Global

Executive Summary The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend Rising interest rates and a cooling in pandemic-related tech spending will cap the upside for technology shares over the remainder of 2022. Looking further out, US big tech companies are likely to suffer from heightened competition in increasingly saturated markets. Concerns about big tech’s excessive market power, cavalier attitudes towards personal data, proclivity for censoring non-establishment opinions, and the deleterious impact of social media on teenage mental health are all fueling a public backlash. Investors should expect increased regulation and antitrust enforcement of big tech companies in the years ahead. Bottom Line: The hegemony of today’s US-based big tech companies is coming to an end. While we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms in 2022, they will lag the S&P 500. Given tech’s heavy representation in the US, investors should underweight the US in a global equity portfolio. Sinking Ark Tech stocks have had a tough ride since the start of the year. So far in 2022, the NASDAQ Composite has fallen 9.3% compared to 5.5% for the S&P 500. The ARK Innovation ETF, Cathie Wood’s collection of “disruptor” companies, has dropped -22%, and is now down -53% from its peak last year (Chart 1). We expect tech shares to lag the market during the remainder of 2022. The pandemic was a boon for many tech companies. Generous stimulus payments and stay-at-home policies led to a surge in e-commerce spending (Chart 2). As economies continue to reopen, many tech companies could face an air pocket in demand for their goods and services.  Chart 1Tech Stocks: Rough Start to 2022 Chart 2The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend   Despite some softening of late, retail sales remain well above their pre-pandemic trendline (Chart 3). If Amazon’s still-rosy projections are any guide, a further slowdown in goods spending is something that the analyst community is not fully discounting (Chart 4). Chart 3US Retail Spending Is Above Trend Chart 4Amazon Sales Estimates May Be Too Optimistic Rate Hikes Will Disproportionately Hit Tech Chart 5Long Rates Anticipate The Movements In Short Rates US rate expectations continued to move up this week, egged on by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard’s statement earlier today declaring that he favors raising interest rates by a full percentage point by the start of July. The market is now pricing in six rate hikes by the end of the year.  Historically, bond yields have increased starting about four months before the first rate hike and over the period in which the Fed is raising rates (Chart 5). While we do not think the Fed will need to deliver more tightening this year than what is already discounted, we do think that investors will eventually be forced to revise up their expectations of the neutral rate to between 3%-and-4%. As Chart 6 shows, the market expects the Fed to stop raising rates when they reach 2%, which we regard as unrealistic. Chart 6The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% An increase in the market’s estimate of the neutral rate will push up bond yields. Unlike banks, tech tends to underperform in a rising yield environment (Chart 7). Priced For Perfection? Higher bond yields and a reversion-to-trend in tech spending would be less of a problem for technology shares if valuations were cheap. They are not, however. The Nasdaq Composite still trades at 29-times forward earnings compared to 20-times forward earnings for the broader S&P 500 (Chart 8). Chart 8Tech Shares Are No Bargain Chart 7Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Stocks But Hurt Tech Shares Tech investors would argue that such a hefty valuation premium is warranted given the tech sector’s superior growth prospects. Underlying this argument is the assumption that just because tech spending will grow more quickly than the rest of the economy, this will necessarily translate into above-average earnings growth and outsized returns for publicly-listed tech companies. But is that really the case? Over short horizons of a few years, there is a decent correlation between relative industry growth and relative equity returns (Chart 9). However, that relationship evaporates over very long-term horizons (Chart 10). In fact, since 1970, the best-performing equity sector has been tobacco, hardly a paragon of technological innovation (Chart 11). Chart 9Stocks In Industries That Experience A Burst Of Output Growth Do Tend To Outperform Other Stocks … Chart 10… But Over The Long Haul, Companies In Fast- Growing Industries Do Not Outperform Their Peers Chart 11Tobacco Industry Returns Have Smoked All Others What Goes Around Comes Around Table 1History Shows Leaders Can Become Laggards Tech stock enthusiasts tend to forget that the disruptors themselves can be disrupted. History is littered with tech companies that failed to keep up with a changing world: RCA, Kodak, Polaroid, Atari, Commodore, Novell, Digital, Sinclair, Wang, Iomega, Corel, Netscape, AltaVista, AOL, Myspace, Compaq, Sun, Lucent, 3Com, Nokia, Palm, and RIM were all major players in their respective industries, only to fade into oblivion. Table 1 shows that all but one of the ten biggest tech names in the S&P 500 IT index in 2000 underperformed the broader market by a substantial degree over the subsequent ten years. Today, the incentive for startups to emerge has never been stronger. Venture capital funds are flush with cash. Tech profit margins are near record highs, making challenging the incumbents an increasingly enticing goal. About one-third of the outperformance of US tech stocks since 1996 can be explained by rising relative profit margins, with faster sales growth and relative P/E multiple expansion explaining 45% and 23% of the remainder, respectively (Chart 12). Chart 12Decomposing Tech Outperformance Meta’s Malaise Chart 13Unlike Economists, Facebook Just Ain't Cool No More Which of today’s tech titans could join the “has been club”?  As we flagged in August, Meta is certainly a possibility. In its disastrous quarterly earnings report, the company revealed that globally, the number of Facebook users is shrinking for the first time ever. While this came as a surprise to many investors, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. According to Piper Sandler’s survey of teen preferences conducted late last year, only 27% of teenagers used Facebook, down from 94% in 2012 (Chart 13). Meta has been fortunate in that many Facebook users have migrated to Instagram, a social media platform it acquired in 2012. Unfortunately, the latest data suggests that even Instagram usage is starting to slow as more young people flock to TikTok. Google Also Vulnerable Unlike Meta, Alphabet crushed earnings estimates. However, the similarities between the two companies may be greater than most investors are willing to admit. Like Facebook, Google’s profits almost entirely come from ad spending. According to eMarketer, Google garnered 44% of digital ad spending in 2021 while Facebook took in 23%. Digital advertising accounted for 63% of all ad spending in 2021, up from 58% in 2020 and 51% in 2019. While there may be scope for digital ads to take further market share,  eventually, growth in digital ad spending will converge with overall consumption growth, which in the US is likely to average no more than 2% in real terms over time. Monopoly Power Another important similarity between Meta and Alphabet is that both companies are increasingly coming under scrutiny from politicians and regulators. The antitrust case brought against Alphabet by 14 US states contains a litany of allegations of unfair practices. After an initial failed attempt, the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust suit against Meta is also moving forward. Privacy Matters In addition, the way big tech companies handle private data is raising some hackles. In its annual report filed earlier this month, Meta warned that it would need to shut down Facebook and Instagram in Europe unless regulators drew up new privacy regulations. This came on top of Meta’s disclosure that it will lose $10 billion this year after Apple introduced pop-ups on the iPhone’s operating system asking users if they wanted to be tracked by apps.  Turn Off That Phone! Another looming worry revolves around the corrosive impact of excessive social media usage on mental health. Academic studies have shown that adolescents who use Facebook and Instagram frequently feel greater anxiety and unease than those who do not. The share of students reporting high levels of loneliness more than doubled in both the US and abroad over the past decade, a trend that predates the pandemic (Chart 14). In 2020, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, one-quarter of US girls between the ages of 12 and 17 reported experiencing a major depressive episode, up from 12% in 2011 (Chart 15). Chart 15The Rise In Depression Rates Coincided With Increased Social Media Usage Chart 14Alone In The Crowd     Backlash Public contempt for tech companies is fueling a political backlash. According to a Gallup poll conducted last year, only 34% of Americans held a favorable view of tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, down from 46% in 2019; 45% had an unfavorable opinion, up from 33% in 2019 (Chart 16). Chart 16Americans Do Not Hold Tech Companies In High Regard The shift in public sentiment over the past two years has been entirely driven by Independent and Republican voters, many of whom feel that tech companies are unfairly censoring their opinions (Table 2). The same poll revealed that the majority of Americans – including the majority of Republicans – now favor increased regulation of tech companies.  Table 2American Views On Big Tech Investment Conclusions Chart 17Value Stocks Are Cheap Considering that global growth is likely to remain above-trend this year, we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms. A flattish, though volatile, trajectory is the most plausible outcome. In relative terms, however, tech stocks will underperform. Despite having outperformed tech-heavy growth stocks by 14% since last November, value stocks remain exceptionally cheap by historic standards (Chart 17). Tech stocks are overrepresented in the US. Thus, if tech continues to underperform, it stands to reason that non-US equities will outperform their US peers over the coming years.    Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging, but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Rising US bond yields remain the key risk to US growth stocks in both absolute and relative terms. As US growth stocks drift lower in absolute terms, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range but is unlikely to make new highs. Equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Recommendation   Inception Date Return Underweight EM Relative To DM Stocks (In Common Currency) 2021-03-25 15.8% Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM in a global equity portfolio. Cyclically, continue favoring value versus growth stocks. Feature We expect US bond yields to continue to rise, and global growth stocks to continue to underperform global value stocks in the months ahead. This prompts the question: What does this scenario mean for overall global share prices, EM markets, and EM relative equity performance? Equity Rotation And Overall Market Performance Can the S&P 500 or global equity index advance in absolute terms when US and global growth stocks sell off in absolute terms? Our hunch is as follows: As US growth stocks drift lower, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range, but is unlikely to make new highs. A review of past episodes of sector and style rotation is in order. We recall two episodes of major rotation: 1. The closest historical comparison is in the year 2000. The top panel of Chart 1 illustrates US value stocks were resilient even after the Nasdaq bubble started bursting in March 2000. Besides, the S&P 500 index held up well in the first half of that year even though Nasdaq stocks were plummeting (Chart 1, bottom panel). Nevertheless, despite the rotation, value/old economy stocks failed to break out of their previous highs (Chart 1, top panel). We would expect a similar pattern to emerge in the current cycle as the Nasdaq index wobbles. Despite the Nasdaq selloff, oil prices continued to rise until October 2000, and the US median stock had a bumpy ride but made a new high in early 2002 (Chart 2). Chart 1US Equity Rotation In 2000 Chart 2Rotation In 2000: The Nasdaq, Oil And The Median Stock   Overall, as rising US interest rates weigh on growth stocks, the rest of the market can stay in a trading range. Segments with very good fundamentals and cheap valuations could even make new marginal highs. Nevertheless, given the sheer weight of growth stocks in the broad US equity index, it will be hard for the S&P 500 to make new highs when growth stocks wobble. However, a key difference between now and the 2000-2002 market is that back then, US bond yields were falling. Thus, the bear market in the US equity market in general and Nasdaq stocks in particular, occurred alongside falling US bond yields (Chart 3). Currently, the Fed is in a tightening mode and US bond yields are climbing. A rising discount factor is negative for all stocks (Chart 4): It is more negative for high-multiples stocks and less negative for low multiples companies. Chart 3The Nasdaq Bubble Burst Despite Falling Interest Rates Chart 4Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression   Another interesting observation about the 2000-2002 bear market is that it occurred despite resilient US consumer spending, and a very robust housing market and credit growth (Chart 5, top two panels). Remarkably, corporate profits collapsed by about 60% even though real GDP barely contracted at all (Chart 5, bottom two panel). We do not predict a similar equity bust this time around. Instead, we are highlighting that US equity valuations and corporate profits can shrink even if US consumer spending does not contract. What happens to costs, profit margins, inflation and interest rates are as important as the consumer spending outlook. To sum up, when the Nasdaq’s bubble began bursting in March of 2000, investors rotated into old economy stocks and the S&P 500 held up well until July of that year. From July onward, the selloff broadened, and the overall US equity indexes entered a bear market. The latter lasted until March 2003. 2. Another episode of extended market rotation occurred in the lead up to and during the 2008 bear market. The US financial/credit crisis in 2007-08 commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart 6). Despite these developments, commodity prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008 when they finally collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5US Profits Recession In 2001 Occurred Despite No Economic Recession Chart 6Domino Effect In 2007-08 Clearly, what was initially a rotation out of US cyclicals and financials into commodities and EM eventually proved to be nothing more than part of a domino effect. Again, we are not making the case that the US economy and financial markets are headed into a financial crisis. Our point here is that rotations do occur and can last for a while. Yet, a sustainable bull market in aggregate equity indexes does not emerge until there is a broad-based selloff during which the majority of sectors and bourses drop in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Rotation episodes can last several months. Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Equity Leadership Changes Occur Around Major Selloffs Having examined these rotation episodes, we can now take a step back and see the big picture: equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Chart 7 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM, and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a substantial drawdown in global share prices. Chart 7EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart 8). Chart 8Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, secular trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations A word on commodity prices is warranted. We are surprised that industrial metal prices have so far held up well and oil prices have been surging despite China’s slowdown. The culprits behind the rally in resource prices are strong DM demand for commodities and investor purchases of commodities as an inflation hedge. Therefore, it might take investor concerns about US demand and/or a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Rising US interest rates and a continued US dollar rally will eventually lead to a meaningful drawdown in commodity prices. Yet, the precise timing of this shift is uncertain. Critically, among financial markets, oil prices are often the last to fall and/or rally. Hence, investors should not use oil as a leading indicator for other markets. As to share prices of commodity producers, global materials have rolled over at their previous high (Chart 10, top panel), while energy stocks have surged through multiple technical resistances. However, they now face another technical hurdle (Chart 10, bottom panel). If oil share prices decisively break above this long-term moving average, it would likely signal that they have entered a multi-year bull market. Chart 10Global Energy Stocks And Materials: A Long-Term Profile Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or major corrections. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Investment Considerations Chart 11EM And US Stocks Relative To The Global Benchmark: No Change In Trend We will contemplate upgrading EM if a broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 50% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500 if the selloff is led by growth stocks, as occurred during the carnage in global stocks in January this year or in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart 11, top panel). Yet, the EM overall equity index will underperform Europe and Japan in such a broad-based drawdown. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. For now, we remain positive on the dollar for the next several months and are hence underweight EM stocks and credit markets versus their DM peers. As to US stocks, the jury is still out on whether their secular outperformance is over. Notably, US share prices relative to the global equity index have rebounded from their 200-day moving average (Chart 11, bottom panel). When such a technical pattern occurs, odds are high that US stocks will make new highs in relative terms. US equities outperforming the rest of the world is not consistent with growth stocks underperforming value ones. Hence, a potential US outperformance represents a risk to our core view that growth stocks will continue underperforming value stocks. How do we reconcile these inconsistencies? It might be that US growth stocks’ recent rebound persists for the next several weeks and they outperform value stocks during this window. In such a case, our equity leadership rotation theme will be delayed. Yet, in this scenario EM stocks will continue underperforming DM ones. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The golden rule for investing in the stock market simply states: “Stay bullish on stocks unless you have good reason to think that a recession is imminent.” The catch, of course, is that it is difficult to know whether a recession is lurking around the corner. Still, we can learn a lot from past recessions. As we document in this week’s report, every major downturn was caused by the buildup of imbalances within the economy, which were then laid bare by some sort of catalyst, usually monetary tightening. Today, the US is neither suffering from an overhang of capital spending, as it did in the lead-up to the 2001 recession, nor an overhang of housing, as it did in the lead-up to the Great Recession. US inflation has risen, but unlike in the early 1980s, long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. This gives the Fed scope to tighten monetary policy in a gradual manner. Outside the US, vulnerabilities are more pronounced, especially in China where the property market is weakening, and debt levels stand at exceptionally high levels. Fortunately, the Chinese government has enough tools to keep the economy afloat, at least for the time being. Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Bottom Line: Equity bear markets rarely occur outside of recessions. With global growth set to remain above trend at least for the next 12 months, investors should continue to overweight equities. However, they should underweight the tech sector since tech stocks remain disproportionately vulnerable to rising rates, increased regulation, and a retrenchment in pandemic-induced spending on electronics and online services. Macro Matters Investors tend to underestimate the importance of macroeconomics for stock market outcomes. That is a pity. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show that the business cycle drives the evolution of corporate earnings; corporate earnings, in turn, drive the stock market; and as a result, the business cycle determines the path for stock prices. Chart 1The Business Cycle Drives Earnings… Chart 2…Earnings In Turn Drive Stock Prices… An appreciation of macro forces leads to our golden rule for investing in the stock market. It simply states: Stay bullish on stocks unless you have good reason to think that a recession is imminent. Chart 3…Hence, The Business Cycle Is The Main Driver Of Equity Returns Historically, stocks have peaked about six months before the onset of a recession. Thus, it usually does not pay to turn bearish on stocks if you expect the economy to grow for at least another 12 months. In fact, aside from the brief but violent 1987 stock market crash, during the past 50 years, the S&P 500 has never fallen by more than 20% outside of a recessionary environment (Chart 4). Peering Around The Corner The catch, of course, is that it is difficult to know whether a recession is lurking around the corner. Leo Tolstoy began his novel Anna Karenina with the words “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” By the same token, every economic boom seems the same, whereas every recession has its own unique features. This makes forecasting recessions difficult. Difficult, but not impossible. Even though recessions differ substantially in their magnitude and causes, they all share the following three characteristics: 1) The buildup of imbalances that make the economy vulnerable to a downturn; 2) A catalyst that exposes these imbalances; and 3) Amplifiers or dampeners that either exacerbate or mitigate the slump. Let us review six past recessions to better understand what these three characteristics reveal about the current state of the global economy. Chart 4Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand The 1980 And 1982 Recessions The double-dip recessions of 1980 and 1982 were the last in which inflation played a starring role. Throughout the 1970s, the Fed consistently overstated the degree of slack in the economy (Chart 5). This led to a prolonged period in which interest rates stayed below their equilibrium level. The resulting upward pressure on inflation from an overheated economy was compounded by a series of oil shocks, the last of which occurred in 1979 following the Iranian revolution. Chart 6The Volcker Era: It Took Massive Monetary Tightening To Bring Down Inflation Chart 5The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In an effort to break the back of inflation, newly appointed Fed chair Paul Volcker raised rates, first to 17% in April 1980, and then following a brief interlude in which the effective fed funds rate dropped back to 9%, to a peak of 19% in July 1981 (Chart 6).   The 1990-91 Recession Overheating also contributed to the early 1990s recession. After reaching a high of 10.8% in 1982, the unemployment rate fell to 5% in 1989, about one percentage point below its equilibrium level at that time. Core inflation began to accelerate, reaching 5.5% by August 1990. The Fed initially responded to the overheating economy by hiking interest rates. The fed funds rate rose from 6.6% in March 1988 to a high of 9.8% by May 1989. By the summer of 1990, the economy had already slowed significantly. Commercial real estate, still reeling from the effects of the Savings and Loan crisis, weakened sharply. Defense outlays continued to contract following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The final straw was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which caused oil prices to surge and consumer confidence to plunge (Chart 7).   The 2001 Recession An overhang of IT equipment sowed the seeds of the 2001 recession. Spending on telecommunications equipment rose almost three-fold over the course of the 1990s, which helped lift overall nonresidential capital spending from 11.2% of GDP in 1992 to 14.7% in 2000 (Chart 8). Chart 7Overheating In The Leadup To The 1990-91 Recession The recession itself was fairly mild. After subsequent revisions to the data, growth turned negative for just one quarter, in Q3 of 2001. However, due to the lopsided influence of the tech sector in aggregate profits – and even more so, in market capitalization – the dotcom bust had a major impact on equity prices (Chart 9). Chart 9The Dotcom Bust Dragged Down Tech Earnings Chart 8A Glut Of I.T. Equipment Sowed The Seeds Of The 2001 Recession Having raised rates to 6.5% in May 2000, the Fed responded to the downturn by easing monetary policy. Falling rates were effective in reviving the economy – indeed, perhaps too effective. The resulting housing boom paved the way for the Great Recession.   The Great Recession (2007-2009) The housing sector was the source of imbalances in the lead-up to the Great Recession. In the US, and in other countries such as Spain and Ireland, house prices soared as lenders doled out credit on increasingly lenient terms. Chart 10A Long House Party Rising house prices stoked a consumption boom and incentivized developers to build more homes. In the US, the personal savings rate fell to historic lows. Residential investment reached a high of 6.7% of GDP, up from an average of 4.3% of GDP in the 1990s (Chart 10). While the housing bubble would have burst at some point anyway, tighter monetary policy helped expedite the downturn. Starting in June 2004, the Fed raised rates 17 times, pushing the fed funds rate to 5.25% by June 2006. The ECB also hiked rates; it raised the refi rate from 2% in December 2005 to 4.25% in July 2008, continuing to tighten policy even after the Fed had begun to cut rates. Once global growth started to weaken, a number of accelerants kicked in. As is the case in every recession, rising unemployment led to less spending, which in turn led to even higher unemployment. To make matters worse, a vicious circle engulfed the housing market. Falling home prices eroded the collateral underlying mortgage loans, producing more defaults, tighter lending standards, and even lower home prices. The Fed responded to the crisis by cutting rates and introducing an alphabet soup of programs to support the financial system. However, the zero lower-bound constraint limited the degree to which the Fed could cut rates, forcing it to resort to unorthodox measures such as quantitative easing. While these measures arguably helped, they fell short of what was needed to resuscitate the economy. Fiscal policy could have picked up the slack, but political considerations limited the scale and scope of the 2009 Recovery Act. The result was a needlessly long and drawn-out recovery.   The Euro Crisis (2012) Chart 11The State Is Here To Mop Up The Mess A reoccurring theme in economic history is that financial crises often force governments to assume private-sector liabilities in order to avoid a full-scale economic collapse. Unlike Greece, where government debt stood at very high levels even before the GFC, debt levels in Spain and Ireland were quite modest before the crisis. However, all that changed when Spain and Ireland were forced to bail out their banks (Chart 11). Unlike the US, UK, and Japan, euro area member governments did not have access to central banks that could serve as buyers of last resort for their debts. This limitation created a feedback loop where rising bond yields made it more onerous for governments to service their debts, which led to a higher perceived likelihood of default and even higher yields (Chart 12). Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In The Debt Market Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The ECB could have short-circuited this vicious cycle. Unfortunately, under the hapless leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet, instead of providing assistance, the central bank raised rates twice in 2011. This helped spread the crisis to Italy and other parts of core Europe. It ultimately took Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes pledge” to restore some semblance of normality to European sovereign debt markets. Lessons For Today The current environment bears some resemblance to the one preceding the recessions of the early 1980s. As was the case back then, inflation today has surged well above the Federal Reserve’s target, forcing the Fed to turn more hawkish. Oil prices have also risen, despite slowing global growth. Even Russia has returned to its status as the world’s leading geopolitical boogeyman. Yet, digging below the surface, there is a big difference between today and the early ‘80s. For one thing, long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. While expected inflation 5-to-10 years out has risen to 3.1% in the latest University of Michigan survey, this just takes the reading back to where it was not long after the Great Recession. It is still nowhere near the double-digit levels reached in the early ‘80s (Chart 13). Market-based inflation expectations are even more subdued. In fact, the widely watched 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently well below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Inching Up But Are Still Low Chart 14Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Higher oil prices are unlikely to have the sting that they once did. The energy intensity of the global economy has fallen steadily over time, especially in advanced economies (Chart 15). Today, the US generates three-times as much output for every joule of energy consumed than it did in 1970. Household spending on energy has declined from a peak of 8.3% of disposable income in 1980 to 3.8% in December 2021. The US also produces over 11 million barrels of oil per day, more than Saudi Arabia (Chart 16). Chart 15The Global Economy Has Become Less Energy Intensive Over Time Chart 16When It Comes To Energy Production, The USA Is Now #1 Unlike in the late 1990s, advanced economies do not face a significant capex overhang. Quite the contrary. Capital spending has been fairly weak across much of the OECD. In the US, the average age of the nonresidential capital stock has risen to the highest level since the 1960s (Chart 17). Looking out, far from cratering, capital spending is set to rise, as foreshadowed by the jump in core capital goods orders (Chart 18). Chart 17The Aging Capital Stock Chart 18The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright Chart 19Need More Houses In contrast to the glut of housing that helped precipitate the Global Financial Crisis, housing remains in short supply in many developed economies. In the US, the homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to a record low. There are currently half as many new homes available for sale as there were in early 2020 (Chart 19). Even in Canada, where homebuilding has held up well, government officials have been hitting the panic button over a brewing home shortage.   The Biggest Risk Is Debt The biggest macroeconomic risk the global economy faces stems from high debt levels. While household debt has fallen by 20% of GDP in the US, it has risen in a number of other economies. Corporate debt has generally increased everywhere, in many cases to finance share buybacks and M&A activity (Chart 20). Public debt has also soared to the highest levels since during World War II. Chart 20Mo' Debt Among emerging markets, China’s debt burden is especially pronounced. Total private and public debt reached 285% of GDP in 2021, nearly double what it was in early 2008. The property market is also slowing, which will weigh on growth. Like many countries, China finds itself in a paradoxical situation: Any effort to pare back debt is likely to crush nominal GDP by so much that the debt-to-GDP ratio rises rather than falls. Ironically, the only solution is to adopt reflationary policies that allow the economy to run hot. In the near term, this could prove to be a favorable outcome for investors since it will mean that monetary policy stays highly accommodative. Over the long haul, however, it may lead to a stagflationary environment, which would be detrimental to equities and other risk assets. In summary, investors should remain overweight stocks for now. However, they should underweight the tech sector since tech stocks remain disproportionately vulnerable to rising rates, increased regulation, and a retrenchment in pandemic-induced spending on electronics and online services.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast series ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong?' I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Spending on goods is in freefall while spending on services is struggling to regain its pre-pandemic trend.  If spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then there will be a substantial shortfall in demand. The good news is that the freefall in goods spending is leading inflation. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year. Underweight the goods-dominated consumer discretionary sector, and underweight semiconductors versus the broader technology sector. Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Bottom Line: As spending on goods crashes back to earth, so will inflation, consumer discretionary stocks, semiconductors, and overbought commodities. Feature The pandemic has unleashed a great experiment in our spending behaviour. After a binge on consumer goods, will there be a massive hangover? We are about to find out. The pandemic binge on consumer goods, peaking in the US at a 26 percent overspend, is unprecedented in modern economic history. Hence, we cannot be certain what happens next, but there are three possibilities: We sustain the binge on goods, at least partly. Spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend. There is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend. The answer to this question will have a huge bearing on growth and inflation in 2022-23. After The Binge Comes The Hangover… The pandemic’s constraints on socialising, movement, and in-person contact caused a slump in spending on many services: recreation, hospitality, travel, in-person shopping, and in-person healthcare. Nevertheless, with incomes propped up by massive stimulus, we displaced our spending to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, goods – on which, we binged (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Gradually, we learned to live with SARS-CoV-2, and spending on services bounced back. At the same time, we made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping. Additionally, a significant minority of people changed their behaviour, shunning activities that require close contact with strangers – going to the cinema or to amusement parks, using public transport, or going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments. The result is that spending on services is levelling off well short of its pre-pandemic trend (Charts I-2-Chart I-5). Chart I-2Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-3Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Arithmetically therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods must stay above its pre-pandemic trend. Yet spending on goods is crashing back to earth. The simple reason is that durables, by their very definition, are durable. Even nondurables such as clothes and shoes are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can binge on before reaching saturation. Indeed, to the extent that our bingeing has brought forward future purchases, the big risk is a period of underspending on goods. Countering The Counterarguments Let’s address some counterarguments to the hangover thesis. One counterargument is that some goods are a substitute for services: for example, eating-in (food at home) substitutes for eating-out; and recreational goods substitute for recreational services. So, if there is a shortfall in services spending, there will be an automatic substitution into goods spending. The problem is that the substitutes are not mirror-image substitutes. Spending on eating-in tends to be much less than on eating-out. And once you have bought your recreational goods, you don’t keep buying them! A second counterargument is that provided the savings rate does not rise, there will be no shortfall in spending. Yet this is a tautology. The savings rate is simply the residual of income less spending. So, to the extent that there is a structural shortfall in services spending combined with a hangover in goods spending, the savings rate must rise – as it has in the past two months. A third counterargument is that the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it hasn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. This points out that we segment our money into different ‘mental accounts’. And that the main factor that establishes whether we spend our money is which mental account it resides in. The moment we move money from our ‘income’ account into our ‘wealth’ account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Specifically, we will spend most of the money in our ‘income’ mental account, but we will spend little of the money in our ‘wealth’ mental account. Hence, the moment we move money from our income account into our wealth account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Still, this brings us to a fourth counterargument, which claims that even though the ‘wealth effect’ is small, it isn’t zero. Therefore, the recent boom in household wealth will bolster growth. Yet as we explained in The Wealth Impulse Has Peaked, the impact of your wealth on your spending growth does not come from your wealth change. It comes from your wealth impulse, which is fading fast (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked Analogous to the more widely-used credit impulse, the wealth impulse compares your capital gain in any year with your capital gain in the preceding year. It is this change in your capital gain – and not the capital gain per se – that establishes the growth in your ‘wealth effect’ spending. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse has peaked, meaning its impact on spending growth will not be a tailwind. It will be a headwind. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation, Consumer Discretionary Stocks, And Overbought Commodities In the fourth quarter of 2021, US consumer spending dipped to below its pre-pandemic trend and the savings rate increased. Begging the question, how did the US economy manage to grow at a stellar 6.7 percent (annualised) rate? The simple answer is that inventory restocking contributed almost 5 percent to the 6.7 percent growth rate. In fact, removing inventory restocking, US final demand came to a virtual standstill in the second half of 2021, growing at just a 1 percent (annualised) rate. Growth that is dependent on inventory restocking is a concern because inventory restocking averages to zero in the long run, and after a massive positive contribution there tends to come a symmetrical negative contribution. If, as we expect, spending on services fails to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend while spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall. And if there is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then the demand shortfall could be substantial. As inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities. The good news is that the freefall in durable goods spending is leading inflation. In this regard, you might be surprised to learn that the US core (6-month) inflation rate has already been declining for five consecutive months. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year (Chart I-8). Chart I-8As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Given that the level (rather than the inflation) of commodity prices is irrationally tracking the inflation rate, the likely explanation is that investors have piled into commodities as a hedge against inflation. Hence, as inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities (Chart I-9). Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Chart I-9Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. To reiterate, overbought base metals are vulnerable, and the 70 percent outperformance of nickel versus silver through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short nickel versus silver, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent.  Chart I-10Short Nickel Versus Silver A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Biotech Approaching A Major Buy CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell EUR/CZK At A Bottom Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations