Financial Markets

Highlights US Dollar: The overvalued US dollar is finally cracking under the weight of aggressive Fed policy reflation and non-US growth outperformance coming out of the COVID-19 recession. The US dollar weakness has more room to run, forcing investors to reconsider bond allocation and currency hedging decisions in multi-currency portfolios. Currency-Hedged Bond Yields: For USD-based investors, US Treasuries still offer enough yield such that currency-hedged non-US government bond yields remain less appealing in most countries. The notable exceptions are Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Japan, where both unhedged and USD-hedged yields are below comparable US yields – stay underweight those sovereign markets versus the US in USD-hedged portfolios. Currency-Hedged Corporates: For corporate bonds, both US high-yield and investment grade offer more attractive yields, in both USD and euros, relative to euro area equivalents. Stay overweight US corporates versus the euro area in USD-hedged and EUR-hedged portfolios. Feature Chart of the WeekStart Hedging USD Exposure? Start Hedging USD Exposure Start Hedging USD Exposure The mighty US dollar (USD), which had remained impervious to plunging US interest rates and surging US COVID-19 cases, is finally breaking down. The DXY index of major developed economy currencies is down -3% so far in 2020, and nearly -10% from the peak seen in March during the worst of the COVID-19 global market rout. Other forms of currency, like precious metals and even Bitcoin, are also surging with the price of gold hitting a new all-time high yesterday. A new USD bear market would represent a major change to the global economic and investment landscape, affecting global economic growth, inflation, corporate profitability and capital flows. We will cover these topics in more detail in the coming weeks and months with the USD entering what appears to be a sustainable bearish trend. In this report, however, we tackle the most basic question for global fixed income investors in light of the new weakening trend for the USD – what to do with non-US bond holdings, and currency hedges, after nearly a decade of generating outperformance by hedging non-US currencies into USD (Chart of the Week). Say Farewell To The USD Bull Market Chart 2These Currencies Have Clearly Broken Out These Currencies Have Clearly Broken Out These Currencies Have Clearly Broken Out The latest breakdown of the USD has been broad-based across the developed market currencies, although some currencies have been faring much better. The biggest moves versus the USD have been for majors like the euro, Australian dollar and Swiss franc, all of which have clearly broken out above their 200-day moving averages (Chart 2). In fact, the 200-day moving averages for those currencies are now moving higher, indicating that the new medium-term trend for those pairs is appreciation versus the USD. Other important currencies like the British pound, Canadian dollar and Japanese yen have gained ground versus the USD, but at a much slower pace (Chart 3). This reflects some of the unique issues within those economies (ongoing Brexit uncertainty in the UK, the pause in the oil price rally in Canada and flailing growth in Japan). Yet even the Chinese yuan, heavily managed by Chinese policymakers, has seen some mild upward pressure versus the greenback (bottom panel). The USD is clearly a currency that wants to weaken further, with the decline broadening in terms of the number of currencies now rising versus the USD. There are numerous reasons why this is happening now and is likely to continue doing so in the months ahead: The USD is clearly a currency that wants to weaken further, with the decline broadening in terms of the number of currencies now rising versus the USD. The Fed’s aggressive rate cuts earlier this year – and even dating back to the 75bps of easing delivered in 2019 – have dramatically reduced the robust interest rate differentials that had previously boosted the USD and attracted global capital flows into the currency (Chart 4). This is true for both nominal and inflation-adjusted real yields. Chart 3These Currencies Are On The Cusp Of Breaking Out These Currencies Are On The Cusp Of Breaking Out These Currencies Are On The Cusp Of Breaking Out Chart 4Low US Rates + Better Non-US Growth = A Weaker USD Low US Rates + Better Non-US Growth = A Weaker USD Low US Rates + Better Non-US Growth = A Weaker USD Chart 5Does The USD Require A COVID-19 Risk Premium? Does The USD Require A COVID-19 Risk Premium? Does The USD Require A COVID-19 Risk Premium? Chart 6Relative QE Trends Are USD-Negative Relative QE Trends Are USD-Negative Relative QE Trends Are USD-Negative Chart 7The USD Is No Longer A High Carry Currency The USD Is No Longer A High Carry Currency The USD Is No Longer A High Carry Currency Economic growth has been rebounding from the COVID-19 shock faster outside the US. The latest round of manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) data for July published last week showed significant monthly increases in the euro area, the UK and even Japan, with only a modest pickup in the US. This boosted the spread between the US and non-US manufacturing PMI, which correlates strongly to the price momentum of the US dollar, to the highest level in nearly three years (bottom panel). The surge in new COVID-19 cases in the southern US states represents a dramatic divergence with the lower number of cases in Europe and other developed countries (Chart 5). While there are some renewed flare-ups of the virus in places like Spain and Japan, the numbers pale in comparison to the explosion of new US cases. With the most affected areas in the US already reestablishing restrictions on economic activity, the gap between US and non-US growth seen in the PMI data is likely to widen in a USD-bearish direction. The Fed has been more aggressive in the expansion of its balance sheet compared to other major central banks like the ECB and Bank of Japan. While not a perfect indicator, the ratio of the Fed’s balance sheet to that of other central banks did coincide with the broad directional moves in the USD during the Fed’s “QE-era” after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). We may be entering another such period, but with a lower impact as many other central banks are also aggressively expanding their balance sheets through asset purchases. Summing it all up, it is clear that the US weakness has further to run over the next few months - and perhaps longer with the Fed promising the keep the funds rate near 0% until the end of 2022. This fundamentally alters bond investing, and currency hedging, considerations, as the carry earned by being long US dollars is now far less attractive than has been the case over the past few years (Chart 7). In the current environment of microscopic global government bond yields, currency fluctuations will dominate the relative return performance between individual countries. Bottom Line: The overvalued US dollar is finally cracking under the weight of aggressive Fed policy reflation and non-US growth outperformance coming out of the COVID-19 recession. The US dollar weakness has more room to run, forcing investors to reconsider bond allocation and currency hedging decisions in multi-currency portfolios. Where Are The Most Attractive Yields Now For USD-Based Investors? Chart 8Puny Bond Yields Across The Developed Markets Puny Bond Yields Across The Developed Markets Puny Bond Yields Across The Developed Markets In the current environment of microscopic global government bond yields, currency fluctuations will dominate the relative return performance between individual countries. That makes the decisions on bond allocation at the country level more challenging, as the relative yields on offer represent a tiny proportion of a bond’s overall return on a currency-unhedged basis. For example, a 30-year US Treasury currently yields 1.25%, while a 30-year German government bond yields -0.08% (Chart 8). While the decision to hold the US Treasury over the German bond should be obvious given that 133bp (annualized) yield differential, the -4.6% decline in EUR/USD seen so far in the month of July alone has already swamped the additional income earned by owning the US Treasury. This example shows why the decision to actively take, or hedge, the currency exposure of a foreign bond relative to a domestic equivalent so important for any global fixed income investor. For someone whose base currency is entering a depreciation trend, like the USD, the currency decision becomes critical – in fact, it is the ONLY decision that matters for the expected return on any unhedged bond allocation. A proper “apples for apples” comparison of the relative attractiveness of yields in different countries, however, needs to be done after adjusting for cost of currency hedging. On that basis, US fixed income assets still look relatively attractive, even in a USD bear market. In Tables 1-4, we present developed market government bond yields across different maturity points (2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year) for twelve countries. In each table, we show the current yield in local currency terms, while also showing the yield hedged into six different currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY, CAD, AUD). We calculate the gain/cost of hedging using the ratio of current spot exchange rates and 3-month forward exchange rates. That is an all-in cost of hedging that includes both short-term interest rate differentials and the additional currency funding costs determined by cross-currency basis swaps. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Using the example of the 30-year US and German bonds described earlier, that 30-year German yield of -0.08%, hedged into USD, has an all-in yield of +0.74%. This is still well below the 30-year US Treasury yield of 1.25%. Thus, that 30-year EUR-denominated German bond is unattractive compared to the USD-denominated US Treasury, after converting the German bond to a USD-equivalent security through hedging. That relationship holds even if we were to hedge the Treasury into euros. As can be seen in Table 4, the 30-year US Treasury has a EUR-hedged yield of +0.48%, 56bps above the EUR-denominated 30-year German bond yield. Therefore, while owning the US Treasury seems like the riskier bet on an unhedged basis now with the EUR/USD appreciating rapidly, the US bond is the superior yielding bet once currency risk is hedged away. Right now, Italy, Spain and Australia offer the highest yields both in unhedged and USD-hedged terms for most maturities. For those that prefer charts over numbers, much of the data in Tables 1-4 is shown as static snapshots of government bond yields curves in Chart 9 (for local currency, or unhedged, yield curves), while Chart 10 shows all yields hedged into USD. The charts show that there appear to be far more interesting relative value opportunities across countries at varying yield maturities now, but those gaps become smaller after hedging non-US bonds into USD. Chart 9Currency-Unhedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Chart 10USD-Hedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Right now, Italy, Spain and Australia offer the highest yields both in unhedged and USD-hedged terms for most maturities, making those bonds interesting to USD-based investors that choose to either take or hedge the EUR and AUD exposure of those bonds. In Tables 5-8, we take the yield data from the previous tables and show the hedged yields as spreads to the “base yield” of each currency, which is the government bond yield for that country. For example, in Table 3, we can see that for all countries shown, the 10-year yield hedged into GBP terms produces a yield that is above that of the 10-year UK Gilt. This is true even or negative yielding German bunds and Japanese government bonds. Thus, looking purely from a yield perspective, currency-hedged non-UK government bonds look very attractive to a UK bond investor with GBP as the base currency. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Chart 11Global Spread Product Yields Are Low Global Spread Product Yields Are Low Global Spread Product Yields Are Low We can try the same analysis above for global spread products like corporate debt. Currency returns still matter for the returns on these assets, but less so given the higher outright yields offered compared to government bonds. Yields are relatively low across investment grade credit, junk bonds, mortgage-backed securities and emerging market debt after the massive rallies seen since March, but remain much higher than the sub-1% levels seen in most of the developed market government bond universe (Chart 11). In Table 9, we show the index yield (using Bloomberg Barclays indices) in both unhedged and currency-hedged terms for the main global credit sectors we include in our model bond portfolio universe. The index yields do not change that much after currency hedging costs are included, but there are some notable differences between corporate bonds of similar credit quality in the US and euro area. Table 9Currency-Hedged Spread Product Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Specifically, for both investment grade and high-yield corporate credit, the yield in the US is higher than that seen in the euro area. This is true for both USD-hedged and EUR-hedged terms, thus making US corporates more attractive simply from a yield perspective without factoring in credit quality. Currency-hedged non-UK government bonds look very attractive to a UK bond investor with GBP as the base currency. Looking within the high-yield universe by credit tiers, US yields are higher than euro area equivalents for Ba-rated bonds, while euro area yields are slightly higher for B-rated debt (Chart 12). Yields on lower-quality Caa-rated debt are similar, both for US yields hedged into euros and vice versa. Chart 12No Major Differences In US & Euro Area Junk Yields What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Within investment grade, there is no contest with US yields higher than euro area equivalents across all credit tiers (Chart 13). Chart 13US IG Yields Are More Attractive Than Euro Area IG (in USD & EUR) What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Summing it all up, the new trend towards USD weakness has not altered much of the relative attractiveness of US fixed income assets on a currency-hedged basis for USD-based investors. This is true even after the sharp fall in US bond yields since March. Bottom Line: In Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Japan, both unhedged and USD-hedged government bond yields are below comparable US Treasury yields – underweight those sovereign markets versus the US in USD-hedged portfolios. For corporate bonds, both US high-yield and investment grade offer more attractive yields, in both USD and euros, relative to euro area equivalents. Stay overweight US corporates versus the euro area in USD-hedged and EUR-hedged portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We reiterate our longstanding overweight on healthcare equities for the next 12 months and possibly beyond. The macro environment, as well as underlying demand factors, will continue to drive the sector’s outperformance. Within healthcare equities, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology over pharmaceuticals. Healthcare corporate bonds, however, are not especially attractive, and therefore warrant no more than a neutral position. Feature Chart 1Healthcare Has Outperformed Over The Past Decade... Healthcare Has Outperformed Over The Past Decade... Healthcare Has Outperformed Over The Past Decade... Over the past decade, global health care stocks have been clear outperformers, alongside information technology and consumer discretionary stocks, rising by almost 50% relative to the broad market (Chart 1). Not only have they benefited from increased demand from an aging population in developed economies and a growing middle class in emerging markets, they have also provided a downside cushion during recessions and bear markets, given their defensive, non- cyclical nature. The COVID-19 pandemic leads us to reiterate our longstanding overweight position on global healthcare equities over the next 12 months and possibly beyond. Favorable tailwinds will continue to drive healthcare outperformance. It is likely that government spending on healthcare will increase over the coming years. Innovative solutions in healthcare technology (healthtech), as well as increased overall research and development (R&D), the shift to value-based healthcare delivery, the focus on preventive medicine, and a low risk of substantial regulatory change and reform (at least in the US, assuming former Vice President Biden is elected president this November) should continue to support the sector’s outperformance. In this Special Report, we analyze whether our long-term overweight position on healthcare equities remains valid. In a later section, we also review healthcare-related investments in bonds and private equity. Why We Like Healthcare BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service has been positive on global healthcare stocks for over five years. The main reason is that we see demand for healthcare services continuing to rise, as life expectancy increases, populations age – people over 65 will comprise 25% of the developed world’s population by 2040, up from 15% in 2020 – and the middle class in emerging economies becomes richer (Charts 2&3). As people live longer, healthcare spending should rise since, after the age of 65 (retirement), it tends to squeeze out discretionary spending (Chart 4). Chart 2...As The Global Population Grew Older... ...As The Global Population Grew Older... ...As The Global Population Grew Older... Chart 3...And Richer ...And Richer ...And Richer       Healthcare spending everywhere represents a large proportion of GDP, but the percentage varies considerably between countries. In the US for example, healthcare spending comprises 16.9% of GDP, higher than in other advanced economies, where it averages 9.9%, and substantially higher than in emerging economies (average 6.5% of GDP) (Chart 5). It is likely that these figures will increase over the next few years. Chart 4Healthcare Expenditure Dominates Late-Life Spending Healthcare Expenditure Dominates Late-Life Spending Healthcare Expenditure Dominates Late-Life Spending Chart 5Spending On Healthcare Will Rise Spending On Healthcare Will Rise Spending On Healthcare Will Rise   A strong case can be made for serious outbreaks of infectious diseases becoming more common, and therefore governments will have to increase their readiness. The number of countries experiencing a significant outbreak has almost doubled over the past decade, after being on a declining trend during the prior 15 years (Chart 6). The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks are becoming more frequent and causing more economic damage.1 The non-cyclical nature of healthcare demand makes the industry less vulnerable to economic downturns. In times of below-trend growth, investors rush into defensive-growth stocks. Over the past two recessions, the drawdown of healthcare equities was, respectively, 20% and 27% less than the broad market. Chart 6Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight Chart 7The Defensive Side Of Healthcare The Defensive Side Of Healthcare The Defensive Side Of Healthcare   However, the sector is not totally cyclically insensitive, given its capital intensity and reliance on debt. In the US, healthcare sector debt amounts to almost $500 billion (Chart 7). This also leaves it vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nevertheless, the current macro outlook should keep a lid on interest rates for some time. The healthcare industry has lagged in digitalization (Chart 8). This offers wide-ranging opportunities for the sector, particularly in healthtech, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Innovative solutions in robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and genomics will drive the industry in the years to come. Digitalization will accelerate productivity and improve profitability. Chart 8The Healthcare Sector Is Way Behind In Digitalization The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight Lastly, valuations for healthcare equities in most countries remain attractive, close to their long-run averages. The only exceptions are the UK and Japan, which are two standard deviations above the historical mean relative to their respective markets (Chart 9). The Future Of Healthcare Every crisis provides insights into what went wrong, what needs to be changed, and what areas should be explored. The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. The pandemic has highlighted supply-chain fragilities, particularly a shortage of some healthcare equipment and drugs, the production of which is outsourced. In the US, for example, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), over 70% of facilities producing essential medicines for the US are located abroad (Chart 10). Chart 9Valuations Remain Reasonable Valuations Remain Reasonable Valuations Remain Reasonable Chart 10Supply Chain Fragilities The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight   Some argue that reshoring healthcare production is essential. Joe Biden, favored to be the next US president, has highlighted this in his plan to rebuild US supply chains.2 This could, however, lead to higher healthcare costs. This would either require increased government spending to subsidize medical expenses, or lead to fewer people being able to afford adequate healthcare. This effect would be pronounced in economies where a large percentage of the population is uninsured, around 10% in the US, and much more so in some emerging economies where healthcare quality is poor. This might be less of a risk for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, where the largest cost of bringing a new drug to market is R&D and marketing, rather than manufacturing. In the first months of the outbreak, resources such as ventilators, hospital and ICU beds, and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) quickly became scarce. Inventories of such items and overall hospital capacity will need to increase. This will entail massive investments to boost the public healthcare infrastructure and increase the number of healthcare workers. Chart 11COVID-19 Unveiled Poor Health Standards... The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The pandemic also underlined weaknesses in social and health standards. The excessive number of deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes in some developed economies emphasizes the need for investment in this area. For example in Quebec, Canada, a staggering 80% of the province’s deaths occurred in nursing homes and senior residences (both public and private), illustrating the mismanagement and lack of funding (Chart 11). Most notably, care homes run for profit (approximately 70% of the total in the US) have seen almost four times as many COVID-19 infections as those not. The quality ratings of for-profit nursing homes, as measured by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), are much lower on average than those of non-profit or government-run facilities (Chart 12). This could imply the mass nationalization of nursing homes. However, this is unlikely. A better option would be to impose higher standards on privately run homes, reducing the sector to a smaller number of high-quality providers. Chart 12...In Most For-Profit Nursing Homes The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight Chart 13The Evolution Of Genome Sequencing Is Illustrated In The Price The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight More positively, there remains a large gap to be filled by a new era of technology-driven, integrated, and online healthcare. Investments in biotechnology – particularly related to genetic information – are also likely to increase, as DNA sequencing becomes cheaper (Chart 13). The way patients interact with physicians will also change. The American Medical Association (AMA) surveyed more than 1000 physicians on the use of digital tools in their practices. Reliance on digital tools for monitoring and clinical support has increased significantly over the past three years. The largest jump however was in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 14). Chart 14The Transition To A Digital-Driven Healthcare Model The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight “Contact tracing” is a term that has been widely used during the coronavirus outbreak. The ability to track those infected and monitor their interactions to limit the spread of the virus is seen as a crucial step to mitigate further contagion. This would help not only to eradicate the virus, but might be developed into a long-lasting technology. Similar to how security screening equipment was developed after 9/11, there should be investment opportunities in the medical-screening segment. Breaking Down Healthcare Equities It is important to note that not all healthcare equities are equal: Different regions and industries have performed differently. In this report, we distinguish between the industry groups and subgroups, based on the GICS Level 2 and Level 3 classifications. We also look at the nine largest regions in the MSCI indexes to see if certain regions provide more favorable opportunities. Healthcare equities are broken down into two industry groups, which in turn break down into six industries: Healthcare equipment & services Healthcare equipment & supplies Healthcare providers & services Healthcare technology Pharmaceuticals, biotechnology & life sciences Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology Life sciences tools & services In Table 1, we drill down the constituent weights of the MSCI healthcare indexes. This allows us not only to analyze the size of the sector and its parts, but also to gain multiple insights. For example, a bet on Swiss healthcare stocks is essentially a bet on pharmaceuticals, given the greater-than-80% weighting of that industry. Exposure to the overall Danish equity index is by default a play on healthcare stocks, since they comprise almost 60% of the index. Table 1Global Healthcare Weights The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight Chart 15Healthcare Has Outperformed Broad Indices Globally... Healthcare Has Outperformed Broad Indices Globally... Healthcare Has Outperformed Broad Indices Globally... As noted earlier, global healthcare stocks have outperformed the broad index by almost 50% over the past decade. This is true across all regions. However, several distinctions can be made. US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities have outperformed the global healthcare benchmark over the past decade, but their counterparts in the euro area, UK, and Japan have lagged (Chart 15). On a risk-adjusted basis, Danish healthcare equities have been the best performer with a Sharpe-ratio of 0.84 and an annualized return of 18% since 2000 (Table 2).   Table 2...However Not All Healthcare Stocks Are Alike The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight Investment Opportunities Chart 16Within Healthcare Equities, Favor Biotechnology and Healthcare Technology... Within Healthcare Equities, Favor Biotechnology and Healthcare Technology... Within Healthcare Equities, Favor Biotechnology and Healthcare Technology... Viewing healthcare as a set of separate segments, rather than as a single industry, highlights pockets of opportunity.  A selective approach might be preferable for asset allocators in the coming years. As discussed in The Future Of Healthcare section, the sector is likely to shift to a model that relies more on technology, is data-driven, and harnesses the power of digitization, robotics, and AI. The patient will be at the center of the new healthcare model.  We divide our overview of investment opportunities into three categories: equities, corporate bonds, and private investments. Equities: Based on our view of the future of healthcare and the structure of the GICS equity classifications, we favor biotechnology and healthcare technology, and would have only a benchmark allocation to pharmaceuticals. There are insights to be drawn from the fundamentals, historical performance, and valuation metrics. Historically, pharmaceutical equities stand out as the worst performers within the sector. Over the past decade, they have underperformed the global healthcare benchmark by 20%, whereas biotechnology and healthcare technology stocks have outperformed by 59% and 127%, respectively (Chart 16). The outperformance of biotechnology has predominantly been earnings-driven, whereas pharmaceuticals’ and healthcare technology stock prices appear to be detached from earnings (Chart 17). It is worth nothing that despite the fact that valuations for those industries appear expensive relative to the broad market, we remain positive on their outlook. As we drill deeper into Level 3 industries, the small number of constituents within the index makes relying on valuations challenging (Chart 18). Chart 17..Despite A Detachment From Earnings... ..Despite A Detachment From Earnings... ..Despite A Detachment From Earnings... Chart 18...And Elevated Valuations ...And Elevated Valuations ...And Elevated Valuations   Chart 19No Attractive Opportunities Within Healthcare Corporate Bonds No Attractive Opportunities Within Healthcare Corporate Bonds No Attractive Opportunities Within Healthcare Corporate Bonds Corporate Bonds: Within the corporate bond universe, we favor those that qualify for central banks’ purchase programs: Investment-grade bonds and the highest tranche of high-yield. BCA Research’s US fixed-income strategists have an overweight recommendation on US healthcare corporate bonds, though their recommendations are based on a six-to-12 month investment horizon rather than the longer perspective that we are taking in this report.3 Both healthcare and pharmaceuticals bonds, similar to their equity counterparts, trade defensively, outperforming the broad corporate index when spreads widen and underperforming as they tighten (Chart 19). This applies to both investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The credit risk measure favored by our US bond strategists is the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio. This measure confirms the sector’s defensive nature: A value below 1 implies credit risk lower than the market. However, the recent uptick in the DTS ratio of healthcare investment-grade bonds shows the sector has become riskier and as such may trade more cyclically in the short term. Nevertheless, the macro environment should remain favorable. Pricing power is still strong, with medical care services rising by almost 6.0%, and drug prices rising by 1.4% on a year-over-year basis, outpacing overall consumer prices (Chart 20). Neither segment within the investment-grade space offers an attractive spread advantage over the broad index. However, the risk outlook for healthcare remains better than that for pharmaceuticals, particularly related to political risk (as discussed later in the Risks section). Private Investments: Venture-capital investments in healthtech reached a quarterly record high of $8.2 billion in Q1 2020. The recent pandemic is likely only to push this trend higher. Moreover, large private-equity investments in recent years have been targeted at biopharma.4 According to Bain & Company, global biopharma private-equity deals where value was disclosed, reached $40.7 billion in 2019, up from $16.5 billion the prior year.5  The number of biotech firms going public is also trending up, despite slipping to 48 in 2019 from 58 in 2018 (Chart 21). To date (as of early June), 21 out of 43 US IPOs this year are healthcare-related. Chart 20Pricing Power Remains Favorable Pricing Power Remains Favorable Pricing Power Remains Favorable Chart 21More Biotech IPOs Are Coming To Market The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight   Additionally, M&A activity has been increasing, particularly within the biotechnology segment, although the economic shutdown has slowed the deal flow recently. The number of M&A deals peaked in March 2020, when the average premium is 45% (Chart 22). The long-term rising trend is likely to persist. Over the next year, firms with drugs or vaccines related to COVID-19 would be clear targets for acquisitions and should outperform. Over the long term, we also expect to see some industry consolidation. Risks We see the following as the biggest risks to our overall positive outlook for healthcare investments: Quicker-Than-Expected Economic Growth Rebound: As we highlighted, the healthcare sector is defensive – outperforming the broad market during recessions and economic slowdowns. However, if growth rebounds more quickly, driven by further fiscal and monetary stimulus, the upside for healthcare performance could be challenged. Political Risk: Joe Biden might swing to the left in the run-up to the US presidential election to bring on board supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, we see that particular risk for healthcare as relatively small (Chart 23). Biden’s approach is to restore and expand Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), shifting some of the burden of healthcare spending from individuals to the government. Overall, this should be positive for healthcare spending, particularly for insurers and healthcare providers. However, pharmaceutical companies may face headwinds if the administration imposes price caps on drug prices. Chart 22Secondary Market Activity Is Also Strong Secondary Market Activity Is Also Strong Secondary Market Activity Is Also Strong Chart 23Political Risk Has Waned As Biden's Chances Of Election Have Increased Political Risk Has Waned As Biden's Chances Of Election Have Increased Political Risk Has Waned As Biden's Chances Of Election Have Increased Chart 24Reliance On Inorganic Growth Might Prove Unsustainable Reliance On Inorganic Growth Might Prove Unsustainable Reliance On Inorganic Growth Might Prove Unsustainable Lack Of Innovation: Over the past two decades, the healthcare sector has shifted to relying on inorganic growth, driven by takeovers, rather than on research and development. Capital expenditure as a percentage of sales by both pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms fell sharply in the 2000s and has stagnated around 2% and 4%, respectively since (Chart 24). Only A Few Make It: While more IPOs in the healthcare sector is a sign of improving innovation, it is worth noting that only a few newly listed companies are successful. Over the past decade, only 3% of the 349 biotech IPOs had positive earnings at the time of their IPO. This nevertheless is a consequence of the nature of the industry: Companies tend to list while they await a big breakthrough in product development or regulatory approval. Conclusion We continue to recommend investors hold an above-benchmark allocation to healthcare-related investments on a long-term basis. Aging populations, the need to improve the quality of global healthcare, a likely increase in government spending, the shift to digitalized healthcare, and demand which is non-cyclical all support this stance. Healthcare equities in general, and particularly biotechnology and healthcare technology, should perform well over the coming years. For investors with global mandates, allocations to US, Swiss, and Danish healthcare equities should outperform those in the euro area, Japan, and the UK. Corporate bonds do not offer any advantage over the broad corporate US bond index. Political risks for the US healthcare sector should be limited even if the Democrats win the White House. However, the risk is highest for pharmaceuticals, in the event where the government imposes price caps.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  "World Economic Forum, Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact, Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy," January 2019. 2  For more info please see Joe Biden https://joebiden.com/supplychains/ 3  Please see US Bond Strategy, "Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic," dated June 9, 2020.available at usbs.bcaresarch.com. 4  Biotech refers to manufactured products that rely on using living systems and organisms. The biopharma industry is backed by biotechnology, the science, which allows products to be manufactured biologically. 5  Bain & Company, Global Healthcare Private Equity and Corporate M&A Report 2020.

Last Friday, my colleague Dhaval Joshi and I held a webcast discussing investment strategies. The topics of discussion included global equity valuations, mega-cap stocks leadership and the outlook for EM stocks, fixed-income and currencies. You can listen to the webcast recording by clicking here.   An Opportunity In Pakistani Equities And Bonds Pakistani stock prices in US dollar terms are currently 20% lower than their January high and 56% lower than their 2017 high (Chart I-1, top panel). Meanwhile, the government projected a contraction in real GDP during the fiscal year 2019-20 (ending on June 30), the first in 68 years. We believe stock prices have already priced in plenty of negatives, and that Pakistani equities are likely to move higher over the next six months. Strengthening the balance of payments (BoP) position and continuing policy rate cuts will increase investors’ confidence and benefit its stock market (Chart I-2). We also expect the Pakistani bourse to outperform the EM equity benchmark (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Chart I-1Pakistani Equities: More Upside Ahead Pakistani Equities: More Upside Ahead Pakistani Equities: More Upside Ahead Chart I-2Monetary Easing Will Help Pakistani Equities Monetary Easing Will Help Pakistani Equities Monetary Easing Will Help Pakistani Equities   Chart I-3The Current Account Deficit Is Set To Shrink Further The Current Account Deficit Is Set To Shrink Further The Current Account Deficit Is Set To Shrink Further Balance Of Payments Position Pakistan’s BoP position is set to improve. First, its trade deficit will shrink further, as Pakistan’s export will likely improve more than its imports (Chart I-3). The country’s total exports declined 6.8% year-on-year in June, which is a considerable improvement as compared to the massive 54% and 33% contractions that occurred in April and May, respectively. The country was on a strict lockdown for the whole month of April, which was then lifted in early May. As the number of daily new cases and deaths are falling, the country is likely to remain open, lowering the odds of a domestic supply disruption. In addition, as DM growth recovers, the demand for Pakistani products will improve as well. Europe and the US together account for about 54% of Pakistan’s exports. The government is keen to boost the performance of the domestic textile sector, which accounts for nearly 60% of the country’s total exports. The government will likely approve the industry’s request for supportive measures, including access to competitively priced energy, a lower sales tax rate, quick refunds, and a reduction of the turnover tax rate. Moreover, the government has prepared an incentive package for the global promotion of the country’s information technology (IT) sector, aiming to increase IT service exports from the current level of US$1 billion to US$10 billion by 2023. Currently, over 6,000 Pakistan-based IT companies are providing IT products and services to entities in over 100 countries worldwide. Regarding Pakistan’s imports, low oil prices will help reduce the country’s import bill year-on-year over the next six months. Second, remittance inflows – currently at 9% of GDP – have become an extremely important source of financing for Pakistan’s trade deficit. Even though about half of the remittances sent to Pakistan are from oil-producing regions like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and Qatar, low oil prices may only have a limited impact on Pakistan’s remittance inflows. For example, when Brent oil prices fell to US$40 in early 2016, remittances sent to Pakistan in the second half of that year declined by only 1.9% on year-on-year terms. Over the first six months of this year, the remittances received by Pakistan still had a year-on-year growth of 8.7%.   At the same time, the government has planned various measures to boost remittances. For example, a “national remittance loyalty program” will be launched on September 1, 2020, in which various incentives would be given to remitters. Strengthening the balance of payments (BoP) position and continuing policy rate cuts will increase investors’ confidence and benefit its stock market. Third, Pakistan will receive considerable financial inflows this year, probably amounting to over US$12 billion1 from multilateral and bilateral sources. This will be more than enough to finance its current account deficit, which was at US$11 billion over the past 12 months. In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved the disbursement of about US$1.4 billion to Pakistan under the Rapid Financing Instrument designed to address the economic impact of the Covid-19 shock. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have also pledged around US$ 2.5 billion in assistance. The IMF and the Pakistani government are in talks about the completion of the second review for the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) program. If completed in the coming months, the IMF will likely disburse about US$1 billion to Pakistan in the second half of this year.  In April, G20 countries also awarded Pakistan a suspension of debt service payments, valued at US$ 1.8 billion, which will be used to pay for Pakistan’s welfare programs. In early July, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) received a US$1 billion loan disbursement from China. This came after Beijing awarded Pakistan a US$300 million loan last month. The authorities plan to raise US$1.5 billion through the issuance of Eurobonds over the next 12 months. Other than the funds borrowed by the Pakistani government, net foreign direct inflows, mainly driven by phase II of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), are set to continue to increase over the remainder of this year, having already grown 40% year-on-year during the first six months of this year. About 63% of that increase came from China. Meanwhile, as we expect macro dynamics to improve in the next six months, net portfolio investment is also likely to increase after having been record low this year (Chart I-4). In addition, as the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China is likely to persist over many years, both Chinese and global manufacturers may move their factories from China to Pakistan.2 Bottom Line: Pakistan’s BoP position will be ameliorating in the months to come. Lower Inflation And Monetary Easing Continuous monetary easing is very likely and will depend on the extent of the decline in domestic inflation. Both headline and core inflation rates seem to have peaked in January (Chart I-5). Significant local currency depreciation last year had spurred inflation in Pakistan. Then, early this year, supply disruptions and hoarding behaviors attributed to the pandemic have contributed to elevated inflation. Chart I-4Net Portfolio Investment Inflows Are Likely To Increase Net Portfolio Investment Inflows Are Likely To Increase Net Portfolio Investment Inflows Are Likely To Increase Chart I-5Both Headline And Core Inflation Rates Will Likely Fall Further Both Headline And Core Inflation Rates Will Likely Fall Further Both Headline And Core Inflation Rates Will Likely Fall Further   A closer look at the inflation subcomponents shows that recreation and culture, communication, and education have already fallen well below 5% in the last month. Transport inflation came in negative at 4.4% in June.  The inflation of non-perishable food items was still stubbornly high at 14.9% last month. Increasing the food supply and reducing hoarding will help ease that. This, along with a stable exchange rate and a negative output gap will cause a meaningful drop in inflation. As inflation drops, interest rates will be reduced to facilitate an economic recovery. While the current 7% policy rate is lower than headline inflation, and on par with core inflation, Pakistani interest rates remain much higher than those in many other emerging countries. Investment Recommendations We recommend buying Pakistani equities in absolute terms and continuing to overweight this bourse within the emerging markets space. The stock market will benefit from a business cycle recovery following the worst recession in history, worse than during the 2008 Great Recession (Chart I-6). Fertilizer and cement producers, which together account for nearly 30% of the overall stock market, will benefit from falling energy prices, a significant cut in interest rates and supportive government measures. The government recently approved subsidies to encourage fertilizer output. In the meantime, the country’s construction stimulus package and its easing of lockdown orders will help lift demand for cement over the second half of 2020.  As a result, both fertilizer and cement output are set to increase (Chart I-7). Besides, a cheapened currency will limit fertilizer imports and help cement producers export their output, which will benefit their revenue. Chart I-6Manufacturing Activity In Pakistan Will Soon Rebound Manufacturing Activity In Pakistan Will Soon Rebound Manufacturing Activity In Pakistan Will Soon Rebound Chart I-7Both Fertilizer And Cement Output Are Set To Increase Both Fertilizer And Cement Output Are Set To Increase Both Fertilizer And Cement Output Are Set To Increase   Banks account for about 22% of the overall stock market. Our stress test on the Pakistani banking sector shows it is modestly undervalued at present (Table I-1). Even assuming the worst-case scenario for non-performing loans (NPL), where the NPL ratio would rise to 17.5% from the current 6.6%, the resulting adjusted price-to-book ratio will be only 1.6. Table I-1Stress Test On Pakistani Banking Sector Pakistani, Chilean & Czech Markets Pakistani, Chilean & Czech Markets Both in absolute terms, and relative to EM valuations, Pakistani stocks appear attractive (Charts I-8 and I-9). Finally, foreign investors have bailed out of Pakistani stocks and local currency bonds since 2018, as illustrated in Chart I-4 on page 4. Ameliorating economic conditions will lure foreign investors back. Chart I-8Pakistani Equities: Valuation Measures Are Attractive In Both Absolute Terms… Pakistani Equities: Valuation Measures Are Attractive In Both Absolute Terms... Pakistani Equities: Valuation Measures Are Attractive In Both Absolute Terms... Chart I-9…And Relative To The EM Benchmark ...And Relative To The EM Benchmark ...And Relative To The EM Benchmark   For fixed-income investors, we recommend continuing to hold the long Pakistani local currency 5-year government bonds position, which has produced a 12% return since our recommendation on December 5th 2019. We expect interest rates to drop another 100 basis points (Chart I-5, bottom panel, on page 5).  Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Chile: Not Out Of The Woods Copper prices have staged an impressive rally in the past four months, but the performance of Chilean markets remains lackluster (Chart II-1). While the red metal has broken above its January highs, Chile’s equities and currency are still trading 25% and 5% below their January peak, respectively.    The government’s mismanagement of the pandemic has reignited and heightened the existing socio-political discontent, thus increasing the fragility of the situation. We therefore recommend that investors maintain a cautious stance on Chilean assets. As for dedicated EM portfolios, we recommend moving this bourse from neutral to underweight: First, the lockdowns resulting from the pandemic have revealed the precarious financial condition of low and middle-class households. The lack of savings among these groups prevented workers from self-isolating for more than a couple of weeks. The urge for them to return to work enabled the outbreak to escalate in May. Consequently, these social groups have suffered from infections, and Chile has rapidly become one of the worst affected countries in the world in terms of per-capita COVID-19 cases and deaths. Chart II-2 shows that, as a share of total population, Chile tops the region in terms of cummulative cases and deaths. Moreover, Chile has the eighth highest COVID-19 infections per capita in the world, even though its testing rate per capita is lower than that of Europe and the US. Chart II-1Chilean Markets Have Been Much Weaker Than Copper Chilean Markets Have Been Much Weaker Than Copper Chilean Markets Have Been Much Weaker Than Copper Chart II-2The Pandemic Has Hit Chile Hard The Pandemic Has Hit Chile Hard The Pandemic Has Hit Chile Hard   Chart II-3The Economy Is In The Doldrums The Economy Is In The Doldrums The Economy Is In The Doldrums Given the wide spread of the virus, Chile has implemented harsher quarantine measures than the rest of the region, which means that the economic reopening and recovery will start from a lower level of activity. The inability of President Pinera’s administration to protect low and middle-class households from being exposed to the virus has renewed a nation-wide distrust in the government. According to Cadem, one of the country’s most cited polling companies, President Pinera’s approval rating has fallen back to just 17%, not far from the lows seen during last year’s violent social unrest. In sum, these recent events have confirmed our major theme for Chile, discussed in our December Special Report. It reads as follows: Chile’s political elite has been greatly underestimating the depth and gravity of the popular frustration and has been reluctant to address the issue in a meaningful way. Consequently, Chile is set to experience a renewal in protests and a rise in political volatility as the date of the referendum on the Constitution, which is scheduled to take place in October, nears. Second, Chile is experiencing its worst recession in modern history. Chart II-3shows that the economy was already in a slump at the beginning of the year, and the economic lockdown has caused double-digit contractions in many sectors. Further, business confidence never fully recovered from last year’s social protests and has been plummeting deeper since the start of the pandemic (Chart II-3, bottom panel). Chart II-4Banks' NPLs Are Set To Rise Banks' NPLs Are Set To Rise Banks' NPLs Are Set To Rise While President Pinera’s decision to prioritize small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) has been popular among the middle class, the reality is that Chile remains a highly oligopolistic market, dominated by large companies. The failure to support these businesses will prevent a revival in business sentiment, hiring and investment and, hence, prolong the economic downtrend. This unprecedent economic contraction has caused a rapid surge in non-performing loans (NPLs), which will hurt banks’ capital profits and tighten lending standards. NPLs will rise much further given the record depth of this recession (Chart II-4). Moreover, bank stocks compose 25% of the MSCI Chile index, so a hit to banking profitability will exert downward pressure on the equity index. Third, even though fiscal and monetary stimuli have been large and were implemented rapidly, they are probably insufficient to produce a quick recovery. The government first announced a fiscal plan between March 19 and April 8 worth US$ 17 billion (or 6% of GDP), the third largest in the region. However, it is still quite small compared to that of OECD members. Excluding liquidity provisions for SMEs and tax reductions, the size of new government spending in 2020 is only 3.5% of GDP. On June 14, the government devised another fiscal plan, worth US$ 12 billon (or 5% of GDP). However, it will be spread out over the next 24 months – only 1.5% of GDP of additional stimulus will be injected over the next 12 months. This extra kick in spending seems too small given the depth of the recession.  In terms of monetary policy, the Chilean central bank has already reached the limits of its orthodox toolkit. The monetary authorities have cut the policy rate by 125 basis points since November of last year, but they have reached the constitutional technical minimum of 0.5%. The central bank is now using alternative tools to stimulate the economy, such as offering cheap lending to SMEs and a US$ 8 billion quantitative easing program for buying financial institutions’ bonds, as the Constitution forbids the purchasing of government and non-financial corporate debt. In a nutshell, the overall efficiency of these monetary policies will be subdued as the main drags on the economy are downbeat business and consumer confidence stemming from ongoing socio-political tensions, not high interest rates. Chile is shrouded in a cloud of political uncertainty. Monetary policy has reached its limits, and fiscal stimulus is insufficient for now. Fourth, higher copper prices will help on the margin, but will not bail out the Chilean economy.  Even with the latest rally in copper prices, Chilean copper exports will continue contracting in US$ terms. The latest increase in prices will be more than offset by output cuts caused by social distancing rules and reduced staff in mines all over the country.  Bottom Line: Chile is shrouded in a cloud of political uncertainty. Monetary policy has reached its limits, and fiscal stimulus is insufficient for now. Investment recommendations Chart II-5Our CLP vs. USD Trade Our CLP vs. USD Trade Our CLP vs. USD Trade Continue shorting the CLP relative to a basket of the CHF, EUR and JPY. We closed our short CLP/USD on July 9th with a 29% profit (Chart II-5) and began shorting it versus an equal-weighted basket of the CHF, EUR and JPY. Within an EM equity portfolio, downgrade Chilean stocks from neutral to underweight. An ailing economy and political uncertainty will divert capital from the country despite attractive equity valuations. For an EM local bond portfolio, we are also downgrading Chile from neutral to underweight, as the risk of renewed currency depreciation is too large to ignore and downside in yields is limited due to the zero bound. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com The Czech Republic: Pay Rates And Go Long The Currency An opportunity to bet on higher longer-term interest rates and on a stronger currency has emerged in the Czech Republic (Chart III-1). Consumer price inflation is above the central bank’s 2% target and will continue to rise, which will necessitate higher interest rates (Chart III-2). The latter will lead to currency appreciation. Chart III-1Pay Rates And Go Long CZK vs. USD Pay Rates And Go Long CZK vs. USD Pay Rates And Go Long CZK vs. USD Chart III-2Inflation Is Above The CB Bands Inflation Is Above The CB Bands Inflation Is Above The CB Bands   The Czech authorities’ strong fiscal and monetary support of the economy amid the COVID recession will keep both labor demand and, thereby, wages supported. In turn, core inflation will likely prove resilient in the near term and will rise over the coming 12-18 months, putting upward pressure on long-term interest rates. First, Prime Minister Andrej Babis is determined to promote a rapid economic recovery, as there are upcoming elections scheduled for next year. In early July, the government approved another spending program that will in part finance infrastructure projects and promote job creation in the non-manufacturing sector. The bill is expected to boost infrastructure spending by 140 billion koruna (or 2.5% of GDP) in 2020, and is part of a multi-decade national investment plan to increase domestic productivity. In particular, the construction sector will benefit from a massive uplift in domestic capex that will go towards upgrading the transport network. This will produce a job boom in the construction industry which should mitigate the employment losses in manufacturing and tourism. Second, shortages continue to persist in the labor market. Our labor shortage proxy is at an all-time high, suggesting that labor shortages will continue to facilitate faster wage growth (Chart III-3). Interestingly, Chart III-4 suggests that overall job vacancies have plateaued but have not dropped. This signifies pent-up demand for labor. Critically, this hiring challenge is likely to make industrial firms reluctant to shed workers amid the transitory pandemic-induced manufacturing downturn. Chart III-3Labor Shortages = Wages Higher Labor Shortages = Wages Higher Labor Shortages = Wages Higher Chart III-4Job Vacancies Are Holding Up JOB VACANCIES ARE HOLDING UP... JOB VACANCIES ARE HOLDING UP...   Either way, competition for labor in manufacturing and other sectors will keep a firm bid on both wages and unit labor costs in the medium to long term (Chart III-5). Third, low real interest rates will promote domestic credit growth (Chart III-6), helping support final domestic demand which, in turn, will lift inflation. Chart III-5Structural Pressure On Labor Costs ...STRUCTURAL PRESSURE ON LABOR COSTS ...STRUCTURAL PRESSURE ON LABOR COSTS Chart III-6Low Rates Will Bolster Domestic Demand Low Rates Will Bolster Domestic Demand Low Rates Will Bolster Domestic Demand   Similarly, residential real estate prices and rents will continue to grow at a hefty pace due to low borrowing costs and residential property shortages. Core inflation will likely prove resilient in the near term and will rise over the coming 12-18 months, putting upward pressure on long-term interest rates. Finally, core inflation measures are hovering well above the 2% target and the upper band of 3% (Chart III-2 on page 13). As such, the Czech National Bank (CNB) is likely to hike interest rates sooner rather than later. Critically, inflation is acute across various parts of the economy. Specifically, service price inflation is likely to continue rising in the wake of announced price hikes in public services, such as transport. These are being devised by local authorities to counteract a loss in tax revenue. Altogether, easy fiscal policy (infrastructure spending) will support labor demand, wage growth and final domestic demand, in turn heightening inflationary pressures. Unlike its counterparts in the EU, the CNB is more sensitive to price increases due to the relatively higher starting point of inflation in the Czech economy. As such, the central bank will be the first to hike interest rates among its EU counterparts, tolerating the currency appreciation that will come with it. The basis is Czech domestic demand and income growth will be robust. Investment Recommendation Czech swap rates are currently pricing a rise of only 55 bps in interest rates over the next 10 years. As a result, we recommend investors pay 10-year swap rates (see the top panel of Chart III-1 on page 13). We also recommend going long the Czech koruna versus the US dollar. Unlike the Czech central bank, the US Federal Reserve will keep interest rates very low for too long. In short, the Fed will fall well behind the curve, while the CNB will hike earlier. Rising Czech rates versus US rates favor the koruna against the dollar. This is a structural position that will be held for the next couple of years. It is also consistent with the change in our view on the USD, which has gone from positive to negative in our report from July 9. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Regarding Pakistan’s net financial inflows this year, we estimated that net foreign investment inflows, net foreign portfolio inflows and net other financial inflows to be about US$ 1.5 billion, US$ 0.5 billion, and US$ 10.5 billion, respectively, based on past data and the six-month outlook of the country’s economy. 2 Please see the following articles: Chinese Companies to Relocate Factories to Pakistan Under CPEC Project Importers Survey Shows Production Leaving China for Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Chinese stocks are still in the “public participation phase” of a cyclical bull market and have not yet reached the “excess phase.” Economic fundamentals should provide support for more upside in Chinese stock prices in the next 6 to 12 months. Even if Chinese stocks evolve into a boom-bust cycle reminiscent of 2014-15, near-term technical price corrections should provide good buying opportunities. We remain overweight Chinese equities in both absolute and relative terms, and recommend investors increase their exposure to beaten-down cyclically-geared stocks, particularly in China’s domestic market.  Feature Chinese stocks rallied by 15% and 13% in the onshore and offshore markets, respectively, in the first 10 days of July. However, both markets gave up almost half of their gains in the third week of the month. The above-expectation Q2 GDP growth figure, which was released last Thursday, only exacerbated the market selloffs. This month’s rollercoaster ride in Chinese equities reminds investors of the boom-bust stock market cycle in 2014-2015, and raises the inevitable question: is it too late to buy or is it too early to sell Chinese stocks? We believe Chinese stocks are still at an early stage of a cyclical bull market.  While the recent near-vertical escalation in equity prices was clearly overdone, any near-term technical corrections will provide good buying opportunities. Three Phases Of A Bull Market Chinese bull markets typically last 2-2.5 years and involve three phases.1 The length and boundaries of each phase in a bull run are often blurred and are best identified in hindsight. However, this framework helps put the ongoing market rally in both A shares and investable stocks into perspective. In our view, the A share market is currently in the early stage of the “public participation phase”, whereas investable stocks seem to be halfway through (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1AA Shares In Early Stage Of The “Public Participation Phase (PPP)” A Shares In Early Stage Of The "Public Participation Phase (PPP)" A Shares In Early Stage Of The "Public Participation Phase (PPP)" Chart 1BChinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP Chinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP Chinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP We think that the current bull market started in January 2019, following a bear market from 2016 to 2018. We upgraded Chinese stocks from neutral to cyclically overweight in April 2019, which was a couple of months into the “accumulation phase” of the bull market underway. The accumulation phase is the start of an uptrend, typically after a bear market, when smart money begins to buy stocks; fundamentals still look bleak and valuations are at exceptionally depressed levels. Chart 2China’s Economy Should Be On Track To A Cyclical Upturn Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested The public participation phase typically exhibits a massive increase in trading volumes and explosive growth in new investor accounts. This phase begins when the market is already off the bottom and negative sentiment begins to wane on signs of economic improvement (Chart 2). As the bull trend is clearly established, technical and trend traders also begin to pile in, generating a self-feeding cycle. The market begins to feel overheated, making value investors uncomfortable, but valuations are not yet extreme (Chart 3). This phase tends to last longer than the other two stages in a bull market primary trend. The expansion of multiples remains the dominant driver for the broad market while earnings struggle (Chart 4). Chart 3Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme For investable shares, we believe that the bull market is probably more than halfway through the public participation phase (Chart 5). The market has decisively broken out of its key technical resistance and entered into expensive territory (Chart 6). Still, neither A-share nor investable markets seem to be in the “excess phase” as witnessed in 2015 (Table 1). Chart 4Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Chart 5Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Chart 6Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Table 1Multiples In Chinese Stocks Are Not Yet In The “Excess Phase” Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested China's short and volatile stock market history provides some classic examples of equity boom-bust cycles. The massive bull market in Chinese A shares between 2013 and 2016 fits the three phases perfectly: stock prices jumped by a whopping 93% in the three phases of the bull market between early 2013 and May 2015. The bull market eventually marched onto the excess phase in the first half of 2015 and reached the ultimate top in May 2015 with a trailing P/E of 25 and price-to-book of over 3. Bottom Line: Both the A-share and investable bourses still have room for upside in the ongoing bull market. Remain overweight on both investable and domestic shares, but domestic stocks have more latitude for rally as China’s economy and earnings continue to recover. Pullbacks Not Enough To Turn Bearish On July 1 we upgraded our tactical (0 to 3 months) call on Chinese stocks and initiated long Chinese domestic and investable stock trades relative to global benchmarks. While it is impossible to predict whether the current market will supercharge into a boom-bust cycle as seen in 2014-15, we intend to keep the trades given our conviction that cyclically there is still upside to Chinese stock prices. To turn cyclically bearish on Chinese shares, the following conditions need to develop: First, the broad market should reach an overvalued extreme, at which point gravity would set in. Some sectors and small-cap names, particularly in the ChiNext board, are currently stretched (Chart 7).  However, overall market valuations still appear reasonable, based on our composite valuation indicator. Historically, major peaks in the market occurred when the valuation indicator reached much higher levels. Further, cyclically-adjusted equity risk premiums (ERPs) in both Chinese onshore and offshore stocks are materially higher than their historical means (Chart 8). This suggests investors have already priced in extremely high uncertainties surrounding the Chinese economy. Perhaps overdone, in our view. As China's economy continues to recover, their ERPs should shrink, pushing stock prices higher. Chart 7A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks Chart 8Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher   Secondly, liquidity should tighten. An important liquidity source is margin lending, which has gone up exponentially since late June and invited regulatory attention (Chart 9). Instead of waiting for overleverage in the market to form a momentum like in the 2014 cycle, Chinese regulators seem to be more vigilant and restrictive this time. By acting early and removing some steam from recent market velocity, a healthier secular bull market can develop.   China’s overall monetary conditions are another important source of liquidity. If the policy stance turns from easing to tightening before the economy fully recovers, then it will lead to a compression in multiples in the equity market before stock prices can gain support from an earnings recovery. Historically, Chinese authorities tend to maintain an easing stance for at least three quarters following a nadir in the economy (Chart 10). The track record of Chinese policymakers suggests that the PBoC will likely keep monetary policy accommodative through the end of this year. Chart 9Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chart 10Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Finally, the economy should weaken significantly, which would elevate the equity risk premium and threaten the earnings outlook. A second wave of COVID-19 would have to be severe enough to substantially impact China’s economic recovery, however, the pandemic situation in China seems to be contained and earnings recovery is on course (Chart 11, 12A, 12B, and 12C). Additionally, a major pandemic-triggered shock would only force Chinese authorities to up their ante on reflation and revive domestic demand, which could benefit stocks. Chart 11COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China Chart 12AA Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery A Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery A Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery Bottom Line: Chinese equities will likely experience technical corrections in the near term, but the downside risks are not enough to turn bearish.   Chart 12BChinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance… Chinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance... Chinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance... Chart 12C…But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks ...But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks ...But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks Investment Conclusions Regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we recommend investors overweight equities within a global equity portfolio (Chart 13). Investors should also tilt their exposure to battered cyclicals, particularly in China’s domestic stock market (Chart 14). We favor consumer discretionary, materials and industrials in the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 13We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks Chart 14Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Chinese equity prices have run ahead of economic fundamentals and setbacks will be likely in the near term. Still, these setbacks are buying opportunities and we recommend buying on the dip if Chinese equities, in either onshore or offshore markets, were to fall by 5% to 10% from current levels. However, consecutive selloffs accumulating to a 15% or greater fall in Chinese stock prices within a short period of time (e.g. 2 to 3 weeks) would prompt us to close our long Chinese equity trades. Historically, when the prices of Chinese equities fell by such a magnitude, the selloffs tended to trigger panic among China’s massive retail investors and, in turn, form a self-reinforcing downward spiral and push Chinese stocks into a prolonged bear market (Chart 15). Chart 15Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Three Phases Of A Bull Market," dated April 22, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights IG Energy: Investors should overweight Energy bonds within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds overall. Within IG Energy, the Independent sub-sector should perform best, and we recommend avoiding the higher-rated Integrated space. HY Energy: Investors should overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, investors should focus their exposure on the Independent sub-sector, while avoiding the distressed Oil Field Services space. Feature This week we present part 2 of our two-part Special Report on Energy bonds. Last week’s report showed how to develop a model for Energy bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price.1 This week, we delve deeper into the characteristics of both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes to better understand how both are likely to trade in the coming months. Chart 1High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed Chart 2Energy Index Sub-Sector Composition* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy In this week’s deep dive, we don’t limit ourselves to an examination of the overall Energy index. We also consider the outlooks for its five main sub-sectors: Integrated: Major oil firms that are present along the entire supply chain – from exploration and production all the way down to refined products for consumers. Independent: Exploration & production firms. Oil Field Services: Support services for the Independent sector – notably drilling. Midstream: Transportation (pipelines), storage and marketing of crude oil. Refining Chart 2 shows the share of each sub-sector in both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. Midstream (46%) and Integrated (31%) are the largest sub-sectors in the investment grade index. Independent (48%) and Midstream (36%) are the heavyweights in the high-yield space. Investment Grade Energy Risk Profile Overall, investment grade Energy bonds are highly cyclical. That is, they tend to outperform the corporate benchmark during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. This cyclical behavior is due to Energy’s lower credit rating compared to the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate index. Sixty five percent of Energy’s market cap carries a Baa rating compared to 59% for the overall index (Chart 3). The sector’s cyclical nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio,2 which is well above 1.0 (Chart 4A). Interestingly, Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014-2016 oil price crash. Prior to that, Energy mostly tracked the corporate index’s performance and only slightly underperformed the benchmark during the 2008/09 financial crisis. More recently, Energy underperformed the corporate index dramatically when spreads widened in March, but has outperformed by 936 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 4A, panel 3). Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014- 2016 oil price crash. Turning to the sub-sectors, the Integrated sub-sector immediately stands out as the only one with a higher average credit rating than the corporate benchmark. Ninety-two percent of Integrated issuers are rated A or Aa (Chart 3). The presence of the global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP) is what gives the sub-sector its higher average credit quality and makes it the only defensive Energy sub-sector. Notice that Integrated even proved resilient during the 2014-16 Energy bond turmoil (Chart 4B). The remaining four sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all have lower average credit ratings than the corporate index (Chart 3) and all trade cyclically relative to the benchmark with Independent (Chart 4C) and Oil Field Services (Chart 4D) being more cyclical than Midstream (Chart 4E) and Refining (Chart 4F). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. This is likely due the fact that Independent (aka Exploration & Production) firms are more dependent on the level of oil prices, and typically require a certain minimum oil price to support capital spending and growth. Meanwhile, crude oil is an input for Refining firms and lower oil prices can boost margins, helping offset some of the negative impact from growth downturns. Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Chart 4AIG Energy Risk Profile IG Energy Risk Profile IG Energy Risk Profile Chart 4BIG Integrated Risk Profile IG Integrated Risk Profile IG Integrated Risk Profile Chart 4CIG Independent Risk Profile IG Independent Risk Profile IG Independent Risk Profile Chart 4DIG Oil Field Services Risk Profile IG Oil Field Services Risk Profile IG Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 4EIG Midstream Risk Profile IG Midstream Risk Profile IG Midstream Risk Profile Chart 4FIG Refining Risk Profile IG Refining Risk Profile IG Refining Risk Profile   Valuation In terms of value, we find that the Energy sector offers a spread advantage relative to the corporate index and its equivalently-rated (Baa) benchmark (Table 1). This advantage holds up after we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. The four cyclical sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all also look cheap, whether or not we control for duration differences. Integrated, the sole defensive sub-sector, is roughly fairly valued compared to the equivalently-rated (Aa) benchmark. Table 1IG Energy Valuation The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Balance Sheet Health The par value of outstanding investment grade Energy debt jumped sharply as oil prices plunged in 2014. But the sector has barely issued any debt since the 2014-16 collapse. Instead, Energy firms have relied on capital spending reductions, asset sales, equity issuance and dividend cuts to raise cash. This shift toward austerity explains why Energy’s weight in the index fell from 11% in 2015 to 8% today (Chart 5A). The median Energy firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA consequently improved between 2017 and 2019, but has once again started to rise as earnings have struggled in recent quarters (Chart 5A, bottom panel). At the issuer level, 15 out of the investment grade index’s 56 Energy issuers currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix A). Of the 23 Energy sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed in 2020, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook and 11 were assigned negative outlooks. At the sub-sector level, Integrated debt growth lagged that of the corporate index during the last recovery (Chart 5B). Though the sub-sector has an average credit rating of Aa, most issuers carry negative ratings outlooks, including four of the five global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining, despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. The outstanding par value of investment grade Independent debt had been stagnant since 2015, it then plunged this year as three sizeable issuers were downgraded from investment grade to high-yield (Chart 5C). EQT Corp, Occidental Petroleum and Apache Corp were all downgraded during the past few months. They currently account for 21% of the high-yield Energy index’s market cap. Encouragingly, only two of the 16 remaining investment grade Independent issuers currently have negative ratings outlooks. The situation is less favorable for Oil Field Services. This sub-sector’s outstanding debt has remained low since the 2014-16 collapse (Chart 5D), but four of the six investment grade Oil Field Services issuers have negative ratings outlooks. Midstream (Chart 5E) and Refining (Chart 5F) both continued to grow their outstanding debt levels throughout the entirety of the last recovery, including during the 2014-16 period. At present, only three of the 23 investment grade Midstream issuers have negative ratings outlooks, while two of the four Refining issuers have negative outlooks. Chart 5AIG Energy Debt Growth IG Energy Debt Growth IG Energy Debt Growth Chart 5BIG Integrated Debt Growth IG Integrated Debt Growth IG Integrated Debt Growth Chart 5CIG Independent Debt Growth IG Independent Debt Growth IG Independent Debt Growth Chart 5DIG Oil Field Services Debt Growth IG Oil Field Services Debt Growth IG Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 5EIG Midstream Debt Growth IG Midstream Debt Growth IG Midstream Debt Growth Chart 5FIG Refining Debt Growth IG Refining Debt Growth IG Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions As per last week’s report, we recommend that investors overweight Energy bonds within their investment grade corporate bond allocations. This recommendation stems from our view that corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 12 months and that the oil price will rise. As such, we want to favor cyclical investment grade bond sectors that will outperform during periods of spread tightening. With that in mind, we would advise investors to focus their investment grade Energy allocations on the most cyclical sub-sector: Independent. Not only does the Independent sub-sector have the highest DTS ratio of the five sub-sectors, but its weakest credits have already been purged from the index and further downgrades are less likely. Oil Field Services offer less spread pick-up than Independent, and also have a higher proportion of issuers with negative ratings outlooks.  By similar logic, we would avoid the Integrated sub-sector. This sub-sector trades defensively relative to the corporate benchmark and a high proportion of its issuers have negative ratings outlooks. High-Yield Energy Bonds Risk Profile On average, the High-Yield Energy index and the overall High-Yield corporate index have very similar credit ratings. However, the Energy sector has a more barbelled credit rating distribution with a greater proportion of Ba-rated securities (64% versus 55%) and a greater proportion of Ca-C rated issuers (8% versus 1%) (Chart 6). Chart 6High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Chart 7AHY Energy Risk Profile HY Energy Risk Profile HY Energy Risk Profile It is likely some combination of the larger presence of very low-rated credits and increased oil price volatility that has caused the sector to trade cyclically versus the junk benchmark since 2014 (Chart 7A). Notice that Energy outperformed the junk index during the 2008 sell off, but has since turned cyclical, underperforming in both the 2015/16 and 2020 risk-off episodes. At the sub-sector level, there is currently only one high-yield rated Integrated issuer (Cenovus Energy Inc., Ba-rated, negative outlook). Based on their DTS ratios, the Independent and Oil Field Services sub-sectors are the most cyclical (Charts 7B & 7C). This is because the lower-rated (Caa & below) issuers are concentrated in the these spaces. This is particularly true for Oil Field Services where 41% of the sub-sector’s market cap is rated Caa or below. The Midstream sub-sector also trades cyclically relative to the junk benchmark, but with somewhat less volatility than Independent and Oil Field Services, as evidenced by its DTS ratio of 1.2 (Chart 7D). Refining has traded like a cyclical sector so far this year, but that may not continue now that its DTS ratio has fallen close to 1.0 (Chart 7E). Chart 7BHY Independent Risk Profile HY Independent Risk Profile HY Independent Risk Profile Chart 7CHY Oil Field Services Risk Profile HY Oil Field Services Risk Profile HY Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 7DHY Midstream Risk Profile HY Midstream Risk Profile HY Midstream Risk Profile Chart 7EHY Refining Risk Profile HY Refining Risk Profile HY Refining Risk Profile   Valuation The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes Energy look even more attractive. Energy spreads need to widen by 189 bps during the next 12 months to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. This compares to 93 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 150 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Energy Valuation The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Four of the five Energy sub-sectors (Integrated being the exception) also offer attractive value relative to the overall index and their equivalently-rated benchmarks. This remains true after adjusting for duration differences. Balance Sheet Health The high-yield Energy sector has added much more debt than the overall junk index since 2010 (Chart 8A). But of greater concern is that Moody’s has already changed its ratings outlook from stable to negative for 58 Energy issuers since the start of the year. Meanwhile, only 17 high-yield Energy issuers have seen their ratings outlooks confirmed as stable in 2020. Nevertheless, we take some comfort knowing that the Energy sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities. As a reminder, to be eligible for the Main Street facilities issuers must have fewer than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. They must also be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Barated issuers. Of the 61 US high-yield Energy issuers with available data (we exclude 23 foreign issuers that won’t have access to US programs), we estimate that at least 48 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix B). This not only includes 15 out of 20 B-rated issuers, but also 12 out of 15 Caa-rated issuers and 4 out of 7 issuers rated below Caa. This broad access is the result of deleveraging that has occurred since the 2014-16 bust (Chart 8A, bottom panel) and it should go a long way toward limiting defaults in the Energy space. The Independent sub-sector’s weight in the index jumped sharply this year, the result of adding three sizeable fallen angels (Chart 8B). Importantly, 24 out of the 28 US Independent issuers appear eligible for Fed support. In contrast, the Oil Field Services sector is in distress. Its weight in the index has been declining for more than a year (Chart 8C), and a large proportion of its issuers are concentrated in lower credit tiers. However, we estimate that out of 19 issuers with available data, 13 are eligible for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. Both Midstream and Refining have high concentrations of Ba-rated issuers and neither has aggressively grown its presence in the index during the past decade (Charts 8D & 8E), though Midstream’s index weight did jump this year. The high credit quality of both indexes means that most issuers will have access to the Main Street facilities, though three of the five Refining issuers are not US based. Chart 8AHY Energy Debt Growth HY Energy Debt Growth HY Energy Debt Growth Chart 8BHY Independent Debt Growth HY Independent Debt Growth HY Independent Debt Growth Chart 8CHY Oil Field Services Debt Growth HY Oil Field Services Debt Growth HY Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 8DHY Midstream Debt Growth HY Midstream Debt Growth HY Midstream Debt Growth Chart 8EHY Refining Debt Growth HY Refining Debt Growth HY Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions The conclusion from the model we presented in last week’s report was that high-yield Energy should outperform the junk index during the next 12 months, assuming that overall junk spreads tighten and the oil price rises. However, we remain concerned that, despite the nascent economic recovery, some low-rated Energy names will go bust during the next few months, weighing on index returns. The pattern from the 2014-16 default cycle argues that our concerns may be overblown. In February 2016, high-yield Energy started to outperform the overall junk index slightly after the trough in oil prices and eleven months before the peak in the 12-month trailing default rate (Chart 1 on page 1). If oil prices are indeed already past their cyclical trough, then it may already be a good time to bottom-fish in the high-yield Energy space. The fact that the bulk of high-yield Energy issuers are eligible for support through the Main Street lending facilities tips the scales, and we recommend that investors overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, we think investors should focus on the Independent sub-sector where value is very attractive and most issuers can tap the Fed for help if needed. We would, however, avoid the Oil Field Services sector where the bulk of Energy defaults are likely to come from. Midstream and Refining should perform well, but are less cyclical and less attractively valued than the Independent sub-sector. Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007.   Appendix A Investment Grade Energy Issuers The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Appendix B High-Yield Energy Issuers The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy  

Highlights The yield advantage behind the dollar bull market since 2011 has completely evaporated. This has unhinged one of the final pillars of dollar support.  However, there is also a shifting paradigm in currency markets as nominal rates have hit zero –  the highest real rates can now be found in defensive currencies, where deflation is more pervasive. Most cyclical currencies are still sporting very negative real rates. In such a world, the most appropriate strategy is a barbell – overweighting the cheapest currencies, like the NOK and SEK, along with some defensives like the JPY. Trades at the crosses also make sense. We added a long CAD/NZD trade to our basket last week. Stick with it. Eventually, when a full-fledged dollar bear market becomes more apparent, the barbell strategy will have performed much better than a short DXY position. Feature Chart I-1Our Trading Model Is Bearish The Dollar Our Trading Model Is Bearish The Dollar Our Trading Model Is Bearish The Dollar Trading the foreign exchange markets can be complex and very humbling. That said, there are still some simple strategies that have consistently delivered excess returns over time. Regular readers of our bulletin are familiar with our framework based on three main vectors: the macroeconomic environment, valuation, and sentiment. Over time, a three-factor model based on these vectors has outperformed a buy-and-hold strategy for the majority of developed market currency pairs (Chart I-1).1 Within the model, an equal weight is assigned to all three factors, but the reality is that the most important variable to figure out is what the macro landscape will look like over a cyclical horizon. More often than not, the macro framework rather than valuation or sentiment is more important in timing turning points in currency markets. Over time, this can be a very potent source of alpha. Currencies, Inflation, And Real Rates Our starting point for figuring out the macro  environment is to go back to the four-quadrant chart splitting inflation and growth with the performance of currencies (Chart I-2). Two key observations stand out: Early on in any cycle, the dollar depreciates across most currencies. This is when growth is improving but inflation is still weak, allowing for very easy global monetary settings. As the cycle matures and deflationary pressures set in, a bullish dollar strategy is an absolute winner. In between an upcycle and a downturn, the performance of the dollar is more ambiguous. Trades at the crosses tend to do well in this environment. Chart I-2The Dollar, Fed, And Business Cycles A Simple Framework For Currencies A Simple Framework For Currencies The next step is to figure out which environment are we in today. An upturn is typically characterized by easy monetary settings and improving growth but weak inflation. This ensures the monetary impulse for growth remains at full throttle. The US dollar declines in this environment because the growth impulse is usually higher elsewhere, since the US has a lower manufacturing base. Early on in any cycle, the dollar depreciates across most currencies.  One way to figure out if we are early in the cycle is from the bond market. Early in the cycle, the cost of capital is well below the return on capital. This is the case for the US, where the NY Fed’s neutral rate estimate is well above the fed funds rate. Unsurprisingly, this correlates quite well with the yield curve, suggesting borrowing to invest makes sense. In the same vein, most economic leading indicators are perking up (Chart I-3). Given that inflation is not a problem today, the next key driver for currencies will be what happens to real growth. The yield advantage behind the dollar bull market since 2011 has completely evaporated. However, there is also a shifting paradigm in currency markets as nominal rates have hit zero – the highest real rates are now being found in defensive currencies (Chart I-4). For that to change, real rates have to rise in cyclical markets. The evidence so far is encouraging: Chart I-3Cost Of Capital Is Less Than Return On Capital Cost Of Capital Is Less Than Return On Capital Cost Of Capital Is Less Than Return On Capital Chart I-4Higher Real Rates In Switzerland And Japan A Simple Framework For Currencies A Simple Framework For Currencies   Relative PMIs outside the US are picking up faster than within the US (Chart I-5). In the euro zone, the improvement in the expectations component of the surveys are pointing to a very significant recovery in the PMIs in the months ahead (Chart I-6). China is stimulating aggressively. This is very potent fuel for domestic demand as well as global trade (Chart I-7).   Chart I-5Growth Is Outperforming Outside The US Growth Is Outperforming Outside The US Growth Is Outperforming Outside The US Chart I-6Eurozone Green Shoots Eurozone Green Shoots Eurozone Green Shoots Chart I-7China Green Shoots China Green Shoots China Green Shoots A pickup in real growth outside the US should improve bond yields in cyclical economies, encouraging flows into their capital markets. As we posited last week, an important component of these flows will also be into their equity markets, making the value-versus-growth debate very important for currencies.2 Coming back to our model, the main input into the macroeconomic component is real interest rate differentials. From this lens, the message so far is to remain long defensive currencies like the Swiss franc and Japanese yen that have the highest real rates. Measuring Value Chart I-8US Dollar Is Overvalued A Simple Framework For Currencies A Simple Framework For Currencies The macroeconomic component is only one of three factors – valuation and sentiment being equally important. Over the years, our team has compiled a swath of valuation models, which we follow quite closely. For the purposes of a simple framework, we stuck to purchasing power parity (PPP) when building out the valuation component. PPP is a very poor tool for managing currencies over the short term, but an excellent one at extremes. We have enhanced the computation to adjust for a few roadblocks that have proved crucial in adding value. Consumer price baskets tend to differ in composition from one country to the next. In order to get closer to an apples-to-apples comparison across countries, an adjustment is necessary. This includes creating a synthetic price basket that looks at a very similar basket of goods and services across countries. If, for example, shelter is 33% in the US CPI basket but 19% in the Swedish CPI basket, relative shelter prices will represent 26% of the combined price ratio. This allows for a uniform cross-sectional comparison, as opposed to using the national CPI weights. The US dollar is overvalued, especially versus the Swedish krona, British pound, and Norwegian krone.  The results show the US dollar as overvalued, especially versus the Swedish krona, British pound, and Norwegian krone. Commodity currencies are closer to fair value, and within the safe-haven complex, the Japanese yen is more attractive than the Swiss franc (Chart I-8). Using this valuation framework, long-term returns have been compelling. The bottom line is that while most cyclical currencies are still sporting very negative real rates, some are very undervalued from a cyclical perspective. This suggests the discount already accounts for negative real rates. Timing The Turning Point Turning points in foreign exchange markets tend to be most visible via capital flows. This makes the sentiment component of our model quite important. The nascent upturn in a few growth indicators is coinciding with an outperformance of value relative to growth and cyclicals versus defensive stocks. As we mentioned last week, it is an important signal to watch for currencies. Three ratios hold the key in determining when the dollar capitulates: The total return of US bonds versus gold, the USD/CNY exchange rate, and the gold-to-silver ratio (GSR). The  rationale for the three is as follows: As the Fed continues to increase the supply of bonds, the ratio of the US bond ETF (TLT)-to-gold (GLD) will be an important proxy for investor sentiment on the dollar. One of the functions of money is as a store of value, and gold remains a viable threat to dollar liabilities. Foreigners already have been stampeding out of US bond markets. A falling ratio will suggest domestic private investors are dumping their holdings in exchange for precious metals (Chart I-9). As geopolitical tensions between the US and China mount, the USD/CNY exchange rate will become the key arbiter between two dollars: one versus emerging markets and the other versus developed markets. So far, the USD/CNY is depreciating, suggesting dollar liquidity is providing a blanket cover over other ancillary issues. Finally, the gold-to-silver ratio correlates well with the dollar. Gold does well when there is financial stress in the system, forcing the Fed to undermine the value of the dollar through massive dollar supply injections. Silver does well when entities take advantage of cheap dollar funding to finance higher-return projects. It is a timely indicator about the liquidity-to-growth transmission mechanism (Chart I-10). Importantly, the new economy, technology, and clean energy industries are significant  buyers of silver . These industries are also cheaper outside the US, as we posited last week. Chart I-9Watch The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Watch The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Watch The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Chart I-10Watch The Gold-To-Silver Ratio Watch The Gold-To-Silver Ratio Watch The Gold-To-Silver Ratio In short, the huge directional indicator for the dollar bear market will be a crash in the GSR. This will act as both confirmation that the dollar bear market is full-fledged and that the tug-of-war between growth and liquidity is over. We have been highlighting this trade in recent months as one of our high-conviction calls. The sentiment component of our FX trading model uses a more traditional approach. As a momentum currency, signals like death crosses or bombed-out rates of change are potent. With the dollar in freefall, the signal is to keep selling. While it is true that speculators are already short, they were also long during most of the dollar bull market from 2011. Housekeeping Our currency strategy remains the barbell – overweighting the cheapest currencies like the NOK and SEK, along with some defensives like the JPY. Eventually, when a full-fledged dollar bear market becomes more apparent, the barbell strategy will have performed much better than an outright short DXY position. Our FX model, highlighted on the first page, suggests this will be the case. We have some trades at the crosses that are dollar-agnostic. These include short EUR/NOK, EUR/SEK and NZD/CAD. The macro landscape remains fraught with uncertainties, so we have some trades at the crosses that are dollar-agnostic. These include short EUR/NOK, EUR/SEK and NZD/CAD. Being long petrocurrencies versus the euro is also a nice carry trade. Finally, we were stopped out of our long cable position this week for a small profit of 2.4%. GBP has been one of our favorite contrarian trades, having booked 9.6% profits being long versus the yen last year. Volatility brings opportunity, and we will look to reestablish longs in the coming weeks.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report , "Introducing An FX Trading Model", dated April 24, 2020. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report , "Currencies And The Value-Vs Growth Debate", dated July 10, 2020. 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 in the US have been mostly positive: Headline consumer price inflation increased from 0.1% to 0.6% year-on-year in June. Core inflation was unchanged at 1.2% year-on-year. The NFIB business optimism index increased from 94.4 in May to 100.6. The NY Empire State manufacturing index surged from -0.2 to 17.2 in July. Producer prices fell by 0.8% year-on-year in June. Initial jobless claims increased by 1300K for the week ended July 10th. The DXY index fell by 0.7% this week. Risk sentiment continues to improve with higher hopes for vaccine and the reopening of economies. The Fed’s Beige Book released this Wednesday shows that economic activities are recovering in a lot of districts though well below pre-COVID-19 levels. It is remarkable that retail sales surged, led by a rebound in vehicle sales and home improvement purchases. Report Links: DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market? - June 5, 2020 Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 Capitulation? - April 3, 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 in the euro area have been improving: The ZEW economic sentiment index ticked up from 58.6 to 59.6 in July. Industrial production fell by 20.9% year-on-year in May, following a 28.7% contraction the previous month.  The trade balance surged from €1.6 billion to €8 billion in May. The euro appreciated by 1.1% against the US dollar this week. The ECB kept policy unchanged this week. As interest rate spreads between the core and periphery converge, the ECB’s work is done. We remain positive on the euro against the US dollar, though petrocurrencies and the British pound will likely outperform should our bet on high-beta currencies pan out. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 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 in Japan have been negative: Industrial production plunged by 26.3% year-on-year in May, following a 25.9% contraction the previous month. Capacity utilization continued to fall by 11.6% year-on-year in May. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The BoJ maintained its interest rate at -0.1% on Tuesday and made no changes to its asset purchase program. While Governor Haruhiko Kuroda warned the outlook remains highly uncertain (including downgrading the economic forecast for 2020), he sounded conciliatory to the fact that fiscal policy might be needed to boost Japanese demand. 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 in the UK have been mixed: The total trade surplus widened from £2.3 billion to £4.3 billion in May, boosted by a 6.6% jump in goods sales. Retail sales surged by 10.9% yearly in June. Both headline and core inflation increased to 0.6% and 1.4% year-on-year, respectively in June. The unemployment stayed flat at 3.9% in May. Average earnings fell by 0.3% year-on-year in the 3 months to May. However, industrial production fell by 20% year-on-year in May. The British pound was flat against the US dollar this week. The UK economy contracted by 19.1% in the three months to May, according to ONS data. GDP grew by 1.8% month-on-month in May alone, but this is still 25% below the February level. On the positive side, NIESR forecasts that the UK economy is likely to recover by 8-10% in the third quarter of 2020. 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 in Australia have been positive: NAB business confidence increased from -20 to 1 in June. The business conditions index also jumped from -24 to -7. New home sales surged by 87.2% month-on-month in May. Employment increased by 210.8K in June, with an increase of 249K part-time jobs and a loss of 38.1K full-time jobs. The Australian dollar appreciated by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. The latest Labor Force Survey shows positive developments in recent months. While the unemployment rate ticked up slightly, both the underemployment rate and underutilisation rate declined by 1.4% and 1%, respectively in June. Moreover, the participation rate increased by 1.3% to 64%. 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 in New Zealand have been negative:  Visitor arrivals plunged in May amid the global pandemic. ANZ monthly inflation gauge fell from 2.8% year-on-year to 2.4% year-on-year in June. Headline consumer price inflation slowed from 2.5% to 1.5% year-on-year in Q2. The New Zealand dollar fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. As we mentioned in last week’s report, the government’s effort to limit the spread of COVID-19 and curb immigration will hurt New Zealand’s labor market. The “Migration after COVID-19” released by NZIER this week also implied more restrictive immigration policy going forward. Stay short NZD/CAD. 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 in Canada have been positive: In June, the unemployment rate declined from 13.7% to 12.3%. The participation rate also increased from 61.4% to 63.8%. Manufacturing sales surged by 10.7% month-on-month in May, following a 27.9% decline the previous month. The Canadian dollar appreciated by 0.4% against the US dollar this week. On Wednesday, the BoC kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged, as widely expected. BoC’s new Governor Tiff Macklem said that “it’s going to be a long climb out” and implied that interest rates are likely to stay unusually low for a long time. 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 in Switzerland have been negative: Producer and import prices declined by 3.5% year-on-year in June, following a 4.5% contraction the previous month. Total sight deposit continued to increase from CHF 687 billion to CHF 688.6 billion for the week ended July 10th. The Swiss franc fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. In a speech this Tuesday, SNB Chairman Thomas Jordan said that the current policy in place since 2015 is unlikely to change anytime soon. He also acknowledged that the SNB had intervened in the FX market more strongly in recent months to ease upward pressure on the franc amid the global pandemic. 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 in Norway have been mixed: Headline consumer prices increased by 1.4% year-on-year in June. Core inflation surged by 3.1% year-on-year in June, the highest since August 2016. Producer prices fell by 14.4% year-on-year in June, following a 17.5% contraction the previous month.  The trade deficit widened from NOK1.2 billion to NOK10.2 billion in June. Exports fell by 15.6% year-on-year while imports rose by 10%, with a surge in food and manufactured goods purchases. The Norwegian krone increased by 2% against the US dollar this week. While the Norwegian krone has rebounded by 22% since the March lows, it is still 7-10% cheaper compared with pre-COVID-19 levels. Our bias is that the Norwegian krone still has tremendous room to run towards its fair value. 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 in Sweden have been positive: Headline consumer price inflation rose to 0.7% year-on-year in June, from -0.4% in April. Food and non-alcoholic beverages inflation slowed from 3.9% year-on-year the previous month but remained high at 2.6% year-on-year in June. The Swedish krona jumped by 2% against the US dollar this week on the back of positive inflation data. A bit less than the Norwegian krone, the Swedish krona has increased by 13% since its March lows but is still far below the value prior to COVID-19. We maintain a positive stance towards both NOK and SEK. Our Nordic basket is now 11% in the money. 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 The EM equity benchmark’s concentration in the top six stocks – that in turn correlate with US FAANGM – has risen substantially. Hence, the outlook for US mega-cap stocks will continue to significantly impact the EM equity benchmark. US FAANGM stocks have been closely tracking the trajectory of – and share many other similarities with – previous bubbles. Hence, it is risky to dismiss the mania thesis. That said, it is impossible to know how long this equity mania will last, how far it will go and what will trigger its volte-face. Odds of a repeat of the 2015 boom-bust cycle in Chinese equities are low. The rally in Chinese stocks and commodities might be due for a pause. Feature Concentration Risk Chart 1EM: Mega-Caps Stocks Versus The Equal-Weighted Index EM: Mega-Caps Stocks Versus The Equal-Weighted Index EM: Mega-Caps Stocks Versus The Equal-Weighted Index The EM equity index's hefty gains since the late-March lows have largely been at the hands of about six stocks: Alibaba, Tencent, TSMC, Samsung, Naspers and Meituan-Dianping (Chart 1). The latter is a Chinese web-service platform company, while Naspers derives 75% of its revenue from its equity ownership in Tencent and 25% from a Russian internet company. For ease of reference, we refer to the big four (Alibaba, Tencent, Samsung and TSMC) as EM ATST. Table 1 illustrates that the top six companies combined account for about 24.3% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. For comparison, US FAANGM (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft) account for 25% of the S&P 500 market cap. The remainder of the EM equity universe – including all Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks other than the six mega caps listed above – has rallied less (Chart 1). This is very similar to the dynamics in the US equity market, where the equally-weighted index has substantially diverged from the FAANGM index (Chart 2). Table 1Market Cap Weights & Performance Since March Lows EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks Chart 2US: FAANGM Versus The Equal-Weighted Index US: FAANGM Versus The Equal-Weighted Index US: FAANGM Versus The Equal-Weighted Index   Table 2MSCI EM Stocks: Country Weights EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks The EM ATST’s exponential rise has also boosted their respective country weightings in the MSCI EM equity benchmark. Table 2 demonstrates that China, Korea and Taiwan together account for 65% of the EM benchmark, India for 8% and all other 22 countries combined for 27%. Note that the market cap ($1.7 trillion) of the remaining 22 countries is almost as large as the market cap of the top six EM individual stocks. On the whole, concentration in the EM benchmark is as high as ever. Apart from global trade and Chinese growth, there are two other forces that will define the direction of EM mega-cap stocks: (1) rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China, and (2) a continuous mania or bust in “new economy” stocks. We discuss the latter in the following section. Escalating tensions between the US and China, including North Korea’s potential assault on South Korea, pose risks to Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. This is one of the critical reasons why we have been reluctant to chase these markets higher, despite upgrading our outlook on Chinese growth. If these bourses relapse, their sheer weight in the EM benchmark will pull the index down. The EM equity index’s outperformance in recent weeks has been due to the surge in both EM mega-cap stocks and Chinese share prices more broadly. Bottom Line: The EM equity benchmark concentration has risen substantially due to outsized gains in several “new economy” stocks. What’s more, the EM equity index’s outperformance in recent weeks has been due to the surge in both EM mega-cap stocks and Chinese share prices more broadly (we discuss the latter below). If the global mania in “new economy” stocks persists, EM ATST could well drive the overall EM equity index higher. Conversely, if “new economy” shares roll over for whatever reason, the EM equity benchmark’s advance will reverse. A Bubble Or Not? An assessment of the sustainability of the rally in US FAANGM stocks is critical for investors in the EM equity benchmark if for no other reason than the concentration hazard. We present the following considerations in assessing whether the FAANGM and EM ATST rally is or is not a mania: First, the exponential rally in FAANGM stocks is not a new phenomenon: It has been taking place over the past 10 years. Our FAANGM index – an equal-weighted average of six stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google and Microsoft) – has increased 20-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms since January 2010. Its rise is on par with the magnitude of the bull market in the Nasdaq 100 index in the 1990s and Walt Disney in the 1960s, and well exceeds other bubbles, as illustrated in Chart 3. All price indexes on Chart 3 are shown in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Chart 3Each Decade = One Mania EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks All these manias and bubbles started with excellent fundamentals, and price gains were initially justified. Toward the end of the decade, however, their outsized gains attracted momentum chasers and speculators, catapulting share prices exponentially higher. Second, a financial mania requires: (1) solid past performance; (2) a story that can capture investors’ imaginations, and (3) plentiful liquidity. The “new economy” stocks fit all of these criteria: They have delivered super-sized performance over the past 10 years; They easily capture ordinary people’s imaginations – the average person on the street knows that FAANGM and EM ATST stocks benefit from people working from home and spending more time online; The Federal Reserve and many other central banks are injecting enormous amounts of liquidity into their respective economies. Third, there is a striking similarity between the FAANGM rally and previous bubbles: The mania-subjects of the preceding decades assumed global equity leadership early in their respective decade, rose steadily throughout, and went exponential at the very end of the decade. The latest parabolic surge in FAANGM stocks along with its duration (10 years of global equity outperformance and leadership) and magnitude (20-fold price appreciation in real inflation-adjusted terms) conspicuously resembles those of previous bubbles. Interestingly, the majority of previous bubbles peaked and tumbled around the turn of each decade, the exception being Walt Disney – the Nifty-Fifty bubble of the 1960s – which rolled over in 1973. Given FAANGM stocks have been closely tracking the trajectory of previous bubbles, it will not be surprising if 2020 ends up marking the peak for “new economy” stocks. Fourth, the last exponential upleg in the tech and telecom bubble of 1999-2000 occurred amid a one-off demand surge for tech hardware and software. The Y2K scare – worries that computers and networks around the world might malfunction on the New Year/new millennium eve – spurred many companies to order new hardware and upgrade their systems and networks. As a result, there was a one-off boom in orders in the global technology industry in the fourth quarter of 1999 and first quarter of 2000. Chart 4Orders For Computers And Electronics Have Remained Resilient Orders For Computers And Electronics Have Remained Resilient Orders For Computers And Electronics Have Remained Resilient Investors extrapolated this one-off demand surge into the future, mistaking it for recurring growth. As a result, they assigned extremely high valuations to these tech stocks in the first quarter of 2000. Similarly, since March, working and shopping from home has sharply increased demand for web services, online shopping, cloud computing and tech hardware. The top panel of Chart 4 demonstrates that US manufacturing orders for computers and electronic products did not contract in the March-May period, while orders for capital goods have plunged since March. Similarly, Taiwanese exports – which are heavy on tech hardware – are holding up well despite the crash in global trade (Chart 4, bottom panel). Some of this demand strength is structural, but part of it is one-off and non-recurring. Certainly, one should not extrapolate their recent growth rates into the future. However, investors are prone to extrapolation and chasing winners. Fifth, valuations of US FAANGM and EM ATST are elevated. Trailing P/E ratios for EM ATST stocks are shown in Table 3. Table 3Price-To-Earnings For Top 6 EM Stocks EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks EM Equities: Concentration And Mania Risks All in all, provided both US FAANGM and EM ATST consist of admirable companies with great competitive advantages and business models, it is tempting to dismiss the bubble argument. Nevertheless, there are enough similarities with previous manias to compel investors to be vigilant. Even great companies have a fair price, and substantial price overshoots will not be sustainable. We sense a growing number of investors deem US FAANGM and EM ATST stocks as invincible. When some stocks are regarded as unbeatable, their top is not far. Our major theme for the past decade – elaborated in the report, How To Play EM In The Coming Decade1 published in June 2010 – has been as follows: Sell commodities / buy health care and technology. Until 2019, we were recommending being long EM tech/short EM resource stocks. Unfortunately, since 2019, the corrections in EM “new economy” stocks have proved to be too short and fleeting, and we were unable to buy-in. Their share prices have lately gone parabolic: They are now in a full-blown mania phase. As to global equity leadership change from growth to value stocks, we maintain that major leadership rotations typically occur during or at the end of an equity selloff, as we elaborated in our October 3, 2019 report (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5EM vs DM: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence EM vs DM: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence EM vs DM: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence Chart 6Growth vs Value: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence Growth vs Value: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence Growth vs Value: Leadership Rotation Requires Market Turbulence Apparently, the February-March selloff did not produce a shift in equity leadership. Barring a major selloff, “new economy” stocks will likely continue to lead. Chart 7Fed Rate Cuts Did Not Prevent The S&P 500 Bubble From Unravelling Fed Rate Cuts Did Not Prevent The S&P 500 Bubble From Unravelling Fed Rate Cuts Did Not Prevent The S&P 500 Bubble From Unravelling Finally, easy money policies encourage speculation and contribute to the build-up of manias. However, when a bubble starts unravelling, low interest rates are often unable to avert the bust. For example, when the tech bubble began bursting in 2000, the Fed cut rates aggressively and US bond yields plunged. Yet, low interest rates did not prevent tech share prices from deflating further (Chart 7). Bottom Line:  It is impossible to know how long this equity mania will last, how far it will go and what will trigger its volte-face. One thing is certain: there is a lot of froth – particularly in terms of valuation and positioning – in these “new economy” stocks. Yet, these excesses could last longer and get larger. A Mania In Chinese Equities? Many commentators have rushed to compare the latest surge in Chinese stocks with the exponential advance in the first half of 2015. We do not think this rally will go on without interruption for another five months like it did back then. Our rationale is as follows:   The Chinese authorities are much more vigilant now, and they will try to induce periodic corrections to avoid another mania and bust similar to those that occurred five years ago. The Chinese authorities are much more vigilant now, and they will try to induce periodic corrections to avoid another mania and bust similar to those that occurred five years ago. Both China’s MSCI Investable and CSI 300 equity indexes are retesting their previous highs (Chart 8). In the past they failed to break above these levels, and this time is likely to be no different, at least for now. The latest spike is more likely to be the final hurrah before a setback. Critically, the 12-month forward P/E ratio for China’s MSCI Investible index has also risen to its previous peaks (Chart 9, top panel). This has occurred with little improvement in the 12-month forward EPS (Chart 9, bottom panel). In short, share prices have run ahead of the business cycle and are already pricing in a lot of profit recovery. Chart 8Chinese Stocks Are At Their Previous Highs Chinese Stocks Are At Their Previous Highs Chinese Stocks Are At Their Previous Highs Chart 9Chinese Investable Stocks: A Rally Driven By P/E Expansion Chinese Investable Stocks: A Rally Driven By P/E Expansion Chinese Investable Stocks: A Rally Driven By P/E Expansion Chart 10Chinese Onshore Stocks: A Two-Tier Market Chinese Onshore Stocks: A Two-Tier Market Chinese Onshore Stocks: A Two-Tier Market Most of the rally since the March lows has been due to “new economy” stocks. Share prices of “old economy” companies did not do that well before July. Tech stocks in the onshore market have gone parabolic (Chart 10, top panel). This contrasts with lackluster performance of materials, industrials, and property stocks (Chart 10, bottom panels). Critically, in the onshore market, tech stocks are trading at the following trailing P/E ratios: the market cap-weighted P/E is 155, and the median P/E is 60. Needless to say, these valuations are outright expensive.   Bottom Line: Odds of a repeat of the 2015 boom-bust cycle are low. The rally in Chinese stocks might be due for a pause. On June 18, we upgraded Chinese stocks to overweight from neutral within the EM benchmark, a recommendation that remains intact. We have a much lower conviction on the absolute performance of Chinese stocks in the near-run. China And Commodities An important question to address is whether the rally in commodities in general and copper in particular are signals of a sustainable recovery in the mainland economy. Without a doubt, economic conditions in China have been improving, and infrastructure spending has been accelerating. However, the magnitude of the upswing in copper prices is excessive relative to the strength of the Chinese economy. The spike in resource prices in general and copper in particular has been due to three forces: (1) China’s unprecedented super-strong imports; (2) global investors buying commodities; and (3) output cuts. It is highly unlikely that commodity demand in China is this strong. In our opinion, this reflects restocking. Chart 11 shows that Chinse imports of copper and copper products surged by 100% in June from a year ago, while imports of steel products increased by 100% and oil import volumes rose by 34%. It is highly unlikely that commodity demand in China is this strong. In our opinion, this reflects restocking. Provided cheap credit availability, wholesalers, intermediaries or users of commodities have rushed to buy before prices rise further. In the case of copper, it will take several months before the real economy absorbs that much of the red metal. Hence, China’s copper imports are poised to relapse in the coming months.   Chart 12 illustrates that investors’ net long positions in copper have risen to their highest level since early 2019. Consistently, the July Bank of America/Meryl Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that as of early July, portfolio managers had built up their largest net long positions in commodities since July 2011.   Not only oil but also copper and iron ore prices have benefitted from production declines. Due to surging COVID infections, Chile and Peru have sharply reduced copper output and Brazil has curtailed iron ore production. Chart 11Chinese Imports Of Commodities Have Surged Chinese Imports Of Commodities Have Surged Chinese Imports Of Commodities Have Surged Chart 12Investors Have Gone Long Copper Investors Have Gone Long Copper Investors Have Gone Long Copper Simultaneous buying of commodities by China and global investors as well as production cuts have considerably benefited resource prices as of late. Our suspicion is that commodities inventories in China have become elevated. This entails reduced purchases by China, and by extension an air pocket in commodities prices in the months ahead. Bottom Line: The rally in resources in general and copper in particular is at risk of a correction. We remain long gold/short copper.     Investment Strategy In absolute terms, the risk-reward of EM share prices is not attractive. However, as we have argued in the past two months, FOMO (fear-of-missing-out) mania forces could take share prices higher. The timing of a reversal is never easy especially when a FOMO-driven mania is alive. For now, for asset allocators we reiterate a below-benchmark allocation in EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. However, a breakdown in the trade-weighted US dollar will prompt us to upgrade EM within the global equity benchmark (Chart 13). The broad trade-weighted dollar is teetering on an edge but has not yet broken down (Chart 14). In sum, global equity portfolios should be ready to upgrade their EM allocation to neutral on signs that the broad trade-weighted US dollar is breaking down. Chart 13EM vs DM: Is The Downtrend Intact? EM vs DM: Is The Downtrend Intact? EM vs DM: Is The Downtrend Intact? Chart 14The Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Is On An Edge The Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Is On An Edge The Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Is On An Edge   As we argued last week, the US dollar could weaken against DM currencies amid the next selloff in global share prices. This is why last week we switched our short positions in an EM currency basket from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the euro, the Swiss franc and Japanese yen. This strategy remains valid. The US dollar is at risk versus DM currencies. However, EM exchange rates may not be out of the woods, given their poor fundamentals on the one hand and potential geopolitical risks in North Asia on the other. We are neutral on both EM local currency bonds and EM sovereign and corporate credit.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "How To Play EM In The Coming Decade," dated June 10, 2010. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

  Highlights Q2/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark by +11bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +8bps, led by overweights in the US (+4bps), Canada (+4bps) and Italy (+3bps). Spread product generated a small outperformance (+3bps), with overweights in US investment grade (+43bps) offsetting underweights in emerging market debt (-35bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure, focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance amid economic uncertainties caused by the growing spread of COVID-19. We continue favoring markets where there is direct buying from central banks, but we are also increasing our recommended exposure to EM USD-denominated debt versus US investment grade corporates. Feature The first half of 2020 has been one of rapid market moves and regime shifts for global fixed income markets. In the first quarter, developed market government debt provided the best returns as bond yields plunged with central banks racing to support collapsing economies through rate cuts and liquidity injections. In Q2, corporate credit delivered the top returns, as economies started to emerge from the COVID-19 lockdowns and, more importantly, the Fed and other major central banks delivered direct support to frozen credit markets through asset purchases. Now, even as an increasing number of global growth indicators are tracing out a "V"-shaped recovery, new cases of COVID-19 are surging though the southern US and major emerging economies like Brazil and India. This raises new challenges for investors for the second half of 2020. A second wave of the coronavirus could jeopardize the nascent global economic recovery, even after the massive easing of monetary and fiscal policies, at a time when valuations on many risk assets appear stretched. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended portfolio positioning for the next six months. Given the lingering uncertainties from the renewed spread of COVID-19, we continue to take a more measured approach in our portfolio allocations. That means focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors while staying closer to benchmark on overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Slight Outperformance For Both Sovereigns And Credits Chart 1Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was 3.22%, modestly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +11bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +8bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +3bps. That government bond return includes the small gain (+2bps) from inflation-linked bonds, which we added as a new asset class in our model portfolio framework on June 23.2 In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada, the UK and Italy was the main source of outperformance, delivering a combined excess return of +13bps (including inflation-linked bonds). Our underweight in Japan delivered a surprising positive excess return of +4bps as longer-dated JGB yields – which do not fall under the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control policy – rose during the quarter. Underweights in the low-yielding core euro area countries of Germany and France were a drag on the portfolio (a combined -10bps), particularly the latter where longer-maturity French bonds enjoyed a very strong rally in Q2. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism In spread product, our overweights in US investment grade corporates (+43bps), UK investment grade corporates (+7bps) and US commercial MBS (+5bps) squeezed out a combined small gain versus underweights in emerging markets (EM) USD-denominated credit (-35bps), euro area high-yield (-8bps) and lower-rated US high-yield (-6bps). In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada, the UK and Italy was the main source of outperformance. That modest outperformance of the model bond portfolio versus the benchmark is in line with our cautious recommended stance on what are always the largest drivers of the portfolio returns: overall duration exposure and the relative allocation between government debt and spread product. We have stuck close to benchmark exposures on both, eschewing big directional bets on bond yields or credit spreads while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors. This conservative approach is how we are approaching what we have dubbed “The Battle of 2020” between the opposing forces of coronavirus contagion (which is bullish for government bonds and bearish for credit) and policy reflation (vice versa).3 The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+28bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+12bps) Overweight UK investment grade corporates (+7bps) Overweight US CMBS (+5bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+5 bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight EM USD denominated corporates (-24bps) Underweight EM USD denominated sovereigns (-10bps) Underweight EUR high-yield corporates (-8bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-5bps) Underweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2020. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q2/2020 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The top performing sectors in our model bond portfolio universe in Q2 were all spread product: EM USD-denominated sovereign (+12.9% in USD-hedged terms, duration-matched to the custom model portfolio benchmark index), EM USD-denominated corporate debt (+12.6%), UK investment grade corporates (+11.3%), US investment grade corporates (+10.9%), and high-yield corporates in the euro area (+6.7%) and US (+5.6%). The top performing sectors in our model bond portfolio universe in Q2 were all spread product. During the quarter, we maintained relative exposures to those sectors within an overall small above-benchmark allocation to global spread product – overweight US and UK investment grade versus underweight emerging market credit, neutral overall US high-yield (favoring Ba-rated debt) versus underweight euro area high-yield. Those allocations were motivated by our theme of “buying what the central banks are buying”, like the Fed purchasing US investment grade corporates. Importantly, we had limited exposure to the worst performing sectors during Q2: underweight government bonds in Japan (index return of -0.47% in USD-hedged, duration-matched terms) and Germany (+0.47%), a neutral allocation to Australian sovereign debt (-0.07%) and an underweight in US Agency MBS (+0.20%). The latter two positions came after we downgraded US MBS to underweight in early April and cut our long-held overweight in Australia to neutral in mid-May. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio modestly outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +11bps – a positive result driven by our relative positioning that favored higher yielding government debt and spread product sectors directly supported by central bank purchases. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit Vs Governments GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. However, the current environment is unprecedented because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Not only is there now elevated economic uncertainty, but central banks are running extreme monetary policies in response - including direct intervention in markets through purchases of both government bonds and spread product. Thus, we are reluctant to rely on historical model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected fixed income returns. Instead, we will focus on the logic behind our current model portfolio allocations and the expected contribution to overall portfolio performance over the next six months. At the moment, the main factors that will drive the performance of the model bond portfolio over the next six months are the following: Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US, Canada and Italy versus low-yielders like Germany, France and Japan; Our allocation to inflation-linked bonds out of nominal government debt in the US, Italy and Canada; Our recommended overweight stance on spread product backstopped by central bank purchases - US investment grade corporates, US Agency CMBS, US Ba-rated high-yield, and UK investment grade corporates; Our recommended underweight stance on riskier spread product - euro area high-yield, US B-rated and Caa-rated high-yield, and EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns. The portfolio currently has a small aggregate overweight allocation to spread product relative to government bonds, equal to three percentage points (Chart 5). We feel that is an appropriate allocation to credit versus sovereigns in an environment that is still highly uncertain concerning the spread of COVID-19 and how global growth will evolve over the next 6-12 months. This also leaves room to increase the spread product allocation should the news on the virus and the global economy take a turn for the better. We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has rebounded sharply and is signaling that bond yields should bottom out in the second half of 2020 (Chart 6). A rise in yields will take longer to develop, however, with virtually all major central banks signaling that policy rates will stay near 0% for an extended period. Chart 6Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Chart 7Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals The recent moves in developed market government bonds are interesting in terms of the underlying drivers of yields – real yields and inflation expectations. Longer-maturity inflation breakevens – the spread between the yields of nominal and inflation-linked government debt – have drifted higher since late March after major central banks began rapidly easing monetary conditions. At the same time, the actual yields on inflation-linked bonds, i.e. real yields, have moved lower and largely offset the gains in inflation breakevens (Chart 7). Nominal yields have been stuck in very narrow ranges as a result. We do not see that dynamic changing, at least in the near term. Inflation breakevens are too low on our models across all developed markets, and are likely to continue inching higher in the coming months on the back of a pickup in global growth and rising energy prices. At the same time, central banks will be staying on hold for longer while continuing to buy large quantities of nominal bonds, helping push real yields lower. Given these opposing forces on nominal government bond yields, we think it is far too soon to contemplate reducing overall duration – even with equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows and global economic indicators rebounding. Thus, we are maintaining an overall duration exposure close to benchmark in the model portfolio (Chart 8). At the same time, we are playing for wider breakevens and lower real bond yields through allocations to markets where our models indicate better value in being long breakevens: US TIPS, Italian inflation-linked BTPs, and Canadian Real Return Bonds. Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we continue to recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and Italy while maintaining underweights in low-yielding core Europe and Japan. Turning to spread product allocations, we continue to recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession, and its uncertain recovery, rather than the downturn itself. The now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - which has led global high-yield and investment grade excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 9) – is pointing to additional global corporate bond market outperformance versus governments over the next 6-12 months. Chart 8Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets like Caa-rated US high-yield that have already seen significant spread compression relative to higher-rated US junk bonds (bottom panel). Chart 9Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Chart 10Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying We continue to focus our recommended spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying. We continue to focus our recommended spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed can hold in its corporate bond buying program, US Agency CMBS that is also supported by Fed programs, and UK investment grade corporate bonds that the Bank of England is buying. We also put Italian government bonds into this category, with the ECB buying greater amounts of BTPs as part of its COVID-19 monetary support efforts. What about emerging market debt? We have expressed reservations in recent months about upgrading EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, even within our portfolio theme of being “selectively opportunistic” about recommended spread product allocations. We have long felt that the time to buy those markets would be when the US dollar had clearly peaked and global growth had clearly bottomed. The latter condition now appears to be in place, and the strong upward momentum in the US dollar is starting to weaken. This forces us to reconsider our stance on EM debt in the model portfolio. Even after the powerful Q2 rally in EM corporate and sovereign debt, EM credit spreads still look relatively attractive using one of our favorite credit valuation metrics – the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. Those breakeven spreads are calculated, as the amount of spread widening that would make the return of EM credit equal to duration-matched US Treasuries over a 12-month horizon. We then compare those spreads to their own history to determine how attractive current spread levels are now on a “spread volatility adjusted” basis. Current 12-month breakeven spreads for EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates are in the upper quartile of their own history. This compares favorably to other spread products in our model bond portfolio universe, particularly US investment grade corporates where the 12-month breakevens are now just below the long-run median (Chart 11). Chart 11A Comparison Of Credit Sectors Using 12-Month Breakeven Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The current Bloomberg Barclays EM corporate benchmark index option-adjusted spread (OAS) is around 300bps above that of the US investment grade corporate index OAS. That spread still has room to compress further if global growth continues to rebound and the US dollar softens versus EM currencies. Leading growth indicators like the China credit impulse, which has picked up sharply as Chinese authorities have ramped up economic stimulus measures, are now back to levels last seen in 2016 when EM credit strongly outperformed US investment grade corporates (Chart 12). Chart 12Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Chart 13Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark This week we are upgrading our weighting on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns to neutral, from underweight, in our model bond portfolio. Although we acknowledge that the EM story has been made more complicated by the rapid spread of COVID-19 through the major EM economies, an underweight stance – particularly versus US investment grade credit – is increasingly unwarranted. Therefore, this week we are upgrading our weighting on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns to neutral, from underweight, in our model bond portfolio (see the updated table on pages 17-18). That new allocation will be “funded” by reducing our overweight in US investment grade corporates. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations Importantly, the selective global government bond and credit allocations we have just outlined do not come at a cost in terms of forgone yield. The portfolio yield after our upgrade of EM debt will be slightly above that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 13), indicating no “negative carry” even when avoiding parts of the US and euro area high-yield markets. Chart 14Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. The portfolio volatility has fallen dramatically from the surge seen during the global market rout in March, moving lower alongside realized market volatility. The tracking error now sits at 64bps, well below our self-imposed limit of 100bps and within the 50-70bps range we are targeting as a “moderate” level of overall portfolio risk (Chart 14). Bottom Line: We are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure, focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance amid economic uncertainties caused by the growing spread of COVID-19. We continue favoring markets where there is direct buying from central banks. We are also increasing our recommended exposure on EM USD-denominated debt to neutral, funded by a reduced allocation to US investment grade corporates where valuations are less attractive.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations'", dated June 23 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On", dated June 30, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q2/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Energy Bond Model: This report presents models for both investment grade and high-yield Energy bond excess returns. The models are based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price. They can be used to generate Energy bond excess return forecasts for investment horizons up to 12 months. IG Energy Bonds: Our model suggests that investment grade Energy bond excess returns will be strong during the next 12 months under likely economic scenarios. We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Energy bonds.  HY Energy Bonds: Our models imply positive excess return outcomes for high-yield Energy bonds, but we remain concerned about near-term default risk for lower-rated issuers. We advise a cautious (neutral) allocation for now. Part 2 of this Special Report, to be published next week, will dig further into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis. Feature Table 1Energy Bond Excess Return* Scenarios (12-Month Investment Horizon) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns During the past couple of months we’ve published several reports that take more detailed looks at specific industry groups within both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. So far, we’ve published reports on: Banks1 Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals2 Technology3 This week and next week, we continue our series with a deep dive into Energy bonds that is split between two Special Reports. This week’s report develops a model for Energy bond excess returns based on overall corporate bond index excess returns and the oil price. In next week’s report, we look more deeply into the characteristics of the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. We also consider the outlooks for the five sub-categories of Energy debt: Independent, Integrated, Oil Field Services, Refining and Midstream. A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns A good starting point for modeling the excess returns of any corporate bond sector is to combine the sector’s Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) ratio with the excess returns of the overall corporate bond index.4 Please note that “excess returns” refers to returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. The DTS-only model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Considering only a sector’s DTS ratio, we can define the following model for monthly investment grade Energy excess returns: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP Where: EXSENRG = Monthly investment grade Energy excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) = The investment grade Energy sector’s DTS ratio EXSCORP = Monthly investment grade corporate index excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries For example, the current DTS for the investment grade Energy sector is 18. The DTS for the overall corporate index is 12. This means that the DTS ratio for the Energy sector is 18/12 = 1.5. According to our simple model, we would expect Energy sector excess returns to be 1.5 times corporate index excess returns in any given month. It turns out that our simple model performs quite well. Chart 1 shows monthly investment grade Energy sector excess returns versus our model’s prediction. Our sample period spans from 1997 to the present. Specifically, we find that our model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Chart 1Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: DTS-Only Model** The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The simple (DTS-only) model’s performance is admirable, but we can do slightly better if we also incorporate the oil price. Chart 2 shows a statistically significant relationship between the residual from the DTS-only model and the monthly change in the Brent crude oil price. Chart 2Residual From DTS-Only Model* Versus Oil Price The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Combining the models shown in Charts 1 and 2, we get a model for investment grade Energy monthly excess returns based on both corporate index excess returns and the oil price: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP + (376.84 * ∆ ln Oil) – 1.0587 Where excess returns are measured in basis points and (∆ ln Oil) = the monthly change in the natural logarithm of the Brent crude oil price. Chart 3 shows the historical performance of this complete model. Note that the model now explains 91% of the historical variance of investment grade Energy excess returns, 5% more than the initial DTS-only model. Chart 3Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: Complete Model (DTS & Oil)** The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Robustness Checks We performed the same analysis for 3-month, 6-month and 12-month excess returns and found very consistent results (Table 2). The oil price adds significant explanatory power to the model in each case, but the bulk of variation in investment grade Energy excess returns is determined by trends in the overall corporate index spread. Table 2Investment Grade Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns We also find consistent results when looking at high-yield Energy returns (Table 3). Once again, the bulk of excess return variation is explained by multiplying the DTS ratio and the benchmark index’s excess returns. The oil price also adds a statistically significant amount of extra explanatory power. Table 3High-Yield Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns One final observation is that oil explains a greater proportion of the variation in Energy sector excess returns if we limit our sample period to the past few years. Specifically, we re-ran the monthly iterations of both the investment grade and high-yield models from July 2014 to present. We found that the DTS component of the model explains the same amount of excess return variation as it did for the full sample. However, we also found that the oil price has a much greater impact if the sample is limited to the past six years (Table 4). Table 41-Month Excess Return* Models: Full Sample (1997 - Present) Versus Recent Sample (2014 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Energy Excess Return Scenarios Finally, using our 12-month excess return models for investment grade and high-yield Energy, we can project likely outcomes for Energy excess returns versus Treasuries for the next 12 months. All we have to do is assume different outcomes for the overall benchmark index spread (either the investment grade or High-Yield index, depending on the model) and the oil price.5 The results of this scenario analysis are shown in Table 1. Starting with investment grade Energy, we see that all scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. This is true even in a scenario where the oil price falls by $20 during the next year. Our model also suggests that a $10-$20 increase in the oil price during the next 12 months will keep Energy excess returns positive, even in a modest “risk off” scenario where the corporate index spread widens by 25 bps. All scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. The story is similar in high-yield, though returns are much more variable. For example, high-yield Energy is projected to lose money relative to Treasuries in a scenario where the junk index spread tightens 50 bps and the oil price falls by $20. There are no scenarios where benchmark index spread tightening coincides with negative Energy excess returns in the investment grade model. Chart 4Watch For Falling Inventories Watch For Falling Inventories Watch For Falling Inventories In terms of likely scenarios for the next 12 months, we anticipate further spread tightening for corporate bonds rated Ba & above. But we also view B-rated and lower spreads as too tight given the default outlook for the next 12 months and the fact that these lower-rated issuers usually can’t access the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.6 With that in mind, we would confidently bet on investment grade index spread tightening during the next 12 months, but can envision high-yield spread widening driven by the lower credit tiers. On oil, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts an average Brent crude oil price of $65 in 2021, a sizeable increase relative to the current price of $43.27.7 Our strategists expect a significant supply contraction in the second quarter of this year that will cause the oil market to enter a physical deficit in the second half of 2020. Investors can look for falling storage levels in the coming months to confirm whether that forecast is playing out (Chart 4). Escalating tensions between the US and Iran pose an additional near-term upside risk to oil prices. This risk increased during the past few weeks as a string of mysterious explosions struck several Iranian military and economic facilities.8 However, with major oil producers now operating significantly below capacity, any net impact on oil prices from a supply disruption in the Persian Gulf would likely be short-lived. Investment Conclusions All in all, our bullish outlook for both investment grade corporate bond spreads and the oil price makes us inclined to overweight investment grade Energy bonds on a 12-month horizon. Within high-yield, our model also suggests that we should have a bullish bias toward Energy, but we remain concerned about default risk for lower-rated (B & below) Energy issuers during the next few months. We will dig into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis in Part 2 of this report, to be published next week. For now, we advise a more cautious stance toward high-yield Energy.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 5 We translate changes in benchmark index spread into 12-month excess returns using the formula: excess return = option-adjusted spread – (duration * change in option-adjusted spread) 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Vol, High Uncertainty Keeps Oil-Price Rally On Tenterhooks”, dated June 18, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East”, dated July 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com

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