Global

Highlights The pandemic is not yet over, but it appears that infections have peaked in the developed world and in most of the major developing economies. Economic growth will reaccelerate as social distancing abates and vaccination programs gather momentum. The current policy orthodoxy is night-and-day different from the orthodoxy that prevailed in the wake of the global financial crisis, as deficit shaming has given way to deficit positivity. Rapid expansion is more likely than a repeat of last decade’s tepid, plodding recovery and inflation will eventually supplant hysteresis as policymakers’ biggest worry. The impending passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act will vault the US ahead of its major economy counterparts in terms of pandemic spending. Washington’s massive fiscal commitment speeds up the timetable for closing the output gap in the US. Although inflation has become a hot topic among US investors, we do not see it materializing until next year at the earliest. Our base case has the Goldilocks backdrop of solid growth and ample monetary accommodation remaining in place for at least the rest of the year. Markets have fully discounted that scenario but investors should be aware that both downside and upside surprises are possible; bad virus news could drive a growth shortfall while households’ enormous excess savings could power a consumption breakout. The broad take-up of the Goldilocks scenario among equity investors will make it hard for stocks to dazzle in 2021. Nonetheless, we think conditions support mid-to-high single-digit returns, which will allow equities to outperform bonds. The combination of accelerating growth and quiescent central banks is catnip for equities but not so much for bonds, especially investment-grade sovereigns. Fixed-income investors should maintain below-benchmark duration as yield curves steepen. Steepening yield curves have given Financials a shot in the arm while weighing on the high-flying Tech sector. Reopening in the wake of COVID’s retreat should also redound to recent laggards’ benefit and we continue to expect value stocks will outperform their growth counterparts over the rest of the year. The US dollar will resume its downtrend as the virus is beaten back, albeit at a gentler pace than in 2020. Humanity Retakes The Lead Humankind cannot yet declare victory over COVID-19 but it does appear to have gained the upper hand as new case counts have plummeted from their January peak (Chart I-1). Restrictions helped turn the tide in Europe, albeit at the cost of cutting off oxygen to the economy (Chart I-2), but even in Sweden and the US, which eschewed EU-style restrictions, the virus has lost momentum. Increased vigilance apparently trumped fears that the coronavirus would flourish in the northern hemisphere winter. The potential for vaccine-resistant variants is a concern, but the pandemic news is clearly trending in the right direction. Chart I-1The Fever Has Broken Chart I-2Throwing The Merchants Out With The Bathwater As infections fall, so too does the strain on public health care systems. Plunging hospitalizations (Chart I-3) indicate that health care systems have recovered capacity. Hospitalizations are an important metric for tracking COVID’s impact on the economy because they lead restrictions on activity; when they are high and rising, officials are prone to limit person-to-person interaction, and when they are low and falling, officials roll back emergency limits. For services-heavy developed economies, easier restrictions are the key to a return to something more closely resembling normal activity until vaccinations confer herd immunity (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Restrictions Can Be Lifted As Health Care Systems Regain Capacity In the meantime, those who continue to be displaced by the pandemic and the distancing measures taken to combat it will fall back on fiscal support. Fourth-quarter deceleration in the United States highlighted the important role that fiscal transfers have played in keeping vulnerable households, businesses and communities afloat. The bulk of the transfers authorized under the CARES Act were distributed in two bursts. The first arrived in April and May via economic impact payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child that were paid in full to about two-thirds of American households1 (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-4Lockdowns Are A Drag Chart I-5Transfers Slowed To A Trickle In The Fall Chart I-6Fewer Transfers, Fewer Sales, ... The second burst came in the form of a weekly $600 federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefit supplement in April, May, June and July (Chart I-5, middle panel). Additional aid was provided by the pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) program, which expanded UI benefits to independent contractors, self-employed individuals and other workers who would not otherwise qualify to receive them. The PUA program was the smallest of the three major transfer plans and the only one that ran until the end of the year, and as the arrival of the direct payment checks and final UI benefit supplements receded further into the past, the US economy began to show some signs of wear. Retail sales fell sequentially in all three months of the fourth quarter (Chart I-6) as total employment hit a wall (Chart I-7) and the economic surprise index swooned (Chart I-8).   Chart I-7... Fewer Jobs ... Chart I-8... And Fewer Positive Surprises Households’ ability to satisfy their obligations to creditors and landlords slipped as the year wore on as well. Fiscal transfers and forbearance programs have limited credit distress far more effectively than one would have expected when the COVID meteor hit the earth (Table I-1), but leading 30-day delinquency rates reveal a modest erosion since late summer (Chart I-9). The share of apartment renters paying at least some of their rent fell by more than one-and-a-half percentage points from year-ago levels in October, November, December and January, a first since the CARES Act transfers began to flow in time to help with the May rent (Chart I-10). It seems clear that lower-income households who relied most heavily on aid felt its absence as the year wore on. Table I-160- And 90-Day Consumer Delinquencies Are Down Year-Over-Year, ... Chart I-9... But Leading 30-Day Delinquencies Are On The Rise ... Chart I-10... And Apartment Rent Collections Have Been Slipping     We take the snapback in January retail sales as evidence that high marginal-propensity-to-consume households needed the second round of transfers provided for in December’s compromise spending bill. Both the economic impact payments ($600 per qualifying adult and $600 per child) and the supplemental UI benefits ($300 per week) were smaller, but the most vulnerable households put them to immediate use. We expect that February rent collections and consumer loan delinquencies will also show improvement, albeit not as dramatically as the retail sales series. With another, larger round of stimulus coming down the pike, it appears that the US economy will avoid a repeat of its fourth quarter fraying around the edges but slumps remain a possibility in economies that allow transfer schemes to lapse before COVID-19 can be tamed. And Now For Something Completely Different The global economy has confronted two significant crises in the space of a dozen years. The events that precipitated them could hardly have been more different: the global financial crisis (GFC) was an endogenous event with enough avarice, hubris, folly and villainy to support a cottage industry of books, movies and TV shows revisiting it, while the pandemic, for all of the official complacency and bumbling it laid bare, was simply an exogenous occurrence of great misfortune. The monetary policy response to both events has been substantially identical; the Fed swiftly took the fed funds rate back to zero, bought copious quantities of Treasury and agency securities, and launched a mix of old and new emergency measures. Other major central banks, which were largely unable to make any moves toward normalization between crises, simply maintained zero or negative interest rate policy and ramped up the pace and/or scope of their own asset purchase programs. The fiscal response has been dramatically different, however, in line with a 180-degree turn in budget orthodoxy. Chastened, perhaps, by Europe’s double-dip recession, or the protractedly tepid US expansion, economic mandarins have experienced a road-to-Damascus conversion. Whereas the OECD and the IMF began wagging their fingers at prodigal legislators while the global economy was still submerged under the GFC rubble, today they counsel that there is no rush to pull back on spending. As the OECD’s chief economist said in a January interview, “The first lesson [from the aftermath of the GFC] is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP.2” The IMF has declared that “the near-term priority is to avoid premature withdrawal of fiscal support. Support should persist, at least into 2021, to sustain the recovery and to limit long-term scarring.3” Chart I-11What Goes Up Must ... Go Up Again The about-face in terms of fiscal deficits could have a profound effect on the character of the post-pandemic expansions. The plodding and protracted post-GFC recovery/expansion might be viewed as an object lesson in monetary policy’s limits. There is no gainsaying that central banks acted boldly to counter the GFC, cutting policy rates to zero and beyond, purchasing vast quantities of sovereign bonds, government agency securities and even debt and equity issued by private entities. The purchases caused central bank balance sheets to swell (Chart I-11), but the money creation impact was stunted by an offsetting wave of defaults and a general reluctance on the part of lenders and would-be borrowers to add to the stock of debt. Chart I-12GFC Stimulus Was Fleeting GFC fiscal spending was modest and largely limited to automatic stabilizers once emergency measures ran their course. Even the most celebrated efforts, like the United States’ 2009 Recovery Act, were intentionally modest in scope and limited in duration. Following the prevailing wisdom, national governments quickly moved to withdraw assistance and reduce their budget deficits once the worst of the crisis had passed (Chart I-12). Tepid investment, sluggish employment gains and fiscal drag all weighed on growth, defying the typical bigger-the-decline, bigger-the-bounce business cycle pattern. The picture is quite different today as central banks have gained a powerful and willing partner in their efforts to combat the damage wrought by a sudden shock. Pandemic fiscal stimulus initiatives have dwarfed GFC efforts across the major economies (Chart I-13). Once Congress passes the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act, the US will have doubled down on its 2020 initiatives, committing to aid equivalent to an extraordinary 25% of its annual output. The ultimate effect on inflation, interest rates and exchange rates remains to be seen, but it is clear that the post-pandemic expansion will not unfold at the plodding pace of the post-GFC expansion. Chart I-13The COVID Fiscal Response Has Dwarfed The GFC's Goldilocks And The Two Tails Narrowing our focus to the US, which comprises nearly 60% of the market cap of the benchmark MSCI All-Country World Index, our base case is the Goldilocks scenario that markets appear to be discounting. That scenario would entail the just-right outcome of solid growth and continued monetary accommodation (Figure I-1). Since the Fed will only dial back accommodation if the economy appears to be at risk of overheating, it will take a growth disappointment, most likely from a negative virus surprise, for the US economy to tumble into the left-hand tail of the distribution. Figure I-1Goldilocks And The Two Tails Chart I-14Making Up For Lost Time We cannot rule out the possibility of virus-resistant mutations or new rounds of outbreaks from a weary populace that lets its guard down, but a failure to vaccinate at a pace consistent with achieving herd immunity by the end of September looks to be the most likely route to disappointment. To that end, we are monitoring vaccination progress against the pace required to get 50-80% of the population inoculated by the end of the third quarter (Chart I-14). The US got off to a slow start, but we are confident that it will catch up by early spring under an administration that has made crushing the virus its top priority and a Congress that is providing the resources to enable local health authorities to get the job done. The case for an upside near-term surprise stems from the notion that America’s solons have provided considerably more aid to households than was strictly necessary. As Chart I-7 showed, total employment fell by 25 million at the trough in April and close to 9 million fewer people are employed now than at the pre-pandemic peak. They can surely use a lifeline, along with the many Americans who are involuntarily working part time and those who are barely holding on even if they are fully employed. But they number far less than the 100 million households4 (two-thirds of all taxpayers) that received the full $1,800-per-adult economic impact payments ($1,200 last spring and $600 in January), and will be in line for another $1,400, as soon as March, under the terms of the new bill. Households who did not need the largesse have presumably saved the distributions, helping contribute to the $1.5 trillion of excess savings accumulated during the pandemic. Thanks to the transfers provided for by the CARES Act, our US Investment Strategy service estimates that aggregate household income from March through December was $450 billion greater than it would have been in the absence of COVID-19 (Table I-2). With the second round of direct payments amounting to about $150 billion and the third round likely to be more than double the second, household incomes will be boosted by another $500 billion and the excess savings horde will be on its way to $2 trillion and beyond. Even in a $21 trillion economy, that much dry powder has the potential to move the needle. Table I-2Households' Excess Pandemic Savings In the absence of even a somewhat related antecedent, no one can say for sure how much of the excess savings will be spent. Ricardian equivalence, which posits that households will be reluctant to spend fiscal windfalls if they anticipate that they will have to pay for them with higher future taxes, and Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, which posits that consumption decisions are based on lifetime earnings, both suggest that the multiplier effect of the direct payments to households may not be all it's cracked up to be. Empirical evidence does not definitively support either model, but increased income has only accounted for a third of households’ mountain of savings in any event. The remaining two-thirds, amounting to over a trillion dollars, came from reduced consumption. Even if Ricardo’s and Friedman’s hypotheses are mostly on the mark, if much of the $1 trillion of 2020’s reduced consumption was merely deferred rather than destroyed (Box I-1), pent-up consumer demand could be significant. The range of potential outcomes is wide: on the one hand, money has tended to burn a hole in US households’ pockets; on the other, Ricardo and Friedman aren’t exactly Larry Kudlow or Peter Navarro. It is hard to assert with any conviction how much of the savings cache will be spent, or how quickly, but we highlight its presence to point out that near-term US growth could surprise to the upside. BOX I-1 Demand Deferral Or Demand Destruction? February’s Bank Credit Analyst presented a table with simple estimates of the US pandemic spending gap. It showed that spending on goods is tracking above the level that would have been expected if the pandemic had not occurred but that spending on services is down sharply, with an enormous gap in categories like food service, recreation and transportation. The fate of US households’ massive excess savings might come down to what happens to the forgone consumption. Consumption that is not deferred to some later period will simply disappear. Given that the consumption shortfall is entirely confined to services, the key question becomes: Is forgone services consumption more likely to turn into demand destroyed than forgone goods consumption? We suspect the answer is yes. Considering it from the perspective of the categories that suffered the biggest shortfalls, one cannot catch up by eating multiple restaurant dinners in a day, going back in time to attend last season’s sports and entertainment events, or taking more than one flight and staying in more than one hotel room. Services demand may also incorporate more of a discretionary component: one might want to go to a ballgame or a concert, or get out of town over a long weekend, but one eventually has to replace a sputtering car or refrigerator. Some forgone services demand likely turned into accelerated goods demand as white-collar workers redirected workday spending to building out office capabilities at home. Even more may have been diverted to home theater and exercise equipment, or to making one’s outdoor space into a more inviting place to while away the pandemic. The bottom line is that some goods demand appears to have been pulled forward by the pandemic while some services demand has likely been destroyed. There is surely pent-up consumer demand, and it will begin to be released once the pandemic has been subdued, but only some of the accumulated savings will be directed to satisfying it. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations For investors focused on the coming 6-12 months, the key takeaways from our analysis are as follows: Provided that official measures and personal vigilance continue to curtail COVID-19 until vaccinations can stifle it, the growth outlook should steadily improve. In the United States, where the federal government is determined to err on the side of providing too much fiscal support, growth could pick up a lot of steam. If enough pandemic-weary people fail to maintain their vigilance and observe social distancing measures, vaccine distribution efforts become snagged or vaccine-resistant strains emerge, growth could fall short of the consensus expectation embedded in financial market prices. Based on its plans to double down on its initial infusion of fiscal support, the US is the major economy most likely to exceed expectations, perhaps even to the point of overheating. After drilling into the increased income/foregone consumption components of the mountain of savings American households have amassed during the pandemic, however, we reiterate our conclusion that all of the savings will not be spent. The US economy will accelerate smartly this year but overheating is a low-probability event. Chart I-15The Coming Regional And Style Rotation Given these conclusions, we recommend the following investment stance over the next 6-12 months: Overweight equities, which will generate excess returns over sovereign bonds and cash in the absence of a negative COVID surprise, and underweight fixed income. Maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed income portfolios. Underweight US stocks and overweight global ex-US stocks, which will benefit from the reopening of the global economy, and value over growth stocks, which will benefit from reopening and a steeper yield curve. The former broke out in January and held their lead last month (Chart I-15, top panel) while value is testing resistance at its 200-day moving average (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Underweight the US dollar versus the euro in particular and other more cyclical currencies in general. We do not expect the greenback to fall as sharply as it did last year from May through December but we do expect it will resume declining over the rest of the year. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com February 25, 2021 Next Report: March 31, 2021 II. Requiem For Volcker And The Gipper For this month’s Special Report, we are sending you a collaboration between our US Investment Strategy and US Political Strategy teams. US Political Strategy is our newest strategy service and it extends the proprietary framework of our Geopolitical Strategy service to provide analysis of political developments that is relevant for US-focused investors. Please contact your relationship manager if you would like more information or to begin trialing the service. Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … :The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines. … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy. … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant. … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”5 Chart II-1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.6 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart II-1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.7 The Gipper,8 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.9 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart II-3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart II-3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart II-4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table II-1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart II-5). Chart II-4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart II-5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts   Table II-1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart II-6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart II-6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Chart II-7“Limited Government” Falling Out Of Fashion Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart II-7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”10 Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.11 Chart II-8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart II-8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. Chart II-9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart II-9).12 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart II-10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits Chart II-11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart II-12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart II-12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Chart II-13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew ‘Third Way’ Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart II-13). Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart II-14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table II-2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart II-14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart II-15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table II-2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators Chart II-15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked13 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart II-16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart II-16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.14 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart II-17). Chart II-17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table II-3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart II-18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Table II-3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan Chart II-18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators continue to demonstrate that US stocks are running hot. Our technical, valuation, and speculation indicators are very extended, and margin debt has soared since the S&P 500 bottomed last spring. With so little room for error, a near-term pullback in stock prices remains a significant risk. Our monetary indicator extended its downtrend, reflecting a diminished intensity of monetary support, but it remains above the boom/bust line. The upshot is that while the marginal stimulus provided by monetary policy is falling, the level of stimulus from easy monetary conditions remains significant. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a remarkably swift earnings recovery, but after a third consecutive quarter of double-digit earnings beats, the 2021 earnings outlook continues to gather momentum. Net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near multi-decade highs. Among global equities, the US extended its modest underperformance after a decade of leading the pack. China continues to outperform, though at a slower rate since it became the first country to escape COVID-19’s grip, while emerging markets and Australia have also outperformed. Euro area stocks continue to lag, but we expect they will eventually take their place among the cyclical winners later this year. The US 10-Year Treasury yield surged in February, following through on January’s convincing break above its 200-day moving average. Our technical indicator shows that long-dated bonds are firmly in oversold territory, though they remain extremely expensive. Our valuation index points to higher yields over the cyclical investment horizon even if the rate of ascent eventually slows. The technical and valuation profile is similar for the US dollar. The greenback is technically oversold, even after its modest rally, but it remains expensive according to our models. If our base-case Goldilocks scenario unfolds globally this year, the counter-cyclical dollar should encounter a mild headwind. As with Treasuries, we expect valuation to trump technicals and see the USD continuing to trend lower over the full year. Commodity prices are surging across the board, ex-gold. Sentiment is bullish and speculative positioning in the CFTC’s 17-commodity aggregate grouping is at its post-GFC high, although it may have peaked for the time being. The move in commodities underscores the risk-on profile across financial markets and aligns with EM, Chinese and Australian equity outperformance. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes   Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist   Footnotes 1 Every single adult taxpayer with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 or less (and every married filing jointly taxpayer with AGI of $150,000 or less) was eligible for the full payments, and taxpayers with AGIs below $99,000 and $198,000, respectively, were eligible for partial payments. 2 Giles, Chris. “OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending,” Financial Times, January 4, 2021. OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending | Financial Times (ft.com) Accessed February 20, 2021. 3 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Fiscal Monitor: Policies for the Recovery. Washington, October. p. ix. 4 An additional 20 million households have received partial payments. 5 August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 6 Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 7 April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 8 As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 9 July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 10 Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu. 11 Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 12 “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 13 Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 14 Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights US inflation is set to increase sharply over the coming months as base effects kick in. Higher fuel prices, fiscal stimulus, and the partial relaxation of lockdown measures should also boost inflation. The Fed is unlikely to react hawkishly to higher inflation, arguing that it is largely transitory in nature. While the Fed’s relaxed attitude towards inflation risks may be justified in the near term, there is a high probability that inflation will get out of hand later this decade. Contrary to conventional wisdom, many of the factors that led to high inflation in the 1970s could reassert themselves. Investors should overweight stocks for now, but be prepared to reduce equity exposure in about two years. US Inflation Has Bottomed US inflation surprised on the downside in January. The core CPI was flat on the month, compared with the consensus estimate for an increase of 0.2%. We expect US inflation to move higher over the coming months. The weakness in January’s inflation print was concentrated in sectors of the economy that have been hard hit by the pandemic. Airline fares dropped 3.2%, hotel rates fell 1.9%, and entertainment admission prices declined 5.5%. Prices in these sectors should rise on a year-over-year basis as base effects kick in (Chart 1). The relaxation of lockdown measures should also help to partially restore demand in these areas. WTI crude prices have risen 70% since the end of October. Rising energy prices should push up headline inflation, with some bleed-through to core prices. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between gasoline prices and headline inflation. If gasoline prices evolve in line with what is predicted by the futures market, headline inflation could temporarily rise to 4% this spring. Chart 1Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Chart 2Strong Link Between Gasoline Prices And Headline Inflation   In addition, the lagged effects from a weaker dollar should translate into higher goods prices in the US (Chart 3). A stronger labor market and a slower pace of rent forgiveness should also boost housing inflation (Chart 4).  Chart 3A Weaker Dollar Will Be A Tailwind For Inflation Chart 4Stronger Labor Market Will Boost Housing Inflation Fiscal stimulus should further supercharge demand, adding to inflationary pressures. Ironically, Republican unwillingness to offer modest, politically palatable cuts to President Biden’s proposed aid bill has opened the door to the Democrats ramming through the entire $1.9 trillion package via the reconciliation process. As we discussed last week, the amount of stimulus in the pipeline easily dwarfs the size of the output gap.   From Reflation To Inflation? Deflation is bad for stocks, just as is high and accelerating inflation. Somewhere between deflation and inflation, however, lies reflation. Reflation is good for stocks. Chart 5Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed We are currently in a reflationary Goldilocks zone, where inflation expectations have risen but not by enough to force the Fed’s hand. There is a high probability we will stay in this Goldilocks zone for the remainder of the year. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 5). Jay Powell told The Economic Club of New York last week that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. The Fed minutes released on Wednesday echoed this view. That ‘70s Show? The path to higher interest rates is lined with lower interest rates. A period of ultra-easy monetary policy can sow the seeds for economic overheating, rising inflation, and ultimately, much higher interest rates. Since this is precisely what happened during the 1970s, it is prudent to ask whether something like that could happen again. Investors certainly do not believe a replay of the 70s is in the cards, at least if long-term CPI swaps are any guide (Chart 6). Yet, we think that a 1970s-style inflationary episode is a greater risk than most investors realize. As we discuss below, much of what investors believe about how inflation emerged during that period is either based on myths, or at best, half-truths. Let’s examine each of these misconceptions in turn. Myth #1: High inflation in the 1970s was primarily driven by supply disruptions, with oil shocks being the most prominent. Fact: Oil shocks exacerbated the inflation problem in the 1970s, but it was an overheated economy that permitted inflation to rise in the first place. Inflation took off in 1966, seven years before the first oil shock. By 1969, core CPI inflation was running at close to 6% (Chart 7). Chart 6Investors Do Not Expect Inflation To Vault Higher Chart 7Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s   Similar to today, fiscal policy was exceptionally accommodative in the mid-1960s. The escalation of the Vietnam War produced a surge in military expenditures. Social spending rose dramatically with the introduction of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs. Medicare and Medicaid took effect in July 1966. Amy Finkelstein has estimated that Medicare, the larger of the two health care programs, led to a 37% increase in real hospital expenditures between 1965 and 1970. Johnson’s “guns and butter” policies caused government spending to surge in the second half of the decade. The budget deficit, which was broadly balanced during the first half of the 60s, swelled to 4% of GDP (Chart 8). As fiscal policy was loosened, the economy began to overheat. The unemployment rate fell to 3.8% in 1966, two percentage points below what economists later concluded had been its full-employment level. Chart 8US "Guns And Butter" Policies In The 1960s Caused Government Spending To Swell Myth #2: The Phillips curve is much flatter today. Chart 9The Increase In Inflation In 1966 Was Broad-Based Fact: The Phillips curve was also flat during the 1960s. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the 60s, averaging about 1.5%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined. Then, starting in 1966, core inflation more than doubled within the span of ten months. As Chart 9 illustrates, the sudden spike in inflation in 1966 was fairly broad-based. A “kink” in the Phillips curve had been reached. That the relationship between inflation and unemployment turned out to be non-linear is not surprising. As long as there is some slack in the labor market, employers are likely to resist raising wages. Thus, a decline in unemployment from a high level to a merely moderate level is unlikely to lead to meaningful wage inflation. It takes a truly overheated labor market – one that forces firms to engage in a tit-for-tat battle to entice workers – for the relationship between unemployment and inflation to reassert itself. In the near term, there is little risk that the US economy will reach a kink in the Phillips curve. Jason Furman estimates that the unemployment rate stood at 8.3% in January if one adjusts for the drop in labor force participation and methodological problems with how the BLS defines temporarily furloughed workers. This is well above the level that could trigger a price-wage spiral. Chart 10Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Yet, it would be naïve to think that such a spiral could not materialize in a few years. As Chart 10 shows, over the past 40 years, every time the US labor market was on the cusp of overheating, something would invariably come along to push up unemployment. Last year, it was the pandemic. In 2008, it was the Global Financial Crisis. In 2000, it was the dotcom bust. In the early 1990s, it was the collapse in commercial real estate prices following the Savings and Loan Crisis. Admittedly, only the pandemic qualifies as a truly exogenous shock. The preceding three recessions were fomented by growing economic imbalances, which were ultimately laid bare by a Fed hiking cycle. One can debate the degree to which the US economy is suffering from non-pandemic related imbalances today, but one thing is certain: The Fed is not keen on raising rates anytime soon. Thus, whatever imbalances exist today may not be exposed before the economy has had the chance to overheat. Myth #3: Inflation expectations are better anchored these days. Chart 11Long-Term Bond Yields Lagged Inflation During The 1960s Fact: Inflation expectations certainly became unmoored in the 1970s. However, there is not much evidence that expectations were adrift prior to the sudden increase in inflation in 1966. At the time, the US had not experienced a major episode of inflation since the Civil War. While long-term bond yields did rise in the second half of the 60s, they generally lagged inflation, suggesting that investors were caught off-guard (Chart 11). It should also be noted that the US and other major economies operated under the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates during the 1960s. Each US dollar was convertible into gold at the official rate of $35 per ounce. The existence of this quasi-gold standard helped anchor inflation expectations. The system began to fall apart in the late 1960s as inflation rose. When President Nixon suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold in August 1971, the US CPI had already increased by nearly 30% from its 1965 level. While the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s undoubtedly caused inflation expectations to become further unhinged, the breakdown of the system would not have occurred if inflation had not risen in the first place. Myth #4: Widespread wage indexation and powerful trade unions fueled an acceleration in the 1960s. Fact: Just as was the case with the unmooring of inflation expectations, wage indexation was more a response to rising inflation than a cause of it. Chart 12 shows that the share of workers covered by cost of living adjustments only jumped after inflation had accelerated. Chart 12Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around As far as unions are concerned, the US unionization rate peaked by the end of the 1950s and was already on a downward path when inflation began to rise. Revealingly, Canada experienced a similar decline in inflation as the US in the early 1980s even though unionization rates remained elevated (Chart 13). This suggests that union power was not a dominant driver of inflation. Chart 13Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate   Myth #5: Today’s globalized economy will limit inflationary pressures. Fact: The empirical evidence generally suggests that the impact of globalization on US inflation has been smaller than widely supposed.1 This is not surprising. The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports account for only 15% of GDP. As a result, a fairly large change in relative prices is necessary to prompt Americans to shift a meaningful fraction of their expenditures towards foreign-made goods. Such a shift in spending would require a real appreciation of the US dollar. A real appreciation could occur either if US inflation exceeds inflation abroad or if the nominal value of the dollar strengthens against other currencies. (Admittedly, the standard terminology can be a bit confusing; just think of a real US dollar appreciation as anything that makes the US economy less competitive). Here’s the thing though: The US dollar is unlikely to strengthen unless the Federal Reserve starts to sound more hawkish. If the Fed remains in the dovish camp, real rates could fall as inflation edges higher. This will put downward pressure on the dollar, leading to a smaller trade deficit and even more aggregate demand.  Myth #6: Demographics are much more deflationary now than they were in the past. Fact: Demographic trends arguably did help push down inflation over the past few decades. However, population aging is likely to boost inflation going forward. Chart 14 shows that the ratio of workers-to-consumers in the US and around the world – the so-called “support ratio” – rose steadily in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined. An increase in the ratio of workers-to-consumers is equivalent to an increase in the ratio of production-to-consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers retire but continue to spend. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 15). As production falls in relation to consumption, inflation could rise. Chart 14Support Ratios Are Declining Globally After Rising Steadily For Three Decades Chart 15Consumption Increases In Old Age Once Health Care Spending Is Factored In   Myth #7: Today’s fast pace of technological innovation will keep inflation down. Chart 16Total Factor Productivity Growth Is Lower Than It Was During The Great Inflation Fact: Total factor productivity growth – a broad measure of innovation – is not just low by historic standards today; it is lower than during the period of the Great Inflation spanning from 1966 to 1982 (Chart 16). Some have argued that productivity growth is mismeasured. We have examined this argument in the past and found it wanting. In any case, economic theory does not necessarily say that technological innovation should be deflationary. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real incomes. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Myth #8: Policymakers have learned from their mistakes. It is easy to dismiss this claim, but it is worth considering it seriously. Some of the mistakes that policymakers made during the 60s and 70s were far from obvious at the time. Athanasios Orphanides, who formerly served as a member of the ECB’s Governing Council, has documented that central banks in the US and other major economies systematically overestimated the amount of slack in their economies (Chart 17). They also overestimated trend growth, with the result that they came to see the combination of sluggish growth and seemingly high unemployment as evidence of inadequate demand. Chart 17Central Banks Overestimated The Degree Of Slack In Their Economies During The Great Inflation Is it possible that economic analysis has improved so much over the past 40 years that such mistakes would not be repeated today? Perhaps, but it is worth noting that not only did most economists fail to predict the productivity boom in the late 1990s, most were not even aware that it had happened until after it had ended. Knowing what is happening to the economy in real time is hard enough. Predicting what will happen to such things as trend growth and the natural rate of unemployment is even more difficult. Myth #9: The Fed is a lot more independent now. Fact: We will only know for sure when this independence is tested. History clearly shows that inflation tends to be higher in countries which lack independent central banks (Chart 18). The Fed’s independence was compromised in the 1970s. In his exhaustive study of the Nixon tapes, Burton Abrams documented how Richard Nixon sought, and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns obligingly delivered, an expansionary monetary policy in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Chart 18Inflation Is Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Starting with the appointment of Paul Volcker, the Fed sought to regain its independence. Most recently, Jay Powell publicly resisted Donald Trump’s efforts to prod the Fed to ease monetary policy. Yet, the Fed’s independence may turn out to be illusory. The Fed wasted little time in slashing rates and relaunching its QE program once the pandemic began. But will it be as quick to tighten monetary policy if inflation starts getting out of hand? Jay Powell’s four-year term as chair runs through February 2022. He will need to stay in Joe Biden’s good graces if he hopes to be reappointed to a second term. The fact that government debt levels are so high further complicates matters. Higher interest rates would force the government to shift funds from social programs towards bond holders. Will the Fed raise rates even if it faces strong political opposition? Time will tell. Investment Conclusions Chart 19Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation While no two periods are exactly the same, there are a number of striking similarities between the late 1960s and the present day. As is the case today, fiscal policy was highly expansionary back then. The same goes for monetary policy: Just like today, the Fed kept interest rates well below the growth rate of the economy. In the 1960s, the Federal Reserve was still focused on avoiding a repeat of the Great Depression and the deflationary wave that accompanied it. Today, the Fed is equally focused on reflating the economy. The 1960s was a decade of rising political and social unrest. Crime rates went through the roof, a trend that was eerily matched by rising inflation rates (Chart 19). Early estimates suggest that the US homicide rate jumped by 37% in 2020 – easily the largest one-year increase on record. As was the case in the 1960s, most of the news media has ignored this disturbing development. What should investors do? Our tactical MacroQuant model is flagging some near-term risks for stocks. Nevertheless, as long as the economy is growing solidly and the Fed remains on the sidelines, it is too early for investors with a 12-month horizon to bail on equities. Instead, equity investors should favor sectors that could benefit from higher inflation. Commodity producers are a natural choice. Banks could also gain from an uptick in inflation. Chart 20 shows the remarkably strong correlation between the performance of US banks relative to the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury yield. Higher bond yields would boost bank net interest margins, leading to higher profits. Banks are also very cheap and have started to see their earnings estimates rise faster not only relative to the broader market but even relative to tech stocks (Chart 21). Chart 20Bank Shares Are A Buy (I) Fixed-income investors should keep duration risk low. They should also favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Chart 21Bank Shares Are A Buy (II) Looking further out, the secular bull market in stocks will end when inflation rises to a high enough level that even the Fed cannot ignore. That day will arrive, but probably not for another two years.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Globalization is often cited as a potential reason behind low inflation in advanced economies, including the US. However, a number of empirical studies have found that globalization did not play a major role. In general, domestic economic conditions are seen as the main factor in the inflation process. Please see Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, “Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Inflation Hypothesis,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 891) (April 2007); Laurence M. Ball, “Has Globalization Changed Inflation?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 12687 (November 2006), and associated blog post “Has Globalization Changed Inflation?” National Bureau of Economic Research,  (June 2007); Janet. L. Yellen, 'Panel discussion of William R. White “Globalisation and the Determinants of Domestic Inflation”,' Presentation to the Banque de France International Symposium on Globalisation, Inflation and Monetary Policy (March 2008); Fabio Milani, “Global Slack And Domestic Inflation Rates: A Structural Investigation For G-7 Countries,” Journal of Macroeconomics, (32:4) (2010); and and Lei Lv, Zhixin Liu, and Yingying Xu, “Technological progress, globalization and low-inflation: Evidence from the United States,” PLoS ONE, (14:4), (April 2019).   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Global equity valuations are at a level where they are very sensitive to changes in the discount rate. Chart 1 shows that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield on the S&P 500 is slightly below its 2000 low. Equity investors have thus far taken comfort from the fact that US bond yields have been depressed, and taking into consideration low bond yields the US equity market is not as bubbly as it was in the 2000s. Chart 1Rising US Bond Yields Threatens US Equity Valuations However, the fact that the US equity market’s valuations after accounting for the level of interest rates are not as expensive as they were in 2000 does not mean share prices cannot experience a meaningful shakeout. Notably, there is a lot of speculation and euphoria among investors, reminiscent of the late 1990s (please refer to Charts 24-26 below). Critically, when equity multiples are very elevated and bond yields are extremely low, the sensitivity of multiples to interest rates is most pronounced. Hence, rising US Treasury yields could result in a setback in share prices. All in all, our themes for now are as follows: Chart 2A Full-Fledged Mania In Asian TMT Stocks Enormous US fiscal and monetary stimulus, strong economic growth and supply bottlenecks will push up the US core inflation rate. As a result, the ongoing sell-off in long-term US bond yields will continue. EM and DM credit spreads are currently very tight and credit spreads might not be able to compress further to offset the rise in US Treasury yields. Hence, rising US Treasury yields will trigger higher corporate and EM sovereign bond yields. In brief, rising EM bond yields is the key risk to EM share prices. Charts 5 and 6 below illustrate these points. Given that the US trade-weighted dollar is extremely oversold, rising US Treasury yields will likely trigger a countertrend rally in the greenback. This will cause a shakeout in EM currencies, fixed-income markets and commodities prices. Historically, the greenback has not had a stable relationship with US Treasury yields – they were both positively and negatively correlated in different periods. In such an environment, DM growth stocks will underperform DM value stocks. We have less conviction in growth/value performance in the EM space. The reason lies in the speculative frenzy taking place in Chinese new economy stocks trading in Hong Kong as well as tech share prices in Korea and Taiwan. As Chart 2 reveals, the Hang Seng Tech index and EM TMT stocks have been rising exponentially. Visibility is very low. The timing of a reversal of this equity euphoria is impossible to predict. Outside these TMT stocks, the relative performance of EM equities has been rather underwhelming, as is illustrated in Charts 71-73. Notably, the economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies (please refer to Charts 63 and 66). This will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. In addition, peak stimulus in China means that the mainland’s construction and infrastructure investment will slow meaningfully in H2 2021. This is another risk to EM economies supplying to China. Weighing pros and cons, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to EM in a global equity portfolio. The same is true for EM credit (sovereign and corporate) within a global credit portfolio. For local bonds, inflation in EM – including China – is still very low and will likely stay depressed. As a result, we continue recommending receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, Malaysia, India and China. Investors should use a rebound in the US dollar  to transition from receiving rates to being long on cash bonds. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Yellow Flags For Share Prices Rising US corporate bond yields pose a risk to the equity rally. Interestingly, New Zealand’s stock market has begun correcting. Often but not always, this development heralds a pullback in EM share prices (albeit for unknown reasons). Chart 3Yellow Flags For Share Prices Chart 4Yellow Flags For Share Prices Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Historically, rising EM corporate USD bond yields led to a selloff in EM share prices. If rising US Treasury yields begin pushing up EM sovereign and corporate bonds yields, which is quite likely, the EM equity rally will be jeopardized. Chart 5Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Chart 6Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery So far, the EM equity index has snubbed the rollover in China’s credit impulse and plummeting gold prices in non-US dollar currencies. The ongoing EM corporate earnings recovery has justified the rally in of share prices. However, much  of the good news has already been priced in. Chart 7EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 8EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 9EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery   Investors Are Super Bullish European investors are very bullish on EM equities and European growth. From a contrarian perspective, this does not always herald a bear market but suggests that odds of a meaningful shakeout are non-trivial. Chart 10Investors Are Super Bullish Chart 11Investors Are Super Bullish Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Our proxy for global growth expectations as well as EM net EPS revisions are elevated. Similarly, analysts’ EM 12-month forward EPS growth differential vs. US are the widest since 2001. Chart 12Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Chart 13Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High US Inflation And Rates US core goods inflation has been rising due to strong US household demand and supply bottlenecks. When the economy fully reopens, US core service inflation will rise as pent-up demand for services is unleashed. This will push up US bond yields regardless of the Fed’s rhetoric. Chart 14US Inflation And Rates Chart 15US Inflation And Rates   Chart 16US Inflation And Rates Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space A rise in US TIPS and nominal yields will likely send shockwaves through EM risk assets and commodities that have greatly benefited from the plunge in TIPS yields. Watch out for cracks in the EM high-yield bond space. Chart 17Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 18Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 19Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 20Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space   EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Although cyclically and for some countries structurally speaking EM currencies have more upside and their appreciation path will not be without major setbacks. In fact, several key currencies like MXN and ZAR are facing an important technical resistance. Investors should not chase them higher but accumulate them on a relapse. Chart 21EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are OverboughtChart 23EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Chart 22EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought   Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Certain measures of stock market activity – like the call-put ratio, trading volumes and margin loans –  reveal engulfing speculative behavior not only in the US but also in other markets like Korea. Chart 24Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 25Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 26Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild   A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision The IPO boom is not as expansive as it was at its 2000 and 2007 peaks and there is some US dollar cash left to be put to work. Visibility is very low. Chart 27A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 28A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 29A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision   Steep Equity Volatility Curves A steep equity volatility curve heralds a correction. Chart 30Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 31Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 32Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 33Steep Equity Volatility Curves   Volatilities Across FX, Bonds And Commodities Oil volatility has been and remains in a bull market – making higher lows. Currency volatility remains elevated while US bond volatility is still very low and is bound to rise. Chart 34Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 35Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 36Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 37Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Chart 38Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 39Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Global cyclical stocks’ relative performance versus defensive stocks might be due for a pause. Growth will underperform value in DM due to rising bond yields. We are less convinced about the growth/value performance in the EM equity space due to the mania occurring in EM TMT stocks. Chart 40Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 41Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 42Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 43Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance   Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Many global equity indexes excluding US or TMT have either not broken out or have done so only marginally. Chart 44Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 45Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 46Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 47Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Excluding TMT stocks, EM equity indexes have not broken above their previous highs. It has been a mania in TMT stocks that has boosted the EM overall equity index. Chart 48EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 49EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 50EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 51EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive   A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chinese offshore stocks ex-TMT and onshore equal-weighted and small caps have done rather poorly. The latest euphoria in Hong Kong-listed Chinese stocks has been due to an increased quota for mainland investors to buy offshore stocks. This has led to massive southbound outflows and has propelled Chinese stock trading in Hong Kong. Chart 52A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chart 53A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks   Chart 54A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Rollover in credit and fiscal stimulus in Q4 2020 entails weak growth in H2 2021 in segments leveraged to stimulus. Chart 55The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 56The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Chart 57The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 58The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Commodity Prices The end of commodities restocking in China, weaker demand from mainland construction in H2 and elevated investor net long positions in commodities constitute the basis for a setback in commodities prices this year. Nevertheless, such a pullback will occur only if the USD rebounds and global equity prices sell off. Chart 59Commodity Prices Chart 60Commodity Prices Chart 61Commodity Prices Chart 62Commodity Prices   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued The economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies. Chart 63The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 64The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 65The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 66The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag EM ex-North Asia’s economic underperformance will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. Besides, their banks are reluctant to lend due to high NPLs. Chart 67The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 68The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 69The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 70The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming A slow recovery in EM ex-TMT industries explains why EM equity performance outside TMT stocks has been underwhelming. Chart 71EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 72EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 73EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming   Footnotes

Highlights The amount of fiscal stimulus in the pipeline is more than enough to close the US output gap. Inflation is likely to surprise on the upside this year. The Fed will brush off any evidence of economic overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, long-term bond yields, over which the Fed has less control, will rise. As long as bond yields move higher in conjunction with improving growth expectations, stocks will remain in an uptrend. The bull market in equities will only end when the Fed starts to sound more hawkish. That is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least. Stimulus Smackdown During the past month, a debate has erupted over how much additional fiscal stimulus the US economy needs. The side arguing that the sea of red ink has gotten too deep includes an unlikely cast of characters like Larry Summers, who has famously contended that sustained large budget deficits are necessary to stave off secular stagnation. It also includes Olivier Blanchard, who previously served as the IMF’s chief economist and pushed the multilateral lender to abandon its historic adherence to fiscal austerity. Chart 1Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Rather than citing debt sustainability concerns, these newfound stimulus skeptics worry that large-scale fiscal easing at the present juncture risks overheating the economy. They point out that President Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion package, coming on the heels of the $900 billion stimulus bill Congress passed in late December, would inject another 13% of GDP into the economy, on the back of the lagged boost from the first stimulus package. We estimate that US households had accumulated $1.5 trillion in excess savings (7% of GDP) as of the end of 2020, thanks to the fiscal transfers they received under the CARES Act (Chart 1). US real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020 was 2.5% below its level in the fourth quarter of 2019. Assuming trend growth of 2%, this implies that the output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – has widened by about 4.5% of GDP since the onset of the pandemic.   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the US economy was operating 1% above potential in Q4 of 2019, suggesting that the output gap is around 3.5% of GDP. As it has in the past, the CBO is probably understating the amount of slack in the economy. Our guess is that the US was close to full employment in the months leading up to the pandemic, which implies that the output gap is currently somewhere between 4% and 5% of GDP. While fairly large in absolute terms, it is still smaller than the amount of stimulus currently in the pipeline. Gentle Jay Not So Worried About Overheating Stimulus advocates argue that households will continue to use stimulus checks to fortify their balance sheets, rather than rush out to spend the windfall. They also note that unemployment payments will come down if the labor market recovers more quickly than projected. And even if the economy does temporarily overheat, “so what” they say. The Fed has been trying to engineer an inflation overshoot for years. Now is its chance. Jay Powell seems to sympathize with this thesis. Speaking at a virtual conference organized by The Economic Club of New York this week, Powell repeated his call for fiscal easing and told attendees that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. His words echo remarks made at the press conference following January’s FOMC meeting, where he said “I’m much more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people’s careers,” before adding: “Frankly, we welcome slightly higher inflation.” Most other FOMC members have struck a similar tone. Earlier this year, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted that “The damage from COVID-19 is concentrated among already challenged groups. Federal Reserve staff analysis indicates that unemployment is likely above 20 percent for workers in the bottom wage quartile, while it has fallen below 5 percent for the top wage quartile.” How Big Is The Fiscal Multiplier From Stimulus Checks? Chart 2Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose One of the reasons that households saved much of last year’s stimulus checks was because there was not much to spend them on. Officially measured service inflation was well contained last year, but many services were simply not available for purchase. In contrast, goods prices, which usually fall over time, rose (Chart 2). As the economy opens up, total spending will recover. Rising household spending will have a multiplier effect. The simplest version of the Keynesian multiplier for fiscal transfer payments is equal to MPC/(1-MPC), where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. Assuming that households initially spend 50 cents of every dollar they receive, the multiplier would be 0.5/(1-0.5)=1. In other words, every dollar of direct stimulus payments will eventually generate one additional dollar of aggregate demand. One could argue that this multiplier estimate overstates the impact on demand because it ignores the fact that households will regard stimulus checks as one-time payments rather than a continuous flow of income. One could also point out that taxes and imports will cut into the multiplier effect on domestic spending. There is truth to all these arguments, but they are not as compelling as they seem. According to a recent US Census study, only 37% of Americans reported no difficulty in paying for usual household expenses during the pandemic. A mere 16% of workers with incomes below $35,000 reported no difficulty, compared with more than two-thirds of workers with incomes above $100,000 (Chart 3). In the euphemistic parlance of economics, most US households are “liquidity constrained,” meaning that they are likely to spend a large chunk of any income they receive, even if it is a one-off grant.1 Chart 3The Pandemic Has Put A Spotlight On The Liquidity Constraints Of US Households As for taxes, while the income from subsequent spending will be taxed, the stimulus checks that households receive will remain untaxed. Granted, some of the demand generated by stimulus checks will leak abroad in the form of higher imports. However, keep in mind that the US is a fairly closed economy – imports account for only 15% of GDP. Moreover, the full impact on imports depends on what happens to the value of the dollar. If the Fed keeps rates unchanged but inflation rises, the accompanying decline in short-term real rates could weaken the dollar, curbing imports and boosting exports in the process. This could lead to a higher multiplier rather than a lower one. Lastly, higher consumption is likely to boost corporate capex, as companies scramble to raise capacity in anticipation of strong demand (Chart 4). Economists call this the “accelerator effect.” Investment spending is 2.5-times as volatile as consumption. Hence, even modest increases in consumption can trigger large increases in investment. Chart 4Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Unemployment Benefits: Adding To Aggregate Demand But Subtracting From Supply? As Chart 5 shows, stimulus payments to households account for 17% of the December stimulus bill and 26% of Biden’s proposed package for a combined total of around $650 billion (3% of GDP, or around two-thirds of the current output gap). The balance consists of expanded unemployment benefits, health and education funding, support for small businesses, and aid to state and local governments. Chart 5Stimulus Package Breakdowns Unemployment benefits are likely to be spent fairly quickly since, in most cases, they replace lost income that had previously been used to finance consumption. More generous unemployment benefits could temporarily reduce aggregate supply. Higher federal unemployment benefits would more than offset the lost income of close to half of jobless workers, potentially creating a disincentive to seek employment. Inflation Expectations Will Continue To Rise Aggregate demand is likely to outstrip the economy’s supply-side potential over the coming months. Hence, inflation will probably surprise on the upside this year, although not by enough to force the Fed to abandon its easy money stance. Inflation expectations have recovered since the depths of the pandemic. However, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that BCA’s bond strategists believe the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 6). This suggests that the Fed will brush off any evidence of overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, rising inflation expectations will push up long-dated bond yields. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 1.89%. This is below the median estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 7). With policy rates on hold, higher long-term bond yields will translate into steeper yield curves. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 1.5% by the end of the year from the current level of 1.16%, with risks to yields tilted to the upside. Chart 6Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Chart 7Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections   Can Stocks Stand The Heat? To what extent will higher bond yields hurt stocks? To get a sense of the answer, it is useful to consider a dividend discount model. The simplest model, the Gordon Growth Model, says that the price of a stock, P, should equal the dividend that it pays, D, divided by the difference between the long-term discount rate, r, and the expected dividend growth rate, g:   We can write the discount rate as the combination of the long-term risk-free rate and the equity risk premium such that r = rf + ERP and then solve for the dividend yield:     Note that the value of the stock market becomes increasingly sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate when the dividend yield is low to begin with. For example, if the dividend yield is 2%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 5%. In contrast, if the dividend yield is 1%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 10%. Today, dividend and earnings yields for most global equity sectors are quite low, although not as low as they were in 2000 (Chart 8). Watch The Correlation Between  r  And  g The fact that dividend and earnings yields are below their long-term average does make stocks vulnerable to a rise in bond yields. This is especially the case for relatively expensive equity sectors such as tech and consumer discretionary. Nevertheless, there is an important mitigating factor at work: Increases in the risk-free rate have generally been accompanied by stronger growth expectations. Chart 9 shows that S&P 500 forward earnings estimates have moved in lockstep with the 10-year Treasury yield, a proxy for the long-term risk-free rate. Chart 8Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Chart 9Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields   This suggests that the main danger to equity investors is not higher bond yields per se, but a rise in bond yields in excess of upward revisions to growth expectations, or worse, against a backdrop of faltering growth. Such a predicament could eventually manifest itself. However, it is only likely to happen when the Fed turns hawkish. This is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The difficulty that many households have had in making ends meet predates the pandemic. For example, in May 2019, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau found that about 40% of US consumers claimed that they had difficulty paying bills and expenses. Among those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less, difficulties were experienced by 6 out of 10 people. Moreover, about half of consumers reported that they would be able to cover expenses for no more than two months if they lost their main source of income by relying on all available sources of funds, including borrowing, savings, selling assets, or even seeking help from family and friends. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights There is too much euphoria and complacency in global markets. The main distinction between the current and previous episodes of speculative equity market excesses is that classic end-of-business cycle conditions – such as economic overheating and policy tightening – are now absent. Yet, it does not mean that the bull market will continue uninterrupted. This rally might be short circuited by gravitational forces as happened with the S&P 500 in 1987 and Chinese onshore stocks in 2015. Investors should consider going long EM equity or EM currency volatility to hedge their exposure. Feature There is growing evidence that the global equity rally has turned into a frenzy. Signs of investor euphoria include: The number of traded call options in the US equity market has surged to an all-time high (Chart 1). The number of put options has spiked only in the past couple of weeks and remains well below the number of call options. Chart 1A Call Buying Frenzy Is A Symptom Of Investor Exuberance Critically, there is currently too much complacency: the US put-call ratio is as low as it was in 2000 (Chart 2). The volume of stocks traded on and off all US stock exchanges has exploded since late October, reaching an all-time high (Chart 3). Chart 2A Sign Of Equity Market Complacency Chart 3US Equity Trading Volumes Are At All-Time Highs Chart 4Retail Investors Haven Been A Powerful Force In Korea And Taiwan Equity fervor is prevalent not only among American individual investors but also in many parts of the world. For instance, the breathtaking rallies in the KOSPI and Taiwanese stocks has been primarily driven by local retail investors, as shown in Chart 4. The surge in Taiwanese share prices is stunning because it completely ignores the escalating geopolitical tensions over Taiwan. BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, recently argued that while China is unlikely to invade Taiwan immediately, a military stand-off cannot be ruled out. China and the US have yet to arrive at a mutual understanding regarding China’s access to computer chips made in Taiwan. Overall, since the lockdowns in March last year, individual investors have rushed into equities in many countries such as the US, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and Brazil, to name a few. Finally, US institutional investors are fully invested, as shown in Chart 5. Besides, Chart 6 reveals that US-domiciled EM equity mutual funds’ liquidity ratio (cash as a percentage of assets) is very low. Chart 5US Institutional Investors Are Long Stocks Chart 6US-Domiciled EM Mutual Funds' Cash Is Low   There have been doubts within the global investment community about the potential for small individual investors to move the needle in the overall market. We believe that their impact has been substantial: First, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that individual traders have been involved in options trading since the pandemic erupted. By purchasing call options, retail investors exert substantial upward pressure on share prices: dealers – who sell/write call options – typically hedge their risks by acquiring and holding the underlying stock for the duration of respective options. In short, by putting even small amounts of money at work to purchase call options, individual traders meaningfully affect share prices. Second, price formation in financial markets is influenced by the marginal investor. Everything else being equal, the entry of a new buyer into the marketplace leads to higher prices. Further, retail investors’ impact on financial markets has not been limited solely to stocks they purchase. Rather, there has been a ripple effect on the broader market. For instance, there is evidence that individual investors flocked to the market in March and April and bought en masse shares of companies most negatively affected by the pandemic, such as cruise operations, hotels, airlines and energy producers. As individual investors provided substantial bids for these stocks, institutional investors were able to offload these stocks and buy others. For instance, in Q2 last year Warren Buffett offloaded his airline stocks and allocated that capital to natural gas storage and pipelines, banks, pharma and auto stocks. If retail investors had not provided support to stocks of companies hit hard by the lockdowns and social distancing, Warren Buffett and other professional investors would not have had the opportunity to exit their positions in these stocks at acceptable prices and acquire other securities. This is the mechanism whereby the impact of new market entrants extends beyond the specific equities they purchase. Chart 7A Mini Call Option Mania Among Retail Investors Finally, Charts 1 and 3 above clearly illustrate the surge in both the number of call options and trading volumes since last March. Among call options, transactions with a small number of options have ballooned (Chart 7). This reflects individual investors activity. Consistently, the number of brokerage accounts for retail investors has mushroomed in the US and elsewhere. Bottom Line: It is obvious that the ongoing equity market euphoria is considerable. Individual investors have been playing a vital role in fostering it. The GameStop stock saga, among others, reinforces this point. When And How Will It End? This bull market shares some similarities with previous market cycles, but it also has its distinct features. Similarities: Retail investors typically rush into financial markets toward the end of a bull market. The current US equity market rally began in 2009. After the S&P 500 showed its resilience by rebounding quickly and making new highs following the selloffs in 2015, 2018 and 2019, retail investors were reassured to jump on the bull market train when the 2020 crash occurred.  In short, it took about 11 years of a US equity bull run for individual investors to feel comfortable enough to play the stock market. This is a characteristic of a late cycle/mature bull market. Speculative instruments and schemes are designed and launched. The IPO boom in SPACs1 will probably go down in history as a key feature of the speculative excesses in this cycle. Valuations overshoot during stock market euphoria but investors find reasons to justify lofty equity multiples. FAANGM stocks and other parts of the US equity market are expensive, but investors are using extremely low US bond yields – artificially suppressed by the Federal Reserve – to justify the current multiples. In such a case, the bond market will likely hold equities hostage. As bond yields rise going forward, equity valuations will be threatened. In fact, we believe rising bond yields, not the outlook for economic growth, to be the primary risk to US share prices akin to the late 1960s (Chart 8). Differences: Typically, retail investors feel comfortable investing in the stock market when the economy is strong. In this cycle, they jumped on the stock market train when the economy crashed due to the pandemic. This is a departure from previous cycles. Massive stimulus and ongoing vaccination deployment suggest the economic outlook for the US and many emerging economies is positive. In particular, EM corporate profits are set to recover (Chart 9). Chart 8The US In The 1960s: Share Prices And Treasury Yields Chart 9EM EPS Is To Recover   Hence, it is hard to be bearish on stocks based on the cyclical outlook for growth, assuming vaccination campaigns will allow many major economies to fully reopen in H2 2021. Yet, a lot of this good news seem to be already priced in. Retail investors arrive to the stock market party usually in the late stage of a business cycle – when unemployment is low, inflation is rising, and policymakers are tightening policies. That combination proves lethal for the equity market and a major top in share prices ensues. Presently, due to the pandemic-induced lockdowns, we have the opposite occurring in the US and in many EM economies. Unemployment is high, inflation remains contained, and policymakers are committed to providing unlimited stimulus. In short, the main distinction between the current and previous episodes of speculative equity market excesses is that classic end-of-business cycle conditions – such as economic overheating and policy tightening – are now absent. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Does it mean that the bull market will continue uninterrupted? Not necessarily. This rally might be short circuited for reasons that may differ from those that terminated previous stock market frenzies. First, speculative bubbles could burst without policy tightening. An example of this is China’s equity bubble in 2015, which crashed without policy tightening due to gravitational forces reasserting themselves. Another example is the 1987 US stock market crash that occurred without an economic or fundamental financial cause. Chart 10 illustrates the cyclical trajectories of US GDP and the Fed funds rate did not change materially before and after the equity market crash. In short, the 1987 equity crash was a case when excessive speculation/overbought conditions rather than policy tightening or a recession caused an abrupt equity sell-off. Second, in the EM equity universe, leadership has been extremely narrow. Only a handful of companies have outperformed the aggregate benchmark, propelling the index to 2007 highs. These include a few Chinese new economy stocks, and Korean and Taiwanese technology stocks (Chart 11). Outside North Asian markets (China, Korea and Taiwan), every single EM bourse has underperformed both the EM and global equity benchmarks in the past year. Chart 10The 1987 S&P 500 Crash Was Not Caused By The Fed Or The Economy Chart 11Euphoria In Asian TMT Stocks Chart 12Global ex-TMT Stocks Have Not Broken Out Yet If these global and EM TMT stocks relapse, they will inflict major damage on the EM and global indexes. The EM index has become extremely concentrated with the top five stocks accounting for 24% of the MSCI EM equity index’s market cap. Interestingly, global ex-TMT stocks have not yet broken out to new highs (Chart 12). Finally, US overall equity and global TMT valuations are vulnerable to rising US bond yields. The latter could rise without the Fed hinting at policy tightening if fixed-income investors decide that the Fed is behind the inflation curve. This could trigger a major selloff even if policymakers do not tighten policy. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Go Long EM Equity And Currency Volatility We are in a euphoria phase where fundamentals are less pertinent. The market can either rally a lot or sell off hard regardless of the profit outlook. Navigating through such markets is challenging. Going long EM equity or EM currency volatility offers a good risk-reward profile (Chart 13). Volatility will likely rise in the coming months in both scenarios: either risk assets continue rallying or they sell off. For global equity and credit portfolios, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM. The long-term US dollar outlook is negative, but it is oversold and odds of a near-term rebound are still high. Our currency strategy remains to short a basket of EM currencies versus an equal-weighted average of the euro, CHF and JPY. This basket of EM currencies includes the BRL, CLP, ZAR, KRW and TRY. We continue receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Korea. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC), also known as “blank check companies”, are organizations with no commercial operations that raise capital through an IPO, which is then deployed to purchase an existing company. This process is done to bypass the lengthy process of launching a traditional IPO for a young company.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations