Manufacturing

Highlights Even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, likely within 18 months, many behavioral changes that were forced on society by social distancing will remain. Individuals who have gotten used to working from home, shopping online, and using the internet for socializing and entertainment will continue to do so. Amid any large structural shift, it is easier to spot losers than winners. The biggest losers are likely to be: (1) Parts of the real estate industry, as companies shed expensive city-center office space and office workers move away from big cities; and (2) the travel industry, since business travel will decline. The winners will include: Health care (as governments spend to strengthen medical services); capital-goods producers (with US manufacturers increasingly reshoring production but automating more); and the broadly-defined IT sector which, while expensively valued, is nowhere near its 2000 level and has several years of strong growth ahead.   “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” –  Bill Gates “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” –  Lenin Introduction The world has been turned upside down since February by the coronavirus pandemic. Households all around the globe have been forced to stay indoors; companies have been forced to drastically change working practices; some industries, such as online shopping or videoconferencing software, have seen a surge in demand. But once the pandemic is over, how many of these changes will stick? What will be the long-term impact on society, the workplace, consumer attitudes, and companies’ strategic planning? How should investors position themselves to take advantage of secular changes in the sectors that will be most affected, ranging from health care and technology, to real estate, retailing, and travel? In this Special Report (which should be read in conjunction with two other recent BCA Research Special Reports on the macro-economic and geopolitical consequences, respectively, of COVID-191), we look at the social and industry implications of the coronavirus pandemic. We assume that, within the next 12-to-18 months, the pandemic will be a thing of the past, either because a vaccine has been developed, or because enough people have caught it for herd immunity to develop. This does not mean that people will be unconcerned about a reoccurrence, or about a new virus triggering another epidemic. Pandemics are not rare, even in modern history (Table 1). And COVID-19 may return as an annual mild seasonal flu (as the 1968 Asian flu did), but which is not serious enough to alter behavior. But the assumption in this report is that, within a couple of years, people will feel comfortable again about being in crowded spaces and traveling, without a need for social distancing or periodic lockdowns. Table 1Estimated Mortality And Infection Rates Of Pandemics During The Past Century The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? But that doesn’t mean that everything will return to the status quo ante. At least some individuals who have gotten used to working from home, video conferencing, and shopping online will continue these practices. Companies will, therefore, need to rethink their employment policies, as well as how they manage their office space, global supply chains, and just-in-time inventories. Government policies towards health care and education will need to be rethought. None of these changes are new. Indeed, the result of an exogenous shock is often simply to accelerate trends that were already in place. E-commerce, telecommuting, and “reshoring” have already been growing steadily for years. COVID-19 is, however, likely to accelerate these shifts. Not every individual or company will change their behavior, but even small changes at the margin can have a significant impact. Ultimately, what these changes amount to is a liberalization of space and time. Employees do not need to be in the same physical space to work together. Students can choose when to listen to a lecture. Music lovers based in a small city can have the same access to a live (streamed) concert as those in London or New York. This Special Report is divided into two sections. In the first section, we examine the meta-changes in consumer and corporate behavior that could result from the pandemic. How widely will the shift from office-based work to “working from home” stick? How much will shopping, entertainment, and education stay online? Will companies really bring back a large chunk of manufacturing from overseas? In the second section, we analyze the impact on specific industries, such as real estate, health care, technology, and retailing, and make some suggestions as to how investors should tilt their portfolios over the longer term to take advantage of these trends. In summary, we identify the winners as health care, technology, and capital-goods producers. The clear losers are in real estate and travel. Retailing and consumer goods will see a significant shakeout, with both winners and losers, but the overall impact on these industries will be neutral. Social Impacts Working From Home Teleworking, or working from home, is hardly new. Craftsmen before the industrial revolution did so as a matter of course. But the development of computers and telecommunications in the 1980s made it feasible for white-collar workers to work from home too. As Peter Drucker wrote as long ago as 1993: "...commuting to office work is obsolete. It is now infinitely easier, cheaper and faster to do what the nineteenth century could not do: move information, and with it office work, to where the people are."2  Until now, however, teleworking has been rare. But the requirements imposed by the pandemic could cause that to change. Technically, it is possible for workers in many job categories to telework effectively. A recent study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman3 estimated, based on job characteristics, that it is feasible for 37% of all jobs in the US to be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). The vast majority of jobs in sectors such as education, professional services, and company management could be done from home (Table 2). Extending the analysis to other countries, they find that more than 35% of jobs in most developing countries can be done from home, but less than 25% in manufacturing-heavy emerging economies such as Turkey and Mexico (Chart 1). Table 2Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Industry The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 1Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Country The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? But, in practice, before the coronavirus pandemic, many fewer people than this worked from home. Partly this was simply because many companies did not allow it. A survey by OWL Labs in 2018 found that 44% of companies around the world required employees to work from an office, with no option to work remotely.4 The percentage was even higher, 53%, in both Asia and Latin America. By contrast, OWL did find that 52% of employees globally worked from home at least occasionally, and that as many as 18% of respondents reported working from home always. The pandemic forced many white-collar workers to telework for the first time. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of US adults – and as many as 62% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree – worked from home during the crisis.5  How white-collar workers found the experience, and whether they plan to continue to work from home some of the time even if not required to do so, vary widely. Employers are generally positive about the idea. A survey of hiring managers by Upwork found that 56% believed that remote working functioned better than expected during the crisis (Chart 2). They cited reduced meetings, fewer distractions, increased productivity, and greater autonomy as reasons for this. The major drawbacks were technological issues, reduced team cohesion, and communication difficulties. Another survey, by realtor Redfin, found that 76% of US office workers had worked from home during the crisis (compared to only 36% who worked from home at least some of the time beforehand) and that 33% of respondents who had not worked remotely pre-shutdown expect to work remotely after shutdowns end (with another 39% unsure) (Chart 3). Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 3Many Employees Expect To Continue Working Remotely After The Pandemic Ends The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? But there are problems too. Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that, while teleworking has some clear advantages, such as improved work-family interface, greater job satisfaction, and enhanced autonomy, it also has drawbacks. Most notably, if workers aren’t in the office at least half the week, relationships with fellow workers suffer, as does collaboration.6 There are also developed countries where backward technology has made the experience of working from home difficult. This is particularly the case in Japan. A survey by the Japan Productivity Center found that 66% of office workers said their productivity fell when working from home; 43% were dissatisfied with the experience. The reasons cited for the dissatisfaction were “lack of access to documents when not in the office” (49%), “a poor telecommunications environment” (44%), and a difficult working environment, such as lack of desk space (44%). Japanese companies remain rather paper-based, and household living space tends to be small. Research carried out on employees at Chinese online travel company Ctrip before the pandemic concluded that home working led to a 13% performance increase but, crucially, there were four requirements for working from home to succeed: Children must be in school or daycare; employees must have a home office that is not a bedroom; complete privacy in that room is essential; and employees must have a choice of whether to work from home.7  After the pandemic, a significant shift in the pattern of office work is likely. Many workers will work remotely part or most of the time. But they will also benefit from coming to an office a certain number of days a month to work together, bond with co-workers, exchange ideas, etc. Online Shopping E-commerce has been growing steadily for years. In the US, it increased by 15% year-on-year in 2019, to reach $602 bn, or 16% of total retail sales (Charts 4 and 5). The share is even higher in some other countries: For example, 25% in China and 22% in the UK. The pandemic caused a big acceleration in e-commerce the first few months of this year, as consumers in most countries around the world were either not allowed to go outside, or felt unsafe doing so. Chart 4The Share Of E-commerce Has Been Steadily Expanding For Years… The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Data from Mastercard show that, in the worst period of lockdowns in April, e-commerce grew by 63% in the US, and 64% in the UK year-on-year, compared to a decline of 15% and 8%, respectively, in overall retail sales (Chart 6). The growth was particularly apparent in products such as home improvement, footwear, and apparel (Chart 7). Chart 5…With Growth Of Around 15% A Year The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 6In April, Online Sales Soared… The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not?   Chart 7…Especially In Certain Categories The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Moreover, many consumers in advanced economies bought goods such as clothing, medicine, and books online for the first time, and used services such as online grocery delivery, and apps to order food from restaurants (Chart 8). Note, however, that few consumers bought financial services, magazines, music, and videos online for the first time. Presumably these are products that the vast majority of households had already been consuming online. Chart 8Consumers Shifted Purchases Of Many Items Online The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? It is hard to know how sticky these trends will be. Once shops permanently reopen without restrictions, will consumers simply return to their old habits of going to supermarkets, restaurants, and clothing stores? Perhaps many enjoy the experience of browsing. It seems likely, however, that the newly acquired habit of shopping online will at least accelerate the trend towards e-commerce. Many of those who ordered, for example, supermarket deliveries online for the first time will continue to do so at least occasionally in the future. Other changes are likely too: Many smaller retailers were forced to close their physical stores during the pandemic and so had no choice but to set up an online delivery service. Some struggled with this, but others were aided by companies such as Shopify, which simplify the process of setting up a website, processing payments, and arranging delivery. Shopify now works with over a million merchants. These smaller retailers are now better able to compete with giants such as Amazon. During the lockdown, US consumers notably diversified their online product searches away from Amazon and Google to smaller retailers (Chart 9). Chart 9Search Diversified Away From Amazon And Google The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? We might see a trend towards smaller-scale, local shops benefiting as consumers stick to shopping in smaller stores closer to their homes. Many stores during the pandemic refused to accept cash; this might accelerate the shift towards contactless payments. Consumers may be less focused in future on conspicuous consumption. The trend towards wellness, home-cooking, gardening, crafts, and self-investment might continue. Other Uses Of Technology It is not only work and shopping habits that changed during lockdowns. Individuals also got used to a range of technologies for socializing, entertainment, education, and medical consultation. Consumer surveys by the Pew Research Center show that a third of American adults have socialized online using services such as Zoom, and a quarter have used online systems for work or conferences (Chart 10). But these percentages are much higher for certain demographics. For example, 48% of 18-to-29 year-olds have socialized online, and 30% of this age group have taken online fitness classes. The percentage using video systems for work is as high as 48% for people with a college degree. And, unsurprisingly, with many university courses moving online since the spring, 38% of 18-to-29 year-olds say they have taken an online class. Chart 10Individuals Have Been Socializing And Communicating More Online The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? How sticky these trends will be once the pandemic is over is not easy to forecast. But further research by Pew showed that 27% of US adults believed that online and telephone contacts are “just as good as in-person contact,” and only 8% thought of them as not much help at all, although a rather larger 64% answered that online socializing is “useful but will not be a replacement for in-person contact.” The responses differed little between gender, race, and political views, although fewer people under the age of 30 thought online contacts were as good as in-person ones (Table 3). Table 3How Do Online Interactions Compare To In-Person Ones? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Another survey in Japan by Ipsos suggests that people’s values have changed as a result of the pandemic and quarantines, with a greater focus on wellbeing, home-based activities such as cooking, and self-improvement. When questioned, a large percentage of people believe they will persist with these habits even when lockdowns end. For example, 51% of Japanese respondents believe they will continue to enjoy themselves as much as possible at home in their spare time, compared to only 20% who favored entertainment at home before the pandemic (Chart 11).  Chart 11Pandemic Brought A Greater Focus On Wellbeing And Home-Based Activities The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Other areas that have moved online en masse include education, health care, the judiciary, concerts, and sports (e-sports, and popular sports such as soccer and baseball that are now being played in empty venues). Education at the tertiary level in advanced economies was already partly online before the pandemic. In the US, out of 19.7 million tertiary students in 2017, 2.2 million (13.3%) were enrolled in exclusively online/distance learning courses, and another 3.2 million (19.5%) took at least one course online.8 Of course, everything changed during the pandemic, with 98% of US institutions moving the majority of in-person courses online, and many planning to continue this through the Fall 2020 semester. At the elementary and secondary school level, online education was much more limited pre-pandemic. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 21% of US schools offered some courses entirely online in 2016 but, of this 21%, only 6% offered all their courses online and only another 6% the majority of courses. Many of these schools were forced to shift entirely online during lockdowns: According to UNESCO data, at the peak of the pandemic 1.6 billion children (90% of the total in school) in 191 countries attended schools that had closed physically. It seems likely that, while in-person teaching will remain the central method of education, distance and online learning solutions, even at the high school level, will become more prevalent in the future. The health care sector has lagged in technology, in terms of using AI for diagnosis, digitalizing patient records, and offering online doctor-patient consultation. But the use of digital tools had started to increase in recent years, particularly in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 12). At the peak of the pandemic in April, the number of telehealth visits in the US rose by 14% year-on-year, compared to a 69% decline in in-person visits to a doctor.9 It seems likely that this trend will continue, as medical practitioners find viritual consultations more efficient and effective for many simple initial diagnoses, and as sick or elderly patients prefer to avoid a physical visit to a surgery.10 Chart 12The Transition To A Digital-Driven Health Care Model The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Travel Travelers have been very reluctant to get back on airplanes and stay in hotels again, even in countries and regions where the pandemic has eased over the past couple of months (Chart 13). Based on our assumption that the pandemic will be completely over within 18 months, it seems likely that people will eventually resume travelling, at least for leisure and to see family and friends. After previous disruptions to global travel, such as 9/11 and SARS, it took only two-to-three years for air travel to resumed its pre-crisis trend (Chart 14). Chart 13Travelers Remained Reluctant Even When Pandemic Eased The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 14 Business travel might be very different, however. Salespeople who have become used to making sales calls over Zoom may not feel the need to travel to see clients so much. Conferences, exhibitions, and other events will be increasingly (at least partly) online. Travel budgets are a large expense for many companies. According to estimates by Certify, a travel software provider, spending on business trips in 2019 totalled $1.5 trillion (including $315 billion by US businesses). The availability of a technological alternative to at least some business trips will provide a good excuse for many companies to meaningfully reduce the number of trips and their travel budget. In the future, business travel may become more of a privilege than a necessity. It is easy to imagine a significant decline in overall business travel. Manufacturing Supply Chains Corporate behavior could also change as a result of the disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Companies in the US and Europe realized how vulnerable their complex supply chains are. Popular and political pressure is pushing firms to reshore at least some of their overseas production. Firms will need to build in more “operational resilience,” with higher levels of inventory, less debt, and greater redundancy in their systems. Developed economies such as the US have been deindustrializing for 40 years – since reforms in China in the late 1970s, followed by Mexico and central Europe in the 1990s,  made these countries appealing locations for cheap manufacturing. US manufacturing employment has almost halved since 1980, falling to only 27% of the workforce (Chart 15). Manufacturing output, especially outside of the computer sector, has substantially lagged that of the overall private sector (Chart 16). The US has also fallen behind in automation, with a much lower number of robots per manufacturing worker than in countries such as Germany and Japan (Chart 17). Chart 15US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980 US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980 US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980   Chart 16Manufacturing Output Outside The Computer Sector Has Lagged The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 17The US Has Relatively Few Robots The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The pandemic highlighted how vulnerable widely distributed supply chains are. This was clearest in the health care sector. The US is far away the biggest spender on health care research and development (Chart 18). And yet it was unable to provide critical medical equipment such as face masks, testing kits, and ventilators to its population at an adequate rate, mainly because almost 70% of the facilities which manufacture essential medicines are based abroad (Chart 19). During the pandemic, countries such as China and India prioritized their own citizens, forcing the US government to strike emergency deals to avoid drug shortages. Chart 18The US Spends A Lot On R&D In Health Care… The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 19…But Drug Production Is Mostly Done Overseas The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Once the crisis subsides, CEOs of American companies (as well as the US government) will have to decide if they are comfortable with the fact that, while they possess a vast store of intellectual capital, the manufacturing of their products happens halfway around the world. What happens if there is another pandemic? What about a global disaster caused by climate change? Finally, and perhaps more worryingly, what happens if tensions between the US and China escalate seriously? This shift will not happen overnight: China still has much cheaper labor, an enormous manufacturing base of factories and parts suppliers, and formidable transportation infrastructure. Many aspects of supply chains are too deep-rooted and the economics too compelling for them to be unwound quickly. Some production will shift from China to other emerging economies. A Biden administration might be less confrontational with China, and could lower some of the Trump tariffs. But, at the margin, companies will choose to build new factories in the US (and in western Europe and Japan), with highly automated systems. Government policy (via both subsidies and tariffs) will encourage these trends. Manufacturers which have lived “on the edge” in recent years, with dispersed supply chains, just-in-time processes, minimal inventories, the fewest possible workers, and the maximum amount of debt compatible with their targeted credit rating (often BBB) now understand the need to build redundancy into their systems. Corporate debt levels are high by historical standards in many countries (Chart 20). Companies may want to build up a buffer of net cash in the future, as Japanese companies did for decades after the bubble there burst in 1990. Inventories have risen a little relative to sales since the Global Financial Crisis but will probably rise further (Chart 21). These trends are likely to be negative for profit margins. Chart 20In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... Chart 21...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? ...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? ...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? Implications For Industries In light of the social changes described above, how will various industries be reshaped over the coming years? Which sectors should investors tilt towards because they are likely to emerge as winners from post-COVID structural shifts? And which are the sectors that investors should avoid since they will suffer from the creative destruction? In the midst of major social and technological change, it is often easier to spot losers than winners. Think of the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. How many investors would have correctly picked Google, Amazon, Apple, and only a handful of others as the winners? It would have been easier to correctly identify industries that were likely to lose out to disruption, such as book retailers, travel agents, newspaper publishers, and TV broadcasters. We start, therefore, with the industries likely to lose out from post-COVID changes. The Losers Real Estate Over the next few years, prime real estate seems the most likely loser. It is not clear how many white-collar workers will choose to work from home in the future, or how many days a month they will want to come into an office to meet with fellow workers. But it seems likely there will be a strong continued trend in the direction of remote working. As a result, demand for prime central-business-district property will fall, given that it is very expensive. In Manhattan, for example, the average workspace for each of the 1.5 million office workers is around 310 square feet. At pre-COVID rental costs, that amounts to an average of $20,000 per employee – and more than $30,000 for A+ grade buildings. And rent is only part of what a company pays: There are also costs for cleaning, utilities, technology, security, coffee machines, and cafeterias on top of that. Employees working at home pay for their own space, utilities, food (and often even computer equipment). The size, location, and layout of offices will need to be rethought. Maybe companies will choose to build a campus in the suburbs, with a range of different working spaces (for meetings, quiet work, or collaboration). They may prefer to rent shared co-working spaces by the day or week. Some real estate developers and builders would be beneficiaries of this. Companies would save money in real estate costs. But they may need to pay a stipend to employees who work at home to cover the extra space they will require, and to upgrade their technology (computer equipment, internet speed, and so on). On the other hand, companies may pay lower salaries for workers who move out of high-cost locations such as Manhattan or London to places where it is cheaper to live. Many office spaces are leased on a long-term basis, so some companies will not be able to move out of big cities immediately. But residential property is more liquid. The trends in work practices might accelerate a shift to the suburbs which has already been emerging over the past few years (Chart 22). Workers will not need to live so close to the company’s office if they will visit it for only a few days a month. Small towns with a lively community and pleasant environment (and decent transportation links to a big city) could grow in popularity. This would be bad news for developers which are specialized in developing residential property in cities such as London, Sydney, Toronto, and Vancouver, and for the owners of those properties. But it might be positive for builders who will develop the new houses and out-of-town office campuses. Chart 22The Shift To The Suburbs Was Already Taking Place The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? This does not mean that cities will wither away. After previous epidemics and crises in history (think the Great Plague of London in the 17th century, or 9/11), they have always bounced back. “Casual collisions” – chance meetings with interesting people which lead to collaborative relationships – are crucial in creative industries, and happen online only with difficulty. Buildings will be repurposed: Retail space will be turned into warehouses or apartments, for example. A fall in rents would allow cities to “degentrify” and attract back young people, making the city more dynamic again. But the period of transition could be painful for some segments of the real estate industry. Travel A permanent decline in business travel would be a significant blow to airlines and hotel chains. Business travelers account for only about 12% of the number of air tickets purchased, but they generate 70%-75% of airlines’ profits. Even discount leisure airlines such as Southwest have in recent years started to target business travelers. And it will not just be airlines that are affected. Data from the US Travel Association show that 26% of the $2.5 trillion in travel-related revenues in the US in 2018 came from business travelers. Of that, 17% goes to air travel, 13% to accommodation, and 5% to car rental. An even larger portion goes to food (21%). Around 40% of hotel rooms are occupied by business travelers. Conference organizers and venues could also suffer: 62% of US business trips are to attend conferences. “Sharing economy” companies would be affected too. In 2018, 700,000 business travelers booked accommodation through AirBnB, and 78% of business travelers use Uber and other ride-sharing services. Furthermore, a slowdown in business travel would have knock-on effects on the leisure travel sector. Surveys suggest that almost 40% of business trips in the US are extended to include leisure activities (“bleisure” in the travel industry parlance). The Winners Health Care A recent report by BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service argued in detail that the macro environment for global health care equities will remain very positive in the coming years.11 An aging population in the world, and a growing middle class in emerging countries will steadily raise demand for health care services (Charts 23 and 24). China, in particular, has underinvested in health care: It spends only 5% of GDP, barely higher than it did 20 years ago, and well behind other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa (Chart 25). Chart 23Positives For Health Care Include An Aging Population… Positives For Health Care Include An Ageing Population... Positives For Health Care Include An Ageing Population... Chart 24…And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class ...And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class ...And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments everywhere will need to spend more money on health care (or, in the case of the US, perhaps spend it more effectively). In the US, before the pandemic, intensive-care beds were sufficient to cope only with the peak of a normal seasonal influenza breakout. The World Health Organization warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks of infectious diseases are becoming more common (Chart 26). More money will need to be spent, in particular, on developing health care technology (online consultations, digitalized patient records, track-and-trace systems), on improving senior care homes (80% of COVID-19 deaths in the Canadian province of Quebec were in such facilities), and on biotech (such as gene-related therapies). Chart 25Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Chart 26Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not?   The health care equity sector is not expensive, trading in line with its long-run average valuation (Chart 27). Within the sector, biotech and health care technology look more attractive than pharmaceuticals, which are expensive and vulnerable to the price caps proposed by Joe Biden if he is elected US president this November. Chart 27Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Technology In a plethora of ways, the pandemic has propelled the use of technology: For working at home, communication, online shopping, entertainment, etc. Companies such as Zoom have moved from niche players to mainstream business providers: Zoom’s peak daily users rose from 10 million in December 2019 to 300 million in April. Chart 28Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Assuming that at least some of these developments remain in place once the pandemic is over, it is easy to see how technology stocks (broadly defined to include any company that uses information technology as a central part of its business) will continue to prosper. These stocks will not be just in the IT sector, but also in communications and consumer discretionary. Picking the individual winners will be hard: Will Microsoft overtake Amazon in cloud computing? Will Zoom’s much-discussed privacy issues undermine it? Will competitors emerge to Shopify in merchant services? Can Spotify compete with Apple in online music streaming? But the broadly-defined sector seems likely to have improving fundamentals for some years to come. The only question is whether the good news is already priced in, after the huge run-up in stock prices over the past few years. We do not believe it is fully. The valuations of these sectors are still nowhere close to the level they reached at the peak of the TMT Bubble in 1999-2000 (Chart 28), they have strong balance-sheets, and considerable earnings power. For their outperformance to end, it will take one of two things. The first trigger could be a significant shift down in growth. Over the past three years, Amazon has grown EPS at a compound rate of 47%, and Netflix at 76% (Chart 29). Over the next three years (2020-2023), analysts forecast compound EPS growth of 32% for Netflix, 30% for Amazon, 15% for Facebook (compared to 24% in 2016-2019), and 12% for Microsoft (compared to 16%). Those are still impressive growth numbers, and should be achievable as long as these companies can continue to grow market share. Chart 29Can The Big Tech Stocks Keep Growing Earnings At This Rate? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The second set of risks would be regulatory: A move to break up companies such as Google and Amazon, the US introducing data privacy legislation similar to that in the European Union, or a move to a digital tax or minimum global taxation. None of these seems likely in the immediate future. Automation/Robotics/Capital Goods The return, at the margin, of some manufacturing to the United States (and other developed economies) will bring about economic changes. Unable to tap into the pool of cheap international labor as easily as before, companies will have to invest significantly in this sector. This will result in the following: A resurgence of manufacturing productivity, thanks to increased investment. An intensification of automation. The US will need to boost the number of robots per capita to compete with Korea, Germany, and Japan. This will further improve productivity. The development of a high-tech manufacturing sector. Analogous to the FAANG stocks during the 2010s, a new group of innovative manufacturing companies could emerge. New infrastructure, roads, factories, and machinery will be needed to replace what is now an outdated capital stock in the US (Chart 30). These trends should all be positive for the capital-goods sector. Such a project would also need large amounts of raw materials. This might push up the prices of commodities such as industrial metals, and benefit materials producers. As mentioned above, it could boost the price of real estate outside of the major cities, where the new manufacturers would be likely to set up. Chart 30The US Capital Stock Is Becoming Outdated The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Mixed Retailing / Consumer Goods Retailing is likely to see a significant shakeout over the next few years. The cracks have been apparent for some years: Decreasing footfall, and empty units on many high streets and shopping malls, amid the shift to online shopping. A shift to the suburbs and further growth in online shopping will change retailing further. Rents in the highest end Manhattan shopping districts have already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, especially Lower Fifth Avenue (between 42nd and 49th Streets) which is dominated by large chain stores (Chart 31). Shopping malls, particularly undistinguished ones in poorer areas, will continue to suffer. Overall, the US in particular has an excess of retailing space, almost five times as much per capita as the major European economies (Chart 32). Chart 31Manhattan Retail Store Rents Already Falling Sharply The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? Chart 32The US Has Far Too Much Retail Space The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not? But it is hard to predict the winners from this shake-out. Overall spending by consumers is unlikely to be significantly affected, so it is a matter of forecasting which companies and formats will emerge victorious. Will Walmart and Target and other large retail chains improve their online offering to fight back against Amazon? Facebook, Shopify, and others have set up new services to compete with Amazon on price – will they be successful? Will small stores start to win back market share? Will supermarkets figure out how to make profits from their order-online-and-deliver services (which are now very costly because most often a human has to run around the store picking out the items ordered), or will new, fully automated competitors emerge? Will new technologies materialize to make it easier to buy clothes online (for example, digitized body measuring systems)? These changes will also affect producers of consumer products. They will have to understand the new channels, and adapt their offerings and positioning strategies accordingly. These changes will make the sector a tricky one. A skilled fund manager might be able to predict which companies’ strategies will be successful. But it could be a problematic area for investors owning individual stocks within the sector who do not have detailed expertise. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beyond The Virus," dated May 22, 2020 and Geopolitical Strategy, "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," dated June 26, 2020. 2 Peter E. Drucker, "The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition," 1993, p.340. 3 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020. 4 OWL Labs, “The State of Remote Work Report,” available at www.owllabs.com. 5 Pew Research Center survey conducted March 19-24 2020. Please see https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/03/30/most-americans-say-coronavirus-outbreak-has-impacted-their-lives/psdt_03-30-20_covid-impact-00-4/ 6 Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A., “The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown about Telecommuting”,  Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6), 2007. 7 Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015), 165-218. 8 Please see educationdata.org. 9 Ateev Mehrotra, Michael Chernew, David Linetsky, Hilary Hatch, and David Cutler, "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, dated May 19, 2020.  10For more on the long-term outlook for the health care sector, Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight," dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight,"dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The Chinese economy continues to recover, albeit less quickly than the first two months following a re-opening of the economy. The demand side of the Chinese economic recovery in May marginally outpaced the supply side, with a notable improvement concentrated in the construction sector. We are initiating two new trades: long material sector stocks versus the broad indices, in both onshore and offshore equity markets. Feature The recovery in China’s economy and asset prices has entered a “tapering phase”, in which the speed of the recovery is normalizing from a rapid rebound two months after the economy re-opened. The direction of the ultra-accommodative monetary and fiscal stance has not changed, but the aggressiveness in the stimulus impulse is abating as the recovery continues. As we highlighted in last week’s report, the announced stimulus at this year's NPC was less than meets the eye of investors.1 Chart 1A Quick Reversal In The Outperformance Of Chinese Stocks A Quick Reversal In The Outperformance Of Chinese Stocks A Quick Reversal In The Outperformance Of Chinese Stocks Near-term downside risks in Chinese stocks were highlighted by last week’s quick reversal in the outperformance of Chinese equities relative to global benchmarks (Chart 1). As the US and European economies re-open and the stimulus impulse in major developed markets (DMs) is at peak intensity, Chinese stocks will underperform those in DMs, particularly US stocks. The re-escalation in Sino-US tensions will also add to the near-term volatility in Chinese equities. Therefore, we maintain our tactical (0-3 months) neutral view on aggregate Chinese equity indexes, in both domestic and offshore markets. Beyond Q2, however, our baseline view still supports an outperformance in Chinese stocks. The stepped-up stimulus measures since March should start to trickle down into the broader economy. Global business activities and demand will slowly normalize in the summer, helping to revive China’s exports. Moreover, an intensified pressure on employment, indicated in this month’s employment subcomponents in manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs, should prompt policymakers to roll out more growth-supporting measures in Q3. Tables 1 and 2 below highlight key developments in China’s economic and financial market performance in the past month. Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Chart 2ASpeed Of Manufacturing Activity Recovery Has Moderated Speed Of Manufacturing Activity Recovery Has Moderated Speed Of Manufacturing Activity Recovery Has Moderated China’s official manufacturing PMI slipped to 50.6 in May from 50.8 a month earlier (Chart 2A). While the reading suggests that manufacturing activities are still in an expansionary mode, the speed of the expansion has moderated compared with April and March. The supply side of manufacturing activities and employment were the biggest drags on May’s official PMI. The production subcomponent in the PMI decelerated whereas new orders increased from April (Chart 2A, bottom panel). The net result is an improved supply-demand balance in the manufacturing sector, however, the improvement is marginal. It also differs from the V-shaped recovery in 2008/09, when both new orders and production subcomponents grew simultaneously (Chart 2B). The demand side of the economy is still concentrated in the policy-driven construction sector. The rebound in construction PMI continues to significantly outpace that in manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs (Chart 2C, top panel). The construction employment sub-index ticked up by 1.7 percentage points in May, compared with a slowdown of 0.8 percentage points in manufacturing and 0.1 percentage points in non-manufacturing employment PMIs (Chart 2C, bottom panel). Chart 2BDemand Struggles To Outpace Supply Demand Struggles To Outpace Supply Demand Struggles To Outpace Supply Chart 2CDemand Recovery Is Concentrated In Construction Demand Recovery Is Concentrated In Construction Demand Recovery Is Concentrated In Construction While a buoyant construction sector should provide a strong tailwind to raw material prices and related machinery sales, a laggard recovery from other sectors means the upside potential in aggregate producer prices (PPI) will be limited in the current quarter. In May, there was a rebound in the PMI sub-indices measuring raw material purchase prices and ex-factory prices, which heralds easing in the contraction of PPI in Q2 (Chart 3). However, neither of the PMI price sub-indices has returned to levels reached in January, when PPI growth was last positive. Moreover, weaker readings in the purchases and raw material inventory subcomponents suggest that manufacturers may be reluctant to restock due to sluggish global trade and a lagging rebound in domestic demand (Chart 3, bottom panel).  This month’s PMI shows that the employment subcomponents in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs are contracting (Chart 4). Because demand for Chinese export goods remains sluggish, we expect unemployment in China’s labor-intensive export manufacturing sector to rise in Q2 and even into Q3. The intensified pressure on employment will likely prompt Chinese policymakers to roll out more demand-supporting measures. Chart 3PPI Contraction Will Ease But Upside Limited In Q2/Q3 PPI Contraction Will Ease But Upside Limited In Q2/Q3 PPI Contraction Will Ease But Upside Limited In Q2/Q3 Chart 4Employment In Trouble, A Catalyst For More Easing Employment In Trouble, A Catalyst For More Easing Employment In Trouble, A Catalyst For More Easing The BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator rose moderately in April. A plunge in the Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) limited the magnitude of the indicator's increase, offsetting an uptick in money supply and credit growth (Chart 5). A rapid disinflation in headline consumer prices (CPI) since the beginning of this year has pushed up the real savings deposit rate, which contributed to the MCI’s nose-dive. In our view, the MCI’s sharp drop is idiosyncratic and does not signify a tightening in the PBoC’s monetary stance or overall monetary conditions. Huge fluctuations in food prices have been driving the headline CPI since March 2019, while the core CPI remains stable. While food prices historically have very little correlation with the PBoC's monetary policy actions, a disinflationary environment will provide the central bank more room for easing. Odds are high that the PBoC will cut the savings deposit rate for the first time since 2015.  Chart 5Monetary Conditions Are Not As Tight As The Indicator Suggests Monetary Conditions Are Not As Tight As The Indicator Suggests Monetary Conditions Are Not As Tight As The Indicator Suggests The yield curve in Chinese government bonds quickly flattened around the time of the National People’s Congress (NPC), with the short end of the curve rising faster than the long end (Chart 6). This is in keeping with our assessment that while the market is expecting the recovery to continue in China, it is unimpressed with the intensity of upcoming stimulus and monetary easing. Monetary easing seems to be taking a pause, but we do not think this indicates a change in the PBoC’s policy stance (Chart 7). Instead, weak global demand, slow recovery in the domestic economy and intensified pressure on domestic employment, all will incentivize policymakers to up their game by mid-year. As such, we expect the yield curve to steepen again in H2, with the short-end of the curve fluctuating at a low level and the 10-year government bond yield picking up when the economy gains traction. Chart 6The Bond Market May Be Incorrectly Pricing In A Monetary Tightening The Bond Market May Be Incorrectly Pricing In A Monetary Tightening The Bond Market May Be Incorrectly Pricing In A Monetary Tightening Chart 7A Pause Before More Easing In June A Pause Before More Easing In June A Pause Before More Easing In June The spread in Chinese corporate bond yields has dropped by more than 30bps from its peak in April. This is in line with that of major DM countries and a reflection of the easier liquidity conditions globally (Chart 8). We anticipate that the yield spreads in Chinese corporate bonds will continue to normalize. However, a flare in US-China tensions will put upward pressure on the financing costs of lower-rated corporations (Chart 8, bottom panel). The default rate among Chinese corporate bonds is unlikely to rise meaningfully this year, in light of ultra-accommodative monetary conditions and the Chinese government’s bailout programs to backstop corporate defaults. Chinese corporate bond defaults and non-performing loans historically have correlated with periods of financial sector de-leveraging and de-risking, other than during economic downturns. We continue to recommend investors hold China’s corporate bonds in the coming 6-12 months in a USD-CNH hedged term. Chart 8Financing Costs May Rise For Lower-Rated Corporations Financing Costs May Rise For Lower-Rated Corporations Financing Costs May Rise For Lower-Rated Corporations Chart 9Cyclicals Are Struggling To Break Out Cyclicals Are Struggling To Break Out Cyclicals Are Struggling To Break Out Among Chinese equities, cyclical sectors have struggled to outperform defensives in both onshore and offshore markets (Chart 9). This reflects investors’ concerns over the slow recovery in domestic demand and heightened geopolitical risk between the US and China. As such, we continue to favor domestic, demand-driven sectors among the cyclical stocks, such as consumer discretionary and construction-related materials. We upgraded consumer discretionary stocks from neutral to overweight on May 20, and we are now initiating two trades to long material sector stocks versus the broad markets in both the domestic and investable markets. The constituents of both China’s investable and domestic material sectors are highly concentrated in the metal and mining subsectors, which roughly account for half of the material sectors’ weight in the MSCI and MSCI A Onshore Indexes, respectively. Chart 10 highlights that the material sectors’ relative performance is highly correlated with CRB raw materials in both domestic and investable markets. Given that China’s credit cycles historically lead the CRB material index by about six months, China’s massive credit stimulus will boost CRB raw materials by end-Q2 and thus, the outperformance of the material sectors.  The RMB has depreciated by almost 3% in the wake of a re-escalation in US-China frictions. The CNY/USD spot rate is approaching its weakest point reached in September 2019 (Chart 11). Furthermore, on May 29, the PBoC set the CNY/USD reference rate at its lowest level since 2008, a move that suggests defending the RMB is no longer in China’s interest. Downward pressure on the RMB will persist in the months leading up to the November US presidential election. The US economy is in a much more fragile state than in 2018/19, which may hinder President Trump’s willingness to resort to tariffs between now and November. However, we cannot completely roll out the probability that Trump will impose further tariffs on Chinese exports, if he is losing the election through weak public support and is removed from his financial and economic constraints.  In any case, in the coming months CNY/USD exchange rate will likely continue to decouple from the economic fundamentals such as interest rate differentials (Chart 11, bottom panel). Instead, the exchange rate will be largely driven by market sentiment surrounding the US-China frictions.  Volatility in CNY/USD will increase, but the overall trend in the CNY/USD will continue downwards as long as the escalation in US-China tensions persists. On a 6- to 12-month horizon, however, we expect that the depreciation trend in the RMB to moderately reverse as the Chinese economy continues to strengthen. Chart 10Material Sectors Should Benefit From The Stimulus And Construction Boom Material Sectors Should Benefit From The Stimulus And Construction Boom Material Sectors Should Benefit From The Stimulus And Construction Boom Chart 11The CNY/USD Will Continue To Decouple From Interest Rate Differentials The CNY/USD Will Continue To Decouple From Interest Rate Differentials The CNY/USD Will Continue To Decouple From Interest Rate Differentials Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taking The Pulse Of The People’s Congress," dated May 28, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights At the current rate of work resumption, March’s PMI should rebound to its “normal range” from February’s historic lows. If so, our simple calculation, using China’s PMI figures and GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template, suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2%. Chinese stocks passively outperformed global benchmarks in the last two weeks.  The likelihood of a stimulus overshoot in the next 6-12 months continues to rise, supporting our view that Chinese stocks will actively outperform global benchmark in the coming months. Cyclical stocks have significantly outperformed defensives lately. While this is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude of a tech stock rally in the domestic market of late appears to be somewhat excessive. As such, investors should focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary. The depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. Feature Despite the past week’s plunge in global equities due to the threat of a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese stocks have outperformed relative to global benchmarks. This underscores our view that epidemic risks within China are slowly abating, and China’s reflationary response to the crisis will likely overcompensate for the short-term economic shock. Tables 1 and 2 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets in the past month. On the growth front, both the February official and Caixin PMIs dropped to historic lows as a result of the virus outbreak and nationwide lockdown. On the other hand, economic data from January confirmed that pre-outbreak activity in China was on track to recovery. Daily data also suggests that production in China continues to resume. Moreover, monetary conditions have significantly loosened and fiscal supports have materially stepped up.  Chinese equities in both onshore and offshore markets dropped by 2% and 7% respectively (in absolute terms) from their January 13 peaks. Nevertheless, they have both significantly outperformed global equities, particularly in the past week. Equally-weighted cyclical stocks versus defensives in the onshore market have also moved up sharply, driven by a rally in the technology sector stocks. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese stocks, the magnitude appears to be excessive. Thus, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China to favor exposure in resources, industrials and consumer discretionary stocks. Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we have a number of observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Inventory And Production Shortages Are A Bigger Near-Term Concern Than Weaknesses In Demand Inventory And Production Shortages Are A Bigger Near-Term Concern Than Weaknesses In Demand Inventory And Production Shortages Are A Bigger Near-Term Concern Than Weaknesses In Demand February’s drop in the official PMI below 40% is reminiscent of November 2008, which was the height of the global financial crisis. The raw material inventory sub-index of the PMI in February fell to a record low, a clear indication of strain in China’s manufacturing sector. While the finished goods inventory sub-index ticked up slightly compared with January, factories will likely run out of existing raw materials to produce goods if transportation logistics do not return to normal soon (Chart 1). A higher number in the new orders sub-index relative to production output also suggests the pressure on the supply side will intensify if the virus outbreak in China worsens and continues to disrupt manufacturing activities. This will in turn undermine the effectiveness of Chinese policy response.   Daily data from various sources suggests Chinese industrial activities continue to pick up. Between February 10 (the first official return-to-work day after an extended Chinese New Year holiday) and February 25 (the cutoff date for responding to PMI surveys), daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants was only about 60% of consumption compared from the same period last year (adjusted for the Lunar Year calendar). This is in line with the 35.7 reading in February’s manufacturing PMI, versus 49.2 a year ago. In the last four days of February, however, coal consumption reached nearly 70% of last year’s consumption. This figure is in keeping with a 10 percentage point increase in the rate of work resumption of enterprises above-designated size in China’s coastal regions.1 If energy consumption and work resumption rates reach about 90% by the end of March compared with Q1 2019, then PMI in March should pick up to 45% or higher. A 45% or higher reading in March’s PMI will imply economic impact from the virus outbreak is mostly limited to February. A simple calculation using China’s GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2% in real terms. This is in line with the estimate from BCA's Global Investment Strategy service.2 As we pointed out in November last year,3 China is frontloading additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 2020 to secure the economic recovery, which started to bud prior to the virus outbreak. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection. The monthly flow in total social financing in January (with only three work weeks effectively) reached above RMB 5 trillion. This figure exceeded that in January 2019, the highest monthly credit number last year. Local government bond issuance in January was almost double that a year ago, and a total of 1.2 trillion local government bonds were issued in the first two months of this year - a 53% jump from the same period last year. This suggests that fiscal stimulus has indeed stepped up in 2020. Money supply in January was slightly distorted by the earlier Chinese New Year (it fell in January this year instead of February as in most years) and the COVID-19 outbreak.  M1 registered zero growth from a year ago, whereas it grew by 0.4% in January 2019.4 Normally, during the month of the Chinese New Year, households have more cash in deposits whereas corporations have less as they pay pre-holiday bonuses to employees. This seasonality factor causes the growth rate in M0 to rise and M1 growth to fall. The seasonality was exacerbated by the nationwide lockdown on January 20 this year, as many real estate developers reportedly suffered from a significant reduction in home sales and delays in deposits for down payments. Household consumption in the service sector during the Chinese New Year was also severely suppressed. This explains near-zero growth in M1 and a larger-than-expected increase in household deposits in January (Chart 2). We expect the growth in both M0 and M1 to start normalizing in March, as production and household consumption continue to resume. While we do not expect large fluctuations in housing prices, we think growth in home sales may accelerate from Q2 2020. There are early signs that the government is starting to relax restrictions on the real estate sector, on a region by region basis. Land sales remain a major source of local governments’ income, accounting for more than half of total revenues as of last year. Chart 3 shows that as government expenditures lead land sales, a major increase in fiscal stimulus and local government spending means that a significant bump in land sales will be needed in 2020. A strengthening supply of land, coupled with the unlikelihood of large fluctuations in property prices, suggests that there will be more policy supports to the real estate sector and more incentives to boost housing demand. Chart 2Corporates Are Short On Cash Corporates Are Short On Cash Corporates Are Short On Cash Chart 3Land And Home Sales Likely To Pick Up In 2020 Land And Home Sales Likely To Pick Up In 2020 Land And Home Sales Likely To Pick Up In 2020 In the past two weeks, China’s equity market has registered a near-vertical outperformance in both investable and domestic stocks relative to global benchmarks (Chart 4). While this recent outperformance was passive in nature, our policy assessment supports future active outperformance. The recently announced pro-growth policy initiatives increasingly resemble those rolled out at the start of the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. These policy initiatives increase the odds that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” will overcompensate for the short-term economic shock, and will likely lead to a significant rebound in corporate profits in the next 6-12 months.  This supports our bullish view on Chinese stocks. Chart 5 also shows that, unlike during the 2015’s “bubble and bust” cycle, both the valuation and margin trading as a percentage of total market cap in China’s onshore market remain materially lower than 2015. Equally-weighted cyclical sectors continue to outperform defensives in both China’s investable and domestic markets, particularly the latter where stock prices in the technology sector were up 12% within the past month. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks relative to defensives is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude appears to be somewhat excessive. Given this, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China’s economy to focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary stocks. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Strongly Outperformed Global Benchmarks Over The Past Two Weeks Chinese Stocks Strongly Outperformed Global Benchmarks Over The Past Two Weeks Chinese Stocks Strongly Outperformed Global Benchmarks Over The Past Two Weeks Chart 5Onshore Market Trading Does Not Seem Overly Leveraged Onshore Market Trading Does Not Seem Overly Leveraged Onshore Market Trading Does Not Seem Overly Leveraged China’s three-month repo rate (the de facto policy rate) has fallen significantly in the past month, roughly 30bps below its lowest level in 2016 (Chart 6). China’s government bond yields have also reached their lowest level since 2016. While corporate bond yield spreads in other major economies have picked up sharply in the past month, the reverse is happening in China. This suggests that the market is pricing in further easing and the notion that policy supports will be effective in preventing a surge in corporate bond default rate. From a global perspective, yield spreads on China’s onshore corporate bonds have been elevated since 2016. This indicates that investors have long either priced in a much higher default rate among Chinese corporate bond issuers, or demand an unjustifiably large risk premium (Chart 7). Since we expect Chinese policymakers to continue easing, risks of a surge in China’s corporate bond default rate remain low this year. As such, until we see signs that the Chinese authorities are reverting to a financial de-risking mode, we will continue to favor onshore corporate versus duration-matched government bonds. Chart 6Monetary Policy Now More Accommodative Than 2015-2016 Monetary Policy Now More Accommodative Than 2015-2016 Monetary Policy Now More Accommodative Than 2015-2016 Chart 7Chinese Corporates Pay High Risk Premium For Their Bonds, Even At A Relatively Low Default Rate Chinese Corporates Pay High Risk Premium For Their Bonds, Even At A Relatively Low Default Rate Chinese Corporates Pay High Risk Premium For Their Bonds, Even At A Relatively Low Default Rate Chart 8The RMB Likely To Continue Outperforming Other EM Currencies The RMB Likely To Continue Outperforming Other EM Currencies The RMB Likely To Continue Outperforming Other EM Currencies As we go to press, the Federal Reserve Bank has just made a 50bps cut to the Fed rate, the first emergency cut since the global financial crisis. The USD weakened against the Euro, the Japanese Yen, as well as the RMB immediately following the rate cut. While this reflects the market’s concerns of a worsening virus outbreak and the rising possibility of an economic slowdown in the US, the USD as a countercyclical currency will likely appreciate against most cyclical currencies as the virus continues spreading globally. Hence, the depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. The continuation of resuming production in China and the expectations of a Chinese economic recovery in Q2 will support an appreciation in the RMB against other EM currencies (Chart 8).   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    http://app.21jingji.com/html/2020yiqing_fgfc/ 2   Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4   M1 is mainly made up by cash demand deposits from corporations, whereas M0 is mainly deposits from households Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights In the past week, it is becoming evident that the Chinese leadership is willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda in exchange for a rapid economic recovery. Monetary conditions are already more accommodative than during the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. The recently announced policy initiatives on infrastructure, housing, and automobile sectors also resemble policy supports that led to a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016. As manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and their production capacity continues to rise, the outbreak-induced economic shock may be smaller than investors currently fear. Hence, the odds are rising that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” may end up overshooting the short-term economic shock. As such, we maintain a constructive view on Chinese stocks over the next 6-12 months. Feature A surge in the number of COVID-19 infections outside of China (including South Korea, Japan, Iran, and Italy) risks delaying a global economic recovery, and has cast doubt on the outlook for the global economy beyond Q1 (Chart 1). Chart 1Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Despite the sharp uptick in global investor concern, our constructive view on Chinese stocks remains unchanged for the next 6-12 months. Our view on Chinese risk assets is based on a simple arithmetic framework that we described last year when the trade war tensions between the US and China were escalating. In short, when gauging the net impact of an economic shock, investors should determine which of the following two scenarios is most likely: Scenario 1 (Bearish): Stimulus – Shock ≤ 0 Scenario 2 (Bullish): Stimulus – Shock > 0 While this framework is quite simplistic, the point is to underscore that economic shocks are almost always met with a policy response, and the goal is to determine whether this response is sufficient enough to offset the impact of the shock. If the Chinese leadership underestimates the severity of the shock and undershoots on the stimulus, this would be bearish for Chinese stocks (Scenario 1). In the current situation, however, even if the near-term economic outlook is deeply negative, investors should maintain a bullish cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) outlook for China-related assets as long as the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand (Scenario 2). Major Stimulus Around The Corner? It is becoming evident that the Chinese policymakers, when dealing with an unprecedented public health crisis, are returning to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. In fact, the odds are rising that the magnitude of the upcoming stimulus may resemble that of 2015/2016, and has an increasing possibility to overshoot in the next 6-12 months. In the past week, there has been a clear shift of policy focus from “financial de-risking” to “mitigating the economic damage from shocks at all costs”, as indicated by high-profile policy announcements. In an unprecedented large-scale teleconference on February 23,1 President Xi stated that China will not lower its economic growth target for this year, and that fiscal policy will be “more proactive” while monetary policy was upgraded from “prudent” to “flexible and moderate". Chart 2PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus Xi also pledged to “introduce new policy measures in a timely manner”. China’s central bank, the PBoC, issued a statement signaling further cuts ahead in the bank reserve requirement ratio rate and interest rate.2 The PBoC has already aggressively eased monetary conditions in the past two weeks, and both the central bank policy and average lending rates are now lower than they were during the last massive easing cycle in 2015/2016 (Chart 2).  Other policy initiatives also suggest the Chinese authorities are stepping up coordinated efforts to boost the economy, beyond short-term and targeted financial support. The stimulative measures now span from infrastructure to housing and automobile sectors, the exact “three prongs” that supported a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016.3 This is in sharp contrast with last year, when Chinese policymakers largely resisted resorting to large-scale stimulus, despite immense pressure from the US-China trade war and tariff impositions.4 The ongoing COVID-19 epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. The ongoing epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. As we predicted in November last year,5 China was to frontload additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 this year to secure an economic recovery, which started to bud in Q4 last year. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection: local government bond issuance picked up significantly from last year while the contraction in shadow bank lending continued to ease, signaling a less restrictive policy bias on both the monetary and fiscal fronts (Chart 3).  Chart 3Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow The exact economic and monetary expansion growth targets will be officially set at the National People’s Congress meeting, which has been postponed from its usual schedule on March 5. Compared with the 6.1% real GDP growth achieved in 2019, we now think a growth target of 5.6% would be conservative for this year. According to an estimate by BCA’s Global Investment Strategy,6 China’s real GDP growth in Q1 could slow to 3.5% on a year-over-year basis. To achieve 5.6% growth, China would need at least 6.3% average real growth (year-over-year) for the next three quarters, 0.3 percentage points higher than in the second half of 2019. The growth in credit expansion, infrastructure spending and government expenditures will need to significantly outpace last year in the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The government appears to be willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda to secure economic recovery. There is an increasing possibility that the stimulus may overshoot the economic shock this year. China’s Economic Engine Warms Up There are increasing signs that the scale of the upcoming stimulus may match that of the 2015/2016 cycle. The likely magnitude of the shock, on the other hand, might be smaller than investors fear as the evidence is mounting that production is returning to normality in China. Despite a lack of employees and raw materials, industrial activity in regions outside of Hubei is resuming. Chart 4…Small Companies Are Not Far Behind China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? A survey of China’s 500 top manufacturers by China Enterprise Confederation7 indicated that most of the 342 respondents had resumed production as of February 20. They also reported that more than half of their employees had returned to work and the average capacity utilization rate had reached nearly 60% (Table 1). Furthermore, the China Association of Small and Medium Enterprises8 survey of 6,422 small businesses showed that as of February 14, more than half of the companies have resumed operations (Chart 4). By February 21, the daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants has reached 62% of the consumption from the same period last year (adjusted for Lunar Year calendar), 14 percentage points higher than February 10 - the first day officially scheduled for people to return to work.9 Table 1Large Manufacturers Have Reached More Than Half Of Their Production Capacity… China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? The resurgence in the number of new infections has not slowed those regions down from reopening businesses, particularly along the manufacturing belt in China’s coastal regions (Chart 5). China’s leadership has repeatedly urged local governments to relax aggressive containment measures to allow production to resume. Unless the number of new cases in China picks up again, we expect business operations in regions outside of Hubei to continue re-opening in the coming weeks. Chart 580% Of China’s Coastal Regions Are Back To Work China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. Bottom Line: The aggressive containment measures seem to be effective inside China. Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. We expect the rate to improve. This will mitigate the impact of the virus outbreak on the Chinese economy.  “Scenario 2” Implies An Upturn In The Corporate Earnings Cycle The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on China’s economy may be smaller than investors currently fear. The country is also in a better economic condition than in 2015/2016. If the Chinese leadership believes an “insurance stimulus” is warranted and allows credit growth in 2020 to reach near 28% of GDP, as in 2015-2016, then the stimulus will more than offset the outbreak-induced economic shock from Q1 and lead to a meaningful rise in this year’s corporate earnings (Chart 6): China’s households and corporates are actually more willing to spend now than in 2015-2016. We agree that China’s households and companies are both highly leveraged, and re-leveraging may further diminish their debt-servicing ability and willingness to invest or spend. Debt as a share of Chinese household disposable income has climbed by 33 percentage points compared with five years ago (Chart 7). The increase in debt load makes Chinese households particularly vulnerable to income reductions. But this supports our view that policymakers will make every reflationary effort to avoid massive layoffs. Additionally, the willingness to spend among Chinese households is not less than during the down cycle in 2015-2016 (Chart 7 bottom panel). Chart 6A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks Chart 7Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 The debt-to-GDP ratio and debt-servicing cost-to-income ratio in China’s non-financial private sector have trended sideways in the past five years (Chart 8). The corporate cash flow situation is only slightly worse than in 2015 (Chart 9). The virus outbreak and drastic containment measures will temporarily weaken the corporates’ cash positions, but this negative situation can be partially offset by tax, fee and interest relief measures.10 Chart 8Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chart 9...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse ...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse ...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse   Furthermore, China’s non-financial corporates’ marginal propensity to spend is actually higher than in 2015-2016 (Chart 10). This may be due to the more accommodative monetary backdrop than in 2015-2016. If Chinese authorities are to significantly step up their reflationary efforts, the easy monetary policy stance may be here to stay throughout 2020. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the mild deflation in China’s PPI growth was already turning slightly positive on the heels of an improving economy. The historical relationship between China’s producer prices and industrial profits suggests that profit growth for both China’s onshore and offshore markets is highly linked to fluctuations in producer prices (Chart 11). An ultra-easy monetary policy, a weak RMB, and a more forceful boost to domestic demand will provide strong reflationary support to producer prices and industrial profits. Chart 10Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chart 11A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits   Bottom Line: Despite a short-term economic shock, China’s economy is at a better starting point than in 2015-2016. If monetary and fiscal easing in 2020 reaches the same magnitude as five years ago, then the economy and corporate profits will likely begin to respond to the stimulus. Investment Conclusions The clear sign of policy shift to shoring up the economy suggests that, our Scenario 2 is the most likely outcome. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016. The short-term outbreak-induced economic shock, on the other hand, looks to be smaller than the market anticipates. Manufacturers in China continue to resume production in regions outside of Hubei, a trend we believe will go on unless there is a significant threat that the virus will break out again in these Chinese regions. This supports our constructive view on China-related assets over a 6-12 month time horizon. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016, and will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. There is a risk to our constructive view, though, that the more forceful policy response from the Chinese leadership may imply a greater than anticipated short-term economic shock from the outbreak. This would challenge our bullish stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months. Substantially weaker economic data in Q1 would likely trigger a selloff in Chinese risk assets, both onshore and offshore. However, a severe short-term economic shock, followed by a burst of stimulus, would create strong investment opportunities. If the scale of Chinese policymakers’ reflationary measures ramps up significantly in the coming months, they will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. Another reflationary cycle would certainly have a positive impact on global investors’ sentiment and Chinese financial assets. Stay tuned.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    http://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202002/23/content_WS5e5286cdc6d0… 2   http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3975864/index.html 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC," dated July 10, 2019, "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, "Don’t Bottom-Fish Chinese Assets (Yet)," dated August 14, 2019 and "Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing," dated October 9, 2019. available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7   http://www.cec-ceda.org.cn/view_sy.php?id=42633 8   http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/202002/18/t20200218_34298844.shtml 9   http://www.21jingji.com/2020/2-21/wOMDEzNzhfMTUzNjAwOA.html 10  China has announced targeted measures to defer or lower taxes and administrative fees. It will also provide interest rate subsidies to affected businesses. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear clients, Over the next couple of weeks, we will be further analyzing China’s coronavirus outbreak, its economic impact, and the likely policy response, as well as the attendant investment recommendations. We will also examine any sector-related or regional themes that stem from the outbreak. Stay tuned. Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights The peak in the number of new cases outside of the crisis epicenter will be more market-relevant than the total number of infections. New cases outside of the epicenter continue to rise, but a peak may be in sight. Our sense is that financial markets are likely to bottom earlier than the consensus expects. The economic impact on China from the outbreak will be large, but manufacturing activities in the majority of Chinese cities should resume by the end of February. It will take longer for the service sector to recover, implying a larger hit to the economy compared with the SARS episode given that services have grown in importance. This will force Chinese policymakers to set their financial deleveraging agenda aside for the rest of the calendar year. We maintain an overweight stance on Chinese stocks both tactically and cyclically, based on our view that the outbreak will soon be contained outside of Hubei province and that China’s budding economic recovery will be delayed, but not prevented, by the crisis. Feature The coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China has sparked a selloff in risk assets around the globe. China’s A-share equity market, after an extended Chinese New Year market closure, was in a free fall when it reopened on February 3. In the offshore market, the MSCI China Index has declined by 9% from its most recent high on January 13, 2020 (Chart 1).  When attempting to forecast a turning point in bearish investor sentiment stemming from the outbreak, it is important to note that during the 2003 SARS epidemic, both global and Chinese equity markets rebounded when the number of new cases peaked in Hong Kong SAR and globally (Chart 2).  Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Been Hit Hard By The Virus Outbreak Chinese Stocks Have Been Hit Hard By The Virus Outbreak Chinese Stocks Have Been Hit Hard By The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Markets Bottomed As Total SARS Infections Peaked Markets Bottomed As Total SARS Infections Peaked Markets Bottomed As Total SARS Infections Peaked We maintain our long stance both tactically and cyclically on Chinese stocks, based on the following assessments: In the next three months, the panic brought on by 2019-nCoV will abate before the total number of new cases peaks, as investors focus on the turning point in the outbreak outside of the epicenter (Hubei province). Beyond the next three months, the outbreak will likely delay China’s economic recovery. However, this means that Chinese policymakers will not likely reduce the scale of their stimulative efforts this year. The Market Correction May Be Short-Lived Since the onset of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, many studies have attempted to predict the speed and magnitude of the spread of the virus. Using a mathematical model called Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR), The Lancet,1 The University of Hong Kong,2 and Johns Hopkins CSSE3 all drew a conclusion that a peak in the current episode is likely to occur between late April and early May. The number of cases outside of the crisis epicenter will likely drive financial market sentiment. While we think this conclusion may be true for the total number of new cases, the total count will be less relevant to investors during this episode than during the 2003 SARS outbreak. Instead, it will be more useful to break down the total infection count into two sets of data: the number of new cases within the city of Wuhan and Hubei Province (the epicenter of the outbreak), and the number of new cases outside of Hubei. The latter is more likely to be the primary driver of short-term outbreak-related market sentiment. While Hubei is experiencing an acceleration in the daily rate of new cases, the number of new cases across the rest of China seems to be flattening off of late (Chart 3). We think that the number of cases outside of Hubei will peak earlier than within the epicenter. This is in contrast to the 2003 SARS outbreak when the peak of new cases in the rest of China and globally lagged the epicenter Hong Kong SAR by a month (Chart 4). Chart 3Number Of 2019-nCoV New Cases Flattening Outside The Epicenter Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted Chart 4SARS Outbreak Peaked Globally A Month After Peaking In The Crisis Epicenter SARS Outbreak Peaked Globally A Month After Peaking In The Crisis Epicenter SARS Outbreak Peaked Globally A Month After Peaking In The Crisis Epicenter There are two reasons for the difference between the 2003 SARS peak and projections for the 2019-nCoV outbreak: Timely cutoff of virus mobility outside of epicenter: The world responded quickly to contain the virus. During the 2003 SARS episode, Chinese authorities responded with protective measures only after the outbreak had already peaked in the epicenter. This time the Chinese government intervened at an early stage of the outbreak with forceful and in some cases extreme actions, including a near-complete lockdown of Wuhan (the crisis epicenter) and restrictions on inter- and intra-city traffic in other major metropolitan areas. Foreign governments in North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia took unprecedented measures to ban or limit air traffic to/from China. Furthermore, with timely and sufficient medical care, the fatality rate outside of the epicenter has been much lower4 – a significantly underreported fact. Mishandling of the crisis within the epicenter: Within Hubei province, particularly the city of Wuhan where the virus originated, the number of infections will likely continue climbing in the next two to even three months. The abovementioned studies suggest the number of cases in the epicenter is five to seven times higher than the official count. Local hospitals are experiencing severe shortages of medical supplies, meaning that people with mild-to-medium symptoms have reportedly been turned away. These patients are not included in the official statistics as confirmed or suspect cases. The discrepancy in reporting means these cases will be confirmed and recorded at a much later date. Without quarantine and treatment, these patients may continue to transmit the virus to others within the epicenter. This will have a tragic human cost, but it will hold few consequences for financial markets. The corrections in Chinese onshore and offshore stocks, while severe, will be fleeting. Bottom Line: Market sentiment will rebound following the peak in new 2019-nCoV cases outside the epicenter of Wuhan/Hubei. We think the peak may come as early as mid to late-February, which suggests the corrections in Chinese onshore and offshore stocks, while severe, will be fleeting. Economic Recovery In Sight Beyond the near-term, our view on China’s likely policy response and the economy’s fundamentals support a positive outlook for Chinese stocks over the next 6 to 12 months. In absolute dollar terms, the scale of the economic impact from the 2019-nCoV outbreak will likely be larger than the SARS episode in 2003. Unlike with SARS, when disruptions were mild and limited to the travel and retail sectors, the extreme measures China took in response to the coronavirus outbreak have essentially placed Chinese economic activity on hold. Chart 5Service Sector Now A Larger Part Of China's Economy Compared With 2003 Service Sector Now A Larger Part Of China's Economy Compared With 2003 Service Sector Now A Larger Part Of China's Economy Compared With 2003 China’s service sector is also likely to be more affected than manufacturing, because the outbreak coincided with the Chinese New Year holiday when services are normally in high demand. In addition, the service sector accounts for a much larger share of the Chinese economy than in 2003 (Chart 5). Therefore, the reduction in services output will have a comparatively bigger economic impact. However, as we think the 2019-nCoV outbreak outside of the epicenter will likely peak in February, the majority of nationwide manufacturing activity should resume no later than the last week of February. Chinese authorities have already signaled they will speed up government-led infrastructure investment as early as March. Chart 6Service Sector Took Longer To Recover After SARS Outbreak Service Sector Took Longer To Recover After SARS Outbreak Service Sector Took Longer To Recover After SARS Outbreak The service sector will take longer to recover. Following the 2003 SARS outbreak, the recovery in the service sector lagged the manufacturing and primary sectors by one quarter (Chart 6). This will likely delay the bottoming of the aggregate Chinese economy. We project a bottom in China’s economy towards the end of the second quarter of 2020. A delay in economic recovery will force Chinese policymakers to put aside their financial deleveraging agenda, and focus on economic growth for the year. 2020 marks the final year for policymakers to accomplish their goal to double GDP from 2010. This means policymakers will likely augment the amount of stimulus in order to stabilize the economy and avoid falling short of their growth target. Bottom Line: Business activities should resume in late February, with a bottoming in the economy towards the end of the second quarter of 2020. Monetary Support Already Lining Up The Chinese economy is on a structurally slowing trend, but is in an early stage of cyclically recovering from last year (Chart 7). This is in contrast with 2003 during the SARS outbreak when China’s economic growth was structurally accelerating, but the monetary environment was in a tightening cycle and industrial profit growth was downshifting (Chart 8). Chart 7Chinese Economy Is On A Structurally Slowing Trend, But Is Cyclically Recovering... Chinese Economy Is On A Structurally Slowing Trend, But Is Cyclically Recovering... Chinese Economy Is On A Structurally Slowing Trend, But Is Cyclically Recovering... Chart 8...And Is In An Expansionary Monetary Cycle ...And Is In An Expansionary Monetary Cycle ...And Is In An Expansionary Monetary Cycle   As the performance of Chinese onshore stocks reflects domestic policy, Chinese A-shares, after briefly rebounded when the 2003 SARS outbreak peaked, underperformed the global benchmark during much of the 2004-2006 period when monetary policy tightened (Chart 9). Contrasting with 2003, we expect the PBoC to maintain a more accommodative monetary stance throughout 2020 (Chart 10): the PBoC cut the open market operation interest rates by 10bps on February 3. We expect this move to lead to a 5bps LPR and MLF rate cut in March. Moreover, the chance that the PBoC will cut the bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) in Q2 is also increasing. Chart 9Chinese Onshore Equity Market Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Chinese Onshore Equity Market Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Chinese Onshore Equity Market Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Chart 10Easy Monetary Stance Is Here To Stay Easy Monetary Stance Is Here To Stay Easy Monetary Stance Is Here To Stay Bottom Line: Monetary policy will become more accommodative this year. Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks just went on sale, but the sale likely will not last long. Chart 11Chinese Stocks Are Priced At An Even Deeper Discount Chinese Stocks Are Priced At An Even Deeper Discount Chinese Stocks Are Priced At An Even Deeper Discount Over the next 0-3 months, Chinese equities will likely rebound as soon as the peak in the number of new cases outside of Wuhan/Hubei occurs. We believe the peak will happen within the next two weeks, and manufacturing activities in the majority of Chinese cities will resume following the peak in the outbreak. Depressed valuations in Chinese stocks compared with the global benchmark and the expectation of a rebound in Chinese economic activity should provide a good buying opportunity for global investors (Chart 11). In short, Chinese stocks just went on sale, but the sale likely won’t last long. Over a cyclical time horizon, we had previously predicted that China’s authorities may reduce the scale of the stimulus in the second half of this year as the economy starts to recover in Q1. The 2019-nCoV outbreak will alter the leadership’s policy trajectory and extend pro-growth support through 2020, and both the central and regional governments have announced a slew of policies in supporting businesses, particularly for the private sector. Our expectation that the viral outbreak will not derail China’s economic recovery suggests that corporate earnings will also rebound over a 6-12 month time horizon. One risk that we will be monitoring over the coming several months is the potential for firm- or sector-specific effects on earnings. The nationwide city lockdowns are certain to reduce or halt the flow of cash to businesses, and it is unclear whether this will have any disproportionate effects on corporate earnings relative to what we expect will occur for the economy beyond Q1. However, for now, our assumption is that the trend in earnings growth is likely to match that of the economy more generally unless evidence to the contrary presents itself. This supports an overweight position in Chinese stocks compared with their global peers over the coming 6-12 months.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    “Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study”, The Lancet, January 31, 2020. 2   “Real-time nowcast on the likely extent of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, and forecasts domestic and international spread”, Hong Kong University, January 27, 2020 3   “Modeling the Spreading Risk of 2019-nCoV”, John Hopkins Center For Systems Science And Engineering, January 31, 2020. 4   As of February 3, 2020, the fatality rate of 2019-nCoV outside of Hubei stands at 0.2%, compared with a 3% fatality rate in Hubei province and 5.5% in Wuhan, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Bond Bear On Pause Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Global PMI Ticks Down Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Coefficients Stable Over Time Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Betas Mostly Positive Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Time For A Breather Time For A Breather Receding trade tensions; diminished risks of a hard Brexit; reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; liquidity injections by most major central banks; and improved sentiment about the state of the global economy all helped push stocks higher late last year. Some clouds have formed over the outlook since the start of the year, however. The December US ISM manufacturing index fell to the lowest level since 2009, while the PMIs in the euro area, UK, and Japan gave up some of their November gains. The conflict between the US and Iran also flared up. Although tensions have abated in recent days, BCA’s geopolitical strategists worry that the détente may not last. The US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. They argue that this could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. Stock market sentiment is quite bullish at the moment, which makes equities more vulnerable to any disappointing news. While we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit in anticipation that global growth will rebound convincingly later this year, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral. Ho Ho Ho After handing investors a sack of coal last Christmas, Santa was back to his true self this past holiday season. Global equities rose 3.4% in December, finishing the year off with a stellar fourth quarter which saw the MSCI All-Country World index surge by 8.6%. Five forces helped push stocks higher: 1) Receding trade tensions; 2) Diminished risks of a hard Brexit; 3) Reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; 4) Liquidity injections by the Fed, ECB, and the People’s Bank of China; and arguably most importantly 5) Improved sentiment about the state of the global economy. Tarrified No More Trade tensions subsided sharply after China and the US reached a “Phase One” agreement. The deal prevented tariffs from rising on December 15th on $160 billion of Chinese imports. It also rolls back the tariff rate from 15% to 7.5% on about $120 billion in imports that have been subject to levies since September (Chart 1). Chart 1The Evolution Of The US-China Trade War The Evolution Of The US-China Trade War The Evolution Of The US-China Trade War In addition, the Trump Administration allowed the November 13th deadline on European auto tariffs to lapse. This suggests that the US is unlikely to impose tariffs under the Section 232 investigation of auto imports. The auto sector has been at the forefront of the global manufacturing slowdown, so any good news for that industry is welcome. To top it all off, the US House of Representatives ratified the USMCA, the successor to NAFTA, on December 19th. We expect it to be signed into law in the first quarter of this year. Brexit Risks Fading... Chart 2The Majority Of British Voters Aren't Keen On Brexit The Majority Of British Voters Aren't Keen On Brexit The Majority Of British Voters Aren't Keen On Brexit Boris Johnson’s commanding victory in the UK elections has given him the votes necessary to push a withdrawal bill through parliament by the end of the month. The British government will then seek to negotiate a free trade agreement by the end of the year. A “no-deal” Brexit is unacceptable to the majority of British voters (Chart 2). As such, the Johnson government will have no choice but to strike a deal with the EU. ... While Trump Gains On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump’s re-election prospects improved late last year despite (and perhaps because of) the ongoing impeachment process. There is an uncanny correlation between the probability that betting markets assign to a Trump victory and the value of the S&P 500 (Chart 3). Chart 3An Uncanny Correlation An Uncanny Correlation An Uncanny Correlation Chart 4Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? Time For A Breather Time For A Breather It certainly has not hurt market sentiment that Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers have been dropping recently (Chart 4). Warren’s best hope was to squeeze out Bernie Sanders as soon as possible, thereby leaving the far-left populist lane all to herself. That dream appears to have been dashed, which suggests that even if Trump loses, a centrist like Joe Biden could emerge as president. An Uneasy Truce It remains to be seen how President Trump’s decision to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander, will affect the election outcome. A YouGov/HuffPost poll taken over the weekend revealed that 43% of Americans approved of the airstrike against Soleimani compared to 38% that disapproved.1 History suggests that the public’s patience for war will quickly wear thin if it results in American casualties or significantly higher gasoline prices. Neither side has an incentive to allow the conflict to spiral out of control. Foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted on Tuesday shortly after Iran lobbed missiles at two US military bases that Iran had “concluded” its retaliatory strike, adding that “We do not seek escalation or war.” Despite claims on Iranian public television that 80 “American terrorists” were killed in the attacks, no US troops were harmed. This suggests that the Iranians may be putting on a show for domestic consumption. The US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of things could still go wrong. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that the US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. This could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. There is also a risk that President Trump overplays his hand. Contrary to the President’s claims, Soleimani was quite popular in Iran (Chart 5). If Trump begins to mock the Iranian leadership’s feeble response, Iran will have no choice but to take more aggressive action. Chart 5Soleimani Was More Popular In Iran Than Trump Claims Time For A Breather Time For A Breather Chart 6US Economy Is Less Vulnerable To Spikes In Oil Prices Than In The Past US Economy Is Less Vulnerable To Spikes In Oil Prices Than In The Past US Economy Is Less Vulnerable To Spikes In Oil Prices Than In The Past One thing that could embolden Trump is that the US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. US oil output reached as high as 12.9 mm b/d in 2019, allowing the country to become a net exporter of oil for the first time in history (Chart 6). Any increase in oil prices would incentivize further domestic production, which would help bring prices back down. The US economy has also become less energy intensive – it takes less than half as much oil to produce a unit of GDP today than it did in the early 1980s. Finally, unlike in the past, the Fed will not need to raise rates in response to higher oil prices due to the fact that inflation expectations are currently well anchored. In fact, as we discuss below, we expect the Fed and other central banks to continue to provide a tailwind for growth over the course of 2020. The Fed’s “It’s Not QE” QE Program The jump in overnight lending rates in mid-September torpedoed the Federal Reserve’s efforts to shrink its balance sheet. Thanks to a steady stream of Treasury bill purchases since then, the Fed’s asset holdings have swelled by over $400 billion, reversing more than half of the decline observed since early 2018 (Chart 7). Chart 7Fed's Asset Holdings Are Growing Anew Fed's Asset Holdings Are Growing Anew Fed's Asset Holdings Are Growing Anew Chart 8The Fed's Balance-Sheet Expansion Helped Fuel The Dot-Com Bubble The Fed's Balance-Sheet Expansion Helped Fuel The Dot-Com Bubble The Fed's Balance-Sheet Expansion Helped Fuel The Dot-Com Bubble The Fed has insisted that its latest intervention does not amount to a new QE program, stressing that it is buying short-term securities rather than long-dated bonds. In so doing, it is simply creating bank reserves, rather than seeking to suppress the term premium by altering the maturity structure of the private sector’s holdings of government debt. Nevertheless, even such straightforward interventions have proven to be powerful signaling tools. By growing its balance sheet, a central bank is implicitly promising to keep monetary policy very accommodative. It is worth remembering that the run-up in the NASDAQ in 1999 coincided with a significant balance-sheet expansion by the Fed in response to Y2K fears, which came on the heels of three “insurance cuts” in 1998 (Chart 8). Gentle Jay Paves The Way Chart 9Inflation Expectations Remain Muted Inflation Expectations Remain Muted Inflation Expectations Remain Muted In 2000, the Fed moved quickly to reverse the liquidity injection it had orchestrated the prior year. We do not expect such a reversal anytime soon. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Federal Reserve kept raising rates – ultimately bringing the Fed funds rate up to 6.5% in May 2000 – the Fed is likely to stay on hold this year. The Fed’s ongoing strategic policy review is poised to move the central bank even closer towards explicitly adopting an average inflation target of 2% over the course of a business cycle. Since inflation tends to fall during recessions, this implies that the Fed will seek to target an inflation rate somewhat higher than 2% during expansions. Realized core PCE inflation has averaged only 1.6% since the recession ended. Both market-based and survey-based measures of long-term inflation expectations remain downbeat (Chart 9). This suggests that the bar for raising rates this year is quite high. More Monetary Easing In The Euro Area And China Chart 10Chinese Monetary Easing Should Help Global Growth Bottom Out Chinese Monetary Easing Should Help Global Growth Bottom Out Chinese Monetary Easing Should Help Global Growth Bottom Out The ECB resumed its QE program in November after a 10-month hiatus. While the current pace of €20 billion in monthly asset purchases is well below the prior pace of €80 billion, the central bank did say it would continue buying assets for “as long as necessary” to bring inflation up to its target. The language harkens back to Mario Draghi’s 2012 “whatever it takes” pledge, this time applied to the ECB’s inflation mandate. Not to be outdone, the People’s Bank of China cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points last week, a move that will release RMB 800 billion ($US 115 billion) of fresh liquidity into the banking system. Historically, cuts in reserve requirements have led to faster credit growth and ultimately, to stronger economic growth both in China and abroad (Chart 10). The PBOC has also instructed lenders to adopt the Loan Prime Rate (LPR) as the new benchmark lending rate. The LPR currently sits 20bps below the old benchmark rate (Chart 11). Hence, the PBOC’s order amounts to a stealth rate cut. Our China strategists expect further reductions in the LPR over the next six months. In addition, the crackdown on shadow bank lending seems to be subsiding, which bodes well for overall credit growth later this year (Chart 12). Chart 11China: Stealth Monetary Easing China: Stealth Monetary Easing China: Stealth Monetary Easing Chart 12Crackdown On Shadow Banking In China Is Easing Crackdown On Shadow Banking In China Is Easing Crackdown On Shadow Banking In China Is Easing   Rising Economic Confidence Chart 13Recession Fears Amongst Economists Began To Gather Steam At The Start Of Last Year Recession Fears Amongst Economists Began To Gather Steam At The Start Of Last Year Recession Fears Amongst Economists Began To Gather Steam At The Start Of Last Year Chart 14The Wider Public Was Also Worried About A Downturn The Wider Public Was Also Worried About A Downturn The Wider Public Was Also Worried About A Downturn   At the start of 2019, nearly half of US CFOs thought the economy would be in a recession by the end of the year. Similarly, two-thirds of European CFOs and four-fifths of Canadian CFOs expected their respective economies to succumb to recession. Professional economists were equally dire (Chart 13). Households also became increasingly worried about a downturn. Google searches for “recession” spiked to near 2009-highs last summer (Chart 14). The mood has certainly improved since then. According to the latest Duke CFO survey, optimism about the economic outlook has increased. More importantly, CFO optimism about the prospects for their own firms has risen to the highest level in the 18-year history of the survey (Chart 15). Chart 15CFOs Have Become More Optimistic Of Late CFOs Have Become More Optimistic Of Late CFOs Have Become More Optimistic Of Late Show Me The Money Going forward, global growth needs to accelerate in order to validate the improved confidence of CFOs and investors alike. We think that it will, thanks to the lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions in 2019, a turn in the global inventory cycle, a de-escalation in the trade war, easier fiscal policy in the UK and euro area, and re-upped fiscal/credit stimulus in China. For now, however, the economic data remains mixed. On the positive side, household spending is still robust across most of the world, a fact that has been reflected in the resilience of service-sector PMIs (Chart 16). Chart 16AThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (I) The Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (I) The Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (I) Chart 16BThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (II) The Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (II) The Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (II) Chart 17US Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Time For A Breather Time For A Breather Chart 18US Housing Backdrop Is Solid US Housing Backdrop Is Solid US Housing Backdrop Is Solid The US consumer, in particular, is showing little signs of fatigue. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimates that real personal consumption grew by 2.4% in the fourth quarter, having increased at an average annualized pace of 3% in the first three quarters of 2019. Both a strong labor market and housing market have buoyed US consumption. Payrolls have risen by an average of 200K per month for the past six months, double what is necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This week’s strong ADP release – which featured a 29K jump in jobs in goods-producing industries in December, the best since April – suggests that today’s jobs report will remain healthy. In addition, wage growth has picked up, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 17). Residential construction has also been strong. Homebuilder sentiment reached the best level since June 1999 (Chart 18). Global Manufacturing: Too Early To Call The All-Clear The outlook for manufacturing remains the biggest question mark in the global economy. The US ISM manufacturing index dropped to 47.2 in December, its lowest level since June 2009. The composition of the report was poor, with the new orders-to-inventory ratio dropping close to recent lows. Chart 19Other US Manufacturing Gauges Are Not As Weak As The ISM Other US Manufacturing Gauges Are Not As Weak As The ISM Other US Manufacturing Gauges Are Not As Weak As The ISM We would discount the ISM report to some extent. The regional Fed manufacturing indices have not been nearly as disappointing as the ISM (Chart 19). The Markit PMI, which tracks US manufacturing activity better than the ISM, clocked in at a respectable 52.4 in December, down only slightly from November’s reading of 52.6. Nevertheless, it is hard to be excited about the near-term outlook for US manufacturing, especially in light of Boeing’s decision to suspend production of the 737 Max temporarily. Most estimates suggest that the production halt will reduce real US GDP growth by 0.3%-to-0.5% in the first quarter. The euro area manufacturing PMI gave up some of its November gains, falling to 46.3 in December. While the index is still above its September low of 45.7, it has been under 50 for 11 straight months now. The UK and Japanese PMI also retreated. Chinese manufacturing has shown clearer signs of bottoming out. Despite dipping in December, the private sector Caixin manufacturing PMI remains near its 2017 highs. The official PMI published by the National Bureau of Statistics is less upbeat, but still managed to come in slightly above 50 in December. The production subcomponent reached the highest level since August 2018. Reflecting the positive trend in the Chinese economy, Korean exports to China rose by 3.3% in December, the first positive growth rate in 14 months (Chart 20). Taiwan’s exports have also rebounded. The manufacturing PMI rose above 50 in both economies in December. In Taiwan’s case, this was the first time the PMI moved into expansionary territory since September 2018. On balance, we continue to expect global manufacturing to recover in 2020. This is in line with our observation that global manufacturing cycles typically last three years, with 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 21). That said, the weakness in European and US manufacturing (at least judged by the ISM) is likely to give investors pause. Chart 20Some Positive Signs Emerging From Korea And Taiwan Time For A Breather Time For A Breather Chart 21A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle   Investment Conclusions We turned bullish on stocks in late 2018, having temporarily moved to the sidelines during the summer of that year. Global equities have gained 25% since our upgrade. We see another 10% of upside for 2020, led by European and EM bourses. Despite its recent gains, the real value of the MSCI All-Country World Index is only 3% above its prior peak in January 2018. The 12-month forward PE ratio of 16.3 is still somewhat lower than it was back then. The valuation picture is even more enticing if we compare equity earnings yields with bond yields, which is tantamount to computing a rough equity risk premium (ERP). The global ERP remains quite high by historic standards, especially outside the US where earnings yields are higher and bond yields are generally lower (Chart 22). Chart 22The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US Chart 23Stock Market Sentiment Is Quite Bullish Stock Market Sentiment Is Quite Bullish Stock Market Sentiment Is Quite Bullish   Nevertheless, sentiment is quite positive towards stocks at the moment (Chart 23). Elevated bullish sentiment, against the backdrop of ongoing uncertainty about the outlook for global manufacturing and an uneasy truce between the US and Iran, poses a near-term headwind to risk assets. As such, while we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral for the time being. We do not regard this as a major realignment of our views; we will turn tactically bullish again if stocks dip about 5% from current levels.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Ariel Edwards-Levy, “Here's What Americans Think About Trump's Iran Policy,” TheHuffingtonPost.com (January 6, 2020).   MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Time For A Breather Time For A Breather Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades