise victory in 1948, in defiance of all the opinion polls. Had Truman run in 1949, after a deep recession, the story would have gone differently – which is a problem for both Trump and the near-term equity market. Second, the political alternative was not acceptable in the United Kingdom but it is in the United States. Johnson led Jeremy Corbyn, a far-left rival for the premiership, by around 15%-20% in the polls. The Conservative Party itself led the Labour Party by 10%. By contrast, former Vice President Joe Biden is a center-left Democrat who has many flaws but is not out of the mainstream. He leads President Trump in the polling, as do Democrats over Republicans, though only by single digits. There is no contest between Biden and Corbyn (Chart 3). Trump might still win, but an American version of the UK landslide in 2019 is unlikely. Trump will lose the popular vote even if he wins the Electoral College, and Republicans have a very slim chance of winning the House of Representatives. The implication for financial markets is doubly negative, at least in the near term: there is about a 35% chance that the UK will leave without a deal and about a 35% chance that Trump will win. He could also kick China in the interim period if he loses. Won’t stocks cheer a Trump comeback and victory? Perhaps, but a data-dependent approach suggests that a “blue sweep” is still the base case, and that would be a good trigger for a full equity correction. Nor would a Trump win be positive for long-term equity returns in the final analysis. Trump is reflationary, but a larger trade war would hamper the global economic recovery and thus keep earnings suppressed. There is a 35% chance that Trump will win re-election. Trump is unlikely to win the national vox populi, like Brexit did, but he obviously can win the popular vote in the critical regions – the Sun Belt and the Rust Belt. If he does, the revolution in the global system will be confirmed: the retreat of globalization will accelerate. If he does not, then Brexit alone cannot confirm de-globalization; rather the UK will face even more pressure to make concessions and get a trade deal. Trump’s Path To Victory Chart 4Sitting Presidents Win Half The Time If Recession Ends In H1 Sitting Presidents Win Half The Time If Recession Ends In H1 Sitting Presidents Win Half The Time If Recession Ends In H1 We may well be forced to upgrade Trump’s odds of winning if his comeback gains momentum. Our subjective odds of a Trump win come from the historical record – incumbent parties only retain the White House amid recessions five out of 13 times in American history – but there are some important exceptions. First, the longest-serving American president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served during the Great Depression. So obviously a bad economy does not always disqualify a president. Nevertheless FDR got lucky with the timing of the fluctuations and he was personally popular, unlike President Trump. Second, an incumbent president wins 50% of the time if the recession ends before the election – namely in 1900, 1904, and 1924 (contrasted with defeats in 1888, 1912, and 1980). Today’s market performance looks similar to these cases, though premature fiscal tightening is now jeopardizing Trump’s bid (Chart 4). Assuming new stimulus passes, it is extremely beneficial for President Trump that COVID-19 cases are subsiding (Chart 5). Chart 5COVID-19 Subsides In Nick Of Time For Trump? The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Chart 6Even Approval Of Trump’s Pandemic Response Improving The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit His approval rating on handling COVID-19 is somewhat recovering at the moment (Chart 6). Trump’s “law and order” message is also benefiting him amid the rise in vandalism, rioting, and homicide, judging by his improvement in national approval rating across almost all demographic groups, including many that are otherwise averse to Trump. Finally, Trump’s Abraham Accords – a potentially major peace deal between Israel and an expanding list of Arab states – could give his image another boost (Table 1). Foreign policy will not decide the election but these peace deals should not be underrated because they underscore a more important argument for voters: that the US should withdraw from its endless foreign wars and pursue peace and prosperity instead. If Trump’s typically weak approval rating on foreign policy starts to rise then his comeback gains breadth. Table 1The Abraham Accords Give Boost To Trump Image As Peacemaker The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit We will upgrade our 35% odds of Trump’s re-election if Congress passes a new fiscal relief package, assuming Trump’s polling continues to improve. Our quantitative model is now giving Trump a 45% chance, which is in line with the consensus view but well above our subjective odds (Chart 7). We will upgrade our view if Congress passes a new fiscal relief package, assuming Trump’s polling continues to improve. Chart 7Quantitative US Election Model Puts Trump Win At 45% Odds The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Chart 8Stimulus Hiccups Cause Market To Sell Stimulus Hiccups Cause Market To Sell Stimulus Hiccups Cause Market To Sell The stock market does not perform well during periods in which fiscal cliff negotiations are prolonged – the failure of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in 2008 is one thing, but today’s impasse is more reminiscent of the debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013. Trump is now directly pressuring Senate Republicans to capitulate to House Democratic spending demands. If Republican senators abandon him, market turmoil will undercut his argument that he is the best man to revive the economy and he will lose the election (Chart 8). We do not think they will – and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pledge to keep the House in session until a deal is passed is very positive news – but until the deal is sealed the market is vulnerable. As mentioned above we give a 25% chance of a failure to pass any stimulus bill in September or October. The next chance for stimulus will be in late January or February. Trump stands for growth at all costs, which will be received well by equity markets, other things being equal. But a Trump victory implies more trade war and that the GOP will retain the Senate, creating a steeper fiscal cliff next year – so any relief rally will be short-lived. Meanwhile a Trump defeat raises the risk he will take aggressive actions on the way out to cement his legacy as the Man Who Confronted China, and bind the Biden administration to decoupling policy. This is not a favorable outlook for investor sentiment or the economic recovery over the next few months. Brexit: The Three Kingdoms Will Force A Trade Deal Chart 9Sterling Will Fall Before It Bounces Back On A Deal Sterling Will Fall Before It Bounces Back On A Deal Sterling Will Fall Before It Bounces Back On A Deal In December 2016 we pointed to the three kingdoms – England, Ireland, and Scotland – as the origin of the geopolitical and constitutional crisis that would arise from the Brexit referendum and act as a powerful bar against a no-deal Brexit. That framework remains salient today as the risk of no-deal escalates due to quarrels over Northern Ireland Protocol, which was agreed in October 2019 as part of the formal Withdrawal Agreement that made Brexit happen on January 31, 2020. The implication is that the pound has not bottomed yet, though we see a buying opportunity around the corner (Chart 9). No one should doubt that the UK could walk away from the EU without a deal this December: The Tories’ single-party majority gives them the raw capability to push through plans they decide on – and raises the risk that they will overreach. The tariff shock of a no-deal exit is frequently exaggerated. The UK would suffer a tariff shock of about 1.38% of GDP, larger than what the US suffered in its tariff-war with China but hardly a death knell (Table 2). (The costs of losing single-market access would grow over time, however.) Table 2A No-Trade-Deal Brexit Would Create A Minimum Tariff Shock Of 1.4% Of GDP The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit COVID-19 has supplanted the worst-case outcome of a no-deal exit by producing a much worse recession than anyone feared. The US is using the disruption to decouple from China and the UK could do the same with the EU. The result of COVID-19 is massive domestic stimulus that raises the UK’s and Europe’s threshold for pain. Any failure of trade talks would spur more stimulus. The Bank of England still has some bond-buying ammunition left and parliament, again, is undivided. Given that Boris Johnson has until 2024 before the next election, there is theoretically time for his personal and party approval ratings to improve as the economy recovers from the pandemic and any messy Brexit (Chart 10). Chart 10Bojo Has Until 2024 To Recover From Crises The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Chart 11UK Would Face WTO-Level Tariffs If No Deal The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The UK’s position in the quarrel over Ireland is rational – but so is the EU’s. If the trade talks collapse, the UK will need to remove any regulatory or customs divisions with Northern Ireland. Yet in preparing to do so it vitiates trust with the EU and makes a trade deal less likely. However, weighing all these points up, an UK-EU trade deal is still the most likely outcome (65% chance), as the economic and political costs are crystal clear while the benefits of a hard break are not so clear. Allow us to explain. Northern Ireland is the latest cause of tensions, although it was inevitable that tensions would arise ahead of the end-of-year deadline for a trade deal. Westminster has proposed an Internal Market Bill, which has passed with solid majorities in two readings in parliament, to reclaim aspects of sovereignty over Northern Ireland that were traded away to clinch the Withdrawal Agreement last year. The Johnson government’s position should be seen as a negotiating tactic to build leverage in the talks but also as a real fallback position if the talks fail. The House of Lords could delay the bill by a year, meaning that it may not take effect until end of 2021 – but a trade deal would make it moot. The Northern Ireland Protocol solved the riddle of how to preserve the integrity of the EU’s single market after Brexit yet avoid a return to a hard customs border with the Republic of Ireland. Customs checks were removed with the Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement in 1998, which ended the Troubles between the two Irelands. The Protocol introduces a pseudo-customs border on the Irish Sea, requiring declarations on exports to Great Britain and EU oversight of UK state aid for Northern Irish firms, so that Northern Ireland can stay in the EU customs area while the UK can leave and still preserve a semblance of its own customs area in Northern Ireland. If the UK and EU get a trade deal, then all trade is tariff-free and the Protocol becomes redundant. Also, the Protocol enables a Joint Committee to review disputes over exports to Northern Ireland that are “at risk” of making their way into the EU without duties. The Protocol is supposed to operate even if the UK and EU fail to get a trade deal. Yet it is politically untenable for the UK to subject trade within its own country to EU rules or duties, or allow the EU to supervise state corporate subsidies across the UK, if no deal is agreed. The UK is more likely to violate the treaty to preserve its internal integrity. As Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitted, “Yes, this [Internal Market Bill] does break international law in a very specific and limited way.” While the EU’s threat to slap tariffs on British food exports to Northern Ireland is the proximate trigger of the Internal Market Bill, another key reason for the UK’s aggressive shift is the issue of state aid. All governments are extending emergency aid to major corporations to keep them from insolvency amid the recession. This will be the case for some time and it is even more true of the EU than of the United Kingdom. However, under the Protocol, the EU would be able to penalize companies in Great Britain that receive subsidies if goods or firms in Northern Ireland can be shown to benefit. Northern Ireland is supposed to operate within the EU’s standards on state aid. London obviously bristles at this backdoor for letting in EU regulation, not least because, in the event that a trade deal is not reached, it will need to pump the country full of state aid to compensate for the shock of seeing exports to the EU rise by 3% across the board according to Most Favored Nation status under the World Trade Organization (Chart 11). An UK-EU trade deal is the most likely outcome. As Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy points out, Boris needs to keep his own Tories under his heel (Chart 12). The Internal Market Bill provoked a backlash among 30 moderates. If that number rises to 40 Johnson loses his majority. This is a problem that he is seeking to address by giving parliament a veto over any future uses of the bill that would violate international law (this is an acceptable compromise because he has a majority). But a failure to drive a hard bargain with the EU would cause a much bigger rebellion among hard Brexit Conservative MPs and threaten his job. Chart 12Bojo Must Balance Hard Brexit Tories The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Geopolitics is about might, not right – the UK can assert its sovereignty and violate these international agreements, while the EU can then apply punitive tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and sanctions under the Withdrawal Agreement. Brexit is a power-political struggle that could devolve into a trade war. Obviously that would be a very bad outcome for the market, particularly for the UK, which is overmatched (Chart 13). But this risk is also a key limitation on the UK that will prevent this worst-case outcome. Indeed, despite all of the above, our base case is still that the UK and EU will get a deal. First, the economy will clearly suffer without a deal. After all, the US-China tariffs produced a negative effect for these two economies in 2019 and the impact on the UK would be bigger than that on the US (Chart 14). Chart 13The Brick Wall The UK Cannot Avoid The Brick Wall The UK Cannot Avoid The Brick Wall The UK Cannot Avoid Chart 14UK Faces Trade Shock If No Deal UK Faces Trade Shock If No Deal UK Faces Trade Shock If No Deal Second, the public doesn’t support a no-deal exit (Chart 15). Northern Ireland itself voted against Brexit in the referendum and as such would rather see an agreement that groups the UK and the EU under a single zero-tariff free trade agreement. Third, Boris faces a rebellion in Scotland if he pursues a hard break. The Scottish National Party would revive ahead of Scottish elections in May 2021 and demand a second independence referendum (Chart 16). The Irish Sea is a natural division that makes a more intrusive customs presence more supportable than otherwise. A little more paperwork is an acceptable cost to keep the United Kingdom from falling apart. Scotland is much more likely to go independent than Ireland is to unite. Chart 15Only 25% Think 'No Deal' A Good Outcome The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Boris is now prime minister, not just party leader, and he will ultimately have to decide whether he wants to be the last prime minister of a United Kingdom. Assuming Boris is at least focused on the next election, he will have to decide if he wants the rest of his premiership to be consumed with a self-inflicted double-dip recession and democratic revolt in Scotland, or a recovery on the back of a functional if uninspiring trade deal enabling him to head off the Scottish threat and save the union. Chart 16No Deal' Would Boost Scottish Independence Movement No Deal' Would Boost Scottish Independence Movement No Deal' Would Boost Scottish Independence Movement Obviously the final deal may not be clinched until the eleventh hour. The October 15 deadline can be delayed but talks must conclude in November or December in time to be ratified by the EU member states by December 31. US Election Drives Geopolitics, But Not The Brexit Outcome One factor that will not play much of a role in the UK’s decision-making is the US election. It is true that the Johnson government would benefit from President Trump’s reelection. But the EU is a much bigger market for the UK and the UK’s best strategy is to focus on its national interest regardless of what the US does. The US election may not be decided in mid-December in time for the UK to agree to a deal that can be ratified by year’s end anyway. Moreover the UK’s best strategy is to conclude a deal with the EU first, and then pursue a deal with the United States. This is because President Trump will be inclined to sign at least an executive deal, while a congressional deal requires support from the Democrats, which is only possible if Northern Ireland is resolved without hard border checks. Because the EU makes up such a larger share of British trade, an American deal does not give the UK much leverage in negotiating with the EU, but an EU deal does give the UK greater leverage in negotiating with the US. As Diagrams 1 and 2 show, this strategic logic holds even if the UK knows the outcome of the US election ahead of time: the scenarios with the least benefit and the greatest cost would still be scenarios involving no deal with the European Union. Diagrams 1 & 2United Kingdom Wants An EU Trade Deal (Regardless Of Trump/Biden) The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Diagram 3 boils all of this down to a single decision tree. First, the diagram shows that the economic costs are not prohibitive and therefore the risk of a no-deal exit is substantial – we would say 35%. Second, it shows that the risks of the negotiation are skewed to the downside. Third, it highlights that the UK will settle its affairs directly with the EU and not hinge its actions on the US election cycle. Diagram 3No-Deal Brexit Cost Not Prohibitive, But Best Strategy Is To Get A Deal The End-Game For Trump And Brexit The End-Game For Trump And Brexit Clearly the best strategy and best outcome involve seeking a trade deal with the EU, and hence it is our base case. This means an opportunity to buy the pound and domestic-oriented British equities, and turn neutral on gilts, is just around the corner. Investment Takeaways The GBP-EUR is the best measure of the market’s sensitivity to Brexit risks, so it should fall in the near term and rally sharply after resolution. However, the US election complicates things. The euro’s response is fairly binary: it is one of the biggest winners if Biden wins and one of the biggest losers if Trump wins. Hence GBP-EUR volatility will rise in the coming months (Chart 17). We recommend going long 1-month implied volatility contracts for October and November. The pound sterling, by contrast, will ultimately rise regardless of US election result, since the UK will pursue a trade deal out of its own national interest. Trump is less negative for the US dollar than Biden and a comeback and victory will drive a counter-trend dollar bounce. However, in the medium term we expect the dollar to fall regardless due to debt monetization and global growth recovery. Thus we recommend going long GBP-USD on a strategic basis when political risks peak over the next two-to-three months and GBP-USD falls to around 1.25, as recommended by our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor (Chart 18). Chart 17EUR-GBP Volatility Will Rise EUR-GBP Volatility Will Rise EUR-GBP Volatility Will Rise Sterling bears are forgetting that the sound defeat of Corbyn ruled out a sharp left-wing turn in domestic economic policy (higher taxes), while the Tories have made a clear turn against fiscal austerity. Therefore the worst-case scenario is a failure to agree to a trade deal by the end of this year. But that is not the base case and the risk will be priced within a month or two. Chart 18Pound Will Rally After Deal Concluded In November Or December Pound Will Rally After Deal Concluded In November Or December Pound Will Rally After Deal Concluded In November Or December Chart 19Yes, China Is Opening The Taps Yes, China Is Opening The Taps Yes, China Is Opening The Taps We remain tactically cautious and defensive even though the US fiscal negotiations are improving. The market is underrating too many clear and concrete risks to sentiment and the corporate earnings outlook, so the current bout of volatility can continue until there is greater clarity on US fiscal spending, the US election cycle, associated geopolitical risks, and the Brexit showdown. Book gains on long Brent trade for a return of 69.7%. We initiated this trade on March 27 in our “No Depression” report, which marked our shift to a strategic risk-on positioning. We remain bullish on oil prices and commodities on the back of global stimulus and our assessment that the OPEC 3.0 cartel will maintain discipline overall, but the next three-to-six months are crowded with downside risk. Cyclically, we see a global economic recovery deepening and broadening. China’s stimulus is surprising to the upside, as we have long written and the latest credit numbers bear this view out (Chart 19), which is critical for global reflation.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights If it can maintain production discipline over the next 2-3 years, OPEC 2.0 will be the oil market’s most important determinant of price levels for years. The massive increase in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity resulting from COVID-19-induced demand destruction, along with its low-cost production, global storage and distribution will allow it to bring crude to market quicker than US shale-oil producers, and to manage an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être.  As spare capacity is drawn down over the next couple of years, Brent and WTI forward curves will backwardate in in 1H21, as spare capacity and the slope of the forward curve are inversely related (lower spare capacity leads to higher backwardation). This will keep spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge (Chart of the Week). Parsimonious capital markets will continue to deny funding to all but the most profitable producers, which will continue to limit E+P ex-OPEC 2.0.  ESG-focused investments will increasingly favor energy producers outside the oil and gas sector.  As demand growth resumes, this will sow the seeds for higher oil prices in the mid-2020s. We will be updating our oil balances and 2H20 and 2021 forecasts – $46/bbl and $65/bbl for Brent in 2H20 and 2021 – next week.  Feature While the hit to oil producers’ revenues from the demand destruction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been severe – particularly for those states comprising OPEC 2.0, which are so heavily dependent on oil exports – it set the stage for the producer coalition to take control of global oil-price dynamics for the next couple of years. If the OPEC 2.0 coalition can maintain its production discipline, its member states could extend this control for years into the future, just as they are attempting to diversify their economies from this dependence on hydrocarbons. Once OPEC 2.0 member states manage to diversify a large part of their economies, the next optimal strategy will be to monetize their reserves and market share. Until then, it is our contention it is in these states' interest to have higher prices via gaining control of supply. The producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia today sits on some 7mm b/d of spare capacity that is a direct result of the global collapse in demand. This gives it a powerful lever to restrain the recovery of production growth in the US shales and elsewhere. Spare Capacity Turns The Tables On Shale Oil The enormous spare capacity now held by OPEC 2.0 – the majority of which is in KSA – allows the coalition to turn the tables on the US shales and producers ex-US Since its inception in late 2016, OPEC 2.0 has accommodated higher US shale production by reducing its output and then expanding it at a slower rate, as US production soared to meet domestic demand and, increasingly, global oil demand (Chart 2). OPEC 2.0 has been in operation since January 2017. Over that period, the coalition reduced its output growth ~ 0.37% for every 1% increase in crude and liquids output ex-OPEC 2.0. Within that adjustment, OPEC 2.0’s output falls by 0.16% for every 1% increase in US output, most of which was accounted for by the unprecedented growth of shale production.1 The enormous spare capacity now held by OPEC 2.0 – the majority of which is in KSA – allows the coalition to turn the tables on the US shales and producers ex-US (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekFalling OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Backwardate Brent Forward Curves Falling OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Backwardate Brent Forward Curves Falling OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Backwardate Brent Forward Curves Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Accommodated US Shales OPEC 2.0 Accommodated US Shales OPEC 2.0 Accommodated US Shales Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Would Benefit From Maintaining Spare Capacity At High Levels OPEC 2.0 Would Benefit From Maintaining Spare Capacity At High Levels OPEC 2.0 Would Benefit From Maintaining Spare Capacity At High Levels Along with its low-cost production, global storage and distribution, this spare capacity allows OPEC 2.0 member states to bring crude to market quicker than US shale-oil producers as the need for additional supply becomes apparent. This was demonstrated earlier this year by KSA when it engaged in a brief market-share war with Russia following the breakdown of negotiations to extend OPEC 2.0’s production cuts.2 The spare capacity also allows the coalition to manage an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être, by making crude available out of production on short notice. As a result, Brent and WTI forward curves will backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. By keeping forward curves backwardated, the amount of revenue – i.e., price x quantity – hedged is limited by lower forward prices vs. spot prices. This limits the volume of oil a producer can bring to market in the future. Extending OPEC 2.0’s Low-Cost Spare Capacity In the near term, we expect OPEC 2.0’s production to come back faster and stronger than that of the US shales. The advantage OPEC 2.0 realizes from holding spare capacity – KSA in particular – can be extended at low cost going forward.3 And, if OPEC 2.0 communicates its intent to maintain spare capacity at higher levels than have prevailed recently, as was indicated last week by Aramco’s CEO, who announced KSA intends to raise capacity 1mm b/d to 13mm b/d, this could, at the margin, disincentivize investment in production ex-OPEC 2.0 in the future.4 Developing spare capacity for low-cost producers like Aramco is akin to building a portfolio of deep-in-the-money options to increase output quickly at minimal expense. These options can be exercised – i.e., output can be increased in short order at low cost – before competitors can mobilize to meet the market need. What makes this strategy credible is KSA’s capacity to surge production and put oil on the water in VLCCs at astonishing speed, as noted above vis-à-vis the breakdown in negotiations earlier this year in Vienna to extend production cuts. In the near term, we expect OPEC 2.0’s production to come back faster and stronger than that of the US shales (Chart 4). This will allow them to begin rebuilding revenues sooner as demand recovers (Chart 5). Any demand increase in excess of OPEC 2.0’s flowing supply – which could be restrained to force refiners to draw storage (Chart 6) – can be met with spare capacity and storage held or controlled by coalition members. Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Supply Recovers Faster Than US Shales OPEC 2.0 Supply Recovers Faster Than US Shales OPEC 2.0 Supply Recovers Faster Than US Shales Chart 5Rate Of Demand Growth Will Exceed Supply Growth Rate Of Demand Growth Will Exceed Supply Growth Rate Of Demand Growth Will Exceed Supply Growth Chart 6Forcing Inventories Lower Forcing Inventories Lower Forcing Inventories Lower Capital-Market Parsimony Will Tighten Supply Equity investors have abandoned the oil and gas sector, as can be seen in the collapse in the percentage of the overall market accounted for by energy stocks (Chart 7). Chart 7Energy Share Of Overall Market Collapses Energy Share Of Overall Market Collapses Energy Share Of Overall Market Collapses This no doubt is fueled by underperformance vs. technology stocks and other alternatives available to investors, and to a migration toward Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing (Chart 8). Indeed, as our colleagues in BCA’s Global Asset Allocation Strategy noted, “ESG-related equities have outperformed global benchmarks over the past two years, as well as during the recent equity selloff.” In addition, “green energy” investments account for half of the $300 billion G20 governments have allocated to clean energy policies and renewable energy programs as part of the COVID-19 fiscal stimulus deployed worldwide.5 Chart 8ESG Investment Surge Oil's Next Bull Market, Courtesy Of COVID-19 Oil's Next Bull Market, Courtesy Of COVID-19 We believe this combination of a long-standing aversion to oil and gas equities and OPEC 2.0’s clear advantage in terms of its spare capacity, low-cost production and global storage and distribution networks will result in under-funding of new E+P, and will lead to a tighter market by the mid-2020s. This is particularly true for oil, which, is not confronting the competitive threat faced by natural gas vis-à-vis renewable energy. We will continue to develop these themes, and subject this thesis to fiery critique, borrowing from Kant’s methodology.6 Risks To Our View There are two major risks to the thesis developed here: OPEC 2.0 breaks down, as it came close to doing earlier this year (discussed above).  A breakdown of the coalition would lead to lower E&P investment via very low oil prices that almost surely would occur if this were to happen. This would be a far more volatile path to higher prices, which also would discourage investment. A battery-technology breakthrough that makes electric vehicles viable – i.e., unsubsidized – competitors to internal-combustion engine technology powering the vast majority of transportation. We expect Brent and WTI forward curves to backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s massive spare capacity resulting from COVID-19-induced demand destruction, its low-cost production and global storage and distribution network allow it to take control of crude-oil pricing dynamics over the next couple of years. These endowments also allow it to orchestrate an orderly drawdown in global inventories, which remains its raison d'être. As a result, we expect Brent and WTI forward curves to backwardate in 1H21, keeping spot prices realized by OPEC 2.0 states above the deferred prices at which shale producers hedge. Parsimonious capital markets and a preference for ESG-focused investment will increasingly favor energy producers outside the oil and gas sector. As demand growth resumes, this will sow the seeds for higher oil prices in the mid-2020s.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight JKM and TTF natural gas prices are up 49% and 27% over the past four weeks. The price spreads for December 2020 futures contracts between the US and Europe and Asia reached $1.6/MMBtu and $1.9/MMBtu this week. This will support the ongoing recovery in US LNG exports – which was briefly halted last month by Hurricane Laura – during the coming winter season (Chart 9). Separately, Libyan oil exports could be set to rebound following statements by General Haftar – the leader of Libyan National Army (LNA) – that he was committed to lifting the current blockade on the country’s exports, according to the US Embassy in Libya. Base Metals: Neutral China’s expansionary monetary and fiscal stimulus continued in August. The country’s total social financing (TSF) climbed past market expectations of CNY 2.59 trillion to CNY 3.58 trillion (Chart 10). This will provide further support to base metals prices – chiefly copper – over the coming months. The increase in TSF reflects the strong local government bond issuance and reinforces our view that the recovery in copper prices will be policy-driven – i.e. dictated by Chinese policymakers’ decisions on the allocation of total social financing funds in its economy with domestic supply adjusting to demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Palladium prices are up 7% since the beginning of September, supported by rebounding car sales and production in China. In August, vehicle sales grew by 12% y/y. We expect fiscal and credit stimulus in the country will allow car sales to continue growing y/y in the coming months. Ags/Softs:  Underweight Soybean prices remain strongly bid, looking to re-test 2018 highs. The latest weekly USDA crop progress report indicated continued deterioration in the number of soybean crops in good or excellent condition. Investor sentiment is fueled by China maintaining its promise to import record amounts of U.S. agricultural goods this year, as part of the Phase 1 trade deal. Last week, the U.S. Agriculture Department reported that Chinese buyers booked deals to buy 664,000 tonnes of soybeans, the largest daily total since July 22.  Chart 9LNG LNG LNG Chart 10COPPER PRICES COPPER PRICES COPPER PRICES       Footnotes 1     These estimates were generated by an ARDL model used to determine the sensitivity of OPEC 2.0 total liquids output to non-OPEC 2.0 production and consumption.  2     For a recap of this market-share war, please see KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War, which we published March 19, 2020.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  Briefly, KSA put millions of barrels on the water in a matter of months after Russia launched its market-share war at the end of OPEC’s March 2020 meeting in Vienna.  This demonstrated an ability to mobilize supply and deliver it that greatly surpassed the eight-month time frame we estimate is required for shale production to reach the market after prices signal the need for additional crude. 3    Please see The $200 billion annual value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the global economy published by The King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC) July 17, 2018, for a discussion of the global impact of KSA’s spare capacity. 4    Please see Aramco CEO: Saudi Arabia to raise oil production capacity to 13 million barrels per day published by Oil & Gas World Magazine September 9, 2020. 5    Please see ESG Investing: From Niche To Mainstream, published by BCA’s Global Asset Allocation Strategy August 25, 2020.  It is available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see O’Shea, James R. (2012), “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, An Introduction and Interpretation,” Acumen Publishing Limited, Durham, UK.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Lower Vol As OPEC 2.0 Gains Control Lower Vol As OPEC 2.0 Gains Control Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades Lower Vol As OPEC 2.0 Gains Control Lower Vol As OPEC 2.0 Gains Control

This report contains an error in the section related to consumer spending and fiscal policy. That error somewhat changes the conclusions from the report, and it particularly impacts Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. The attached note explains the mistake and includes corrected versions of Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. Highlights Duration: A re-rating of Tech stock valuations is likely not a near-term catalyst for significantly lower bond yields. Congress’ continued failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act is a greater near-term risk for bond bears. We continue to recommend an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance alongside duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Fiscal Policy: Without additional household income support from Congress, at least on the order of $500 - $800 billion, consumer spending will massively disappoint expectations during the next 6-12 months. Inflation: Inflation will continue its rapid ascent between now and the end of the year, but it is likely to level-off in 2021. We recommend staying long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, but we will be looking to take profits on that position later this year. Feature Bond Implications Of A Tech Stock Sell-Off Risk-off sentiment reigned in equity and credit markets during the past two weeks. The S&P 500 fell 7% between September 2nd and 8th and the average junk spread widened from 471 bps to 499 bps. This represents the largest sell-off since June when the equity market saw a similar 7% decline and the junk spread widened from 536 bps to 620 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions A comparison between the September and June episodes is particularly interesting for bond investors because Treasuries behaved very differently in each case. In June, bonds benefited from a flight to quality out of equities and the 10-year Treasury yield fell 22 bps. But this month, Treasuries actually delivered negative returns and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 3 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1Selected Asset Class Performance During Last Two Equity Sell-Offs More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Why would Treasuries perform so well in June but fail in their role as a diversifier of equity risk in September? The answer lies in the underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline, which are easily identified when we look at the performance of different equity sectors. Table 1 shows the performance of different equity sectors in both the June and September sell-offs. In June, it was the cyclical equity sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – that led the decline. These sectors tend to be the most sensitive to global economic growth. This month’s equity drawdown was led by Tech stocks, while cyclical and defensive sectors saw much smaller drops. Table 1 also shows that a broad measure of commodity prices – the CRB Raw Industrials index – rose by 0.79% during the September equity sell-off, significantly outpacing gains in the gold price. In June, the CRB index still rose but it lagged gold by a wide margin. The underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline explain why Treasuries performed well in June and underperformed in September. We bring up the performance of different equity sectors, commodity prices and gold because bond yields correlate most strongly with: The performance of cyclical equities over defensive equities (Chart 2, top panel). The ratio of CRB Raw Industrials over gold (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators These correlations explain why bond yields fell a lot in June but not in September. June’s equity sell-off was more like a traditional risk-off event that saw investors questioning the sustainability of the global economic recovery. The cyclical equity sectors that are most exposed to the global economic cycle experienced the worst losses and demand for safe-haven gold far outpaced the demand for growth-sensitive industrial commodities. In contrast, this month’s sell-off was driven by a re-rating of Tech stock valuations, not so much expectations for a negative economic shock. Technology now makes up such a large portion of the equity index’s market cap that this sort of move can cause the entire stock market to fall, but the pass-through to bonds will be much smaller for any equity sell-off that isn’t prompted by a negative economic shock and led by cyclical equity sectors. Implications For Bond Investors Even after this month’s drop, there remains a legitimate concern about extreme Tech stock valuations. The fact that many of the larger Tech names, like Microsoft and Apple, have benefited from the pandemic only makes it more likely that their stock prices will suffer as the world slowly returns to normal. From a bond investor’s perspective, we doubt that even a large drop in Tech stock prices would lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. Bond yields will only turn down if the market starts to question the sustainability of the economic recovery, an event that would be negative for cyclical equity sectors but much less so for the big Tech names. With that in mind, our base case outlook calls for continued economic recovery during the next 6-12 months, but we do see a significant risk that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act will lead to just such a deflationary shock during the next couple of months. We therefore recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, while positioning for continued economic recovery via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The Outlook For Consumer Spending And The Necessity Of Fiscal Stimulus After plunging during the lock-down months of March and April, consumer spending has rebounded strongly during the past few months. But can this strong rebound continue? Our view is that it cannot. That is, unless Congress delivers more income support to households. Even a large drop in Tech stock prices is unlikely to lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. In this section we consider several different economic scenarios and estimate the amount of further income support that is necessary to sustain an adequate level of consumer spending. First off, to make forecasts for consumer spending we need to consider two main parameters: household income and the personal savings rate (Chart 3). More income leads to more spending in most cases. The only exception would be if cautious households decide to increase the amount they save relative to the amount they spend. Chart 3Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We’ve actually seen that exception play out somewhat during the past five months. The CARES act provided households with an income windfall, but the savings rate also shot higher. This suggests that households had enough income to spend even more during the past few months but have been much more cautious than usual. We cannot overstate the role the CARES act has played in supporting household incomes since March. Disposable income has grown 7.4% during the past five months compared to the five months prior to COVID, and the CARES act’s provisions pressured income 10.3% higher during that period (Chart 4). The CARES act’s one-time $1200 stimulus checks and expanded $600 weekly unemployment benefits were the two most important provisions in this regard. Together, they pushed disposable income higher by 7.5%. Chart 4Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed This presents an obvious problem. The income support from the CARES act is now expired and Congress has yet to pass a follow-up stimulus bill. How vital is it that we get a new bill? And how large does it need to be? To answer these questions, we first need to set a target for adequate consumer spending growth. The second panel of Chart 3 shows 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth. That is, it looks at total consumer spending during the last 12 months and shows how much it has increased (or decreased) compared to the previous 12 months. Notice that the worst 12-month period during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) saw 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth of -3%. During the economic recovery that followed, consumer spending growth fluctuated between +2% and +6%. Exercise 1: The March 2020 To February 2021 Period Chart 5Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings In our first exercise, we consider the 12-month period starting at the very beginning of the COVID recession in March 2020 and ending in February 2021. As a bare minimum, we target consumer spending growth of -3% for this 12-month period on the presumption that 12-month spending growth equal to the worst 12 months seen during the GFC is the bare minimum that markets might tolerate. We also consider somewhat rosier scenarios of 0% and 2% spending growth. In addition to consumer spending targets, we also make assumptions for household income and the savings rate. We consider income coming from all sources including automatic government stabilizers, but without assuming any additional fiscal support from the government. We consider three scenarios (Chart 5): A pessimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate hold steady at current levels. An optimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate return to pre-COVID levels by February 2021. A “split the difference” scenario where both income and the savings rate get halfway back to pre-COVID levels by next February. Table 2 shows how much additional income support from the government is needed between now and February to achieve each of our consumer spending growth targets in each of our three scenarios. For example, in the optimistic scenario the government will need to provide $434 billion of additional income support between now and February for consumer spending to hit our minimum -3% threshold. In the more realistic “split the difference” scenario, households will require another $777 billion of stimulus. Table 2 also shows that stimulus on a monthly basis and compares the monthly rate of stimulus to the rate provided by the CARES act. For example, an additional $777 billion of income doled out between August and February works out to $111 billion per month, 61% of the amount of monthly stimulus provided by the CARES act between April and July. Table 2Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Two main conclusions jump out from this analysis. The first is that more income support from Congress is absolutely required. Otherwise, consumer spending will come in worse during the March 2020 to February 2021 period than it did during the worst 12 months of the GFC. Second, unless we assume a truly dire economic scenario, the follow-up stimulus does not need to be as large as the CARES act. In our most realistic “split the difference” scenario, that $777 billion of required stimulus is only 61% of what the CARES act doled out on a monthly basis. In that same scenario, a follow-up bill that delivered the same monthly stimulus as the CARES act would lead to positive 12-month consumer spending growth. Exercise 2: The August 2020 To July 2021 Period Chart 6One More Scenario One More Scenario One More Scenario One potential problem with our last exercise is that our target was for total consumer spending between March 2020 and February 2021. This period includes five months for which we already have data and the exercise is therefore partially backward-looking. A more relevant analysis might target consumer spending on a purely forward-looking basis from August 2020 to July 2021. We therefore perform our calculations again for the August 2020 to July 2021 period. This time, we consider only one economic scenario where income and the savings rate both return to pre-COVID levels by July 2021 (Chart 6). This scenario works out to be slightly more optimistic than the “split the difference” scenario we considered earlier. Also, since our target 12-month spending growth period no longer contains the downtrodden months of March and April, we require a more ambitious target than -3% growth. A return to the post-GFC range of 2% to 6% represents a target that is likely more representative of market expectations. Table 3 shows the results of this second analysis. Once again, we see that some additional government stimulus is necessary to meet our spending targets. Even to achieve 0% spending growth over the next 12 months will require another $249 billion from the government, and that outcome would almost certainly disappoint markets. We calculate that an additional $534 billion is required to achieve 2% spending growth during the August 2020 to July 2021 timeframe. This result is consistent with the $777 billion we calculated in Table 2, though it has come down a bit because we have made slightly more optimistic economic assumptions. Table 3At Least Half A Trillion More Government Income Support Is Needed More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Bottom Line: Our analysis suggests that further stimulus is needed to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. A new stimulus package doesn’t need to be as large as the CARES act on a monthly basis, but it should provide at least $500 - $800 billion of additional income support to households. With Congress still dithering on this issue, financial markets appear overly complacent in the near-term. While the economic constraints suggest that a deal should be reached soon, policymakers may need to see a spate of negative economic data and/or poor market performance before being spurred into action. In acknowledgement of this significant near-term risk to the economic outlook, bond investors should refrain from getting too bearish, and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. Inflation’s Snapback Phase Chart 7Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot The core Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% in August, the third large monthly increase in a row (Chart 7). We see inflation continuing to come in hot between now and the end of the year, before tapering off in 2021. As of now, we would describe inflation as being in a snapback phase. That is, back in March and April, when lock-down measures were widespread across the country, the sectors that were most affected by the shutdowns experienced massive price declines. However, notice that core inflation fell by much more than median or trimmed mean inflation during this period (Chart 7, panels 2 & 3). The median sector’s price didn’t fall that much, but the overall inflation number moved down because of deeply negative prints in a few sectors. Now that the economy is re-opening, many of the sectors that were most beaten down in March and April are coming back to life. As a result, those massive price declines are turning into massive price increases. Once again, the median and trimmed mean inflation figures have been much more stable. This “snapback” dynamic is illustrated very clearly in Chart 8 which shows the distribution of monthly price changes for 41 different sectors in April and in August. Notice that while the middle of the distribution hasn’t changed that much, April’s massive left tail has morphed into August’s massive right tail. Chart 8Distribution Of CPI Expenditure Categories More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this snapback phase has further to run. In other words, we will likely continue to see strong inflation prints for a few more months as the sectors that were most downbeat in March and April continue their rebounds. However, once core catches back up to the median and trimmed mean inflation measures, this snapback phase will come to an end and inflation’s uptrend will probably level-off. The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this inflation’s snapback phase has further to run.  We recommend that bond investors continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries during this snapback phase, but we will be looking for an opportunity to go underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries later this year, once core inflation moves closer to the median and trimmed mean measures and the snapback phase ends. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success.   Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights In a world with low expected returns from various asset classes and still-elevated target returns among largely underfunded pension funds, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to meet liability requirements. Canadian pension funds have been more open to using leverage than their US counterparts, but even the very conservative Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) has an allocation to levered asset classes such as private equity, albeit at a very low weight. Retail investors do not have access to low-cost financing as institutional investors do. Still, they too can add leverage via ETFs and Liquid Alts mutual funds. When leverage is used at the asset-class level such as in alternative asset classes, financing costs play an important role in investment decisions. For pension funds with access to low-cost financing, “direct investing” in alternative assets is more advantageous than indirect investment via alternative funds. When leverage is used at the portfolio level, such as via a risk-parity structure, the financing cost impacts mostly just the return, but the leverage constraints impact both return and volatility. Risk-parity strategy is more advantageous when it’s used as one of the strategies in a total portfolio, rather than at the total-fund level because usually a sub-portfolio can have a much higher leverage ratio than the total fund. Leverage should be managed in a centralized risk-management system at the total-fund level, together with all other risk exposures. 1. Why Should Leverage Be Considered? In a Global Asset Allocation Special Report on long-term return assumptions,1 the key conclusion was that, for the next decade, investors would not be able to achieve the kind of return targets they were used to over the previous two decades because all asset classes would see much lower returns going forward, with the largest reductions coming from fixed-income and alternative assets such as farmland, REITs, and commodities. This is bad news for investors, especially pension fund investors with long-term liabilities to match. For example, according to Wilshire Consulting,2 at the end of 2018, the aggregate funded ratio (defined as the fund assets as a percentage of the fund obligations) of 134 US state retirement systems was 72.2%, which is better than the low at the end of 2016 (Chart 1). However, as shown in Chart 2, there were still about 11% of the funds with assets at less than 50% of liabilities. Chart 1US Pensions' Funded Status* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 2US Pensions' Funded Ratio Distribution* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Over the past two decades, the risk-return profile of traditional assets like equities and government bonds has already been much less attractive than historical averages, as shown in Chart 3, but investors have diversified into credit and alternative asset classes (which contain embedded leverage) to enhance their portfolios’ risk-return profile. Chart 3Future Risk-Return Profiles Less Attractive Than Historical Averages Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? According to the above-mentioned Global Asset Allocation Special Report, with a conventional 50/30/20 (equities/bonds/alts) allocation, a US investor could comfortably achieve a 7% annual return over the past two decades. Now, alternative asset classes have become mainstream, likely producing a much lower future return. The same 50/30/20 portfolio would currently generate only about 4.9% annually, much less than what’s required to match liabilities. In fact, alternatives’ future return expectations have been cut to 6.1% from their past 20-year average of 15.1% annually, meaning that even if 100% of assets are fully invested in alternatives, the expected return will still be lower than the 7% that’s still assumed by some US state pension funds.3 Not to mention that at the end of 2018, over 34% of US retirement pension funds had long-term rate-of-return expectations higher than 7.5%, as shown in Chart 4. Chart 4Challenging Long-Term Return Expectations Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 5Why Should Leverage Be Considered? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? According to Modern Portfolio Theory, to achieve a higher return investors can take higher risk in three different ways, as shown in Chart 5:  1) Allocating more funds to higher-return/higher-risk assets, i.e. moving upwards to the right along the efficient frontier (red line) – for example, a 60-40 equity/bond portfolio is well to the upper-right side of the “optimal” allocation; 2) Levering up one or more assets to alter the shape of the frontier (grey line) – for instance, incorporating private-equity and infrastructure funds that contain embedded leverage; and 3) Levering up the “optimal” (in terms of return per unit of risk) risky portfolio with funds borrowed at the total-fund level (green line). Risk parity is a close proximation. For more detail about the basics of leverage, please see Appendix 1 on pages 21-22. Chart 5 illustrates three different frontiers based on the assumed risk-return forecast for US equities, US Treasurys, and alternative assets.4 We can observe the following: When the target return is low (at target 1), leverage does not provide significant benefit no matter which form is used; As the return target moves up relative to what the underlying assets can provide (target 2), direct leverage produces a better return/risk profile than embedded leverage, which in turn is better than the portfolio without any leverage; When the target return is higher than what any efficient combination from the available asset classes can achieve (target 3), investors must consider the use of direct leverage. In theory, investors should always prefer to use leverage at the total-fund level to lever up the “optimal” portfolio. In reality, however, some investors are constrained from borrowing. In addition, some investors do not have the expertise or infrastructure to manage the additional complexity that results from the use of direct leverage. In fact, direct leverage has typically been considered dangerous by many investors. Misuse of leverage was attributed to some high-profile failures, such as Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and Lehman Brothers in 2008. So how has leverage been used by asset allocators? What are the key factors that determine if and how leverage should be used? What are the key risks associated with the use of leverage, and how should leverage be managed? In the sections below, we first review how some pension funds and retail investors have been using leverage (we ignore hedge funds, even though they are the most obvious users of leverage, because they are a part of the “alternative” asset class with embedded leverage). From there, we attempt to address, 1) How does financing cost impact leverage at the asset-class level? and 2) How does financing cost impact the decision to use leverage at the portfolio level if investors are constrained by the amount of leverage that can be used? Finally, we suggest a centralized leverage management framework to monitor and manage leverage at the total-portfolio level. 2. Use of Leverage By Pension Funds Leverage can be applied in many different ways. In general, the use of leverage by pension funds can be grouped into four categories: First, with a focus on return-seeking. This is achieved mainly by using alternative asset funds such as private-equity funds, hedge funds, real-estate funds, and infrastructure funds. These funds have embedded leverage, but with much higher costs. They provide diversification and higher risk-adjusted returns, partly because of their embedded leverage and lock-up advantages. Large pension funds, especially the Canadian pension funds which all have excellent credit ratings and strong in-house talent, have also taken advantage of their solid balance sheets to acquire low-cost financing to invest directly in alternatives. For example, the first bond issued by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) in 2001 was $600 million at 5.7%, while the Canada Public Pension Investment Board (CPPIB) even issued euro-denominated bonds in both 2017 (2 billion euros, 7-year, 0.375% coupon) and 2018 (1 billion euros, 15-year, 1.5% coupon).5 Proceeds from these bond issues have mostly been used to invest in alternative assets, which now account for a large proportion of the major Canadian pension funds’ assets under management (Table 1). Table 1“Alternatives” Have Become Mainstream For The Canadians Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?                     Most US state pension funds are more conservative than their Canadian peers. They too have been gradually adding exposure to alternatives with embedded leverage such as private equity, real estate, and hedge funds, as shown in Chart 6. Even Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), the very conservative Japanese sovereign wealth fund, in its current operating guideline has a 5% allocation to alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and infrastructure.6 That’s an impressive amount considering its first investment in the space was in 2013, as shown in Chart 7. Chart 6The Americans Are Catching Up On Alternatives Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 7GPIF’s Push Into Alternatives* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? However, the push into alternative asset classes by large pension funds has made it increasingly difficult to allocate funds to alternative assets. For example, CalPERS has only an 8% allocation to private equity,7  yet its most recent exposure as of June 2019 stood at only 7.1% – because it could not find enough suitable private-equity investments to build the asset class to the desired scale.8 Second, with a focus on liability matching. Pension funds who follow the liability-driven investing (LDI) approach often construct two portfolios. One is the liability-matching portfolio and the other is the active portfolio. The former matches the liabilities, while the latter generates alpha to cover management fees and to provide a cushion for estimation errors. Since most pension liabilities are indexed to inflation, liabilities are often modelled as a combination of nominal bonds and inflation-linked bonds with leverage. The leverage ratio can often be higher than two or three times because of the ultra-long duration of the liabilities versus the available bond instruments. For example, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) uses an LDI approach, which is why its leverage ratio is much higher than some other pension plans, as shown in Chart 8.  Chart 8Use Of Leverage By Some Pension Funds Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Third, with a focus on risk diversification. Risk-based strategies such as risk parity generate a more diversified portfolio with lower absolute returns compared to a conventional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, but in general have a much higher Sharpe ratio, and therefore require leverage to achieve the required return/risk objective.9 Even though most risk-parity believers dedicate a portion of their assets to risk-parity strategies (either internally with direct leverage or externally with embedded leverage), some pension funds have adopted such a risk-diversification approach at the total-fund level. Danish pension fund ATP and the Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) are two examples. As shown in Chart 8, as of June 2019, MOSERS’ leverage was about 50%,10 a lot higher than CalPERS’ newly augmented total-fund leverage limit of 20% (from 5% previously),11 because CalPERS does not use the same approach to apply leverage. Fourth, with a focus on more tactical moves, such as tail-risk hedging, revenue generation, and opportunistic strategies to take advantage of short-term dislocations in the marketplace. These tactics are achieved mostly using derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps. For example, equity and bond futures or swaps are often used to tactically adjust asset allocation at the total-fund level without impacting the underlying asset-class management. 3. Use of Leverage By Retail Investors Retail investors do not enjoy low-cost financing as large institutions do. They can use lines of credit or margin accounts to invest, and they can also use derivatives if they are qualified to do so. For those who are not qualified or not comfortable using leverage themselves, there are two types of retail products with embedded leverage: Levered or inverse ETFs and “Liquid Alts” mutual funds or ETFs. Levered or Inverse ETFs: These products are rebalanced daily to a fixed leverage multiple, often -3X, -2X, -1X, 2X, and 3X of the underlying assets. As such, only daily performance matches the intended performance objective. Because of the daily realization of gain and loss, they are not suitable for long-term buy-and-hold investors because the longer the holding period, the larger the drift due to the compounding effect. For example, Chart 9 shows the Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) and the associated levered ETFs. It’s interesting to note that in several annual periods ending in 2011, 2016, 2018 and 2019, QQQ’s one-year return was slightly positive, yet 3X ETF’s corresponding returns were negative! This is due to the “negative diversification return” effect as defined by Qian.12 Chart 9NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* Liquid Alternative Mutual Funds/ETFs: These are the “liquid” version of alternative investment strategies aimed at retail investors. They are easy to buy and sell. In Canada, since National Instrument 81-102 became effective in January 2019, retail investors who do not have the sophistication to directly invest in alternatives now have access to such investments via mutual funds and ETFs. As shown in Table 2,13 these funds can utilize leverage up to 3X based on gross aggregate exposure by borrowing or short-selling. In the US, liquid alts have been available to retail investors since 2013, and the market has grown rapidly to over US$225 billion.14 Now there are signs emerging that even some institutional investors are starting to look into liquid alts ETFs.15 Table 2Canadian Regulation On Liquid Alts Mutual Funds Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? 4. Leverage At Asset-Class Level Alternative funds, such as funds that invest in private equity, private debt, and infrastructure, typically use leverage. These funds carry a high cost because 1) investors in these funds must pay a premium for not managing leverage, and 2) these funds often have much higher financing costs. For example, the average financing cost for leveraged buyouts in 2014 was more than 5%,16 while the average risk-free rate in 2014 was 0.03%. Research has shown that private-asset performance can be proxied by using leverage and the corresponding public asset. In Table 3, the base case is based on the forecast for US equities and Treasurys without leverage, and a risk-free rate of 2.6%.17 Then equities are leveraged by 1.5 times to proximate private equity. The low-cost case has a financing cost of 1.57% (which is what the average 3-month T-Bill rate was in 2019), while the high-cost case with a financing cost of 3.92%, which is 2.5 times the low-cost rate. Table 3Assumed Returns/Risks* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 10Financing-Cost Impact On The Use Of Embedded Leverage Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 10 shows the corresponding frontiers of the three cases. It’s clear that leverage expands the frontier to the right, meaning that leverage helps to achieve a higher return with better diversification, albeit with higher volatility. However, the financing cost plays a very important role in the feasibility of the leverage decision. When the financing cost is low, leverage is better than the base case at any return-target level. When the financing cost is high, however, leverage is worse – so long as the return target is lower than what the underlying assets can achieve without leverage. This supports the shift to “direct investing” by some institutional investors with access to lower financing when investing in alternative asset classes. 5. Leverage At Portfolio Level Risk parity is an obvious example of using leverage at the portfolio level. As shown in our previous report on risk parity, there are different approaches to implementing risk parity, and they can generate different results – especially when there are more than two assets.18 To analyze the impact of leverage constraints and financing costs, we use a two-asset (US equity/Treasury) risk-parity portfolio as the basis of our analysis. One definitive conclusion we arrived at in our previous report was that risk-parity approach historically always outperforms in recessions. This conclusion has passed the real-time test in the most recent pandemic-induced recession. As shown in Chart 11A, risk-parity portfolios that target the same volatility as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio have outperformed the latter significantly. The same holds true for the portfolios that target the same volatility as an equity portfolio (Chart 11B).   Chart 11AUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Chart 11BUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks However, as described in the previous Special Report on risk parity, we did not impose any cap on the use ofleverage. As such, some strategies that use a relatively short lookback period to calculate historical statistics required very high leverage ratios at some time periods in our back-tests. What would happen if we set a cap on the leverage ratio? And what if the financing cost is higher than the 3-month T-bill rate assumed in most academic research, and also in our previous report? Chart 12A and Chart 12B show the results when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost is Libor +25 basis points. It’s clear that Chart 12A looks the same as Chart 11A because the leverage cap is higher than the required leverage employed, while the cost impact is negligible for such a short period. But Chart 12B shows that, even though the risk-parity portfolio still outperformed, the outperformance has been much less so far this year because the required leverage was a lot higher than three times. Chart 12AImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Chart 12BImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity The impact of financing costs in Chart 12A is barely seen because the time period was short and the interest rate was low. What is the long-run impact of leverage restrictions and financing costs then? Chart 13A and Chart 13B show the long-run statistics from April 1945 to July 2020 based on a 180-month look-back period for two portfolios: RPL1, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility target as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio; and RPL2, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility as MSCI US equity index. Chart 13C shows the risk-adjusted returns for three portfolios with constant volatility targets at 10%, 12%, and 15%, respectively. Chart 13ALong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With Low Vol Target* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 13BLong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With High Vol Target* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?     Chart 13CLong-Tem Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity Portfolio* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Some observations are worth highlighting: Financing costs mainly impact average return, but have very little impact on volatility. As such, higher financing costs reduce risk-adjusted returns. When there is no financing cost, all risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets should have the same risk-adjusted return as the underlying unlevered risk-parity portfolio. When financing costs are present, however, this is no longer the case. Leverage constraints impact both returns and volatility in the same direction – i.e., stricter constraints on leverage reduce both return and volatility, and vice versa. The magnitude of the impact from leverage constraints, however, varies because the target volatility of the portfolio plays a key role in the required leverage. For a constant-volatility target, a tighter control on leverage will reduce volatility more than return, resulting in a higher risk-adjusted return (Chart 13C); for a variable-volatility target such as RPL1 and RPL2, however, the same conclusion cannot be drawn (Charts 13A and 13B) Long-run statistics do not tell the full story because they really depend on the period chosen. Chart 14A shows the dynamic impact of financing when there were no constraints on leverage, and Chart 14B shows the dynamic impact of leverage when there were no additional financing costs. Chart 15 shows the combined impact when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost at Libor+25 basis points. They are for five different risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets with a lookback window length of 180 months. (For different lookback window, please see Appendix 2 on pages 23-25). Chart 14ADynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Chart14BDynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Dynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Dynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Chart 15Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X It is interesting to note the following: When there is no restriction on leverage, additional financing cost eats away cumulative total return in a much more significant way when an risk parity portfolio has a higher-volatility target than a lower-volatility target (Chart 14A). This is simply because a higher-volatility target requires higher leverage. When there was no additional cost of financing, constraint on leverage ate away total returns – mostly in the early years of the back-test when required leverage was often very high. In recent years, the impact was significant only when the leverage cap dropped to three times or lower. Also, the higher the volatility target, the more reduction in return risk-parity portfolio would suffer compared to its base case (Chart 14B). When the lookback window length is changed, the impact of leverage and financing cost also changes. The shorter the window length, the larger the impact (Charts in Appendix 2). A 180-month lookback period was the preferred choice in our previous report, and it is still more appropriate to use than 36 months or 360 months. Since additional cost and restriction on leverage eat away total return so much, is it really worthwhile to even consider using a risk-parity approach at all? Charts 16A and 16B show that overall total returns were worse during the entire period from April 1945 to July 2020, when additional cost and leverage constraints are applied. Since the burst of the tech bubble, however, risk-parity portfolios with the same volatility target as US 60/40 and also MSCI US have generated higher total returns than US 60/40 and MSCI US, respectively.  Chart16ADoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperform US 60/40? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperforms US 60/40? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperforms US 60/40? Chart 16BDoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI USI Outperform MSCI US? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI US Outperforms MSCI US? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI US Outperforms MSCI US? We are in a low interest-rate environment, and rates may stay low for a long time to come. In addition, when futures contracts are used to implement leverage, the implied cost is very close to 3-month T-Bills; Libor or Libor + may be present mostly when swaps are used due to factors such as supply/demand and counterparty risk. As such, financing costs will likely play less of a role than leverage constraints until interest rates rise significantly. Given that total-fund leverage is much lower than individual strategy/portfolio leverage, the implication is that risk-parity is more advantageous when it is used as a strategy in a sub-portfolio other than at the total fund level. 6. Suggestion For Leverage Management In a low-return environment, asset allocators face more challenges to meet return targets than in the past. Unless return targets are lowered to what the underlying assets can reasonably provide, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to beef up overall portfolio returns. However, leverage is also a double-edged sword because it also increases portfolio volatility. As such, we suggest a centralized risk-management system to monitor and manage all risks, including risks associated with leverage, in line with our suggestion on currency hedging outlined in our 2017 Special Report. Appendix 1: Leverage Basics Leverage is an investment strategy of using borrowed money – specifically, the use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital – to increase the potential return of an investment. It also amplifies the loss potential if the levered investment does not work out as expected. This is why it is also often called a “double-edged sword.” Leverage has many different forms and is used in many different places. For example, residential home mortgages are a form of leverage that the general public understands very well, yet the leverage embedded in a futures contract may sound alien to some retail investors. For asset allocators, the most important decision on leverage is whether to apply leverage directly at the total-portfolio level or use assets with embedded leverage. For example, issuing bonds to lever up a diversified portfolio (a mean-variance optimal portfolio or a suboptimal risk-parity portfolio) is an example of the former. On the other hand, investing in a private equity fund is an example of the latter. Research has shown that for large pension funds with excellent credit ratings, the latter is less efficient than the former due to the much higher cost of financing.1  For example, in 2014, the average cost of financing for leveraged buyouts was in excess of 5% when the short-term interest rate was close to zero.2 It’s not surprising that pension investors have formed joint ventures to invest in alternative assets directly instead of relying on specialty funds. In terms of financing, there is on-balance-sheet leverage and off-balance-sheet leverage. On-balance-sheet leverage raises liabilities, such as via bond issuance. Off-balance-sheet leverage uses the balance sheet of a counterparty, such as OTC financial derivatives. A repo agreement is a repurchase agreement that involves selling a security (often a government bond) to a counterparty (a lender) with the promise of buying it back after a pre-defined period at a pre-defined price. It’s often used for short-term liquidity management.  Depending on the form of financing, the measurement of leverage differs. Accounting leverage or balance-sheet leverage is calculated as total assets divided by net assets. This measurement is accurate only if on-balance-sheet leverage is used for long-only investments. When off-balance-sheet leverage is used or when shorting is involved, then accounting leverage severely understates the actual leverage. For example, Appendix Table A1 below is a snapshot from the 2018 annual report of Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP). The notional value of its derivatives was $333 billion, which is over 10 times the fair value of these instruments, and over four times the fund’s net asset value. Appendix Table A1HOOPP's Use Of Derivatives* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? So, when derivatives are used, accounting leverage is often adjusted for derivative exposure by taking the delta-adjusted notional value of derivative contracts.3 When there are short positions, leverage can be measured as Gross and Net Leverage after derivatives exposure is delta-adjusted. Gross Leverage is defined as the total exposure of long and short positions divided by net assets. This is accurate when the long and short positions are totally separate active bets. Net Leverage, is defined as the net exposure between long and short positions, divided by net assets. This is an accurate measure of leverage when the long and short positions are taken as hedges for one another. 1  Dr. Serguei Zernov, “Leverage to Meet the Pension Promise,” Global Risk Institute, Jan 24, 2019. 2  L’her, J.F., Stoyanova, R., Shaw, K., Scott, W. and Lai, C, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market”, Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 2016. 3  Andrew Ang, Sergiy Gorovyy and Gregoty B. van Inwegen, “Hedge Fund Leverage,” Journal of Financial Economics, January 25, 2011. Appendix 2: Impact Of Leverage Caps And Financing Costs With Different Lookback Window Lengths In Section 5, Chart 14A, Chart 14B and Chart 15 were presented using a lookback window of 180 months, a prefered window length based on our previous research on risk parity. However, practioners have been using different lookback windows. Below are the corresponding charts showing lookback windows of 360 months and 36 months, respectively. It’s easy to see that, the shorter the lookback window, the more significant the impact of  both financing costs and leverage constraints. The reason is simple: a shorter lookback window generates much higher leverage compared to a longer lookback window. APPENDIX 2 Chart 1AImpact Of Financing With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 1BImpact Of Financing With 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   APPENDIX 2 Chart 2AImpact Of Leverage Cap With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 2BImpact Of Leverage Cap with 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   APPENDIX 2 Chart 3AImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 3BImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 2 Ned McGuire and Brice Shirimbere, "2019 Wilshire Consulting Report on State Retirement Systems: Funding Levels and Asset Allocation," Wilshire Associates, March 2019. 3 “State Pension Funds adjust to ‘New Normal’ of Lower Returns,” Chief Investment Officer, January 2, 2020, 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 5 Martha Porado, “A look at how Canadian pension funds are using leverage,” dated Aug 10, 2018. 6GPIF (Government Pension Investment Fund) 2018 annual report. 7 "2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,"CalPERS. p106, 2018 annual report. 8 "CalPERS Falling Short of Private Equity Goals," dated November 18, 2019. 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019. 10 https://www.mosers.org/funding/annual-reports 11 Arleen Jacobius, "CalPERS shifts $150 billion as part of new strategic asset allocation," Pensions And Investments, dated August 20, 2019. 12 Edward Qian, “Rebalance and Diversification Returns of Leveraged Portfolios,” Investment Insight, Panagora, December 2011. 13https://www.mackenzieinvestments.com/content/dam/mackenzie/en/2019/03/mm-investing-in-liquid-alternatives-en.pdf 14 https://perspectives.scotiabank.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Liquid-A… 15 "5 Use Cases for Liquid Alt ETFs," Institutional Investor dated November 18, 2019. 16 L’ her et al, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market,” Financial Analysts Journal, 72(4), 2016. 17 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 18 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019.

Highlights Overweighting the SIFI banks is our highest-conviction call, … : Our enthusiasm for the four banks deemed to be systemically important financial institutions is founded on the view that generous monetary and fiscal policy will lead to considerably smaller credit losses than the SIFIs’ depressed valuations imply. … but investors are none too sure of it, inside and outside of BCA: The SIFIs have underperformed the broad market since we overweighted them in late April, and they will likely run in place until our mild-credit-loss thesis can be borne out. Banks’ fortunes are not tied to the slope of the yield curve … : Banks do not borrow short to lend long and the widespread belief that their stocks are hostage to the yield curve has no empirical support. … and the US banking industry is not in structural decline: US banks have experienced steady growth in real loans, net interest income and net income. Their businesses have yet to be disrupted by new entrants; so far, technology has increased profitability and we expect that the pandemic will point the way to future efficiency improvements. Feature In response to ongoing client questions and a lively internal debate, we are devoting this week’s report to reviewing our highest-conviction call: overweighting the SIFI banks.1 After restating our thesis and what it would take to get us to abandon it, we challenge two arguments that have been cited in support of a bearish view. We hold fast to our underlying rationale, though we concede that it will likely take more time for the call to pan out. We always recommended it for investors with a time frame of at least a year, and it may take until first quarter 2021 earnings to start generating alpha, but we still believe it will. A Feature, Not A Bug Our entire editorial staff gathers every month to define the consensus view on all the major asset classes, which becomes the BCA House View until we revisit it the next month (or sooner, if need be). The House View is not a party line that we all parrot; any individual managing editor is free to express an opposing view, provided s/he clearly states that s/he is departing from the House View and, ideally, explains why. Although this policy does not always lead to neatly packaged views, it affords clients a window on our internal debates, allowing them to evaluate the merits of opposing points of view for themselves. It also helps us attract and retain the informed, opinionated researchers we seek. Banking On Washington The pandemic, and the lockdown measures imposed to limit its spread, tore a huge hole in the economy. Policymakers swiftly mobilized to build a bridge across the hole until the virus could be contained. Before March was out, the Fed had soothed the Treasury market, prized open the corporate bond market and had set bond spreads on a path to tighten. Congress passed measures providing nearly $3 trillion of aid, highlighted by the massive CARES Act. Although another significant round of federal aid is not assured, it would be in the House's, the Senate's and the White House's interest, so we expect it will eventually materialize. Thanks to the CARES Act’s copious household support, personal income reversed its March slide and comfortably exceeded February's pre-pandemic level in April, May, June and July (Chart 1). With much of the economy still in suspended animation, absent another round of direct payments to households, unemployment insurance benefit supplements, support for badly disrupted businesses and aid to state and local governments facing severe revenue shortfalls, potentially dire economic consequences loom. With even run-of-the-mill recessions dooming incumbent administrations’ election prospects, it is in the White House’s best interests to advocate for more spending to hold back the flood. Republican control of the Senate also lies in the balance. Chart 1Fiscal Transfers Have Kept Households Afloat Fiscal Transfers Have Kept Households Afloat Fiscal Transfers Have Kept Households Afloat With the Democrats seeking to demonstrate that bigger government is the solution, House, Senate and White House interests all align with the passage of a major new aid package ahead of the election. Despite the worsening climate, we expect that elected officials’ self-interest will carry the day. All creditors stand to benefit, since fiscal transfers have been vital to limiting bankruptcies and defaults, and the SIFIs would get a major boost as we attribute their dreadful year-to-date performance to market fears of credit losses well in excess of the loan loss reserves they’ve already set aside. The key to our pro-SIFIs call is that we see them as the foremost beneficiary of continued fiscal largesse. Just The SIFIs, Please We are not enamored of the entire banking industry. Low rates are likely to undermine net interest margins for an extended period and weakening loan growth, a function of borrower and lender caution, will hurt lending volumes. Banks that principally take deposits and make loans to the households and businesses within their geographic footprint will suffer. Several community banks face stiff headwinds as do some regionals. The SIFIs have quite a few earnings streams, though, and only get around half of their revenues from net interest income. They are hybrids that combine investment banks boasting bulge-bracket underwriting, top-tier sales and trading, and formidable wealth management businesses with a nationwide commercial banking footprint. These companies do not live and die by loan volumes and interest rate spreads, as much of their loan originations are securitized and their loan books are not bound to the intrinsic risk of their local economies. The SIFIs trade slightly below book value and only slightly above tangible book value (Table 1, left panel). This would be cold comfort if their book values were at risk of falling because of optimistic carrying values for their assets or impending reserve builds that would eat away at retained earnings. We are not at all worried about bad marks, however – post-GFC regulation kept the SIFIs from getting out over their skis in the just-concluded expansion – and we think that they are adequately reserved in the aggregate. Assuming that the virus will be contained by the end of the year, we stick to our initial projection that they would need to build sizable loan loss reserves only through this year's first three quarters. Table 1SIFI Book Values Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs On their second quarter earnings calls, the SIFIs were of the view that their reserve building was nearly complete. National infection rates have remained high, however, and the supplemental federal unemployment insurance benefit has since lapsed. We expect that the rollback of re-opening measures and the interruption of CARES Act relief provisions will force the SIFIs to add to their reserves this quarter in amounts approaching first and second quarter levels, but if Congress does provide another round of meaningful aid this month or next, we think that will be the end of the big builds. Equity investors do not seem to have recognized that the SIFIs’ earnings power has allowed them to take their sizable reserve builds in stride. Book values didn’t budge in the first two quarters (Table 1, right panel), and if they continue to hold their ground, the selling in their stocks is way overdone. We are quite happy to find a group that’s so inexpensive against a backdrop in which nearly every public security is trading at elevated levels relative to history, especially when that group will be a clear winner from continuing fiscal support. If further aid on a meaningful scale is not forthcoming, however, we will exit our SIFI overweight. We are not irresolute, but we close out positions when their underlying rationale no longer applies. Psst. The Yield Curve Doesn’t Matter Old superstitions die hard. US Investment Strategy has been presenting evidence for ten years that the yield curve does not drive bank earnings.2 Although the intuition behind the view is logical, it fails to acknowledge that banks do not borrow short to lend long. As the gargantuan interest rate swap market and the FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile demonstrate, all but the smallest community banks rigorously match the duration of their assets and liabilities. We typically show line charts overlaying the slope of the yield curve (the 10-year Treasury yield less the 3-month T-bill rate) with aggregate net interest income or net income, showing that there has been no consistent relationship between the two series. We’ve even shown that the yield curve is largely uncorrelated with bank net interest margins. Alas, one may as well try to convince a native New Yorker that s/he is not the most important element of the universe, or an English soccer fan that his/her side is not among the favorites to capture the next World Cup. Fiscal aid has held defaults way below levels that would typically be associated with such a severe economic shock and another hearty round of it would position SIFI credit losses to come in way below the market's worst fears. This time around, we present over 60 years of monthly data in one scatterplot after another that takes the shape of an amorphous blob. They demonstrate that there is no coincident relationship between the level of the slope of the yield curve and bank stocks’ performance relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 2), or the change in the slope of the yield curve and bank stocks’ relative performance (Chart 3). They also show that there is no leading relationship over six- (Chart 4A) or twelve-month periods (Chart 4B) between the level of the slope of the yield curve and bank stocks’ relative performance. The change in the slope of the yield curve also comes a cropper with six- (Chart 5A) and twelve-month lead times (Chart 5B). With every one of the six regressions generating r-squareds below 1%, we conclude that neither the level of the slope of the yield curve, nor its direction, explains any element of relative bank stock performance. Chart 2The Steepness Of The Yield Curve Does Not Influence Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Chart 3The Change In The Steepness Of The Yield Curve Does Not Influence Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Chart 4AThe Steepness Of The Yield Curve Does Not Lead Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Over 6 Months Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Chart 4BThe Steepness Of The Yield Curve Does Not Lead Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Over 12 Months Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Chart 5AChanges In Yield Curve Steepness Do Not Lead Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Over 6 Months Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Chart 5BChanges In Yield Curve Steepness Do Not Lead Bank Stocks' Relative Performance Over 12 Months Defending The SIFIs Defending The SIFIs Rumors Of The Banks’ Structural Decline Have Been Greatly Exaggerated We submit that US banks are not in the throes of a structural decline. Adjusted for inflation, growth in their core lending business has been steady, except during recessions and their aftermath, for 70 years (Chart 6). Despite a persistent trend toward increasing non-bank intermediation that has reduced the industry’s market share, loan volumes continue to expand. Chart 6Real Bank Loan Balances Have Steadily Grown For 70 Years Real Bank Loan Balances Have Steadily Grown For 70 Years Real Bank Loan Balances Have Steadily Grown For 70 Years Industry viability is not only about sales volume, however. Participants in a declining industry could retain or even grow volumes, only to see their profits shrink in the face of competition from incumbents or new entrants. Real net interest income has continued to grow, however, more or less in line with real loan growth (Chart 7), demonstrating that margins have not eroded. Real net income, which includes credit costs and fees and other non-interest items that are more sensitive to the business cycle, is much more volatile, but has also followed a broad upward trend (Chart 8). Chart 7Real Net Interest Income Growth Has Decelerated, But It's Still Positive ... Real Net Interest Income Growth Has Decelerated, But It's Still Positive ... Real Net Interest Income Growth Has Decelerated, But It's Still Positive ... Chart 8... While Real Net Income Quickly Surpassed Its Pre-GFC Peak ... While Real Net Income Quickly Surpassed Its Pre-GFC Peak ... While Real Net Income Quickly Surpassed Its Pre-GFC Peak Futurists see fintech and cryptocurrencies as looming disruptive threats to the banking industry, but they have yet to make a significant dent in its volumes or its profits. To this point (Chart 9), technological advances have done more to reduce the industry’s operating costs than they have to undermine its moat. One would expect that a meaningful downward move in the efficiency ratio might be in store, based on what the banks have learned from the pandemic about optimizing human inputs, virtual applications and their costly branch footprints. The data do not support the claim that the industry is in the midst of a structural decline and an efficiency tailwind is likely in the offing once the acute phase of the pandemic passes. Chart 9Banks' Non-Interest Expenses Relative To Revenue Are Structurally Declining Banks' Non-Interest Expenses Relative To Revenue Are Structurally Declining Banks' Non-Interest Expenses Relative To Revenue Are Structurally Declining Concluding Thoughts Stocks that are oversold can become even more oversold and cheap does not necessarily mean valuable. It is entirely possible that the SIFI banks are a value trap; our call has underperformed since the late May/early June backup in long yields was summarily unwound (Chart 10). Something seems off, however, when the SIFIs are performing nearly as badly year-to-date as office and retail REITs. The latter face a structural shrinking of their businesses while banks are looking at nothing more than a cyclical ebb. Chart 10A Marathon, Not A Sprint A Marathon, Not A Sprint A Marathon, Not A Sprint Fiscal policymakers demonstrated their ability to counter the cyclical drag over the spring and summer; if they recover their willingness to do so, the SIFIs' outlook is far less grim than markets are currently discounting. Given our view that both the administration’s re-election prospects and Republican control of the Senate depend on staving off severe adverse economic consequences from the pandemic, we think that Congress will rediscover its resolve. If it doesn’t, we will have to close our position and potentially seek a better entry point after the new session of Congress convenes in January. It won't be all hearts and rainbows for the SIFIs over the next year, but concerns about the yield curve and the banking industry's trend earnings and revenue growth are misplaced. They are positioned to climb a wall of worry as soon as the pandemic begins to loosen its grip. Under our base-case policy scenario, the selling in the SIFIs has gone way too far. With policymakers squarely in the SIFIs’ corner, we’re thrilled to have a chance to take a shot at them from the long side below book value. The market is right to recognize that the banks will not have smooth sailing even if Congress eventually comes through, but we think it has failed to consider how much more protected the SIFIs are than their smaller brethren. If it’s holding them down because of yield curve concerns, or the idea that the banking industry is in the midst of a long-run decline, it simply has its facts wrong and we’re confident that they will rise over the next six to nine months. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     JPM, BAC, C and WFC are the commercial/universal banks that regulators have deemed systemically important. 2     Please see the February 28, 2011 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Banks And The Yield Curve,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights We remain bearish on the US dollar over the next 12 months. The best vehicle to express this view continues to be the Scandinavian currencies (NOK and SEK). Precious metals remain a buy so long as the dollar faces downside. However, we remain more bullish on silver than gold. Go short the gold/silver ratio (GSR) again at 75. At the crosses, our favorite trade is short NZD against other cyclical currency pairs. These include the CAD, AUD, and SEK. Sterling is selling off as we anticipated, but our timing was offside. That said, the pound is cheap. We will go long cable if it falls below 1.25. Short EUR/GBP at current levels. The Swiss franc will continue to appreciate versus the USD, but will lag behind the euro. EUR/CHF will touch 1.15. We prefer the JPY to the CHF as a currency portfolio hedge. We argued last week that Prime Minster Shinzo Abe’s resignation does not change the yen’s outlook. Feature Our trade basket this year has been centered on a dollar-bearish theme. Since the top in the DXY index on March 19th, we have been expressing this view via various vehicles, most of which have been very profitable. Our favorites have been the Scandinavian currencies, silver, and the AUD, either at the crosses or against the US dollar. So far, these are among the best-performing trades in the G10 currency world (Chart I-1). Chart I-1A Currency Report Card Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades Going into the final leg of 2020, the key question is which currency pairs will provide the most upside. In this report, we revisit the rationale behind our high-conviction trades. The Case For Scandinavian Currencies A review of Q2 GDP across the G10 reveals which countries have been doing relatively better during the pandemic. Norway emerges as the economy that had the best quarter-on-quarter annualized growth (Chart I-2). Swedish growth held up very well in Q1 and even the drop in Q2 still puts it well ahead of the US, the euro area, and the UK. As small, open economies which are very sensitive to global growth conditions, this is a very impressive feat for Sweden and Norway. Part of the reason for this is that over the years, the drop in their currencies, both against the US dollar and euro, has made them very competitive. Chart I-2A Currency Report Card A Currency Report Card A Currency Report Card Norway benefited from a few things during the pandemic. First, as a major oil exporter, the sharp fall in the NOK helped cushion the domestic economy against the crash in crude prices. Second, the handling of the pandemic was swift and rigorous, and this has almost completely purged the number of new infections in Norway. Third, aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus (zero rates, quantitative easing, and the first budget deficit in 40 years) has set the economy on a recovery path. As a result, consumption is rebounding smartly and the Norges Bank expects mainland GDP to touch pre-crisis levels by 2023. Already, real retail sales have exploded higher (Chart I-3). Should global growth continue to rebound, a reversal in pessimism towards energy stocks (and value stocks in general) could see investors reprice the Norwegian stock market (and krone) sharply higher (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Norwegian Consumption Has##br##Recovered Norwegian Consumption Has Recovered Norwegian Consumption Has Recovered Chart I-4A Bounce In Oil & Gas Stocks Will Help The Krone A Bounce In Oil & Gas Stocks Will Help The Krone A Bounce In Oil & Gas Stocks Will Help The Krone In the case of Sweden, the sharp rebound in the manufacturing PMI also suggests the industrial base is recovering. This will also coincide with a solid bounce in exports, cementing Sweden’s rise in relative competitiveness and its exit from the pandemic-induced recession (Chart I-5). The Riksbank’s resource utilization indicator has stabilized, suggesting deflationary pressures are abating. Meanwhile, home prices are on the cusp of a recovery, which should help boost consumer confidence and support consumption. With our models showing the Swedish krona as undervalued by 19% versus the USD, there is much room for currency appreciation before financial conditions tighten significantly. Should global growth continue to rebound, a reversal in pessimism towards energy stocks could see investors reprice the Norwegian stock market (and krone) sharply higher. The bottom line is that both Norway and Sweden are well poised to benefit from a global economic recovery, with much undervalued currencies that will bolster their basic balances. We expect both the SEK and NOK to be the best performers versus the USD in the coming year (Chart I-6).  Chart I-5The Swedish Economy Is On The Mend The Swedish Economy Is On The Mend The Swedish Economy Is On The Mend Chart I-6The Scandinavian Currencies Remain Cheap The Scandinavian Currencies Remain Cheap The Scandinavian Currencies Remain Cheap Stay Long Precious Metals, Especially Silver In a world of ample liquidity and a falling US dollar, gold and precious metals are bound to benefit. This is especially the case on the back of a central bank that is trying to asymmetrically generate inflation. Gold has a long-standing relationship with negative interest rates, though the correlation has shifted over time. The intuition behind falling real rates and rising gold prices is that low rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-income-generating assets such as gold. But more importantly, the correlation is between the rise in gold prices and the level of real interest rates, meaning as long as the latter stays negative, it is sufficient to sustain the gold bull market (Chart I-7). Gold tends to be a “Giffen good,” meaning demand increases as prices rise. This can be seen in the tight correlation between our financial demand indicator (proxied by open futures interest on the Comex and ETF holdings, Chart I-8) and gold prices. The conclusion is that, just like the US dollar, gold tends to be a momentum asset, where higher prices beget more demand – at least until the catalyst of easy money and negative rates vanishes Chart I-7Gold Prices And Real Yields Gold Prices And Real Yields Gold Prices And Real Yields Chart I-8Gold Is A Giffen Good Gold Is A Giffen Good Gold Is A Giffen Good There is reason to believe that the bull market in gold might be sustained for longer this time around. The reason is that central banks have become important (and price-insensitive) buyers. Foreign central banks have been amassing almost all of the gold annual output in recent years. It is remarkable that for most of the dollar bull market this past decade, the world’s major central banks (and biggest holders of US Treasurys) have seen rather stable exchange rates relative to the gold price (Chart I-9). This suggests that gold price risks could be asymmetric to the upside. A fall in prices encourages accumulation by EM central banks as a way to diversify out of their dollar reserves, while a rise in prices encourages financial demand and boosts the value of gold foreign exchange reserves. While we like gold, more value can be found in silver (and even platinum) prices, which have lagged the run up in gold. While we like gold, more value can be found in silver (and even platinum) prices, which have lagged the run up in gold. During precious metals bull markets, prices tend to move in sequence, starting with gold, then silver. Meanwhile, the gold/silver ratio (GSR) tends to track the US dollar (Chart I-10), since silver tends to rise and fall more explosively than gold. Part of the reason is that the silver market is thinner and more volatile. Silver’s rising industrial use has also led to competition with investment demand in recent years. Chart I-9Central Banks Will Put A Floor Under Gold Prices Central Banks Will Put A Floor Under Gold Prices Central Banks Will Put A Floor Under Gold Prices Chart I-10Silver Should Outperform Gold As The Dollar Falls Silver Should Outperform Gold As The Dollar Falls Silver Should Outperform Gold As The Dollar Falls The next important technical level for silver will be the 2012 highs near $35/oz. After this, silver could take out its 2011 highs that were close to $50/oz, just as gold did. Globally, the world produces much more gold than silver, with a supply ratio that is 7:1. Meanwhile, the price ratio between gold and silver is near 70:1. Back in the 1800s, Isaac Newton concluded that the appropriate ratio was 15.5:1. We initially shorted the GSR at 100 and eventually took 25% profits when our rolling stop was triggered. We recommend putting a limit sell at 75. More speculative investors can buy silver outright. Stay Short NZD At The Crosses, Especially Versus The CAD Chart I-11Stay Long CAD/NZD Stay Long CAD/NZD Stay Long CAD/NZD In our currency portfolio, trades at the crosses are equally important as versus the USD in terms of adding alpha. Over the past year, we have successfully been playing the short side of the kiwi trade. We closed our long SEK/NZD trade for a profit of 7.8% on March 20, and our long AUD/NZD trade for a profit of 5.2% on June 26. Today, we remain bullish on the CAD/NZD as an exploitable trading opportunity. First, the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the G10, while Canadian bourses are heavy in cyclical stocks. Should value start to outperform growth, this will favor the CAD/NZD cross. Second, immigration was an important source of labor for New Zealand, and COVID-19 has eaten into this dividend for the economy. As such, the neutral rate of interest is bound to head lower. And finally, in the commodity space, our bias is that energy will fare better than agriculture, boosting Canada’s relative terms of trade. At the Bank of Canada’s meeting this past Wednesday, the tone was slightly optimistic as it kept rates on hold. Recent data has been rather strong in Canada, especially in housing and goods consumption. This allows for the possibility of the BoC tapering asset purchases faster than the market expects, as argued by my colleague Mathieu Savary. This arbitrage is already being reflected in real interest rates, where they offer a premium of 180 basis points in Canada relative to New Zealand (Chart I-11). What To Do About Sterling? Trade negotiations between the UK and EU are once again hitting a brick wall. The key issue is around Northern Ireland. Ireland wants to remain bound to the EU’s customs and trade regime. The UK is seeking an amendment to be able to intervene, if there is “inconsistency or incompatibility with international or domestic law.” In short, it allows for UK discretion in the movement of goods to and from Northern Ireland, as well as state aid to Northern Ireland. The EU argues this is a clear breach of the treaty agreed to last year.    We remain bullish on the CAD/NZD as an exploitable trading opportunity. As negotiations go on, our base case is that a deal will eventually be reached. This is because neither side wants the worst-case scenario, namely, a no-deal Brexit. Should no deal be reached, the sharp rise in the trade-weighted euro will be exacerbated by a drop in the pound. This is deflationary for the euro area. And while the drop in the pound could be beneficial to the UK in the longer term, it will be very destabilizing since the UK is highly dependent on capital flows. Our roadmap for sterling is as follows: Historically, odds of a “hard” Brexit have usually been associated with cable near 1.20. This occurred after the UK referendum in 2016 and after Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected with a mandate to take the UK out of the EU (Chart I-12). Intuitively, this suggests that maximum pessimism on the pound, driven by Brexit fears, pins cable at around 1.20. A “weak” deal cobbled together at the eleventh hour will still benefit cable. Depending on the details, 1.35-1.40 for cable will be within striking distance. In the case where both the UK and EU come to a “perfect” agreement, the pound could be 20%-25% higher. The real effective exchange rate for the pound is now lower than where it was after the UK exited the ERM in 1992, with a drawdown that has been similar in size. A good deal should cause the pound to overshoot the mid-point of its historical real effective exchange rate range (Chart I-13). Chart I-12GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.20 GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.20 GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.20 Chart I-13The Pound Is Cheap The Pound Is Cheap The Pound Is Cheap The pound is also cheap versus the euro, and we expect the EUR/GBP to start facing significant headwinds near 0.92. It is remarkable that UK data continues to outperform both the US and euro area (Chart I-14). As such, cable should be bought on weakness. Tactically, we would be buyers of the pound in the 1.24-1.25 zone, and our limit sell on EUR/GBP was triggered yesterday at 0.92.   Chart I-14The UK Economy Is Improving The UK Economy Is Improving The UK Economy Is Improving Thoughts On The ECB The main takeaways from the European Central Bank (ECB) conference were threefold. First, data in the euro area was better than the ECB expected. Second, the ECB did not give any hints on its policy review or extend forward guidance. Keeping policy easy until inflation is up to, but still below, 2% appears more hawkish than the Federal Reserve, which is now trying to asymmetrically generate inflation. And finally, the ECB said they are monitoring the exchange rate, but fell short of providing any hints that they will actively lean against the currency. The euro took off, both against the dollar and other European currencies. We outlined in last week’s report why we do not believe the euro can fall much from current levels. These include the common currency being cheap and having a large share of exports in the eurozone. A Few Words On The CHF Finally, a few clients have asked what happens to the Swiss franc in an environment where the euro is rising (and the dollar is falling). Our bias is that the Swiss National Bank lets a rising EUR/CHF ease financial conditions in Switzerland, and even leans into it. The Swiss National Bank has been stepping up its pace of intervention since EUR/CHF touched 1.05 this year and will continue to do so (Chart I-15). Unfortunately, there is not much it can do about a falling USD/CHF. This suggests the franc will fall against the euro, but not so much against the dollar. In a world where global yields eventually converge to zero, holding the Swiss franc is an attractive hedge. Chart I-15USD Weakness Will Be A Headache For The SNB USD Weakness Will Be A Headache For The SNB USD Weakness Will Be A Headache For The SNB   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data from the US have been positive: On the labor market front, nonfarm payrolls fell to 1371K from 1734K in August. The average hourly earnings increased by 4.7% year-on-year. The unemployment rate declined from 10.2% to 8.4%. Initial jobless claims increased by 884K for the week ending on September 4th.  Finally, the NFIB business optimism index increased from 98.8 to 100.2 in August. The DXY index initially rose to a 4-week high of 93.6 earlier this week with positive data releases, then fell back to 93. Our bias is that while the dollar has been rebounding since the beginning of the month, the rally could prove to be a healthy counter-trend move in the long-term dollar bear market. Report Links: Addressing Client Questions - September 4, 2020 A Simple Framework For Currencies - July 17, 2020 DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market? - June 5, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area have been mixed: The Sentix investor confidence increased from -13.4 to -8 in September. GDP plunged by 11.8% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, or 14.7% year-on-year.  The euro declined by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The ECB decided to keep its interest rate and PEPP program unchanged on this Thursday. President Christine Lagarde sounded quite hawkish in the press conference, saying that incoming data since the last monetary policy meeting suggest “a strong rebound in activity broadly in line with previous expectations.” We continue to favor the euro against the US dollar. Report Links: Addressing Client Questions - September 4, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan have been mixed: The coincident index increased from 74.4 to 76.2 in July. The leading economic index also climbed up from 83.8 to 86.9 in July. The current account balance widened from ¥167 billion to ¥1,468 billion in July. GDP plunged by 7.9% quarter-on-quarter in Q2, or 28.1% on an annualized basis. Preliminary machine tool orders continued to fall by 23.3% year-on-year in August. Overall household spending contracted by 7.6% year-on-year in July. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. The expansion in Japan’s current account balance is mainly driven by the decline in domestic demand. Exports fell by 19.2% year-on-year in July while imports slumped at a faster pace by 22.3%. This suggests that deflationary forces are returning to Japan, which will boost real rates and buffet the yen. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data from the UK have been mostly positive: Retail sales continued to increase, rising by 4.7% year-on-year in August, following a 4.3% increase the previous month. Halifax house prices increased by 5.2% year-on-year for the 3 months to August. The Markit construction PMI declined from 58.1 to 54.6 in August. The British pound extended its sell-off this week, depreciating by 2.5% against the US dollar, making it the worst-performing G10 currency. Under ongoing trade negotiations, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is now putting more downward pressure on the pound after the summer rally. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data from Australia have been mixed: The AiG services performance index fell from 44 to 42.5 in August. The NAB business confidence increased from -14 to -8 in August while the business conditions index fell from 0 to -6. The Australian dollar appreciated by 0.4% against the US dollar this week. Spending fell sharply during the pandemic, pushing Australia’s savings rate to 19.8% from 6%. Until consumer spending returns in earnest, the RBA is unlikely to raise rates, which puts a cap on how far the AUD can rise. The good news is that household balance sheets are being mended, which reduces macroeconomic risk. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data from New Zealand have been mixed: Manufacturing sales plunged by 12.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. The preliminary ANZ business confidence index increased from -41.8% to -26% in September. The ANZ activity outlook index also ticked up from -17.5% to -9.9%. The New Zealand dollar fell initially against the US dollar, then recovered, returning flat this week. The ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook shows that most activity indicators have increased to the highest levels since the beginning of the pandemic but are still well below pre-COVID-19 levels. We like the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar but believe that it will underperform against other pro-cyclical currencies including the Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar. Report Links: Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data from Canada have been positive: On the labor market front, the unemployment rate declined from 10.9% to 10.2% in August. The participation rate increased from 64.3% to 64.6%. Average hourly wages surged by 6% year-on-year in August. Housing starts increased by 6.9% month-on-month to 262.4K in August, the highest reading since 2007. The Canadian dollar depreciated by 0.3% against the US dollar this week. The Bank of Canada maintained its target rate at 0.25% on Wednesday. It is also continuing large-scale asset purchases of at least C$5 billion per week of government bonds. Moreover, the Bank suggested that the bounce-back in activity in Q3 was better than expected, which bodes well for the loonie. Report Links: Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data from Switzerland have been mixed: FX reserves continued to increase from CHF 847 billion to CHF 848 billion in August. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 3.4% in August. The Swiss franc appreciated by 1% against the US dollar this week. The SNB Chairman Thomas Jordan said that “stronger currency market interventions relieve over-valuation pressure on the Swiss franc and protect the Swiss economy”. Recent dollar weakness could be another headache for the SNB, accelerating SNB’s currency intervention. While we like the franc as a safe-haven hedge with high real rates, the upside potential is likely to be more gradual as the SNB leans against it. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data from Norway have been positive: Manufacturing output increased by 1.8% month-on-month in July. Headline consumer price inflation ticked up from 1.3% to 1.7% year-on-year in August. Core inflation continued rising to 3.7% year-on-year from 3.5% the previous month. The Norwegian krone depreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The increase in headline inflation was mainly driven by furnishings and household equipment (10%), communications (4.9%) and food (3.7%). However, the Norwegian krone is still tremendously undervalued against the US dollar according to our models. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden have been mostly positive: The current account surplus fell to SEK 63.2 billion in Q2 from SEK 75.5 billion in Q1. However, this compares favorably to a surplus of SEK 34.7 billion the same quarter last year. Manufacturing new orders continued to fall by 6.4% year-on-year in July. This is an improvement compared to the 13.1% contraction the previous month. Headline consumer prices inflation increased from 0.5% to 0.8% year-on-year in August. Core inflation also climbed up from 0.5% to 0.7% year-on-year. The Swedish krona appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. We continue to favor the Swedish krona amid global economy recovery. Moreover, our PPP model shows that the krona is still undervalued by 19% against the US dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Stocks face near-term downside risks from further delays in passing a new US fiscal stimulus package, a potentially slower-than-expected rollout of a Covid-19 vaccine, and the unwinding of speculative call option positions in large-cap US tech companies. Nevertheless, we continue to favor equities over bonds over a 12-month horizon. One key reason is that the global equity risk premium – proxied by the difference between the stock market earnings yield and the real government bond yield – remains quite large. Many observers argue that the bond yield component of the equity risk premium is distorted by central bank manipulation. They also contend that low bond yields reflect poor economic prospects and that structurally low borrowing costs could lead to malinvestment down the road. In this report, we push back against these views. We argue that today’s low bond yields do, in fact, provide a reliable estimate of the risk-free component of the discount rate; that the drop in yields over the past year mainly reflects higher private-sector savings and easier monetary policy rather than pessimism about growth and earnings; and that instead of leading to overinvestment, the main effect of falling interest rates, at least so far, has been to inflate the rents earned by companies with monopoly power. All of this means that lower interest rates really do justify higher market valuations. The Correction Is Not Over, But We Are Sticking With Our Bullish 12-Month View On Stocks Chart 1Tech Stocks At Greatest Risk Of A Pullback Tech Stocks At Greatest Risk Of A Pullback Tech Stocks At Greatest Risk Of A Pullback After recouping some of their losses on Wednesday, stocks stumbled again on Thursday. Since reaching new highs last week, global equities have dropped by 5.3%. US equities have taken the brunt of the beating. They are down 7% from last week’s top, compared to 3% for non-US stocks (Chart 1). The tech-heavy Nasdaq remains 9.4% off its record high. We continue to see near-term downside risks to global stocks, particularly US equities. It has now been six weeks since emergency US federal unemployment benefits lapsed. The US economy is set to rebound at a brisk pace in the third quarter – the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model projects that output will grow 30% at an annualized pace – but GDP is rising from a very low base. In the absence of a new fiscal package, US growth could slow sharply in the fourth quarter and beyond, causing more workers to become permanently unemployed. Concern over the safety of the vaccines being developed to fight Covid-19 could also unsettle investors. On Wednesday, AstraZeneca announced that it had temporarily paused the Phase 3 trial of its vaccine co-developed with the University of Oxford after a patient suffered a severe reaction. Such delays are normal in the conduct of vaccine testing, but they do raise memories of the 1976 debacle with the Swine flu vaccine, which caused 450 Americans to come down with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a life-threatening neurological disorder.1 Chart 2Nasdaq Volatility Declined Even As Share Prices Tumbled Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? These worries come on the heels of a six-month rally in tech stocks – one that was dangerously amplified by speculative call option purchases by retail investors. The preference among retail investors for short-dated calls allowed them to gain control of large swathes of shares at relatively little cost. Market makers and other counterparties who sold the calls were forced to buy the underlying stock to hedge their exposure. This created a self-reinforcing feedback loop where rising call option prices generated more purchases of the underlying stock, leading to even higher call prices. Starting last week, the process began to go in reverse. It is noteworthy that Nasdaq implied volatility actually fell on both Monday and Wednesday as tech stocks imploded, a possible sign that nervous investors were liquidating their call positions (Chart 2). It is difficult to know how much further this process has to run, but our guess is that a capitulation point has not yet been reached. This suggests that the correction is not yet over.   TINA’s Siren Song Despite our near-term concerns, we expect global equities to be higher in 12 months’ time. At least one of the nine vaccine candidates currently in Phase 3 trials is likely to produce a viable formula. Policymakers are also liable to heed the will of voters and maintain generous fiscal stimulus measures. All this should allow global growth to pick up. Stocks usually do well when global growth is accelerating (Chart 3). And then there is TINA. TINA — There Is No Alternative — has become a popular adage on Wall Street. As the argument goes, no matter how expensive stocks seem to get, bonds and cash are even less attractive. There is some logic to this view. Today, the dividend yield on the S&P 500 stands at 1.6%. While this dividend yield is well below its historic average of 4.3%, it is still higher than the 0.68% yield on the 10-year Treasury note (Chart 4). Chart 3Stocks Usually Do Well When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Do Well When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Do Well When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 4Bond Yields Have Fallen Below Dividend Yields Bond Yields Have Fallen Below Dividend Yields Bond Yields Have Fallen Below Dividend Yields Imagine an investor having to decide whether to place their money in an S&P 500 index fund or a 10-year Treasury note. Dividends-per-share paid by S&P 500 companies have almost always increased over time. However, even if we make the pessimistic assumption that dividends-per-share remain unchanged for the next ten years, the value of the S&P 500 would still have to fall by 9% over the next decade to equal the return on the 10-year note. Assuming that inflation averages 2% over this period, the real value of the S&P 500 would need to drop by 25%. The picture is even more dramatic outside the US. In the euro area, the index would have to fall by over 30% in real terms for investors to make more money in bonds than stocks. In the UK, it would need to fall by over 50%. Elevated Equity Risk Premia Granted, stocks are riskier than bonds. However, based on a comparison of dividend yields with bond yields, stocks today are significantly cheaper than usual (Chart 5). Chart 5AStocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Chart 5BStocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds The relative attractiveness of stocks can also be inferred by subtracting the real bond yield from the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield on stocks in order to get an implied equity risk premium (ERP)2 (Chart 6). Outside the US, the ERP is high both because earnings yields are elevated and because real bond yields are depressed. In the US, which accounts for 56% of global stock market capitalization, the earnings yield is below its long-term average. Nevertheless, the US ERP is still quite high because real bond yields reside deep in negative territory. In fact, the US ERP has barely fallen since March because the decline in real yields has largely offset the rise in stock prices (Chart 7). Chart 6Equity Risk Premia Are Elevated Equity Risk Premia Are Elevated Equity Risk Premia Are Elevated Chart 7The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices   Are Bond Yields Fake News? Stock market bears will argue that the ERP is overstated by the abnormally low level of bond yields. Their argument typically centers on three points: Quantitative easing, forward guidance, NIRP and ZIRP have distorted bond yields to such an extent that we can no longer use them as a reliable measure of the risk-free component of the discount rate. Even if one accepts the premise that current bond yields are a valid proxy for the risk-free rate, the fact that yields are so low is hardly a cause for celebration. This is because today’s low yields reflect dismal economic prospects, which justifies a higher-than-normal equity risk premium. Low bond yields are incentivizing all sorts of malinvestment. With time, this will depress the rate of return on capital, leading to lower stock prices. Let’s examine all three arguments in turn. Are Bond Yields Being Manipulated? The term financial repression gets bandied around quite often these days. There is no doubt that central banks would like to keep yields low, but how much higher would yields be in the absence of any unorthodox monetary measures? Our guess is not much higher. The simplest test of whether bond yields are above or below their equilibrium level is to look at whether growth is above or below trend. The recovery following the financial crisis was anemic, suggesting that monetary policy was only modestly accommodative. If anything, one can argue that in much of the world, bond yields would be even lower today were it not for the fact that nominal interest rates cannot go much below zero. Do Low Bond Yields Reflect Bad News? Bond yields can decline for many reasons. Some of these reasons are positive for equity investors, while others are negative. If yields fall on the expectation of weaker economic growth, that is clearly bad for stocks. On the flipside, if yields drop because monetary policy has turned more dovish, that is good for stocks. The impact on equities from other factors influencing bond yields can be ambiguous. For example, consider the case of an increase in private-sector savings. All things equal, higher savings will lead to less spending. A decline in spending is likely to result in lower output and diminished corporate profits. That is bad for stocks. However, if governments absorb the excess private-sector savings by running larger budget deficits, there may end up being no net loss in aggregate demand. In that case, stock prices may not fall. Indeed, one can very easily envision a scenario where an adverse shock to private-sector spending leads to an increase in equity valuations. To see this point, consider a standard dividend discount model. Suppose something happens that leads the private sector to spend less at any given interest rate. Let us also suppose that the central bank reacts to this shock by cutting interest rates all the way down to zero, at which point governments, taking advantage of cheaper borrowing costs, step in and increase fiscal stimulus. The upshot could be a lower interest rate but at the same level of aggregate spending (See Box 1 for a formal economic discussion of how this process works). If aggregate demand – and by extension, corporate earnings and dividends — drop temporarily, while interest rates fall permanently (or at least semi-permanently), the present value of cash flows will rise. As far-fetched as this scenario may seem, something along these lines appears to have happened over the past six months. Chart 8 shows that analysts expect global profits to contract by 19% in 2020, but then rebound by 29% in 2021 and rise a further 16% the following year, leaving 2022 profits 21% above 2019 levels. Like everywhere else, analysts expect US profits to return to their long-term trend over the next few years. Meanwhile, the 30-year TIPS yield – a proxy for the risk-free component of the discount rate – has fallen by 94 basis points since the start of the year. Even if one assumes, contrary to the optimistic forecasts of analysts, that the level of US EPS does not return to its pre-pandemic trend until 2030, this would still leave the fair value of the S&P 500 17.5% higher than it was at the start of the year (Chart 9). Chart 8Analysts Expect Global Profits To Contract This Year Before Rebounding Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Chart 9The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Will Low Interest Rates Lead To Malinvestment? A drop in interest rates may seem like a free lunch for shareholders: It increases the present value of future cash flows without reducing the cash flows themselves. In fact, one could argue that lower rates actually increase future cash flows by shrinking net interest payments on outstanding debt. That might be all fine and dandy, but what about the effect of low interest rates on future investment decisions? To the extent that lower rates increase the market value of a firm’s capital stock relative to its replacement cost – the so-called Tobin’s Q ratio – lower rates could spur more investment. Higher investment, in turn, could drive down the rate of return on capital, leading to lower profits (Box 2 illustrates this point with a simple example featuring a lemonade stand). While there is some truth to this logic, it is less compelling than it once was. This is because much of the capital stock of listed companies today takes the form of intangible capital – which is often difficult to reproduce – rather than physical capital. Such intangible capital may include patents and trademarks as well as monopoly power. In particular, internet companies have gained significant monopoly power from network effects: The more people use their service, the more valuable their service becomes. This is a key reason why falling interest rates have helped the tech giants more than other companies. The Path Ahead The section above argued that today’s low bond yields do, in fact, provide a reliable estimate of the risk-free component of the discount rate; that the drop in yields over the past year mainly reflects higher private-sector savings and easier monetary policy rather than pessimism about growth and earnings; and that instead of leading to overinvestment, the main effect of falling interest rates, at least so far, has been to inflate the rents earned by companies with monopoly power. All this means that lower interest rates really do justify higher market valuations. Looking out, while bond yields are unlikely to rise significantly over the next two years in the absence of any meaningful inflationary pressures, yields are unlikely to fall either given how low they already are. This is not necessarily bad news for stocks. As mentioned above, the equity risk premium is quite high, which means that stocks can rise even if bond yields do edge somewhat higher. The more interesting action is likely to occur beneath the broad indices. If bond yields stabilize, this will remove a major headwind to bank shares (Chart 10). On the flipside, the reopening of economies will benefit companies that were crushed by lockdown measures. Money will shift from “pandemic plays” to “recovery plays.” Chart 10Stabilization In Bond Yields Would Remove A Major Headwind To Bank Shares Stabilization In Bond Yields Would Remove A Major Headwind To Bank Shares Stabilization In Bond Yields Would Remove A Major Headwind To Bank Shares Chart 11US Stocks Are More Expensive Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA?   As we predicted three weeks ago in a report titled “The Return Of Nasdog,” tech and health care stocks will go from leaders to laggards. The US has a higher concentration of tech and health care stocks than most other regions. US stocks are also quite expensive based on standard valuation measures, including the Tobin's Q ratio discussed above (Chart 11). The bottom line is that investors should remain overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon, while pivoting towards value stocks and non-US markets.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1The Role Of Monetary And Fiscal Policy Following Savings Shocks Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Box 2Fancy Some Lemonade? An Example Of Tobin’s Q Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Footnotes 1 Rick Perlstein, “Gerald Ford Rushed Out a Vaccine. It Was a Fiasco,” The New York Times, September 2, 2020. 2 It is necessary to subtract the real bond yield, rather than the nominal bond yield, from the earnings yield because the earnings yield provides an estimate of the real total expected return to shareholders. For further discussion on this, please see Appendix A of the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA? Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA?

Feature Investors are increasingly concerned that the US presidential election this year will fail to produce a legitimate result, leading to an escalation in political instability and uncertainty. In this report we hold a Q&A session that we hope will serve as your concise and definitive guide to a contested US election – by which we mean an election that is not decided by the popular vote or Electoral College but requires the intervention of the US Congress or Supreme Court to determine the final outcome. As always, this report draws on the best academic work on the subject, but is not limited to academic conclusions. We apply our geopolitical method and macroeconomic perspective to determine the likeliest scenarios and financial market impacts.  The takeaway? Most likely the election result will be decisive, as incumbent presidents tend to lose amid recessions. However, with President Trump staging a comeback, a contested election is possible and investors would be wise to prepare for volatility over the next two-to-four months at minimum.         Chart 1Trump At Disadvantage In Popular Opinion The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections A good rule of thumb: Trump is at a disadvantage in raw popular opinion (Chart 1), so anything that directs the election decision away from the popular vote and toward constitutional procedures should be seen as a lifeline for Trump, and hence a recipe for a bigger trade war and prolonged US equity outperformance. How Is The US President Elected? The US elects presidents by means of electors, private citizens appointed by each of the 50 states to vote on their population’s behalf, i.e. the Electoral College. The popular vote, or canvass, has been the prevailing method of choosing each state’s electors since the 1840s. The vote is held and tallied by the election authorities of the states on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November (e.g. November 3, 2020). Each state has different laws on how to hold elections and appoint a slate of electors loyal to the winning candidate in the state. The constitution grants state legislatures the power to appoint the electors. This could become a source of controversy in a contested election.1 Generally the state’s secretary of state approves the popular tally which then determines which slate of electors is appointed. The state governor certifies the names of the electors and the numbers of votes received, signs the letter and applies the state seal, and then sends multiple copies to various authorities for surety.2  If disputes arise over a state’s election results, the state will ideally resolve them by December 8 (Table 1), six days before the electors meet to fill out their ballots for the president and vice-president. Electors meet in the state capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December (e.g. Monday, December 14, 2020) and cast their vote. They send certificates of their vote to the President of the United States Senate in Washington, DC, who is also the nation’s vice president, currently Mike Pence.  Table 1Calendar Of US Election 2020 The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections On January 6 of the New Year (2021), the President of the Senate presides over a special joint session of the new Congress, which itself convenes on January 3. He presents the states’ electoral votes to Congress alphabetically. The votes are counted, with Congress employing official tellers to record the sums.3  If any disputes are raised against any state’s electoral votes, the two houses of Congress must agree in order to disqualify those votes. If the two houses disagree, the votes will be counted. The Senate President, as the constitutional keeper of the electoral returns and presiding officer of the joint session, has some influence, which is another potential source of controversy. When the count is done, the tellers hand their results to the Senate President, who reads them off. Usually the leading candidate captures an absolute majority of the Electoral College (270/538 votes), so the next president is crystal clear and the whole ceremony is finished in half an hour. Alas, not always. What Electoral Results Can Be Ruled Out In 2020? Before getting into contested elections, it is important to address what is highly unlikely to occur in 2020. First, President Trump will not win the popular vote. Chart 2Trump Highly Unlikely To Win Popular Vote The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Trump won 46% of the popular vote in 2016, trailing Hillary Clinton by 2.9 million votes. Since 2017, Trump’s national approval rating has never risen above 50% in the average of polls. His disapproval rating is almost always higher than his approval (Chart 2). Thus if Trump wins the election it will be through his Electoral College strategy, as in 2016 – or through a contested election. The US has split the popular and Electoral College vote on five occasions, yielding a historical probability of 9%. The fifth time was President Trump’s victory in 2016; he would be the first president to do so twice. This is possible because the regional and demographic factors behind Trump’s win four years ago are still largely intact. Currently our quantitative election model gives Trump a 45% chance of winning the election (Chart 3). This is in line with the consensus view, as online betting markets put Trump’s odds at 43%. However, online gamblers put the odds of the next president losing the popular vote in a range of 27%-31%, which implies that his odds are lower given his low popularity (Chart 4). Chart 3Our Quant Election Model Gives Trump 45% Chance Of Victory The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Chart 4Trump Odds Weighed Down By Low Chance Of Popular Win The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Subjectively, we are sticking with our 35% chance of Trump winning, which falls in the middle of this range. What is clear is that Trump has a much greater chance than the historical 9% probability of winning without the popular vote.  There is nothing illegitimate about an Electoral College victory – far from it, it is the constitutional way in which the presidency is won. Nevertheless a victory without a popular mandate deprives the new administration of political capital. A second-term Trump is likely to be stymied at home and more inclined to act unilaterally abroad, a downside risk to global equity markets. Second, Republicans will not reclaim a majority of the House of Representatives. Chart 5Republicans Highly Unlikely To Win House Of Representatives The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections To do so, the GOP would have to retain all Republican-leaning seats (yielding 186) plus all “toss up” seats (totaling 214) and then four additional Democratic-leaning seats. Yet there are only two Democratic-leaning seats that do not benefit from the incumbent advantage (Chart 5).4 The re-election rate in the House and Senate is around 85-95%. Neither the state of the economy nor Trump’s approval rating suggest that Republicans are capable of such a big victory in the House (Chart 6). Chart 6Trump An Albatross For House Republicans The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Third, Democrats are unlikely to win a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives. Currently, Republicans have a majority on 26 of the 50 delegations of lawmakers that the states send to the US House of Representatives. Democrats control 23 state delegations, while Pennsylvania is neutral. If the presidential election is close, then the balance of power among the state delegations will most likely stay the same. Republicans are likely to retain 25 state delegations, whereas Democrats would have to win all five toss-up delegations plus Florida merely to tie the Republicans with 25 delegations (Table 2). This is a tall order. Table 2Democrats Unlikely To Win Majority Of State Delegations In House Of Representatives The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Republicans’ state-by-state House majority would prove critical in a contested election, as we will see. Otherwise it doesn’t matter much. What Is A Contested Election? Chart 7Extreme Political Polarization Means Election Disputes Will Rage The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The 2020 election will inevitably see legal challenges, vote recounts, and procedural problems. Partisanship is at extreme levels, meaning that the two parties will do anything to win (Chart 7). The unprecedented large-scale adoption of mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic also ensures that recounts and legal disputes will abound.5 Neither candidate is likely to concede defeat quickly or easily. While President Trump is explicit about his reluctance to concede, there is zero chance that Joe Biden will bow out quietly like Al Gore did in the 2000 dispute.   However, investors should distinguish a contested election, in which the resolution of disputes will determine the final outcome, from a controversial election, in which the final outcome is known but the defeated candidate refuses to concede. Either could be market-relevant, but the first scenario is the primary concern as it yields the powers of the presidency. The rest is aftermath. The bedrock principle of US presidential succession is as follows: Constitutionally, if the Electoral College vote falls short of a clear majority (270 out of 538), the House of Representatives chooses the president on a majority vote, with each state receiving only one vote. Similarly, the Senate chooses the vice president.6 President Trump is favored to win in this scenario. As mentioned, Republicans may well hold 26 of the 50 state delegations in the House. A clear majority on either side removes any risk of indecision: the next president will be chosen on a party-line vote of the states. For Democrats to choose the president in the House, they need a landslide victory. This is possible, but then it would imply that President Trump has been soundly beaten in the presidential race. A contested election presupposes a close national race that is likely to result in the status quo balance of power among the states in Congress, and hence an advantage for Trump if the House chooses the president. Map 1 illustrates the fundamental shift in American political power if the House of Representatives votes on a state-by-state basis to resolve a contested election. It alters the geography of each state according to the voting age population, the Electoral College representation from 2016, and an equal weighting in which each state gets the same number of votes, as in the House’s contested election procedure. The Electoral College is not nearly as distortive of the popular will as is often made out. However, the red states greatly increase their prominence in an equal weighting (just as in the US Senate). Map 1Trump Disfavored In Popular Vote, But Favored If Contested Election Decided In House Of Representatives The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The fundamental takeaway is that President Trump is disfavored when it comes to the popular vote in the states, but if the election is contested and shifts to the House of Representatives, he has a lifeline. Yet if Democrats win the Senate in the election, this lifeline will be cut off. Moreover, the Supreme Court is a wild card, as discussed below.  What Can We Learn From Past Contested Elections? Chart 8US Contested Elections Often Coincide With Deflationary Economy The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The US has witnessed four contested elections under our definition. Most of them occurred amid deflationary economic trends, which would fit with today’s environment (Chart 8). Each episode can be described as a “stolen election,” depending on one’s point of view.  The key lessons for today are as follows: 1800 – “The Revolution” – Vice President Thomas Jefferson, as Senate President, chose to count the electoral votes from Georgia even though they lacked the governor’s signature and failed to meet federal requirements. This gave him a majority of the electoral votes, which ultimately led to his election.7 If he had rejected these votes, the outgoing House of Representatives would have chosen his rival candidate, John Adams, as president. Takeaway: The vice president has the constitutional authority to present the electoral votes for counting and to oversee the joint session of Congress. If Congress is divided, and the vice president has a decision as to whether to present a certain set of electoral votes, then the vice president could tip the election in his own party’s favor. Also noteworthy: the presence or absence of a governor’s signature on a state’s electoral votes is not definitive. 1824 – “The Corrupt Bargain” – Andrew Jackson lost the election despite winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. With a hung vote in the college, the House of Representatives decided the election among the top three candidates. The Speaker of the House threw his weight behind John Quincy Adams, who then nominated the speaker as the secretary of state in his new administration. Takeaway: Washington insiders can determine the outcome arbitrarily if they control the House of Representatives. A hung Electoral College, or tie, throws the election to the House and thus favors Trump. 1876 – “The Stolen Election” – Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote and the most electoral votes, at 184, while Republican Rutherford Hayes won 165 electoral votes. Tilden was one vote shy of an Electoral College majority (185), while Hayes fell 20 votes shy. Republican control of four states led to an alternative set of Republican electoral votes being sent to Washington. Congress then had to choose between the rival electoral slates. To resolve the dispute, Congress created a special bipartisan committee. The tiebreaking member of the committee was disqualified by a fluke, leading to a replacement who voted on party lines, awarding all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, who thus won the presidency. Simultaneously lawmakers negotiated a grand compromise to ensure Congress would not filibuster the committee’s decision: Hayes would withdraw federal troops from the South, which had been occupied since the Civil War. Takeaway: A party can use control of states to send an alternate set of electoral returns to Washington, muddying the electoral counting process and throwing the election into Congress’s hands. Also, Congress is supreme and can create special mechanisms to resolve electoral disputes. Political solutions are essential when constitutional mechanisms fail.   2000 – Bush versus Gore – Contested election results in Florida led Democrat Al Gore to withdraw his concession to Republican George W. Bush. The Gore legal team convinced the Florida Supreme Court to allow several recounts, including a statewide recount. The Florida legislature, along with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, prepared to certify Jeb’s brother’s victory and send electoral votes to Washington. The US Supreme Court intervened, halting a statewide recount, on the basis of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and in rejection of the Florida court’s novel recount scheme. Takeaway: The Supreme Court can and will intervene in a state election dispute if it is becoming a legal morass. Previously the states settled disputes themselves, or the US Congress settled disputes in Washington. Though the Supreme Court claimed that its ruling did not set a precedent, the clear precedent is that the Supreme Court will intervene if there is a power vacuum. Each of these contested elections sparked extreme partisan controversy.8 In two of them, both the popular and electoral results were thrown out the window. The lesson is that the House of Representatives is definitive. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court preempts it. Since both the Constitution and statutory history point to Congress, not the Supreme Court, as the arbiter of presidential elections, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would overrule the House if the House makes its decision first. But it is still possible, and this is a major source of uncertainty for 2020 or future elections. To fix the various problems that have arisen over the years, Washington has passed several laws, such as the twelfth amendment (1804) and the Electoral Count Act (1887). But fundamental disagreements can still emerge: namely over the constitutional power of the state legislatures to appoint electors, the value of the governor’s signature on his or her state’s electoral votes, and whether the President of the Senate has a substantive or merely ceremonial role. Any of these factors could result in confusion and controversy in 2020-21. How Will States Settle Disputes? On the state level, prior to the joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes on January 6, a range of shenanigans could occur, and the states may never actually settle their disputes. States are supposed to settle any internal recounts or disputes by December 8, 2020 for “safe harbor” status. This status urges, but does not require, the US Congress to accept the state’s final determination of its own electoral votes. If a state fails of this status, Congress may still count its votes, but it has a freer hand to do as it pleases. Thus each party will attempt through judicial or legislative actions to rush and achieve safe harbor status if it believes it won the popular vote count, and will attempt to delay and deprive the state of that status if not. If the legislature and governor agree, then this will be no problem. If they do not agree, the risk emerges that a state battle could escalate all the way to Washington. States with Republican governors, and a Republican or at least a divided legislature, could ensure that Republican electoral votes are sent to Washington in the event of a dispute. This is particularly important in the case of Arizona and Florida, but it also applies to Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas in 2020. The same goes for Democrats, although there are fewer swing states that fit this description (e.g. Minnesota), as Table 3 shows. Table 3Swing States: Balance Of Legislative And Executive Power The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The reason for this is that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 instructs Congress to favor the electoral votes with the governor’s signature if there is any dispute about which results to accept when the US Congress holds the final count. If the governor is not opposed by his own legislature, then his certified results will be the ones that go to Congress.    However, states with a unified legislature, either Republican or Democratic, could conceivably send electoral votes of their choice regardless of what the state governor does – and this is relevant for several of the most important swing states in 2020, specifically Republican legislatures under Democratic governors in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina, and Democratic legislatures under Republican governors, as in New Hampshire. The constitution endows state legislatures with the power to appoint electors, so legislatures could attempt to override their governors – or even their state supreme courts. Indeed, Florida’s legislature and governor were prepared to send Republican electoral votes to Washington regardless of the Florida high court’s actions in the year 2000. How Will Congress Count The Votes? Republicans will not have unified control of the federal legislature and executive, as noted above. Hence Republican congressmen and senators will not be able to pick and choose which electoral votes to accept at their discretion when the votes are counted on January 6, 2021. House Democrats would prevent them from rejecting any state’s electoral votes for arbitrary reasons.  On the other hand, the Democrats are quite likely to pick up the Senate, and a united Democratic Congress would have the power to pick and choose electoral votes at its discretion. The Democrats could disqualify the electoral votes of a state that voted for Trump in the event of a dispute, tipping the scales in Biden’s favor, during the electoral counting process. For example, say President Trump wins 270 electoral votes and Biden wins 268 – a likely scenario if Trump wins all the 2016 states but loses Pennsylvania and Michigan. Ostensibly President Trump would be re-elected. But the Democratic House and Senate could disqualify the 10 electoral votes of Wisconsin due to any disputes in that state over its popular vote or electors. Trump’s votes would fall to 260 while Biden would retain his original 268. A unified Congress could simultaneously decide to disqualify Wisconsin’s electors from the 538 total of appointed electors, saying the electors were not legally appointed, bringing the total denominator of electors to 528, thus giving Biden a three-vote margin of victory (majority: 265/528). Biden would become the president. If Congress is divided then this kind of manipulation is not possible. Either a bipartisan agreement would determine whether to count a state’s votes – which would be credible and legitimate – or a bipartisan disagreement would lead to the disputed electoral votes being counted. Chart 9Democrats Likely To Win Senate, Hence Congress – Huge Perk In Electoral Count The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Hence the makeup of the Senate on January 3, which may not be wholly complete at that time, is of great consequence. Democrats are structurally favored to win the Senate this year. They have 12 seats up for re-election versus 23 for Republicans, and only two of their seats are at risk whereas 10 are at risk for Republicans (Chart 9). We expect Democrats to take the Senate, but in a close presidential race the Senate could tie at 50-50. If Republicans retain the Senate, then Vice President Mike Pence could take on a substantive role in counting the Electoral College votes, rather than a merely ceremonial role of presenting the electoral returns to the joint session. If a state sends questionable electoral returns, or more than one set of returns, Pence could conceivably choose which results to present to Congress. A unified Congress could override him but a divided Congress might not. There is precedent for a vice president making a decision on electoral counting that affects the outcome in his own favor, as noted above. While modern scholars tend to highlight the conflict of interest here, the constitution could be read as giving the vice president this advantage so as to more speedily settle any disputes.9 The Electoral Count Act of 1887 says that when in doubt, Congress should accept the electoral votes certified by a state’s governor. But this position was controversial at the time and may not be constitutional. The vice president could assert his own authority to present the legitimate votes to Congress to be counted. It is not clear that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court would contradict him, since neither the constitution nor the Electoral Count Act envisions the court as arbitrating these kinds of disputes. Thus it is conceivable that a situation could arise in which a critical swing state sends two sets of returns and Vice President Pence chooses the electors in favor of himself and President Trump, with a Republican Senate preventing the Democratic House from doing anything about it. A strict constructionist Supreme Court would likely defer to whatever happens in Congress. However, the court could be activist, given that Chief Justice John Roberts is a well-known swing player. It could interpose in a way that precludes any actions deemed entirely arbitrary or lacking a plausible basis in the facts of the state’s election results and laws. As we saw, the court will be inclined to fill a power vacuum. The takeaway is that a unified Congress could count the electoral votes in such a way as to secure a Biden win, while a divided Congress could count the electoral votes in such a way as to give President Trump a lifeline in a disputed election. The Supreme Court is a wild card. What About An Electoral College Tie Or Faithless Electors? A contested election, using the narrow definition, would occur due to an Electoral College tie at 269-269 or any other anomalies that prevent either candidate from reaching a 270-vote majority. Again, the House of Representatives would decide on a state-by-state basis, likely favoring Trump. For example, some electoral votes could be disqualified, a third party candidate could split the vote, or “faithless electors” could vote contrary to their state’s popular choice.10  An electoral tie is not a negligible risk in 2020 – there are 68 possible combinations, and many of them are plausible.11 In 2016, 11 states had a margin of victory less than 5%. Take two equally realistic examples. If Trump lost Pennsylvania and Michigan (likely) as well as Nebraska’s second district (Omaha/suburbs, which President Obama won) then he would tie Biden at 269. Or, if Trump lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona (which leaned Democratic in 2018), yet gained Minnesota (the epicenter of the crisis over race and law enforcement), a tie would occur. In a near-tie, a few wayward electors could deprive either candidate of a win. This is far more likely to happen to Trump than Biden. Table 4Range Of Electoral College Votes, 2020 The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The current combinations of truly competitive states suggest that the Democrats have a lock on 268-319 electoral votes while Republicans only have a lock on 169-219 electoral votes (Table 4). Trump is widely expected to lose both Pennsylvania and Michigan, which alone cut him down to 270 votes; the loss of a single vote from there would deprive him of a majority. By contrast, Biden would hit 278 votes at minimum by picking off a single Republican state in addition to Pennsylvania and Michigan. It is more likely that Trump would lose one or two faithless electors than that Biden would lose nine or ten. So it is more likely that faithless electors would deprive Trump of a win than Biden. But then the House of Representatives would have to resolve the impasse, and would likely favor Trump. What Is The Line Of Succession If The House Fails To Choose A President? What happens if a contested election goes to the House but the state delegations tie at 25-25? Then the House must continue voting over and over until one of the presidential candidates gets the majority. A single lawmaker in a critical state could swing the balance. That lawmaker could be swayed by conscience, bribes, or chance. In 1824, a critical lawmaker from New York changed his vote at the last minute because he found a ballot with John Q. Adams’s name on it and believed it was a sign from God. In 1876, the tiebreaking Supreme Court judge in the congressional commission delegated to work out a compromise solution was disqualified after it was found he had won a simultaneous race for a seat in the Senate.12 The House would eventually decide, but if the state delegations are evenly split, the voting could continue through January 20, Inauguration Day. The vice president would take over at that time. The vice president is chosen by a majority vote of the Senate. If Democrats take the Senate, they would choose California Senator Kamala Harris as the vice president, and she would act as president until the House made its choice. If the Senate vote also split at 50-50 on the new vice president, then the Speaker of the House, who is likely still to be California Representative Nancy Pelosi, would serve as acting president under the statutory line of presidential succession (Table 5). Table 5US Line Of Succession If Presidency Vacant The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Obviously both the House and the Senate would be under immense pressure to make a decision, so the power vacuum would not last more than a couple of months at most. The US would not be without a leader. However, its leader would be an interim leader with limited ability to make major policy changes or act proactively at home or abroad. It might be a good time for China to stage a surprise attack on Taiwan, or for other revisionist powers like Russia, Iran, or Turkey to make aggressive moves, while the global policeman is asleep at the wheel.13  What Is The “Blue Shift” And Does It Matter? The scholar Edward Foley has called attention to the phenomenon of the “Blue Shift” as a possible pretext for President Trump to contest the election result. The blue shift is the emerging tendency for US election tallies to change significantly after election day as a result of absentee and mail-in ballots that arrive after in-person ballots are counted.14  In 2018, the Arizona senate election went from Republican, as of the tally on November 6 to Democratic as of November 12 as a result of the blue shift. This produced whiplash for Republican supporters who thought they had won (Table 6).  Table 6“ Blue Shift” Means Vote Count Leans Democratic As Late Votes Arrive The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Will COVID-19 exacerbate the blue shift in 2020? While Republicans are less fearful of the virus and Democrats more enthusiastic about mail-in voting, the pandemic’s effect will be for more people in general to vote by mail, which should reduce the Democratic skew relative to previous elections. Still, there will be some Democratic skew which opens the possibility that an election that looks like a Republican win in the wee hours of November 4 could later fall to the Democrats. Foley entertains a scenario in which President Trump disputes the election on the basis of this apparent, but not real, shift in the election results. However, a blue shift would not prevent state-level election boards from correctly tallying and certifying the result. Trump can always cry foul, but only a small group of Republican supporters will believe him if the results are duly and transparently verified by a bipartisan consensus among the branches of state government. This scenario is thus governed by the points made above regarding the role of state legislatures: if a swing state’s legislature genuinely disagrees with the state’s election board or governor, then it could send its own set of electoral votes to Washington. If Republicans control the Senate, then this alternate set of electoral votes could be accepted. What Happens After A Contested Election? The constitutional power to count the Electoral College votes, and to determine the election if the college is indecisive, lies with Congress (and/or the Supreme Court). The rest is just the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  This wailing and gnashing could still prove market-relevant, however. If the defeated candidate has enough popular support, he would reduce the effectiveness of the new administration. If President Trump is re-elected on any of the technicalities above, he will face an unprecedented popular opposition and social unrest, likely fanned by Biden and a unified Democratic Party. Trump’s administration would be weak at home and would only have influence abroad, creating downside for global risk assets. Polarization is extreme – the two parties will do anything to win the White House. Chart 10Republicans Will Drop Trump Like Nixon If He Loses The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections By contrast, if President Trump loses and refuses to concede, then he will actually reduce policy uncertainty in the United States. Trump’s support among Republicans is premised on his ability to win and drive through their favored policies; his support will plummet if he loses, just as Richard Nixon’s plummeted after the Watergate tapes were revealed (Chart 10). Trump could create an alt-right social media empire and serve as a gadfly, or he could lead a “rump” of the Republican Party to break away. Either way, he would divide and weaken the Republicans relative to the now-ruling Democrats, which would eventually lead to greater policy certainty. Without steady opposition, Democrats would achieve more of their agenda. This would increase risks for certain equity sectors (health care, energy), but would actually reduce polarization as the Democratic majority would more easily cooperate with moderate Republicans.  The latter scenario would be hugely important. Trump could hobble the Republicans for years. This would pave the way for a Democratic ascendancy. Such an ascendancy is already possible based on trends in age, demographics, and ideology, but a serious split in the Republican Party would ensure that it comes to pass. The negative side-effect is that the populist fringe would be more likely to become disaffected or radicalized. Implications For The Long Run The advanced democracies have seen a period of relative peace and prosperity since World War II that kept their electoral disputes limited. They have sought to use multilateral institutions to promote free and fair elections across the rest of the world. But globalization has disrupted their internal political balances, particularly in the United States, making them vulnerable to governance and electoral failures usually associated with emerging and frontier markets (Table 7). Table 7Worldwide Contested Elections Rarely End Peacefully The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Even prior to COVID-19 the US had reached historic levels of political polarization. The downward spiral of partisanship began when the Soviet Union collapsed and the country no longer faced a common external enemy. The Democrats and Republicans rapidly descended into a fratricidal battle over what they thought would be world supremacy. Today polarization is exploding into open power struggle, with President Trump preemptively casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election and his challenger suggesting that the US military will have to remove him from office if he defies the election result (with prominent generals explicitly contemplating “collective action” to remove Trump).15 Social unrest is morphing into ideological and political violence in the streets. There is ample fuel for unrest and violence to intensify. The party that comes out on top of the 2020 election will have significant influence over the future, including taxing and spending, trade and foreign policy, Supreme Court picks, redistricting after the 2020 census, the fate of the Senate filibuster, and the debate over statehood for Washington, DC. If President Trump wins, it will either be narrowly, through the Electoral College, or through a contested election settled in the House of Representatives. It will prevent a new consensus forming on fiscal policy and the redistribution of wealth. The same goes for a Biden win with Republicans keeping the Senate. As such, polarization will increase for a few more years, before the next generation’s leftward political shift overtakes the Republicans.  Nevertheless, while domestic policy will swing on the Senate, the next president will mostly be important in shaping US policy toward the rest of the world. In this respect, it is notable that Biden and Trump are both competing to see who is more mercantilist and protectionist. The US’s secular competition with China is likely to help cultivate national consensus on a range of policies in the coming decade. And if the Democrats win with a clean sweep – which we still see as the most likely outcome – the painful process of forming a new consensus on taxing and spending will begin in 2021. The US will have witnessed a sea change in fiscal policy as well as trade policy. Partisanship will remain high, but a strong Democratic majority on taxing and spending, combined with Democrats flagrantly coopting Trump’s stance on trade and China, looks to us like the seeds of a new national policy consensus that will reduce US political polarization over the long run. A Trump victory on a technicality will lead to a weak government and trade war. A Biden victory will have popular support and lead to higher taxes. Chart 11Stock Market Will Sell Off Amid Contested Election, As In Past The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections The Definitive Guide To Contested US Elections Unfortunately, this year and the next few years will still see polarization at extremes.  It goes without saying that the US election cycle in 2020-21 will bring surprises and likely induce financial market volatility, beyond what has been seen. Judging by history, a full-fledged contested election will likely lead to a substantial equity pullback (Chart 11) – especially in a recessionary context, as in the case of the 1876 “Stolen Election.”   Beyond that, Trump’s re-election would pose a major trade war risk for global assets, a boon for continued US equity outperformance relative to the world. Biden would reduce global risks, while hiking domestic risks due to higher taxes and regulation, thus encouraging the opposite effect.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    See Article II, Section I of the US Constitution.  2   See “Electoral College Instructions To State Officials,” National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, available at archives.gov. 3   See Article II, i and Amendment XII of the Constitution. There is some disagreement about what the constitution says regarding who does the counting. But a miscounting of the results, if the results are clear, is not credible. The vice president cannot deliberately miscount the vote, nor could Congress. However, if the results are not clear, disagreements could emerge in which the vice president could have a decisive impact. See Stephen A. Siegel, “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide To The Electoral Count Act of 1887,” Florida Law Review 56 (2004), floridalawreview.com. Throughout this report we are highly indebted to Siegel’s authoritative study. 4   See Cook Political Report, “2020 House Race Ratings,” August 21, 2020, cookpolitical.com.  5   See for example Anna Baringer et al, “Voting by Mail and Ballot Rejection: Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus,” University of Florida Election Science Group, August 20, 2020, electionscience.clas.ufl.edu. 6   See Amendment XII of the Constitution. 7   See Siegel, “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide.” For the historical details in this section, see Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington To George W. Bush (Oxford: OUP, 1984 [2004]). The House had to vote between Jefferson and his vice presidential candidate, Aaron Burr, who had the same number of electoral votes. At that time the president and vice president were not treated separately. Jefferson ultimately won when a handful of state delegations in the House abstained after several rounds of voting. Subsequently the twelfth amendment to the constitution was passed so that presidents and vice presidents were chosen separately, avoiding an Electoral College tie between two members of the same party ticket. 8   In 1800, Thomas Jefferson warned of civil war. In 1824, Andrew Jackson fumed that the will of the people had been cheated and plotted revenge, which he got in 1828. In 1876, Washington sent federal troops to monitor state election boards and some southern states threatened to rise up again. In 2000, a debatable court intervention fueled a left-wing backlash and a vicious spiral of polarization that continues to this day. 9   Here and elsewhere in this report we are indebted to Edward B. Foley, “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 51:2 (2019), lawecommons.luc.edu. 10  Regarding “faithless electors,” the Supreme Court this year unanimously upheld the ability of states to punish electors who break their pledge. But faithless electors are still possible, and could conceivably deprive an Electoral College winner of his victory. The 2016 election saw seven electors deviate from their party (out of 10 who tried), abnormally high. The extreme political environment is likely to produce defectors. See “Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors,” Congressional Research Service, July 10, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov. 11   See “Electoral College Tie Finder,” 270 To Win, www.270towin.com. 12  See Boller, Presidential Campaigns. 13  See Admiral James A. Winnefeld and Michael J. Morell, "The War That Never Was?" US Naval Institute Proceedings 146: 8 (August 2020), usni.org. 14  See Foley, “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election.” This trend began with electoral reforms that made absentee balloting easier in 2002, but it is also a broader trend. Republicans tend to vote in person; those who vote through mail skew Democratic. Therefore the initial results favor Republicans, while the final results bring in a rush of ballots favoring Democrats. 15  See Brittany Bernstein, “Mattis Told Then-DNI Coats They May Be Forced to Take ‘Collective Action’ against ‘Unfit’ Trump, According to New Woodward Book,” National Review Online, September 9, 2020, nationalreview.com.

Highlights Economic data in August point to a faster recovery in demand than in production. The service-sector recovery is picking up speed; consumption growth remains negative, but will benefit from a steady rebound in the service sector. The strong upward momentum in China’s stock prices, on the other hand, has lost some steam since the second half of July. Policy supports and improving economic fundamentals still warrant a constructive stance on Chinese stocks over the coming 6 to 12 months. Feature Both soft and hard data released over the past couple of weeks indicate that China’s economic recovery remains on track. August’s official PMI new orders sub-index continued to advance, and the official non-manufacturing PMI made the largest month-to-month improvement since March when the Chinese economy reopened. Hard economic data, such as exports and sales of homes, cars and retail goods, show that both external and domestic demand growth is strengthening.   Chart 1Chinese Stocks Taking A Breather From July's Rally, Despite Improving Economic Fundamentals Chinese Stocks Taking A Breather From July's Rally, Despite Improving Economic Fundamentals Chinese Stocks Taking A Breather From July's Rally, Despite Improving Economic Fundamentals Despite the economic improvement, the July rally in Chinese stocks faltered in August and into the first week of September. Although stock prices are still 12-15% higher than the end of June and continue to outperform global benchmarks, they are slightly below their mid-July peak in absolute terms (Chart 1). The pause in China’s stock market was inevitable because of the stunning pace of acceleration in early July, which saw margin lending rise to explosive levels that invited Chinese policymakers to cool the market. Last week’s corrections in the high-flying US tech stock prices also dragged down some of the Chinese tech sector's top performers. US sanctions targeting China’s tech companies may exacerbate downward pressure on the sector’s performance. Therefore, we continue to recommend that investors hold a neutral position for the next three months on Chinese tech stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. The outlook for China’s economic growth and monetary conditions supports our constructive view on the overall Chinese stocks, over a cyclical (6 -12 months) horizon. In the near term, we prefer offshore stocks outside of the tech sphere, and prefer onshore semiconductor stocks within a global semi equity portfolio. China’s “old economy” sectors, such as industrials and materials, will continue to benefit from the ongoing massive stimulus. Furthermore, the semiconductor sector has become China’s new poster child, as the country ramps up longer-term, earnings-friendly policy supports to develop its domestic semiconductor industry and counter the Trump administration’s restrictions.1  Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Tables 1 and 2 present key developments in China’s economic and financial market performance in the past month, and we highlight several aspects below: China’s NBS manufacturing PMI was essentially unchanged in August (51 vs. 51.1 in July), but details of the survey imply that what has underpinned an industrial sector improvement this year remains in place. Although the production sub-index slowed, the new orders component increased, indicating that demand is strengthening relative to supply (Chart 2). The export orders component of the manufacturing PMI and the newly released trade data are both improving, suggesting that external demand is also holding up (Chart 2, bottom panel). The steel industry’s PMI fell to 47 in August from 49.2. As noted in last month’s China Macro And Market Review,2 the consistent outperformance in production recovery relative to demand since Q1 has led to an inventory buildup and a pullback in production. Inventory destocking will likely impede China’s imports of major commodities until the laggard recovery in industrial demand sustainably outpaces production (Chart 3). Chart 2Demands Are Improving On Both Domestic And External Fronts... Demands Are Improving On Both Domestic And External Fronts... Demands Are Improving On Both Domestic And External Fronts... Chart 3...But Inventory Buildup Is Temporarily Impeding Production And Imports ...But Inventory Buildup Is Temporarily Impeding Production And Imports ...But Inventory Buildup Is Temporarily Impeding Production And Imports Chart 4Accelerating Service Sector Recovery Should Give A Boost To Consumption Accelerating Service Sector Recovery Should Give A Boost To Consumption Accelerating Service Sector Recovery Should Give A Boost To Consumption Despite a minor drop in the construction PMI sub-index due to heavy rains and floods in China’s central provinces, the acceleration in service activities pushed the non-manufacturing PMI to its highest level since early 2018 (Chart 4). China’s domestic COVID-19 infection rate remains low, giving rise to a rebound in service sector’s activities, such as tourism, catering, sports and entertainment. The resumption rate of theater operations reached 88% by the end of August. While the year-over-year growth rate in total retail sales of consumer goods remains negative, household purchases from larger enterprises registered a 2.2% increase in July (Chart 4, bottom panel). The normalization of activities in the service sector, coupled with the upcoming holiday season in September/October, will further support China’s household consumption recovery. China’s central bank and housing authorities have reportedly rolled out new rules to curb borrowing among overly indebted property developers. We do not expect the new directions to have a significant impact on our near-term outlook for real estate activities. Bank loans account for less than 15% of Chinese property developers’ funds, compared with down payments at 35%. Therefore, strong housing demand should more than offset any potential pullback in bank lending to property developers (Chart 5).  Despite some pullbacks in the prices of Chinese stocks of late, we do not think that the cyclical upturn in Chinese stocks has run its course. Even though the PBoC seems to have normalized its post-COVID 19 monetary policy, monetary conditions remain very accommodative and fiscal stimulus will accelerate the pace of credit expansion through Q3.3 Continued money creation should prop up both China’s economic recovery and stock outperformance, in absolute terms and relative to global benchmarks. In addition, 10-year government bond yields rose 15bps in the past month and are now 66bps above their April low. The mounting bond yields on the back of an improved economic outlook, coupled with the continued outperformance in Chinese cyclical stocks over defensives, also support our constructive view on Chinese stocks on a 6-to-12 month basis (Chart 6). Chart 5Demand Should Continue Driving Property Sector Growth Demand Should Continue Driving Property Sector Growth Demand Should Continue Driving Property Sector Growth Chart 6Fundamentals Are Supportive Of A Positive Cyclical View On Chinese Stocks Fundamentals Are Supportive Of A Positive Cyclical View On Chinese Stocks Fundamentals Are Supportive Of A Positive Cyclical View On Chinese Stocks Chinese tech company stocks suffered losses last week due to selloffs in the global equity market led by US tech stocks. Technology is at the root of the ongoing US-China struggle, which we discussed in our weekly report on Aug 12.4 Given that the MSCI China index is heavily weighted towards some of China’s tech giants (e.g.: Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu), Chinese investable stocks are more vulnerable to both gyrations in the US tech sector and the escalating tech war between the US and China. As such, we continue to recommend that investors overweight investable stocks that are exposed to China’s “old economy” sectors. An acceleration in China’s demand-side recovery and a normalization of service activities will bode well for the performance of cyclical sectors, such as industrials and materials (Chart 7). In addition, we continue to overweight Chinese onshore semiconductor stocks relative to their global peers. Despite some volatility in recent weeks, we believe the structural upcycle in the Chinese onshore semi sector will continue, driven by Chinese policymakers’ ramped-up policy initiatives to support the nation’s domestic semiconductor research and production (Chart 8). Some of the fiscal and monetary incentives such as multi-year tax exemptions and cheaper bank credits will boost the sector’s longer-term growth prospects, whereas policies like government funding support and prioritized initial public offerings will push up the sector’s near-term multiple expansion. Chart 7Stick To "Old Economy" Chinese Stocks For The Time Being Stick To "Old Economy" Chinese Stocks For The Time Being Stick To "Old Economy" Chinese Stocks For The Time Being Chart 8Chinese Semis On A Policy-Driven Structural Upturn Chinese Semis On A Policy-Driven Structural Upturn Chinese Semis On A Policy-Driven Structural Upturn     Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1, 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sticking With Chinese “Old Economy” Stocks In A Widening Tech War," dated August 12, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2, 3Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated August 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy We are introducing a structurally constructive US equity market view with an SPX 7000 target for year 2028 on the back of peak cycle EPS of $310 and peak cycle P/E multiple of 23. The reopening of the global economy is enticing us to recommend a trade going long a basket of 14 laggard “back to work” stocks versus a basket of 14 high-flying “COVID-19 winners.” While we maintain a cyclical and secular bullish outlook on the broad market, a short-term correction due to technical and (geo) political reasons is likely in the cards. In the last segment of the Weekly Report we identify five technical reasons, in no particular order. A playable short-term pullback is in order. Recent Changes Go long a basket of 14 “back to work” stocks versus a basket of 14 COVID-19 proof stocks. Table 1 SPX 7000 SPX 7000 Feature Our structural target is neither a joke nor a marketing ploy. And yes, it really does read SPX 7000! This is our S&P 500 target for the year 2028. A new business cycle has commenced and with it a fresh bull market. Our secular US equity market view is bullish. Our readers can fault us for our optimistic view on the world. But we live by the Buffett maxim that “there are no short sellers in the Forbes Billionaires list.” What gives us confidence in this prima facie hyperbolic market view? The Fed’s explicit acceptance that it is ready to incur inflation risk, cementing the fed funds rate near the zero-lower bound for as long as the eye see. In the last cycle, it took the Fed seven years to lift the fed funds rate from zero, a move that ended being judged as premature and forced the Yellen-led Fed to pause for another year (bottom panel, Chart 1). Seven years.  As such, there is a good chance the Fed will stay put until the year 2028, another election year. Even if it ultimately raises interest rates faster due to an overheated economy goosed up on the sweet nectar of fiscal largesse, it is highly likely to be behind the curve. Before we move on to justifying our target, some observations on ZIRP are in order. Chart 1Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections… Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections… Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections… First, the Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy (QE and ZIRP) in the last cycle did not prevent stock market corrections, including a near 20% fall in 2011 (top panel, Chart 1). In other words, we do not expect smooth sailing or a 45-degree angle line in the SPX heading to 2028. Rather, an era of volatility with a plethora of sizable corrections is upon us, but the path of least resistance will be higher. Make no mistake, we are in a “buy the dip” market now. Similar to 2008-2015, there will be a lot of fits and starts and a number of mini economic cycles will develop. Chart 2 highlights that the ISM oscillated violently during the ZIRP years and so did equity momentum and the 10-year Treasury yield. Granted, the Fed managed to suppress economic volatility as real GDP averaged ~2%/annum in the aftermath of the GFC, but mini economic cycles and profit growth scares did not disappear (top panel, Chart 3). Importantly, while the 10-year Treasury yield moved with the ebbs and flows of the ISM manufacturing survey’s readings, it remained in a downtrend and every bond market selloff proved a buying opportunity in the era of ZIRP (third panel, Chart 2). What the Fed failed to generate was inflation – of either the CPI or PCE deflator variety. In fact, the Fed has not seen core PCE price inflation overshoot 2.5% since the early 1990s (bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 2...Nor Mini Economic Cycles ...Nor Mini Economic Cycles ...Nor Mini Economic Cycles Chart 3“Lowflation”/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 years “Lowflation”/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 years “Lowflation”/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 years Another feature of the ZIRP years in the last cycle was that early on easy monetary policy coincided with easy fiscal policy, as was warranted for the first few years post the GFC. Subsequently, fiscal thrust increased starting in 2016 counterbalancing the Fed’s interest rate hikes. Despite all that fiscal easing, real GDP growth peaked at 3% in 2018 before decelerating last year, raising a question mark about the long-term health of the US economy, a question to be answered in a future Special Report. Frequent readers of US Equity Strategy know our long-held view that the two primary equity market drivers have been easy fiscal and monetary policies since the March carnage. Looking ahead, the Fed has cemented the view that easy monetary policy will stay with us for quite some time. While the jury is still out on fiscal policy, it appears at the moment that profligacy has staying power as no party in Washington is campaigning on austerity or worrying about paying down the debt (save for the lone voice of the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul). The Buenos Aires Consensus is a paradigm shift, and the most important long-term consequence will be higher inflation. The US has abandoned the guardrails on populism established by the Washington Consensus – countercyclical fiscal policy, independent central banking, free trade, laissez-faire economic policy – and has adopted something… different. A new Consensus. These are extremely potent macro forces and given that there is a lag between the time both easy monetary and loose fiscal policies hit the economy, their effects will be long lasting. Especially given that they are now synchronized – unlike for large periods of the previous cycle – and undertaken at a much greater order of magnitude than after the GFC. With that macro backdrop in mind, let us circle back to our 7000 SPX target. A fresh bull market has commenced and we consider the breakout above the previous cycle’s highs as its starting point. In August, the SPX surpassed the February 19, 2020 highs, giving birth to the new bull market. Using empirical evidence since the late-1950s we conclude that, on average, the SPX doubles from its breakout point (Table 2). This gives us the SPX 7000 reading before the new bull is slayed in the plaza de toros of economic cycles. While this qualitative analysis is enticing, ultimately earnings have to deliver in order to justify the equity market’s appreciation. Put differently, easy fiscal and monetary policies the world over will deliver EPS inflation. Table 2 SPX 7000 SPX 7000 On the quantitative EPS front, we first turn to the reconstructed S&P 500 earnings back to the late-1920s. On average, EPS have grown by 7.5%/annum, effectively doubling every decade (Chart 4). Chart 4Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% More recently, using I/B/E/S data, there have been four distinct EPS growth periods over the past four decades with different durations. From trough-to-peak, EPS have enjoyed an average CAGR of over 10% (top panel, Chart 5). Chart 5EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years The current trough in forward EPS stands just shy of $140. Applying the average CAGR until 2028 results in a $310 EPS figure. This is our starting point of our EPS sensitivity analysis. Assigning the current forward multiple equates to an SPX terminal value of over 7000. Table 3 showcases different EPS and forward P/E multiple permutations with the grey shaded area representing our tight range of peak cycle multiples and peak EPS estimates. Table 3SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity SPX 7000 SPX 7000 With regard to what is currently priced in by sell side analysts, the 5-year forward EPS growth rate – the longest duration estimate available – is near a trough reading of 10%. The historical mean is 12% since 1985, with a range of 19% near the dotcom bubble peak and a trough of 9% at the depths of the 2016 manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart 5). A few words on presidential cycles are relevant given our structural bullish equity market view.  We first noticed Tables 4 & 5 in the WSJ in late-2016 and we have corrected some minor mistakes and updated them filling in the gaps. Drawdowns are frequent during term presidencies1 dating back to Hoover. Table 4Every Presidency Experiences Drawdowns SPX 7000 SPX 7000 Table 5S&P 500 Returns During Presidential Terms SPX 7000 SPX 7000 What is truly remarkable, however, is that since the late-1920s only three term presidencies ended up in the red. What the WSJ article did not mention was that in all three market declines GOP presidents were at the helm and had taken over at/or near all-time highs in the SPX! This represents a risk to our SPX 7000 view. If President Trump wins the upcoming election, given the recent modest recovery in the polling, he could meet the same fate as his Republican predecessors. Our sister Geopolitical Strategy service still assigns 35% probability for the incumbent to remain in office, a solid figure that suggests the race remains close. Importantly, while we believe a transition to a Democratic president will be tumultuous as we have been cautioning investors recently, a Biden presidency along with the possibility of a “Blue Wave” will bode well for the long-term prospects of the US equity market, if history at least rhymes. BCA’s Geopolitical strategist Matt Gertken assigns 65% odds to a Biden win and 55% to a Blue trifecta. Finally, on a technical note, the recent megaphone formation has stirred a lot of debate among technical analysts in the blogosphere and is eerily reminiscent of a similar formation that lasted from 1965 until 1975. Typically, these megaphone formations get resolved/completed by a diamond formation (Chart 6). Chart 6Of Megaphones And Diamonds Of Megaphones And Diamonds Of Megaphones And Diamonds While this points to a selloff in the broad equity market in the near-term, which is in accordance with our tactically cautious view (please see the last section of this Weekly Report), it is very bullish for the long-term, as equities catapult higher from such a diamond base formation (Chart 7). In other words, odds are much higher that the SPX will hit 7000 first, before it ever revisits 2200. Adding it all up, we are introducing a structurally constructive US equity market view with an SPX 7000 target for year 2028 on the back of peak cycle EPS of $310 and peak cycle P/E multiple of 23. Chart 7Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish This week we recommend a basket of 14 stocks to play the “back to work” reopening of the global economy versus a basket of 14 "COVID-19 winners". We also reiterate our view not to chase the broad equity market higher in the short-term and back it up with five key technical reasons. “Back To Work” Versus “Stay At Home” Today we recommend buying a basket of 14 stocks levered to the economic reopening and the “back to work” theme, at the expense of a basket of 14 “COVID-19 winners” stocks. There is no question that we are in a V-shaped economic recovery, partly due to arithmetic, i.e. base effects. The severe blow to the economy that the pandemic-induced shutdowns inflicted is reversing violently. Easy monetary and loose fiscal policy have been a tonic and are allowing enough time for the economy to heal and stand on its own two feet. Chart 8 shows a number of economic variables that are in this V-shaped recovery. Our sense is that there will be a rotation out of mostly high-flying tech titans and select health care COVID-19 beneficiaries and into laggard stocks that would benefit from the reopening of the global economy. The transition to these stocks will be anything but smooth, however, it is a necessary precondition for the continuation of the rally late in the year post the election and into 2021. Clearly, the "COVID-19 winners" have stolen demand from the future. Now that the working-from-home setup is nearly complete for most workers, the pendulum is likely to swing in the opposite direction. In other words, at the margin, employees will slowly start to return to work and the economic reopening should serve as a catalyst for this rotation. Chart 8V-Shapes Galore V-Shapes Galore V-Shapes Galore Chart 9Buy "Back To Work" Stocks Buy “Back To Work” Stocks Buy “Back To Work” Stocks Importantly, a definitive vaccine breakthrough will assist some of the beaten down stocks and sectors that at some point were priced for bankruptcy. We remain hopeful that such positive news will soon hit the tape. As a result, this will unleash a stream of bargain hunters out of the woodwork in favor of “back to work” equities and send short sellers reeling. Ultimately, the violent recovery in relative earnings forecasted by the sling shot recovery in the ISM manufacturing survey and most of its subcomponents will boost the “back to work” basket at the expense of the “COVID-19 winners” (Chart 9). For the “back to work” basket we have selected two airlines, two hotels, two oil producers, two restaurant operators, two capital goods manufacturers, two credit card companies, an automobile manufacturer, and a steel producer. In contrast, the “COVID-19 winners” basket that we first created in mid-March currently includes: a bankruptcy consultant, a software company that enables remote access, three grocers, a tele-medicine company, two biotech giants, a Big Pharma company, the biggest online store in the US, an online streaming service company, a teleconferencing company, and finally two household/cleaning products leaders. Bottom Line: Go long a basket of 14 “back to work” stocks at the expense of 14 “COVID-19 winners” equities. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the US Equity Strategy “back to work” basket are: LUV, DAL, MAR, HLT, CVX, EOG, SBUX, MCD, CAT, HON, AXP, COF, NUE, GM. The ticker symbols for the US Equity Strategy “COVID-19 winner” basket are: TDOC, FCN, ZM, CTXS, JNJ, AMGN, REGN, CLX, RBGLY, WMT, COST, KR, NFLX, AMZN. Five Reasons Not To Chase Equities In the Near-Term Over the past weeks, we have been cautioning investors not to chase the equity market higher as the risk/reward trade-off at current levels is tilted to the downside. While we maintain a 9-12 month bullish view on the broad market, a short-term correction due to technical and/or (geo) political reasons is likely in the cards. Consequently, patient investors will be rewarded with a compelling entry point likely in the coming months. Below are five reasons, in no particular order, arguing that a playable short-term pullback is in order: Reason #1: The 200-day Moving Average Moving averages are a perfect tool to put the speed of any rally in perspective and to highlight extreme investor optimism. Chart 10 shows standardized SPX and Nasdaq 100 (NDX) price ratios with respect to their 200-day moving averages. If we look at the current cycle, whenever both the SPX and NDX crossed above the one standard deviation (std) line, a sizable pullback was quick to follow. While NDX has been well above its 1 std line for some time, last week’s price action finally pushed the SPX into the overstretched column. The implication is that a correction is looming. Chart 10Overstretched Overstretched Overstretched Reason #2: Monthly Moving Averages For the second reason, we look at the concept of price deviations from the moving average through a different lens – Bollinger bands (BBs). A traditional (20,2) BB includes a 20-period moving average of the price, as well as 20-period 2-standard standard deviation lines. While it can be plotted on any time frame, we use monthly data as set ups in longer time frames (i.e. monthly) dictate the behavior of the shorter (i.e. daily) time frames. Chart 11 shows the S&P 500 together with its (20,2) BBs on a monthly time frame. Whenever the market spikes above the 2 std line, a sizable correction ensues. Currently, the market is squarely above the 2 std line, which has historically been a precursor to a 5-10% drawdown. Chart 11Too Far Too Fast SPX 7000 SPX 7000 Reason #3: Growth/Value Staying on the topics of extreme rallies, Chart 12 shows the year-over-year growth rate in the S&P growth / S&P value share price ratio. In the entire history of the data, never has it printed a jaw-dropping 34% growth rate, not even after the depths of GFC or to the lead up to the dotcom March 2000 peak. Such a pace is clearly not sustainable and since growth stocks are dominated by FAANG-like companies that have done all of the heavy lifting year-to-date, a reset in the S&P growth / S&P value ratio will weigh on the overall market. A selloff in the bond market will likely serve as a catalyst to boost the allure of beaten down value stocks at the expense of overvalued tech titans. Chart 12In Need Of A Breather In Need Of A Breather In Need Of A Breather Reason #4: Options/Volatility Markets Option and related volatility market movements reveal some vulnerabilities in the broad equity market. More specifically, the VIX and the VXN which by construction are inversely correlated with the S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100, respectively, serve as an excellent timing tool. We look at the 20-day moving correlation of those respective variables, and similarly to Reason #1, a reliable sell signal is given once both (VIX, SPX) and (VXN, NDX) 20-day moving correlations shoot into positive territory (Chart 13). While the (VXN, NDX) correlation has been going haywire over the past quarter as likely single stock call option buying has been heavily hedged by NDX put buying, the (VIX, SPX) moving correlation only slingshot higher at the end of last week - finally producing a decisive sell signal. Again, similarly to Reason #2, each sell signal resulted into a sizable correlation in the SPX, warning that a 5-10% pullback – the sixth since the March lows – is inevitable in the coming weeks. Chart 13Unsustainable Correlation Unsustainable Correlation Unsustainable Correlation   Reason #5: Bad Breadth Tech stocks have clearly been the work horse behind this rally pushing markets into uncharted territory in a very short period of time since the March lows. However, and as we highlighted in our previous research, it is only a handful of tech titans that propelled the markets to all-time highs. Overconcentration of returns in just a few tickers is not healthy, and a reset is only a question of time. Chart 14 highlights that today only 58% of NASDAQ Composite stocks are trading above their respective 50-day moving average, which stands in marked contrast to the all-time highs in the NASDAQ Composite. Such a divergence is unsustainable and typically gets resolved by a snap back in equity prices. While Chart 14 cannot be used as a precise timing tool, it has been consistently leading the NASDAQ Composite especially at peaks, cautioning that a healthy pullback is forthcoming. Chart 14Bad Breadth Bad Breadth Bad Breadth Bottom Line: While we maintain a cyclical and structural stance in the broad equity market, the shorter-term risk/reward trade-off is tilted to the downside, and presents a playable opportunity.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     By term presidencies we are referring to the different duration of Presidents staying in office.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth