Money Trends / Liquidity

Highlights Biden’s policy on China is hawkish so far, as expected, but temporary improvement is possible. We are cyclically bearish on the dollar but are taking a neutral tactical stance as the greenback’s bounce could go higher than expected if US-China relations take another downward dive. US-Iran tensions are on track to escalate in the second quarter as the pressure builds toward what we think will be a third quarter restoration of the 2015 nuclear deal. Oil price volatility is the takeaway. The anticipated US-Russia conflict has emerged and will bring negative surprises, especially for Russian and emerging European markets. Europe still enjoys relative political stability. A German election upset would bring upside risk to the euro and bund yields, while Scottish independence risk is contained for now. In this report we are launching the first in a new series of regular quarterly outlook reports that will supplement our annual Geopolitical Strategy strategic outlook. Feature The decline in global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk that attended the US election and COVID-19 vaccine discovery has largely played out. Global investors have witnessed successful vaccine rollouts in the US and UK and can look forward to other countries, namely the EU-27, catching up. They have witnessed a splurge of US fiscal spending – $2.8 trillion since December – unprecedented in peacetime. And they have seen the Chinese government offer assurances that monetary tightening will not undermine the economic recovery. The risk of the US doubling down on belligerent trade protectionism has fallen by the wayside along with the Trump presidency. Going forward, there are signs that policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will revive. First, as the global semiconductor shortage and Suez Canal blockage highlight, the world economy will sputter and strain at the sudden eruption of economic activity as the pandemic subsides and vast government spending takes effect. Financial instability is a likely consequence of the sudden, simultaneous adoption of debt monetization across a range of economies combined with a global high-tech race and energy overhaul. Second, the defeat of the Trump presidency does not reverse the secular increase in geopolitical tensions arising from America’s internal divisions and weakening hand relative to China, Russia, and others. On the contrary, large monetary and fiscal stimulus lowers the economic costs of conflict and encourages autarkic, self-sufficiency policies that make governments more likely to struggle with each other to secure their supply chains. Chart 1AThe Return Of Geopolitical Risk The Return Of Geopolitical Risk The Return Of Geopolitical Risk Chart 1BThe Return Of Geopolitical Risk The Return Of Geopolitical Risk The Return Of Geopolitical Risk If we look at simple, crude measures of geopolitical risk we can see the market awakening to the new wall of worry for this business cycle – Great Power struggle, the persistence of “America First” with a different figurehead, China policy tightening, and a vacuum of European leadership. The US dollar is rising, developed market equities are outperforming emerging markets, safe-haven currencies are ticking up against commodity currencies, and gold is perking back up (Charts 1A & 1B). The cyclical upswing should reverse most of these trends over the medium term but investors should be cautious in the short term. US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, And The Greenback The US remains the world’s preponderant power despite its political dysfunction and economic decline relative to emerging markets. The US has struggled to formulate a coherent way to deal with declining influence, as shown by dramatic policy reversals toward Iraq, Iran, China, and Russia. The pattern of unpredictability will continue. The Biden administration’s longevity is unknown so foreign states will be cautious of making firm commitments, implementing deals, or taking irrevocable actions. This does not mean the Biden administration will have a small impact – far from it. Biden’s national policy seeks to fire up the American economy, refurbish alliances, export liberal democratic ideology, and compete with China and Russia. The firing up is largely already accomplished – the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Biden’s forthcoming “Build Back Better” proposals will ultimately rank with Johnson’s Great Society. The Fed estimates that US GDP growth will hit 6.5% this year, higher than the consensus of economic forecasts estimates 5.5%, driven by giant government pump-priming (Chart 2). The US, which is already an insulated economy, is virtually inured to foreign shocks for the time being. Chart 2US Injects Steroids Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Next comes the courting of allies to form a united democratic front against the world’s ambitious dictatorships. This process will be very difficult as the allies are averse to taking risks, especially on behalf of an erratic America. Chart 3US Stimulus Briefly Halts Decline In Global Economic Share Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" The Obama administration spent six full years creating a coalition to pressure an economically miniscule Iran into signing the 2015 nuclear deal. Imagine how long it will take Biden to convince the EU-27 and small Asian states to stick their necks out against Xi Jinping’s China. Especially if they suspect that the US’s purpose is to force China to open its doors primarily for the Americans. If the US grows at the rate of consensus forecasts then its share of global GDP will be 17.6% by 2025 (Chart 3). However, the US’s decline should not be exaggerated. Consider the lesson of the past year, in which the US seemed to flounder in the face of the pandemic. The US’s death count, on a population basis, was in line with other developed markets and yet its citizens exercised a greater degree of individual freedom. It maintained the rule of law despite extreme polarization, social unrest, and a controversial election. Its development of mRNA vaccines highlighted its ongoing innovation edge. And it has rolled out the vaccines rapidly. Internal divisions are still extreme and likely to produce social instability (we are still in the zone of “peak polarization”). But the US economic foundation is now fundamentally supported – political collapse is improbable. Chart 4US Vs China: The Stimulus Impulse US Vs China: The Stimulus Impulse US Vs China: The Stimulus Impulse In short, the US saw the “Civil War Lite” and has moved onto “Reconstruction Lite,” with a big expansion of the social safety net and infrastructure as well as taxes already being drafted. Meanwhile General Secretary Xi has managed to steer China into a good position for the much-ballyhooed 100th anniversary of the Communist Party on July 1. His administration is tightening monetary and fiscal policy marginally to resume the fight against systemic financial risk. China faces vast socioeconomic imbalances that, if left unattended, could eventually overturn the Communist Party’s rule. So far the tightening of policy is modest but the risk of a policy mistake is non-negligible and something global financial markets will have to grapple with in the second quarter. Comparing the US and China reveals an impending divergence in relative monetary and fiscal stimulus (Chart 4). China’s money and credit impulse is peaking – some signs of economic deceleration are popping up – even as the US lets loose a deluge of liquidity and pump-priming. The result is that the world is likely to experience waning Chinese demand and waxing US demand in the second half of the year. It is almost the mirror image of 2009-10, when China’s economy skyrocketed on a stimulus splurge while the US recovered more slowly with less policy support. The medium-to-long-run implication is that the US will have a bumpy downhill ride over the coming decade whereas China will recover more smoothly. Yet the analogy only goes so far. The structural transition facing China’s society and economy is severe and US-led international pressure on its economy will make it more severe. The short-run implication – for Q2 2021 – is that the US dollar’s bounce could run longer than consensus expects. Commodity prices, commodity currencies, and emerging market assets face a correction from very toppy levels. The global cyclical upswing will continue as long as China avoids a policy mistake of overtightening as we expect but the near-term is fraught with downside risk. Bottom Line: We are neutral on the dollar from a tactical point of view. While our bias is to expect the dollar to relapse, in line with the BCA House View and our Foreign Exchange Strategy, we are loathe to bet against the greenback given US stimulus and Chinese tightening. This is not to mention geopolitical tensions highlighted below that would reinforce the dollar. Biden’s China Policy And The Semiconductor Shortage Any spike in US-China strategic tensions in Q2 would exacerbate the above reasoning on the dollar. It would also lead to a deeper selloff in Chinese and EM Asian currencies and risk assets. A spike in tensions is not guaranteed but investors should plan for the worst. One of our core views for many years has been that any Democratic administration taking office in 2020 would remain hawkish on China, albeit less so than the Trump administration. So far this view is holding up. It may not have been the cause of the drop in Chinese and emerging Asian equities but it has not helped. However, the jury is still out on Biden’s China policy and the second quarter will likely see major actions that crystallize the relative hawkish or dovish change in policy. The acrimonious US-China meeting in Alaska meeting does not necessarily mean anything. The Biden administration has a full China policy review underway that will not be completed until around early June. The first bilateral summit between Biden and Xi could occur on Earth Day, April 22, or sometime thereafter, as the countries are looking to restart strategic dialogue and engage on nuclear non-proliferation and carbon emission reductions. Specifically China wants to swap its help on North Korea – which restarted ballistic missile launches as we go to press – for easier US policies on trade and tech. Only if and when a new attempt at engagement breaks down will the Biden administration conclude that it has a basis for pursuing a more offensive policy toward China. The problem is that new engagement probably will break down, sooner or later, for reasons we outlined last week: the areas of cooperation are limited – obviously so on health and cybersecurity, but even on climate change. Engagement on Iran and North Korea may have more success but the bigger conflicts over tech and Taiwan will persist. Ultimately China is fixated on strategic self-sufficiency and rapid tech acquisition in the national interest, leaving little room for US market access or removal of high-tech export controls. The threat that Biden will ultimately adopt and expand on Trump’s punitive measures will hang over Beijing’s head. The risk of a Republican victory in 2024 will also discourage China from implementing any deep structural concessions. The crux of the conflict remains the tech sector and specifically semiconductors.1 China is rapidly gaining market share but the US is using its immense leverage over chip design and equipment to cut off China’s access to chips and industry development. The ongoing threat of an American chip blockade is now being exacerbated by a global shortage of semiconductors as the economy recovers (Chart 5), exposing China’s long-term economic vulnerability. Chart 5Global Semiconductor Shortage Global Semiconductor Shortage Global Semiconductor Shortage There is room for some de-escalation but not much – and it is not to be counted on. The Biden administration, like the Obama administration, subscribes to the view that the US should prioritize maintaining its lead in tech innovation rather than trying to compete with China’s high-subsidy model, which is gobbling up the lower end of the computer chip market. Biden’s policy will at first be defensive rather than offensive – focused on improving US supply chain security rather than curtailing Chinese supply. Biden’s proposal for domestic infrastructure program will include funds for the semiconductor industry and research. While the Biden administration likely prizes leadership and innovation over the on-shoring of US chip production, the US government must also look to supply security, specifically for the military, so some on-shoring of production is inevitable.2 Ultimately the Biden administration can continue using export controls to slow China’s semiconductor development or it can pare these controls back. If it does nothing then China’s state-backed tech program will lead to a rapid increase in Chinese capabilities and market share as has occurred in other industries. If it maintains restrictions then it will delay China’s development, especially on the highest end of chips, but not prevent China from gaining the technology through circumventing export controls, subsidizing its domestic industry, and poaching from Taiwan and South Korea. Given that technological supremacy will lead to military supremacy the US is likely to maintain restrictions. But a full chip blockade on China would require expanding controls and enforcing them on third parties, and massively increases strategic tensions, should Biden ever decide to go this ultra-hawkish route. The Biden administration can adjust the pace and intensity of export controls but cannot give China free rein. Biden will want to block China’s access to the US market, or funds, or parts when these feed its military-industrial complex but relax pressure on China’s commercial trade. This is only a temporary fix. The commercial/military distinction is hard to draw when Beijing continually pursues “civil-military fusion” to maximize its industrial and strategic capabilities. Therefore US-China strategic tensions over tech will worsen over the long run even if Biden pursues engagement in the short run. Bottom Line: Biden’s China policy has started out hawkish as expected but the real policy remains unknown. The second quarter will reveal key details. Biden could pursue engagement, leading to a reduction in tensions. Investors should wait and see rather than bet on de-escalation, given that tensions will escalate anew over the medium and long term and therefore may never really decline. Iran And Oil Price Volatility Biden’s other foreign policy challenges in the second quarter hinge on Iran and Russia. The Biden administration aims to restore the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal and is likely to move quickly. This is not merely a matter of intention but of national capability since US grand strategy is pushing the US to shift focus to Asia Pacific, and an Iranian nuclear crisis divides US attention and resources. Biden has the ability to return to the 2015 deal with a flick of his wrist. The Iranians also have that ability, at least until lame duck President Hassan Rouhani leaves office in August – beyond that, a much longer negotiation would be necessary. US-Iran talks will lead to demonstrations of credible military threats, which means that geopolitical attacks and tensions in the Middle East will likely go higher before they fall on any deal. The past several years have already seen a series of displays of military force by the Iranians and the US and its allies and this process may escalate all summer (Map 1). Map 1Military Incidents In Persian Gulf Since Abqaiq Refinery Attack, 2019 Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" It is too soon to draw conclusions regarding the Israeli election on March 23 but it is possible that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will remain in power (Chart 6). If this is the case then Israel will oppose the American effort to rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal, culminating in a crisis sometime in the summer (or fall) in which the Israelis make a major show of force against Iran. Even if Netanyahu falls from power, the new Israeli government will still have to show Iran that it cannot be pushed around. Fundamentally, however, a change in leadership in Israel would bring the US and Israel into alignment and thus smooth the process for a deal that seeks to contain Iran’s nuclear program at least through 2025. Any better deal would require an entirely new diplomatic effort. Chart 6Israeli Ruling Coalition Share Of Knesset Shares In Recent Elections Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" The Russians or Saudi Arabians might reduce their oil production discipline once a deal becomes inevitable, so as not to lose market share to Iranian oil that will come back onto global markets. Thus oil markets could face unexpected oil supply outages due to conflict followed by OPEC or Iranian supply increases, implying that prices will be volatile. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects prices to average $65/barrel in 2021, $70/barrel in 2022, and $60-$80/barrel through 2025. Bottom Line: Oil prices will be volatile in the second quarter as they may be affected by the twists and turns of US-Iran negotiations, which may not reach a new equilibrium until July or August at earliest. Otherwise a multi-year diplomatic process will be required, which will suck away the Biden administration’s foreign policy capital, resulting either in precipitous reduction in Middle East focus or a neglect of greater long-term challenges from China and Russia. Russian Risks, Germany Elections, And Scottish Independence European politics are more stable than elsewhere in the world – marked by Italy’s sudden formation of a technocratic unity government under Prime Minister Mario Draghi. Draghi is focused on using EU recovery funds to boost Italian productivity and growth. Europe’s economic growth has underperformed that of the US so far this year. The EU is not witnessing the same degree of fiscal stimulus as the US (Chart 7). The core member states all face a fiscal drag in the coming two years and meanwhile the bloc has struggled to roll out COVID-19 vaccines efficiently. However, the vaccines are proven to be effective and will eventually be rolled out, so investors should buy into the discount in the euro and European stocks as a result of the various mishaps. Global and European industrial production and economic sentiment are bouncing back and German yields are rising albeit not as rapidly as American (Chart 8). Chart 7EU Stimulus Lags But Targets Productivity Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Chart 8Global And Euro Area Production To Accelerate Global And Euro Area Production To Accelerate Global And Euro Area Production To Accelerate Chart 9German Conservatives Waver in Polls German Conservatives Waver in Polls German Conservatives Waver in Polls The main exceptions to Europe’s relative political stability come from Germany and Scotland. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a lame duck and her party is falling in opinion polls with only six months to go before the general election on September 26 (Chart 9). Merkel even faced the threat of a no-confidence motion in the Bundestag this week due to her attempt to extend COVID lockdowns over Easter and sudden retreat in the face of a public backlash. Merkel apologized but her party is looking extremely shaky after recent election losses on the state level. The rise of a new left-wing German governing coalition is much more likely than the market expects. The second quarter will see the selection of a chancellor-candidate for her Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union. Table 1 highlights the likeliest chancellor-candidates of all the parties and their policy stances, from the point of view of whether they have a “hawkish,” hard-line policy stance or “dovish,” easy policy stance on the major issues. What stands out is that the entire German political spectrum is now effectively centrist or dovish on monetary and fiscal policy following the lessons of the 13 years since the global financial crisis. Table 1German Chancellor Candidates, 2021 Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" In other words, while Germany’s conservatives will seek an earlier normalization of policy in the wake of the crisis, none of them are as hawkish as in the past, and an election upset would bring even more dovish leaders into power. Thus the German election is a political risk but not a global market risk. It should not fundamentally alter the trajectory of German equities or bond yields – which is up amid global and European recovery – and if anything it would boost the euro. The potential German chancellor candidates show more variation when it comes to immigration, the environment, and foreign policy. Germany has been leading the charge for renewable energy and will continue on that trajectory (Chart 10). However it has simultaneously pursued the NordStream II natural gas pipeline with Russia, which would bring 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas straight into Germany, bypassing eastern Europe and its fraught geopolitics. This pipeline, which could be completed as early as August, would improve Germany’s energy security and Russia’s economic security, which remain closely intertwined despite animosity in other areas (Chart 11). But the pipeline would come at the expense of eastern Europe’s leverage – and American interests – and therefore opposition is rising, including among the ascendant German Green Party. Chart 10Germany’s Switch To Renewables Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Chart 11Germany Puts Multilateralism To The Test Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Second Quarter Outlook 2021: Geopolitics Upsets The "Return To Normalcy" Chart 12UK-EU Trade Deal Dampens Scots Nationalism UK-EU Trade Deal Dampens Scots Nationalism UK-EU Trade Deal Dampens Scots Nationalism While Merkel and the Christian Democrats are dead-set on completing the pipeline, global investors are underrating the possibility of a major incident in which the US uses diplomacy and sanctions to halt the project. This is not intuitive because Biden is focused on restoring the US alliance with Europe, particularly Germany. But he is doing so in order to counter Russian and Chinese authoritarianism. Therefore the pipeline could mark the first real test of Biden’s – and Germany’s – understanding of multilateralism. Importantly the US is not pursuing a diplomatic “reset” with Russia at the outset of Biden’s term. This has now been confirmed with Biden’s accusation that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a “killer” and the ensuing, highly symbolic Russian withdrawal of its ambassador to the United States, unseen even in the Cold War. The Americans are imposing sanctions in retaliation for Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Russia is largely inured to US sanctions at this point but if the US wanted to make a difference it would insist on a stop to NordStream by cutting off access to the US market to the various European engineering and insurance companies critical to construction.3 Yet German leaders would have to be cajoled and it may be more realistic for the US to demand other concessions from Germany, particularly on countering China. The US-German arrangement will go a long way toward defining Germany’s and the EU’s risk appetite in the context of Biden’s proposal to build a more robust democratic alliance to counter revisionist authoritarian states. The Russians say they want to avoid a permanent deterioration in relations with the US, which they warn is on the verge of occurring. There is some space for engagement, such as on restoring the Iran deal, which Russia ostensibly supports. Biden may want to keep Russia pacified until he has an Iranian deal in hand. Ultimately, however, US-Russian relations are headed to new lows as the Biden administration brings counter-pressure on the Russians in retribution for the past decade of actions to undermine the United States. Germany’s place in this conflict will determine its own level of geopolitical risk. Clearly we would favor German assets over those of emerging Europe or Russian in this environment. One final risk from Europe is worth mentioning for the second quarter: the UK and Scotland. Scottish elections on May 6 could enable the Scottish National Party to push for a second independence referendum. So far our assessment is correct that Scottish independence will lose momentum after Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union. Scottish nationalists are falling (Chart 12) and support for independence has dropped back toward the 45% level where the 2014 referendum ended up. Nevertheless elections can bring surprises and this narrative bears vigilance as a threat to the pound’s sharp rebound. Bottom Line: Europe’s relative political stability is challenged by US-Russia geopolitical tensions, the higher-than-expected risk of a German election upset, and the tail risk of Scottish independence. Of these only a US-Russia blowup, over NordStream or other issues, poses a major downside risk to global investors. We continue to underweight EM Europe and Russian currency and financial assets. Investment Takeaways Our three key views for 2021, in addition to coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, are largely on track for the year so far: China’s Headwinds: China’s renminbi and stock market are indeed suffering due to policy tightening and US geopolitical pressure. Risk to our view: if Biden and Xi make major compromises to reengage, and Xi eases monetary and fiscal policy anew, then the global reflation trade and Chinese equities will receive another boost. US-Iran Triggered Oil Volatility: The US and Iran are still in stalemate and the window of opportunity for a quick restoration of the 2015 deal is rapidly narrowing. Tensions are indeed escalating prior to any resolution, which would come in the third quarter, thus producing first upside then downside pressures for oil prices. Risk to our view: the Biden administration has no need for a new Iran deal and tensions escalate in a major way that causes a major risk premium in oil prices and forces the US to downgrade its pressure campaign against China. Europe’s Outperformance: So far this year the dollar has rallied and the EU has botched its vaccine rollout, challenging our optimistic assessment of Europe. But as highlighted in this report, we anticipated the main risks – government change in Germany, a Scots referendum – and the former is positive for the euro while the downside risk to the pound is contained. The major geopolitical problem is Russia, where we always expected substantial market-negative risks to materialize after Biden’s election. Risk to our view: A US-Russian reset that lowers geopolitical tensions across eastern Europe or a German status quo election followed by a tightening of fiscal policy sooner than the market expects.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For an excellent recent review of the issues see Danny Crichton, Chris Miller, and Jordan Schneider, "Labs Over Fabs: How The U.S. Should Invest In The Future Of Semiconductors," Foreign Policy Research Institute, March 2021, issuu.com. 2 Alex Fang, "US Congress pushes $100bn research blitz to outcompete China," Nikkei Asia, March 23, 2021, asia.nikkei.com. In anticipation of the Biden administration’s dual attempt to promote, on one hand, innovation, and on the other hand, semiconductor supply security, the US semiconductor giant Intel has announced that it will build a $20 billion chip fabrication plant in Arizona. This is in addition to TSMC’s plans to build a plant in Arizona manufacturing chips that are necessary for the US Air Force’s F-35 jets. See Kif Leswing, "Intel is spending $20 billion to build two new chip plants in Arizona," CNBC, March 23, 2021, cnbc.com. 3 See Margarita Assenova, "Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline," Eurasia Daily Monitor 18:17 (2021), Jamestown Foundation, February 1, 2021, Jamestown.org.   Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s ultra-dovish stance is not the only reason for markets to cheer. The US is booming, China is unlikely to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy, and Europe remains a source of positive political surprises. Still, the cornerstone of this cycle’s wall of worry has been laid: Biden faces a series of foreign policy challenges, the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s stimulus is not large enough to qualify as a game changer for potential GDP growth. Stay the course by maintaining strategic pro-cyclical trades yet building up tactical hedges and safe-haven plays. Feature Chart 1US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups The US is turning to tax hikes, China is returning to structural reforms, and Europe is bungling its vaccine rollout. Yet synchronized global debt monetization is nothing to underrate. Especially not in the context of a Great Power struggle that features a green energy race as well as a high-tech race. Governments are generating a cyclical growth boom and it is conceivably that their simultaneous pump-priming combined with a new capex cycle and private innovation could generate a productivity breakthrough. This upside risk is keeping global equity markets bullish even as it becomes apparent that construction has begun on this cycle’s wall of worry. The US dollar bounce should be watched closely in this context (Chart 1). After passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, which consists largely but not entirely of short-term cash handouts (Chart 2), President Joe Biden’s policy agenda will now turn to tax hikes. Thus far the tax hike proposals are in line with Biden’s campaign literature (Table 1). It remains to be seen whether the market will “sell the news” that Biden is pivoting to tax hikes. After all, Biden was the most moderate of the Democratic candidates and his tax proposals only partially reverse President Trump’s tax cuts. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Table 1Biden’s Tax Hike Proposals On The Campaign Trail Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Nevertheless higher taxes symbolize a regime change in the US – it is very unlikely tax rates will go down anytime soon but they could go easily higher than expected in the coming decade – and the drafting process will bring negative surprises, as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen highlighted by courting Europe to cooperate on a 12% minimum corporate tax and halt the global race to the bottom in taxes on multinational corporations. At the same time Biden’s foreign policy challenges are rising across the board: China is demanding a rollback of Trump’s policies: If Biden says yes, he will sacrifice hard-won American leverage on matters of national interest. If he says no, the Phase One trade deal will be null and void, as will sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and the new economic sanctions on Taiwan will expand beyond mere pineapples.1 Russia is recalling its US ambassador: Biden vowed to make Russia pay for alleged interference in the 2020 US election and sanctions are forthcoming.2 The real way to make Russia pay is to halt the construction of the Nordstream II natural gas pipeline, which reduces the leverage of eastern European democracies while increasing Germany’s energy dependence on Russia. But Germany is dead-set on that pipeline. If Biden levies sanctions the centerpiece of his diplomatic outreach to Europe will be further encouraged to chart an independent course from Washington (though the rest of Europe might cheer). North Korea is threatening to restart missile tests: North Korea is pouring scorn on the Biden administration for trying to restart negotiations.3 The North wants sanctions relief and it knows that Biden is willing to offer it but it may need to create an atmosphere of crisis first. China would be happy were that to happen as it could offer the US its good services on North Korea instead of concrete trade concessions. Iran is refusing to rejoin negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal: Biden has about five months to arrange for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Beyond that he will enter into another long negotiation with the master negotiators, the Persians. But unlike President Obama from 2009-15, he will not have support from Russia and China … unless he sacrifices his doctrine of “extreme competition” from the get-go. It is not clear which of these challenges will be relevant to financial markets, or when. However, with US and global equities skyrocketing, it must be said that the geopolitical backdrop is not nearly as reassuring as the Federal Reserve, which announced on Saint Patrick’s Day that it will not hike interest rates until 2024 even in the face of a 6.5% growth rate and the prospect of an additional, yet-to-be passed $2 trillion in US deficit spending. Herein lies Biden’s first victory. He has stressed that boosting the American economy and middle class is critical to his foreign policy. He envisions the US regaining its global standing by defeating the virus, super-charging the economy, and then orchestrating a grand alliance of European and Asian democracies to write new global rules that will put pressure on China to reform its economy. “I say it to foreign leaders and domestic alike. It's never, ever a good bet to bet against the American people. America is coming back. The development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines in record time is a true miracle of science.”4 The pandemic and economic part of this agenda are effectively done and now comes the hard part: creating a grand alliance while China and Russia demonstrate to their neighbors the hard consequences of joining any new US crusade. The contradiction of Biden’s foreign policy is his desire to act multilaterally and yet also get a great deal done. The Europeans are averse to conflict with China and Russia. The Russians and Chinese are not inclined to do any great favors on Iran or North Korea. Nobody is opening up their economy – Biden himself is coopting Trump’s protectionism, if less brashly. Cooperation with Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin on nuclear proliferation is possible – as long as Biden aborts his democracy agenda and his trade agenda. We continue with our pro-cyclical investment stance but have started building up hedges as we are convinced that geopolitical risk will deliver a rude awakening. This awakening will be a buying opportunity given the ultra-stimulating backdrop … unless it portends war in continental Europe or the Taiwan Strait. In the remainder of this report we highlight the takeaways from China’s National People’s Congress as well as recent developments in Germany. Our key views remain the same: China will not overtighten monetary/fiscal policy; Biden will be hawkish on China; Germany’s election may see an upset but that would be market-positive. China: No Overtightening So Far China concluded its National People’s Congress – the “Two Sessions” of legislation every year – and issued its 2021 Government Work Report. It also officially released the fourteenth five-year plan covering economic development for 2021-25. Table 2 shows the new plan’s targets as compared to the just expired thirteenth five-year plan that covered 2016-20. Table 2China’s Fourteenth Five Year Plan (2021-25) Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry For a full run-down of the National People’s Congress we recommend clients peruse BCA’s latest China Investment Strategy report. From a geopolitical point of view we would highlight the following takeaways: The Tech Race: China added a new target for strategic emerging industry value added as percent of GDP – it wants this number to reach 17% by 2025 but there is nothing solid to benchmark this against. The point is that by including such a target China is putting more emphasis on emerging industries, including: information technology, robotics, green energy, electric vehicles, 5G networks, new materials, power equipment, aerospace and aviation equipment, and others. China’s technological “Great Leap Forward” continues, with a focus on domestic production and upgrading the manufacturing sector that is bound to stiffen the competition with the United States. China’s removal of a target for service industry growth suggests that Beijing does not want de-industrialization to occur any faster – another reason for global trade tensions to stay high. Research and Development: For R&D spending, previous five-year plans set targets for the desired level. For example, over the last five years China vowed to increase annual R&D spending to 2.5% of GDP. A reasonable expectation for the coming five years would have been a 3% target of GDP. However, this time the government set a target of an annual growth rate of no less than 7% during 2021-2025. The point is that China is continuing to ascend the ranks in R&D spending relative to the US and West in coordination with the overarching goal of forging an innovative and high-tech economy. Unemployment: China has restored an unemployment rate target. In its twelfth five-year plan Beijing aimed to keep the urban surveyed unemployment rate below 5% but over the past five years this target vanished. Now China restored the target and bumped it up slightly to 5.5%. This target should not be hard to meet given the reported sharp decline in urban unemployment to 5.2% already. However, China’s unemployment statistics are notoriously unreliable. The real takeaway is that unemployment will be higher as trend growth slows, while social stability remains the Communist Party’s ultimate prize – and any reform or deleveraging process will occur within that context. The Green Energy Race: China re-emphasized its pledge to tackle climate change, aiming for peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. However, no detailed action plans were mentioned. Presumably China will not loosen its enforcement of existing environmental targets. Most of these were kept the same as over the past five years, except for pollution (PM2.5 concentration). Previously the government sought to reduce PM2.5 concentration by 18%. Now the target is set at 10% aggregate reduction, which is lower, though further reduction will be difficult after a 43% drop since 2014. Overall, China has not loosened up its environmental targets – if anything, enforcement will strengthen, resulting in an ongoing regulatory headwind to “Old China” industries. Military Power: Last week we noted that the government’s goals for the military have changed in a way that reinforces themes of persistently high geopolitical tensions. The info-tech upgrades to the People’s Liberation Army were supposed to be met by 2020, with full “modernization” achieved by 2035. However, last October the government created a new deadline, the one-hundredth anniversary of the PLA in 2027 (“military centenary goal”). No specific measures or targets are given but the point is that there is a new deadline of serious importance – an importance that matches the party’s much-ballyhooed centennial on July 1 of 2021 and the People’s Republic’s centennial in 2049. The fact that this deadline is only six years away suggests that a rapid program of military reform and upgrade is beginning. The official defense spending growth target of 6.8% is only slightly bigger than last year’s 6.6% but these targets mask the significance of the announcement. The takeaway is that the Chinese military is preparing for an earlier-than-expected contingency with the United States and its allies. What about China’s all-important monetary, fiscal, and quasi-fiscal credit targets? There is no doubt that China is tightening policy, as we highlight in our updated China Policy Tightening Checklist (Table 3). But will China overtighten? Probably not, at least not judging by the Two Sessions, but the risk is not negligible. Table 3A Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry The government reiterated that money and credit growth should remain in a reasonable range in 2021, with “reasonable range” referring to nominal economic growth. Chinese economists estimate that the nominal growth rate will be around 8%-9% in 2021. The IMF projection is 8.1%, while latest OECD forecast is at 7.8%.5 Because China’s total private credit (total social financing) growth is inherently higher than M2 growth, we would use pre-pandemic levels as our benchmark for whether the government will tighten policy excessively: If total social financing growth plunges below 12%, then our view is disproved and Beijing is over-tightening (Chart 3). If M2 growth plunges below 8%, we can call it over-tightening. Anything above these benchmarks should be seen as reasonable and expected tightening, anything below as excessive. However, the Chinese and global financial markets could grow jittery at any time over the perennial risk of a policy mistake whenever governments try to prevent excessive leverage and bubbles. As for fiscal policy, the new quotas for local government net new bond issuance point to expected rather than excessive tightening. New bonds can be used to finance capital investment projects. The quota for total new bond issuance is 4.47 trillion CNY, down by 5.5% from last year. Though local governments may not use up all of the quota, the reduction is small. In fact, total local government bond issuance will be a whisker higher in 2021 than in 2020. The quota for net new bonds is only slightly below the 2020 level and much higher than the 2019 level. Therefore the chance of fiscal overtightening is small – and smaller than monetary overtightening. Chart 3China Policy Overtightening Benchmark China Policy Overtightening Benchmark China Policy Overtightening Benchmark Chart 4China’s Real Budget Deficit Is Huge Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry China’s official budget balance is a fiction so we look at the IMF’s augmented net lending and borrowing, which reached a whopping -18.2 % of GDP in 2020. It is expected to decrease gradually to -13.8% by 2025. That level will be slightly higher than the pre-pandemic level from 2017-2019 (Chart 4).6 By contrast, China’s total augmented debt is expected to keep rising in the coming years and reach double the 2015 level by 2025. Efforts to constrain debt could lead to a larger debt-to-GDP ratio if growth suffers as a consequence, as our Global Investment Strategy points out. So China will tighten cautiously – especially given falling productivity, higher unemployment, and the threat of sustained pressure from the US and its allies. US-China: Biden As Trump-Lite Chinese and US officials will convene in Alaska on March 18-19. This is the first major US-China meeting under the Biden administration and global investors will watch closely to see whether tensions will drop. So far tensions have not fallen, highlighting a persistent and once again underrated risk to the global equity rally. Biden’s foreign policy team has not completed its review of China policy and Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are trying to schedule a bilateral summit in April – so nothing concrete will be decided before then. Chart 5US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer The Biden administration is setting up a pragmatic policy, offering areas to engage with China while warning that it will not compromise on democratic values or national interests. China would welcome the opportunity to work with the Americans on nuclear non-proliferation, namely North Korea and Iran, as this would expend US leverage on an area of shared interest while leaving China a free hand over its economic and technological policies. China at least partially enforced sanctions on these countries in response to President Trump’s demands during the trade war and official statistics suggest it continues to do so. Oil imports from Iran remain extremely low while Chinese business with North Korea is, on paper, nil (Chart 5). If this data is accurate then North Korea’s economy has not benefited from China’s stimulus and snapback. If true, then Pyongyang will offer partial concessions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. At the moment, instead of staging any major provocations to object to US-Korean military drills, the North is using fiery language and threatening to restart missile tests. This suggests a diplomatic opening. But investors should be prepared for Pyongyang to stage much bigger provocations than missile tests. In March 2010, while the world focused on the financial crisis, the North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean corvette, the Chonan, and shelled some islands, at the risk of a war. The problem under the Trump administration was that Trump wanted a verifiable and durable deal of economic opening for denuclearization whereas the North Koreans wanted to play for time, reduce sanctions, study the data from their flurry of missile tests during the Obama and early Trump years, and see if Trump would get reelected before offering any concrete concessions. Trump’s stance was not really different from Bill Clinton’s but he tried to accelerate the timeline and go for a big win. By Trump’s losing the election North Korea bought four more years on the clock. Chart 6US-China: Biden Lukewarm On China Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry The Biden administration is willing to play for time if it gets concrete results in phases. This would keep North Korea at bay and retain a line of pragmatic engagement with Beijing. But if North Korea stages a giant provocation Biden will not hesitate to use threats of destruction like Clinton and Trump did. The American public is not much concerned about North Korea (or Iran) but is increasingly concerned about China, with a recent Gallup opinion poll showing that nearly 50% view China as America’s greatest enemy and Americans consistently overrate China’s economic power (Chart 6). Biden will not let grassroots nationalism run his policy. But it is true that he has little to gain politically from appearing to appease China. With progress at hand on the pandemic and economic recovery, Biden will devote more attention to courting the allies and attempting to construct his alliance of democracies to meet global challenges and to “stand up” to China and Russia. The allies, however, are risk-averse when it comes to confronting China. This is as true for the Europeans as it is for China’s Asian neighbors, who stand directly in its firing line. In fact, Europe’s total trade with China is equivalent to that of the US (Chart 7). The Europeans have said that they will pursue tougher trade enforcement through the World Trade Organization, which would tie the Biden administration’s hands. Biden and his cabinet officials insist that they will use the “full array” of tools at their disposal (e.g. tariffs and sanctions) to punish China for mercantilist trade policies. Chinese negotiators are said to be asking explicitly for Biden to roll back Trump’s policies. Some of these policies relate to trade and tech acquisition, others to strategic disputes. We doubt that Biden will compromise on the trade issues to get cooperation on North Korea and Iran. But he will have to offer major concessions if he wants durable denuclearization agreements on these rogue states. Otherwise it will be clear that his administration is mostly focused on competition with China itself and willing to sideline the minor nuclear aspirants. Our expectation is that Americans care about the China threat and the smaller threats will be used as pretexts with which to increase pressure and sanctions on China. Asian equities have corrected after going vertical, as expected. But contrary to our expectations geopolitics was not the cause (Chart 8). This selloff could eventually create a buying opportunity if the Biden administration is revealed to take a more dovish line on China, trade, and tech in exchange for progress on strategic disputes like North Korea. Any discount due to North Korean provocations in particular would be a buy. On Taiwan, however, China’s new 2027 military target underscores our oft-recited red flag. Chart 7EU Risk Averse On China EU Risk Averse On China EU Risk Averse On China Chart 8Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Bottom Line: Investors should stay focused on the US-China relationship. What matters is Biden’s first actions on tariffs and high-tech exports. So far Biden is hawkish as we anticipated. Investors should fade rumors of big new US-China cooperation prior to the first Biden-Xi summit. Any major North Korean aggression will create a buy-on-the-dips opportunity. Unless it triggers a war, that is – and the threshold for war is high given the Chonan incident in 2010. Germany: Markets Wake Up To Election Risk – And Smile This week’s election in the Netherlands delivered a fully expected victory to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s liberal coalition. The German leadership ranks next to the Dutch in terms of governments that received an increase in popular support as a result of the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 9). However, in Germany’s case the election outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Chart 9German Leadership Saw Popularity Bounce Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry As we highlighted in our annual forecast, an upset in which a left-wing bloc forms the government for the first time since 2005 is likelier than the market expects. This scenario presents an upside risk for equities and bund yields since Germany would become even more pro-Europe, pro-integration, and proactive in its fiscal spending. In the current context that would be greeted warmly by financial markets as it would reinforce the cyclical rotation into the euro, industrials, and European peripheral debt. Incidentally, it would also reduce tensions with Russia and China – even as the Biden administration is courting Germany. Recent state elections confirm that the electorate is moving to the left rather than the right. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the third largest state by population and economic output, and a southern state, the Christian Democrats slipped from the last election (-2.9%), the Social Democrats slipped by less (-1.7%), the Free Democrats gained (2.2%), the Greens gained (2.3%), and the far-right Alternative for Germany saw a big drop (-5.4%). In the smaller state of Rhineland-Palatinate the results were largely the same although the Greens did even better (Tables 4A & 4B).7 In both cases the Christian Democrats saw the worst result since prior to the financial crisis while the Greens tripled their support in Baden and doubled their support in the Palatinate over the same time frame. Table 4AGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Table 4BGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry To put this into perspective: Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel and her coalition have seen a net 6% increase in popular support since COVID-19. The coalition, led by the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, still leads national opinion polling. What we are highlighting are chinks in the armor. The gap with the combined left-leaning bloc is less than 10% points (Chart 10). Chart 10German Party Polling German Party Polling German Party Polling Merkel is a lame duck whose party has been in power for 17 years. She is struggling to find an adequate successor. Her current frontrunner for chancellor-candidate, Armin Laschet, is suffering in public opinion, especially after the state election defeats, while her previous successor was ousted last year. Other chancellor-candidates, like Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, and Norbert Röttgen may find themselves to the right of the median voter, which has been shifting to the left. Merkel’s party’s handling of COVID-19 first received praise and now, in the year of the vote, is falling under pressure due to difficulties rolling out the vaccine. Even as conditions improve over the course of the year her party may struggle to recover from the damage, since the underlying reality is that Germany has suffered a recession and is beset by global challenges. While the Christian Democrats performed relatively well in the 2009 election, in the teeth of the global financial crisis, times have changed. Today the Social Democrats are no longer in free fall – ever since their Finance Minister Olaf Scholz led the charge for fiscal stimulus in 2019 – while third parties like the Free Democrats, Greens, and Die Linke all gained in 2009 and look to gain this year (Table 5). In today’s context it is even more likely that other parties will rise at the ruling party’s expense. Still, the Christian Democrats have stout support in polls and do not have to split votes with the far-right, which is in collapse. Table 5German Federal Election Results Show 2021 Could Throw Curveball For Ruling Party Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Therein lies the real market takeaway: right-wing populism has flopped in Germany. The risk to the consensus view that Merkel will hand off the baton seamlessly to a successor and secure her party another term in leadership is that the establishment left will take power (the Greens in Germany are essentially an establishment party). Chart 11German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections Near-term pandemic and economic problems have caused bund yields to fall and the yield curve to flatten so far this year (Chart 11). But that trend is unlikely to continue given the global and national outlook. Election uncertainty should work against this trend since the only possible uncertainty gives more upside to the fiscal outlook and bond yields. If the consensus view indeed comes to pass and the Christian Democrats remain in power, the election holds out policy continuity – at least on economic policy. Fiscal tightening would happen sooner under the Christian Democrats but it would not be aggressive or premature, at least not in the 2021-22 period. It is the current coalition that first loosened Germany’s belt – and it did so in 2019, prior to COVID-19. Germany’s and the EU’s proactive fiscal turn will have a major positive impact on growth prospects, at least cyclically, though it is probably too small thus far to create a structural improvement in potential growth. Fiscal thrust is negative over next two years even with the EU’s Next Generation Recovery Fund being distributed. A structural increase in growth is possible given that all of the major countries are simultaneously pursuing monetary and fiscal stimulus as well as big investments in technology and renewable energy that will help engender a new private capex cycle. But productivity has been on a long, multi-decade decline so it remains to be seen if this can be reversed. Geopolitically speaking, Germany’s and the EU’s policy shift arrived in the nick of time to deepen European integration before divisions revive. Integration is broadly driven by European states’ need to compete on a grand scale with the US, Russia, and China. But Putin, Brexit, and Mario Draghi demonstrate the more tactical pressures: Brexit discourages states from exiting, especially with ongoing trade disputes and the risk of a new Scottish independence referendum; Putin’s aggressive foreign policy drives eastern Europeans into the arms of the West; and the formation of a unity government in Italy encourages European solidarity and improves Italian growth prospects. The outlook for structural reforms is not hopeless. Prime Minister Draghi’s government has a good chance of succeeding at some structural reforms where his predecessors have failed. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron is still favored to win the French election in 2022, which is good for French structural reform. The fact that the EU tied its recovery fund to reform is positive. Most importantly the green energy agenda is replacing budget cutting for the time being, which, again, is positive for capex and could create positive long-term productivity surprises. Of course, structural reform intensity slowed just prior to COVID, in Spain, France, and Italy. Once the recovery funds are spent the desire to persist with reform will wane. This is clear in Spain, which has rolled back some reforms and has a weak government that could dissolve any time, and Italy, where the Draghi coalition may not last long after funds are spent. If the global upswing persists and Chinese/EM growth improves, then Europe will benefit from a macro backdrop that enables it to persist with some structural reforms and crawl out of its liquidity trap. But if China/EM growth relapses then Europe will fall back into a slump. Thus it is a very good thing for Europe, the euro, and European equities that the US is engaged in an epic fiscal blowout and that China’s Two Sessions dampened the risk of overtightening. Incidentally, if the German government does shift, relations with Russia would improve on the margin. While US-Russia tensions will remain hot, German mediation could reduce Russia’s insecurity and lower geopolitical risks for both Russia and emerging Europe, which are very cheaply valued at present in part because they face a persistent geopolitical risk premium. Bottom Line: German politics will drive further EU integration whether the Christian Democrats stay in power or whether the left-wing parties manage a surprise victory. Europe will have to provide more fiscal stimulus but otherwise the global context is favorable for Europe. Investors should not be too pessimistic about short-term hiccups with the vaccine rollout. Investment Takeaways The US is stimulating, China is not overtightening, and German’s election risk is actually an upside risk for European and global risk assets. These points reaffirm a bullish cyclical outlook on global stocks and commodities and a bearish outlook on government bonds. It is especially positive for global beneficiaries of US stimulus excluding China, such as Canada and Mexico. It is also beneficial for industrial metals and emerging markets exposed to China over the medium term, after frenzied buying suffers a healthy correction. Any premium in European equities should be snapped up. However, the cornerstone has been laid for the wall of worry in this global economic cycle: the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s fiscal stimulus will probably fall short. Moreover a consensus outcome from the German election would be a harbinger of earlier-than-expected fiscal normalization. There is not yet a clear green light in US-China relations – on the contrary, our view that Biden would be hawkish is coming to pass. Biden faces foreign policy tests across the board and now is a good time to hedge against the inevitable return of downside risks given the remorseless increase in tensions between the Great Powers. Housekeeping A number of clients have written to ask follow-up questions about our contrarian report last week taking a positive view on cybersecurity stocks despite the tech selloff and a positive view on global defense stocks, especially in relation to cybersecurity. The main request is, Which companies offer the best value? So we teamed up with BCA’s new Equity Analyzer to highlight the companies that receive the best BCA scores utilizing a range of factors including value, safety, payout, quality, technicals, sentiment, and macro context – all relative to a universe of global stocks with a minimum market cap of $1 billion. The results are shown in the Appendix, which we hope will come in handy. Separately our tactical hedge, long US health care equipment versus the broad market, has stopped out at -5%. This makes sense in light of the pro-cyclical rotation. Health care equipment is still likely to outperform the rest of the US health care sector amid a policy onslaught of higher taxes, government-provided insurance, and pharmaceutical price caps.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix Table ABCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Appendix Table BBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Appendix Table CBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Footnotes 1 China is asking for export controls that have hamstrung Huawei and SMIC to be removed as well as for sanctions and travel bans on Communist Party members and students to be lifted. See Lingling Wei and Bob Davis, "China Plans To Ask U.S. To Roll Back Trump Policies In Alaska Meeting," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2021, wsj.com; Helen Davidson, "Taiwanese urged to eat ‘freedom pineapples’ after China import ban," The Guardian, March 2, 2021, theguardian.com. 2 "Putin on Biden: Russian President Reacts To US Leader’s Criticism," BBC, March 18, 2021, bbc.com. 3 Pyongyang is likely to test a new, longer range intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since its self-imposed missile test moratorium began in 2018 after President Trump’s summit with leader Kim Jong Un. See Lara Seligman and Natasha Bertrand, "U.S. ‘On Watch’ For New North Korean Missile Tests," Politico, March 16, 2021, politico.com. 4 See ABC News, "Transcript: Joe Biden delivers remarks on 1-year anniversary of pandemic", ABC News, Mar. 11, 2021, abcnews.com. 5 Please see IMF Staff, "World Economic Outlook Reports", IMF, Jan. 2021, imf.org and OECD Staff, "OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2021", OECD, March 9, 2021, oecd.org. 6 Please see IMF Asia and Pacific Dept, "People’s Republic of China : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the People's Republic of China", IMF, Jan. 8, 2021, imf.org. 7 The other state elections coming up this year will coincide with the federal election on September 26, with one minor exception (Saxony-Anhalt). Opinion polls show the Christian Democrats slipping below the Greens in Berlin and the Social Democrats in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Alternative for Germany is falling in all regions.

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System February 2021 February 2021 The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits February 2021 February 2021   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year February 2021 February 2021   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output February 2021 February 2021   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% February 2021 February 2021 The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Highlights Chinese equities have rallied enthusiastically since the COVID-19 outbreak and are now exposed to underlying political and geopolitical risks. Xi Jinping’s intention is to push forward reform and restructuring, creating a significant risk of policy overtightening over the coming two years. In the first half of 2021, the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment suggest that overtightening will be avoided. But the risk will persist throughout the year. Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan and new focus on import substitution will exacerbate growing distrust with the US. We still doubt that the Biden administration will reduce tensions substantially or for very long. Chinese equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction. The renminbi is at fair value. Go long Chinese government bonds on the basis that political and geopolitical risks are now underrated again. Feature The financial community tends to view China’s political leadership as nearly infallible, handling each new crisis with aplomb. In 2013-15 Chinese leaders avoided a hard landing amid financial turmoil, in 2018-20 they blocked former President Trump’s trade war, and in 2020 they contained the COVID-19 pandemic faster than other countries. COVID was especially extraordinary because it first emerged in China and yet China recovered faster than others – even expanding its global export market share as the world ordered more medical supplies and electronic gadgets (Chart 1). COVID-19 cases are spiking as we go to press but there is little doubt that China will use drastic measures to curb the virus’s spread. It produced two vaccines, even if less effective than its western counterparts (Chart 2). Monetary and fiscal policy will be utilized to prevent any disruptions to the Chinese New Year from pulling the rug out from under the economic recovery. Chart 1China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID Chart 2China Has A Vaccine, Albeit Less Effective China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 In short, China is seen as a geopolitical juggernaut that poses no major risk to the global bull market in equities, corporate bonds, and commodities – the sole backstop for global growth during times of crisis (Chart 3). The problem with this view is that it is priced into markets already, the crisis era is fading (despite lingering near-term risks), and Beijing’s various risks are piling up. Chart 3China Backstopped Global Growth Again China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 First, as potential GDP growth slows, China faces greater difficulty managing the various socioeconomic imbalances and excesses created by its success – namely the tug of war between growth and reform. The crisis shattered China’s attempt to ensure a smooth transition to lower growth rates, leaving it with higher unemployment and industrial restructuring that will produce long-term challenges (Chart 4). Chart 4China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem The shock also forced China to engage in another blowout credit surge, worsening the problem of excessive leverage and reversing the progress that was made on corporate deleveraging in previous years. Second, foreign strategic opposition and trade protectionism are rising. China’s global image suffered across the world in 2020 as a result of COVID, despite the fact that President Trump’s antics largely distracted from China. Going forward there will be recriminations from Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and its power grab in Hong Kong yet Trump will not be there to deflect. By contrast, the Biden administration holds out a much greater prospect of aligning liberal democracies against China in a coalition that could ultimately prove effective in constraining its international behavior. China’s turn inward, toward import substitution and self-sufficiency, will reinforce this conflict. In the current global rebound, in which China will likely be able to secure its economic recovery while the US is supercharging its own, readers should expect global equity markets and China/EM stocks to perform well on a 12-month time frame. We would not deny all the positive news that has occurred. But Chinese equities have largely priced in the positives, meaning that Chinese politics and geopolitics are underrated again and will be a source of negative surprises going forward. The Centennial Of 1921 The Communist Party will hold a general conference to celebrate its 100th birthday on July 1, just as it did in 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011. These meetings are ceremonial and have no impact on economic policy. We examined nominal growth, bank loans, fixed asset investment, industrial output, and inflation and observed no reliable pattern as an outcome of these once-per-decade celebrations. In 2011, for example, General Secretary Hu Jintao gave a speech about the party’s triumphs since 1921, reiterated the goals of the twelfth five-year plan launched in March 2011, and reminded his audience of the two centennial goals of becoming a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and a “modern socialist country” by 2049 (the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic). China is now transitioning from the 2021 goals to the 2049 goals and the policy consequences will be determined by the Xi Jinping administration. Xi will give a speech on July 1 recapitulating the fourteenth five-year plan’s goals and his vision for 2035 and 2049, which will be formalized in March at the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament. As such any truly new announcements relating to the economy should come over the next couple of months, though the broad outlines are already set. There would need to be another major shock to the system, comparable to the US trade war and COVID-19, to produce a significant change in the economic policy outlook from where it stands today. Hence the Communist Party’s 100th birthday is not a driver of policy – and certainly not a reason for authorities to inject another dose of massive monetary and credit stimulus following the country’s massive 12% of GDP credit-and-fiscal impulse from trough to peak since 2018 (Chart 5). The overarching goal is stability around this event, which means policy will largely be held steady. Chart 5China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred Far more important than the centenary of the Communist Party is the political leadership rotation that will begin on the local level in early 2022, culminating in the twentieth National Party Congress in the fall of 2022.1 This was supposed to be the date of Xi’s stepping down, according to the old schedule, but he will instead further consolidate power – and may even name himself Chairman Xi, as the next logical step in his Maoist propaganda campaign. This important political rotation will enable Xi to elevate his followers to higher positions and cement his influence over the so-called seventh generation of Chinese leaders, pushing his policy agenda far into the future. Ahead of these events, Beijing has been mounting a new battle against systemic risks, as it did in late 2016 and throughout 2017 ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. The purpose is to prevent the economic and financial excesses of the latest stimulus from destabilizing the country, to make progress on Xi’s policy agenda, and to expose and punish any adversaries. This new effort will face limitations based on the pandemic and fragile economy but it will nevertheless constitute the default setting for the next two years – and it is a drag on growth rather than a boost. The importance of the centenary and the twentieth party congress will not prevent various risks from exploding between now and the fall of 2022. Some political scandals will likely emerge as foreign or domestic opposition attempts to undermine Xi’s power consolidation – and at least one high-level official will inevitably fall from grace as Xi demonstrates his supremacy and puts his followers in place for higher office. But any market reaction to these kinds of events will be fleeting compared to the reaction to Xi’s economic management. The economic risk boils down to the implementation of Xi’s structural reform agenda and his threshold for suffering political pain in pursuit of this agenda. For now the risk is fairly well contained, as the pandemic is still somewhat relevant, but going forward the tension between growth and reform will grow. Bottom Line: The hundredth birthday of the Communist Party is overrated but the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is of critical importance to the governance of China over the next ten years. These events will not prompt a major new dose of stimulus and they will not prevent a major reform push or crackdown on financial excesses. But as always in China there will still be an overriding emphasis on economic and social stability above all. For now, this is supportive of the new global business cycle, commodity prices, and emerging market equities. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-25) The draft proposal of China’s fourteenth five-year plan (2021-25) will be ratified at the annual “two sessions” in March (Table 1). The key themes are familiar from previous five-year plans, which focused on China’s economic transition from “quantity” to “quality” in economic development. Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China is seen as having entered the “high quality” phase of development – and the word quality is used 40 times in the draft. As with the past five years, the Xi administration is highlighting “supply-side structural reform” as a means of achieving this economic upgrade and promoting innovation. But Xi has shifted his rhetoric to highlight a new concept, “dual circulation,” which will now take center stage. Dual circulation marks a dramatic shift in Chinese policy: away from the “opening up and reform” of the liberal 1980s-2000s and toward a new era of import substitution and revanchism that will dominate the 2020s. Xi Jinping first brought it up in May 2020 and re-emphasized it at the July Politburo meeting and other meetings thereafter. It is essentially a “China First” policy that describes a development path in which the main economic activity occurs within the domestic market. Foreign trade and investment are there to improve this primary domestic activity. Dual circulation is better understood as a way of promoting import substitution, or self-reliance – themes that emerged after the Great Recession but became more explicit during the trade war with the US from 2018-20. The gist is to strengthen domestic demand and private consumption, improve domestic rather than foreign supply options, attract foreign investment, and build more infrastructure to remove internal bottlenecks and improve cross-regional activity (e.g. the Sichuan-Tibet railway, the national power grid, the navigation satellite system). China has greatly reduced its reliance on global trade already, though it is still fairly reliant when Hong Kong is included (Chart 6). The goals of the fourteenth five-year plan are also consistent with the “Made in China 2025” plan that aroused so much controversy with the Trump administration, leading China to de-emphasize it in official communications. Just like dual circulation, the 2025 plan was supposed to reduce China’s dependency on foreign technology and catapult China into the lead in areas like medical devices, supercomputers, robotics, electric vehicles, semiconductors, new materials, and other emerging technologies. This plan was only one of several state-led initiatives to boost indigenous innovation and domestic high-tech production. The response to American pressure was to drop the name but maintain the focus. Some of the initiatives will fall under new innovation and technology guidelines while others will fall under the category of “new types of infrastructure,” such as 5G networks, electric vehicles, big data centers, artificial intelligence operations, and ultra-high voltage electricity grids. With innovation and technology as the overarching goals, China is highly likely to increase research and development spending and aim for an overall level of above 3% of GDP (Chart 7). In previous five-year plans the government did not set a specific target. Nor did it set targets for the share of basic research spending within research and development, which is around 6% but is believed to need to be around 15%-20% to compete with the most innovative countries. While Beijing is already a leader in producing new patents, it will attempt to double its output while trying to lift the overall contribution of technology advancement to the economy. Chart 6China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency Dual circulation will become a major priority affecting other areas of policy. Reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, will take place under this rubric. The Xi administration has dabbled in SOE reform all along, for instance by injecting private capital to create mixed ownership, but progress has been debatable. Chart 7China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending The new five-year plan will incorporate elements of an existing three-year action plan approved last June. The intention is to raise the competitiveness of China’s notoriously bloated SOEs, making them “market entities” that play a role in leading innovation and strengthening domestic supply chains. However, there is no question that SOEs will still be expected to serve an extra-economic function of supporting employment and social stability. So the reform is not really a broad liberalization and SOEs will continue to be a large sector dominated by the state and directed by the state, with difficulties relating to efficiency and competitiveness. Notwithstanding the focus on quality, China still aims to have GDP per capita reach $12,500 by 2025, implying 5%-5.5% annual growth from 2021-25, which is consistent with estimates of the International Monetary Fund (Chart 8). This kind of goal will require policy support at any given time to ensure that there is no major shortfall due to economic shocks like COVID-19. Thus any attempts at reform will be contained within the traditional context of a policy “floor” beneath growth rates – which itself is one of the biggest hindrances to deep reform. Chart 8China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 Chart 9Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions As the economy’s potential growth slows the Communist Party has been shifting its focus to improving the quality of life, as opposed to the previous decades-long priority of meeting the basic material needs of the society. The new five-year plan aims to increase disposable income per capita as part of the transition to a domestic consumption-driven economy. The implied target will be 5%-5.5% growth per year, down from 6.5%+ previously, but the official commitment will be put in vague qualitative terms to allow for disappointments in the slower growing environment. The point is to expand the middle-income population and redistribute wealth more effectively, especially in the face of stark rural disparity. In addition the government aims to increase education levels, expand pension coverage, and, in the midst of the pandemic, increase public health investment and the number of doctors and hospital beds relative to the population. Beijing seems increasingly wary of too rapid of a shift away from manufacturing – which makes sense in light of the steep drop in the manufacturing share of employment amid China’s shift away from export-dependency. In the thirteenth five-year plan, Beijing aimed to increase the service sector share of GDP from 50.5% to 56%. But in the latest draft plan it sets no target for growing services. Any implicit goal of 60% would be soft rather than hard. Given that manufacturing and services combined make up 93% of the economy, there is not much room to grow services further unless policymakers want to allow even faster de-industrialization. But the social and political risks of rapid de-industrialization are well known – both from the liquidation of the SOEs in the late 1990s and from the populist eruptions in the UK and US more recently. Beijing is likely to want to take a pause in shifting away from manufacturing. But this means that China’s exporting of deflation and large market share will persist and hence foreign protectionist sentiment will continue to grow. The fourteenth five-year plan ostensibly maintains the same ambitious targets for environmental improvement as in its predecessor, in terms of water and energy consumption, carbon emissions, pollution levels, renewable energy quotas, and quotas for arable land and forest coverage. But in reality some of these targets are likely to be set higher as Beijing has intensified its green policy agenda and is now aiming to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030. China aims to be a “net zero” carbon country by 2060. Doubling down on the shift away from fossil fuels will require an extraordinary policy push, given that China is still a heavily industrial economy and predominantly reliant on coal power. So environmental policy will be a critical area to watch when the final five-year plan is approved in March, as well as in future plans for the 2026-30 period. As was witnessed in recent years, ambitious environmental goals will be suspended when the economy slumps, which means that achieving carbon emissions goals will not be straightforward (Chart 9), but it is nevertheless a powerful economic policy theme and investment theme. Xi Jinping’s Vision: 2035 On The Way To 2049 At the nineteenth National Party Congress, the critical leadership rotation in 2017, Xi Jinping made it clear that he would stay in power beyond 2022 – eschewing the nascent attempt of his predecessors to set up a ten-year term limit – and establish 2035 as a midway point leading to the 2049 anniversary of the People’s Republic. There are strategic and political goals relevant to this 2035 vision – including speculation that it could be Xi’s target for succession or for reunification with Taiwan – but the most explicit goals are, as usual, economic. Chart 10Xi Jinping’s 2035 Goals China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Officially China is committing to descriptive rather than numerical targets. GDP per capita is to reach the level of “moderately developed countries.” However, in a separate explanation statement, Xi Jinping declares, “it is completely possible for China to double its total economy or per capita income by 2035.” In other words, China’s GDP is supposed to reach 200 trillion renminbi, while GDP per capita should surpass $20,000 by 2035, implying an annual growth rate of at least 4.73% (Chart 10). There is little reason to believe that Beijing will succeed as much in meeting future targets as it has in the past. In the past China faced steady final demand from the United States and the West and its task was to bring a known quantity of basic factors of production into operation, after lying underutilized for decades, which made for high growth rates and fairly predictable outcomes. In the future the sources of demand are not as reliable and China’s ability to grow will be more dependent on productivity enhancements and innovation that cannot be as easily created or predicted. The fourteenth five-year plan and Xi’s 2035 vision will attempt to tackle this productivity challenge head on. But restructuring and reform will advance intermittently, as Xi is unquestionably maintaining his predecessors’ commitment to stability above all. Outlook 2021: Back To The Tug Of War Of Stimulus And Reform The tug of war between economic stimulus and reform is on full display already in 2021 and will become by far the most important investment theme this year. If China tightens monetary and fiscal policy excessively in 2021, in the name of reform, it will undermine its own and the global economic recovery, dealing a huge negative surprise to the consensus in global financial markets that 2021 will be a year of strong growth, rebounding trade, a falling US dollar, and ebullient commodity prices. Our view is that Chinese policy tightening is a significant risk this year – it is not overrated – but that the government will ultimately ease policy as necessary and avoid what would be a colossal policy mistake of undercutting the economic recovery. We articulated this view late last year and have already seen it confirmed both in the Politburo’s conclusions at the annual economic meeting in December, and in the reemergence of COVID-19, which will delay further policy tightening for the time being. The pattern of the Xi administration thus far is to push forward domestic reforms until they run up against the limits of economic stability, and then to moderate and ease policy for the sake of recovery, before reinitiating the attack. Two key developments initially encouraged Xi to push forward with a new “assault phase of reform” in 2021: First, a new global business cycle is beginning, fueled by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus across the world (not only in China), which enables Xi to take actions that would drag on growth. Second, Xi Jinping has emerged from the US trade war stronger than ever at home. President Trump lost the election, giving warning to any future US president who would confront China with a frontal assault. The Biden administration’s priority is economic recovery, for the sake of the Democratic Party’s future as well as for the nation, and this limits Biden’s ability to escalate the confrontation with China, even though he will not revoke most of Trump’s actions. Biden’s predicament gives Beijing a window to pursue difficult domestic initiatives before the Biden administration is capable of turning its full attention to the strategic confrontation with China. The fact that Biden seeks to build a coalition of states first, and thus must spend a great deal of time on diplomacy with Europe and other allies, is another advantageous circumstance. China is courting and strengthening relations with Europe and those very allies so as to delay the formation of any effective coalition (Chart 11). Chart 11China Courts EU As Substitute For US China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Thus, prior to the latest COVID-19 spike, Beijing was clearly moving to tighten monetary and fiscal policy and avoid a longer stimulus overshoot that would heighten the country’s long-term financial risks and debt woes. This policy preference will continue to be a risk in 2021: Central government spending down: Emergency fiscal spending to deal with the pandemic will be reduced from 2020 levels and the budget deficit will be reined in. The Politburo’s chief economic planning event, the Central Economic Work Conference in December, resulted in a decision to maintain fiscal support but to a lesser degree. Fiscal policy will be “effective and sustainable,” i.e. still proactive but lower in magnitude (Chart 12). Local government spending down: The central government will try to tighten control of local government bond issuance. The issuance of new bonds will fall closer to 2019 levels after a 55% increase in 2020. New bonds provide funds for infrastructure and investment projects meant to soak up idle labor and boost aggregate demand. A cut back in these projects and new bonds will drag on the economy relative to last year (Chart 13). Chart 12China Pares Government Spending On The Margin China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Chart 13China Pares Local Government Spending Too China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy tightening up: The People’s Bank of China aims to maintain a “prudent monetary policy” that is stable and targeted in 2021. The intention is to avoid any sharp change in policy. However, PBoC Governor Yi Gang admits that there will be some “reasonable adjustments” to monetary policy so that the growth of broad money (M2) and total social financing (total private credit) do not wildly exceed nominal GDP growth (which should be around 8%-10% in 2021). The risk is that excessive easiness in the current context will create asset bubbles. The implication is that credit growth will slow to 11%-12%. This is not slamming on the brakes but it is a tightening of credit policy. Macro-prudential regulation up: The People’s Bank is reasserting its intention to implement the new Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework designed to tackle systemic financial risk. The rollout of this reform paused last year due to the pandemic. A detailed plan of how the country’s various major financial institutions will adopt this new mechanism is expected in March. The implication is that Beijing is turning its attention back to mitigating systemic financial risks. This includes closer supervision of bank capital adequacy ratios and cross-border financing flows. New macro-prudential tools are also targeting real estate investment and potentially other areas. Larger established banks will have a greater allowance for property loans than smaller, riskier banks. At the same time, it is equally clear that Beijing will try to avoid over-tightening policy: The COVID outbreak discourages tightening: This outbreak has already been mentioned and will pressure leaders to pause further policy tightening at least until they have greater confidence in containment. The vaccine rollout process also discourages economic activity at first since nobody wants to go out and contract the disease when a cure is in sight. Local government financial support is still robust: Local governments will still need to issue refinancing bonds to deal with the mountain of debt coming into maturity and reduce the risk of widespread insolvency. In 2020, they issued more than 1.8 trillion yuan of refinancing bonds to cover about 88% of the 2 trillion in bonds coming due. In 2021, they will have to issue about 2.2 trillion of refinancing bonds to maintain the same refinancing rate for a larger 2.6 trillion yuan in bonds coming due (Table 2). Thus while Beijing is paring back its issuance of new bonds to fund new investment projects, it will maintain a high level of refinancing bonds to prevent insolvency from cascading and undermining the recovery. Table 2Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy will not be too tight: The People’s Bank’s open market operations in January so far suggest that it is starting to fine-tune its policies but that it is doing so in an exceedingly measured way so as not to create a liquidity squeeze around the traditionally tight-money period of Chinese New Year. The seven-day repo rate, the de facto policy interest rate, has already rolled over from last year’s peak. The takeaway is that while Beijing clearly intended to cut back on emergency monetary and fiscal support this year – and while Xi Jinping is clearly willing to impose greater discipline on the economy and financial system prior to the big political events of 2021-22 – nevertheless the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment will ensure a relatively accommodative policy for the first half of 2021 in order to secure the economic recovery. The underlying risk of policy tightening is still significant, especially in the second half of 2021 and in 2022, due to the underlying policy setting. Investment Takeaways The CNY-USD has experienced a tremendous rally in the wake of the US-China phase one trade deal last year and Beijing’s rapid bounce-back from the pandemic. The trade weighted renminbi is now trading just about at fair value (Chart 14). We closed our CNY-USD short recommendation and would stand aside for now. China’s current account surplus is still robust, real reform requires a fairly strong yuan, and the Biden administration will also expect China not to depreciate the currency competitively. Thus while we anticipate the CNY-USD to suffer a surprise setback when the market realizes that the US and China will continue to clash despite the end of the Trump administration, nevertheless we are no longer outright short the currency. Chinese investable stocks have rallied furiously on the stimulus last year as well as robust foreign portfolio inflows. The rally is likely overstretched at the moment as the COVID outbreak and policy uncertainties come to the fore. This is also true for Chinese stocks other than the high-flying technology, media, and telecom stocks (Chart 15). Domestic A-shares have rallied on the back of Alibaba executive Jack Ma’s reappearance even though the clear implication is that in the new era, the Communist Party will crack down on entrepreneurs – and companies like fintech firm Ant Group – that accumulate too much power (Chart 16). Chart 14Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Chart 15China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought Chart 16Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Chart 17Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Chinese government bond yields are back near their pre-COVID highs (though not their pre-trade war highs). Given the negative near-term backdrop – and the longer term challenges of restructuring and geopolitical risks over Taiwan and other issues that we expect to revive – these bonds present an attractive investment (Chart 17). Housekeeping: In addition to going long Chinese 10-year government bonds on a strategic time frame, we are closing our long Mexican industrials versus EM trade for a loss of 9.1%. We are still bullish on the Mexican peso and macro/policy backdrop but this trade was premature. We are also closing our long S&P health care tactical hedge for a loss of 1.8%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Indeed the 2022 political reshuffle has already begun with several recent appointments of provincial Communist Party secretaries.

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out… November 2020 November 2020   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want November 2020 November 2020   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds November 2020 November 2020 A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists ...And Populists ...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights The signaling of QE programs by central banks has the greatest short-term impact on financial markets. However, the staying power of that impact depends on how fast QE operations expand money supply and what commercial banks and economic agents do with newly created excess reserves and deposits, respectively. QE programs in 2020 are creating more money supply, i.e. more potential purchasing power for goods, services and assets, than did QE programs of the last decade. Therefore, going forward QE programs will have a greater impact on financial markets than they did in the past ten years. Considerably faster money creation increases the odds of meaningfully higher goods and services inflation in the coming years. Rising velocity of money will be the key to inducing and sustaining higher inflation. Feature There are varying explanations in the investment community over how quantitative easing (QE) programs affect asset prices and consumer price inflation. For example, investors often struggle to dissect the impact of QE on equity prices and exchange rates: (1) Is it the level of central bank assets or their rate of change that affects financial markets? or (2) Is it the signaling mechanism of QE that moves asset prices and currencies? (3) Why did QE programs in the last decade not lead to higher consumer price inflation? We use a question-answer format to elaborate on these and other questions related to QE programs.  QE operations create new money (deposits at commercial banks) when central banks purchase assets from or lend to non-banks. Question: Do QE programs amount to money printing? Answer: Not always. QE operations by central banks might or might not create new money supply. First, we have to define money. In all countries, broad money supply is commonly defined and calculated as the sum of cash in circulation and all types of deposits in the commercial banking system. Cash in circulation makes only 11% of broad money supply in the US, 9% in the euro area, 3.8% in China and 7.3% in Japan. Hence, various types of deposits in commercial banks constitute the overwhelming portion of broad money supply. Deposits in commercial banks are not a part of a central bank’s balance sheet. Therefore, neither central bank assets nor liabilities are valid measures or proxies of money supply. Chart I-1A and I-1B illustrates that changes in central bank assets and broad money supply have contrasted greatly.     Chart I-1ACentral Bank Assets ≠ Money Supply Central Bank Assets Money Supply Central Bank Assets Money Supply Chart I-1BCentral Bank Assets ≠ Money Supply Central Bank Assets Money Supply Central Bank Assets Money Supply   When central banks expand their balance sheets, they create excess reserves (ERs) “out-of-thin air”. ERs are commercial bank deposits at the central bank. There is a close relationship between ERs and central bank balance sheets as ERs constitute a large part of the latter’s liabilities. As a mirror image of ERs, the asset side of central banks’ balance sheet expands as they acquire securities or originate loans.  However, ERs are not a part of either narrow or broad money supply. In fact, in the last decade QE programs in the US, Japan and the euro area created a lot of ERs but little money supply as can been seen in Chart I-2A and I-2B. Chart I-2ATrends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ Trends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ Trends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ Chart I-2BTrends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ Trends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ Trends In Excess Reserves And Money Supply Differ   In China, it was the opposite: commercial banks have created a lot of money and expanded their assets even as the central bank has provided little ERs (Chart I-2B, bottom panel).  ERs are liquidity for the banking system; commercial banks use ERs to settle payments among themselves and with the central bank. ERs do not spill over into the real economy as commercial banks do not lend out ERs to companies and households. When a central bank buys securities or lends money, it always creates ERs but it does not always create money supply. Households, companies, non-bank financial institutions, organizations and governments (hereafter, economic agents) use money supply – deposits in the banking system and cash in circulation – to buy goods, services and assets. They do not have access to or do not use ERs. Given that central bank QE operations create ERs but not always money supply (deposits), they have a much more nuanced impact on the money supply. Question: In which cases do QE operations create money supply (or not)?  Answer: Whether a QE operation will lead to money creation depends on the counterparty of the central bank transaction: 1. When the central bank lends to or buys securities from commercial banks, it creates ERs but not money supply (deposits). In this case, the central bank’s balance sheet expands but the amount of deposits/money supply in the banking system does not change (Figure I-1). Figure I-1 Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation This operation creates ERs (liquidity for the banking system) but not money supply/deposits at banks that economic agents can use to purchase goods, services, and assets. That said, commercial banks with a large quantity of ERs might decide to originate more loans/lend more to economic agents so that money supply (purchasing power) can expand. In this scenario, QE operations do not affect money supply directly, but they may do so indirectly. 2. When the central bank lends to or purchases securities from economic agents, both ERs and new money supply/deposits are created “out of thin air” (Figure I-2). In this case, not only do commercial banks get ERs but economic agents also get deposits that did not exist before. These newly created deposits constitute an increase in money supply and boost the purchasing power of these economic agents. Figure I-2 Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation 3. Absent QE operations, central banks do not typically directly alter money supply; money is almost entirely created by commercial banks. When a commercial bank buys securities from or lends to economic agents, ERs do not change but a new deposit is created “out of thin air”, therefore the money supply expands. Conversely, when a bank sells a security to a non-bank, or a non-bank repays a loan, the money supply (i.e., the amount of deposits in the banking system) shrinks. To sum up, QE operations create new money (deposits at commercial banks) when central banks purchase assets from or lend to non-banks. When central banks purchase assets from commercial banks, no new money is created. Importantly, the main source of money creation outside QE programs is commercial bank purchases of securities from or loans to economic agents. Changes in the velocity of money explain fluctuations in core consumer price inflation much better than money growth in major economies. Question: How can we forecast if any particular QE program is going to create more or less money? Answer: There is no way to predict it. All depends on the counterparties involved in central bank transactions. One can only observe the evolution of money supply to gauge the direct impact of a QE program on money supply. Further, commercial bank actions have a great deal of impact on money supply. When the commercial banking system as a whole shrinks its assets (loan book, holdings of securities and other claims or assets), money supply contracts, ceteris paribus. In short, to forecast changes in money supply one need to not only forecast central bank transactions with economic agents (non-banks) but also commercial banks loans to, and purchases of securities from, economic agents. Chart I-3Broad Money Growth: Now Versus Last Decade Broad Money Growth: Now Versus Last Decade Broad Money Growth: Now Versus Last Decade Question: In regard to their impact on money supply, how do QE programs presently differ from those of the last decade? Answer: The key difference between the outcomes of QE programs this year and the ones undertaken in the last decade is that broad money growth in advanced economies is skyrocketing now but it was tame during the QE programs of the last decade (Chart I-3). To recap, QE programs in the US, Japan and the euro area, over the past 10 or so years have created a lot of ERs but little money supply. The reasons for this are as follows: deleveraging by banking systems in the last decade – commercial banks assets shrank or grew modestly – partially offset QE operations’ boost to money supply. Chart I-4 illustrates commercial banks’ assets contracted in 2009-10 in the US, in 2012-17 in the euro area and in the 1990s in Japan. Shrinking commercial bank assets reduces money supply, ceteris paribus. That is why QE programs of the last decade had a muted impact on broad money supply. Presently, commercial banks assets are rising rapidly in the US, the euro area and Japan. Hence, the simultaneous expansion of both central bank and commercial banks assets ensures much more robust money growth now than during the past two decades. Further, advanced economies are moving from monetary to fiscal dominance as their fiscal policies become much more proactive in stimulating growth. This entails running larger fiscal deficits. Mushrooming government bond supply will have to be absorbed by central banks to preclude a substantial rise in bond yields that can threaten economic expansions. Consequently, central banks will purchase a lot of government bonds not from commercial banks but from governments or other investors. This will directly boost money supply. Finally, commercial banks in DM have plenty of ERs and they do not need to sell their bonds in exchange for ERs like they did when they deleveraged last decade. Hence, DM central banks will primarily be purchasing bonds from non-banks resulting in new money creation. All in all, money supply in advanced economies will grow much faster this decade than it did in the past ten years.       Question: Does the current booming money supply in the US not reflect an overflow of excess savings? Answer: As we discussed in our previous reports on money, credit and savings, changes in money supply are not at all contingent on national or household savings. As was discussed above, outside of QE operations, money is primarily created by commercial banks “out-of-thin air” when they lend to or purchase assets from non-banks. Chart I-5 illustrates that there has been no positive correlation between the savings rate and money supply in China, Korea, Japan and the US. The same holds true for any other economy. Chart I-4Commercial Bank Assets Have Great Impact On Money Supply Commercial Bank Assets Have Great Impact On Money Supply Commercial Bank Assets Have Great Impact On Money Supply Chart I-5National Or Household Savings Do Not Drive Changes In Money Supply National Or Household Savings Do Not Drive Changes In Money Supply National Or Household Savings Do Not Drive Changes In Money Supply Chart I-6The US: Household Savings Rate And Money Supply The US: Household Savings Rate And Money Supply The US: Household Savings Rate And Money Supply The reason why the surge in US money supply this year has coincided with the rise in the US savings rate is as follows (Chart I-6): the Federal Reserve bought an enormous amount of US Treasury securities creating new money “out of thin air”; households received these fiscal transfers from the government in their bank accounts in the form of deposits. Hence, new money was created as a result of public debt monetization and this occurred before consumers made their choice between spending and saving. Critically, changes in economic agents’ propensity to save are reflected not in money supply but in the velocity of money. When households or companies decide to spend their deposits, the velocity of money rises. Conversely, when households and companies decide to save (retain) their deposits, the velocity of money drops. In brief, changes in the propensity to save alter the velocity of money, but not the amount of money supply. Chart I-7Velocity Of Money Explains Changes In Core Inflation Velocity Of Money Explains Changes In Core Inflation Velocity Of Money Explains Changes In Core Inflation Question: What is more important to inflation in goods and services: money supply or the velocity of money? Answer: Empirical evidence shows that the changes in the velocity of money explain fluctuations in core consumer price inflation much better than money growth in major economies (Chart I-7). Overall, there is no direct link between interest rates and money supply on the one hand and goods and service inflation on the other hand. That said, low interest rates or rapid money growth might encourage economic agents to save less, i.e., spend a larger share of their income. Stronger spending – which leads to an acceleration in the velocity of money – will raise inflationary pressures in the real economy. Even if QE programs succeed in generating rapid money growth, the latter does not automatically bring about higher inflation in goods and services. The willingness of consumers and businesses to consume more is critical to generating consumer and producer price inflation. Question: How does money supply differ from liquidity that flows into financial markets? Answer: Investors and market commentators often refer to “liquidity” as a driving force for financial markets. Yet definitions and calculations of liquidity vary tremendously. What investors refer to as “liquidity” can by and large be classified into three groupings: (1) banking system liquidity (excess reserves); (2) broad money supply (all deposits and cash in circulation) available to purchase goods, services and assets, including securities; and (3) liquidity in asset markets – the portion of broad money supply that is channeled to purchase financial assets. Figure I-3 provides a visual representation of money supply and liquidity groupings. All other measures of “liquidity” generally fall into one of these three groupings. Figure I-3Liquidity Groupings And Linkages Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation Deposits/money supply can be used to acquire both financial and real assets as well as to purchase goods and services. They could also be kept idle. In a given period of time, it is impossible to envisage what portion of deposits in the banking system will be allocated to securities investments. Ultimately, this decision rests with each individual and institutional investor. Therefore, it is impossible to forecast the true size of liquidity flow into and out of asset markets. Chart I-8Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization Overall, gauging liquidity flows to asset markets boils down to predicting investor behavior. Liquidity flows into financial assets when “animal spirits” among investors improve. In contrast, deteriorating investor confidence can lead to a dearth of liquidity in asset markets, despite abundant broad money supply. This topic of liquidity flows into and out of financial markets was extensively discussed in our report titled A Primer On Liquidity. Question: Is there a shortage of financial assets relative to available liquidity? Answer: Probably yes. QE programs in advanced economies have removed high-quality financial assets – valued at about $22 trillion – from global markets. Yet, money supply has expanded tremendously. This has left more money chasing few assets. The top panel of Chart I-8 demonstrates that US institutional and retail money market funds – a measure of cash on the sidelines – presently stand at $4 trillion. Notably, the Fed and US commercial banks have increased their debt securities holdings by $3.2 trillion since February and are currently holding $10.9 trillion of debt securities (Chart I-8, middle and bottom panel). These securities, held by the Fed and US commercial banks, are not available to non-bank investors. We reckon that cash on the sidelines is equal to 8% of the combined value of US equities and US-dollar debt securities available to non-bank investors, i.e. excluding debt securities owned by the Fed and commercial banks (Chart I-9). There is room for this ratio to drop further to its January 2020 level. Chart I-9Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Has Room To Drop Further Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Has Room To Drop Further Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Has Room To Drop Further To recap, the amount of liquidity flowing into and out of financial assets is ultimately contingent on investor behavior. When investors are willing to invest, liquidity flows into asset markets. On the contrary, when investors turn cautious, they withhold liquidity and asset prices drop.   Overall, barring negative shocks and relapses in growth, risk assets will be supported by tailwinds of expanding money supply. Conclusions And Investment Strategy The signaling of QE programs by central banks has the greatest short-term impact on financial markets – positive on risk assets and negative on the exchange rate. However, the staying power of that impact depends on how fast QE operations expand money supply and what commercial banks and economic agents do with newly created ERs and deposits, respectively. Besides, the amount of securities withdrawn from circulation by central banks relative to assets under management also determines the impact of QE operations on asset prices. QE programs in 2020 are creating more money supply, i.e. more potential purchasing power for goods, services and assets, than did QE programs of the last decade. Going forward, QE programs will have a greater impact on financial markets than they did in the last decade because they will create more money supply (Chart I-10). Besides, as central banks absorb more securities, the availability of securities to private investors will decline. This will be especially pertinent if the pool of assets under management expands faster along with rapidly growing money supply. This ceteris paribus warrants high asset prices. Interestingly, Chart I-11 demonstrates that during the last decade there was no positive correlation between G4 QE programs - central banks’ balance sheets - and EM risk assets and currencies. Based on this Chart I-11, during the last decade we often downplayed the importance of QE programs for EM financial markets. Chart I-10Global Money Does Not Always Drive Share Prices Global Money Does Not Always Drive Share Prices Global Money Does Not Always Drive Share Prices Chart I-11DM Central Banks' Assets And EM: No Correlation In The Last Decade DM Central Banks' Assets And EM: No Correlation In The Last Decade DM Central Banks' Assets And EM: No Correlation In The Last Decade   However, we have changed our view on the impact of the current round of QE programs on financial markets since May when we published a report titled Understanding QE Programs In EM And DM.  3. Considerably faster money creation increases the odds of meaningfully higher goods and services inflation. A rising velocity of money will be the key to inducing and sustaining higher inflation. De-globalization, policies targeting income redistribution from high- to low-income households, and the oligopolistic structure of a growing number of industries all argue for higher price inflation in the real economy this decade. Only technological advances and automation will be working the opposite way and thus keeping a lid on consumer price inflation. In short, odds favor higher inflation this decade.  4. Concerning EM financial markets, QE programs in EM and DM are especially positive for EM local currency bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets. We remain long duration in EM domestic bonds but neutral on their currencies versus the US dollar. We expect a rebound in the US dollar before the end of this year. We will use this rebound in the greenback to recommend investors to be long local bonds without hedging currency risk. As for EM credit markets, we are neutral and expect to buy on a dip. The ability of governments to finance themselves locally will limit the supply of US dollar bonds and support this asset class. The latter will also benefit from DM QE programs. While EM and DM QE programs can meaningfully affect the trend in share prices and currencies, the primary long-term trend in EM equities and exchange rates will depend on the return on capital in their respective economies. A high or rising return on capital will supercharge share prices and lead to substantial currency appreciation. A low or plunging return on capital will weigh on both stock prices and currencies, regardless of QE programs. Equity investors should remain neutral on EM equities versus DM. We are presently short a basket of EM currencies versus the euro, CHF and JPY. For country allocation with equities, local bonds, credit markets and currencies, please refer to tables at the end of each report (pages 17-18). The signaling of QE programs by central banks has the greatest short-term impact on financial markets. 5. Finally, Chart I-12 presents a graph that combines two variables: the increase in broad money supply since February as a share of GDP (X-axis) and each country’s central bank purchases of government bonds as a share of net government bond issuance since February (Y-axis).  Chart I-12Monetization Of Fiscal Deficit And Rapid Money Growth Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation This chart gauges the degree of public debt/fiscal deficit monetization by central bank QE operations and aggregate money creation by the central bank and commercial banks. It reveals that the US, the euro area, the Philippines and Poland since February have experienced a money boom stemming from their central banks buying government bonds. India and Turkey are a notch below them. In the majority of EM countries, central bank QE programs and money creation by banks have been timid. This confirms our theme that the majority of EM except China, Korea, and Taiwan are facing tight budget constraints. This will slow down a recovery in these economies. However, it will also force companies and commercial banks to restructure and boost efficiency. The ones that undertake such restructuring will enjoy a bull market in share prices and their currencies will appreciate in the long run.     Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

To all clients, Next week, in lieu of publishing a regular report, I will be hosting a webcast on September 15th at 10 am EDT, discussing our latest views on global fixed income markets.  Sign up details for the Webcast will arrive in your inboxes later this week.   Best regards, Robert Robis, Chief Fixed Income Strategist   Feature Much of the global rebound in economic activity, and recovery in equity and credit markets, seen since the COVID-19 shock earlier this year can be attributed to historic levels of monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, the effective transmission of various monetary policy measures such as liquidity injections and refinancing operations, and by extension a sustained global recovery, is dependent on the continued smooth flow of credit from lenders to borrowers. As such, the tightening in bank lending standards seen across developed markets in the second quarter of 2020 could imperil the recovery if banks remain cautious with borrowers (Chart 1). Chart 1Credit Standards Across Developed Markets Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook This week, we are introducing the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand.  We will be publishing this chartbook on an occasional basis going forward to help inform our fixed income investment recommendations. Where it is relevant to our analysis, we will also make special note of the one-off questions asked in some of these surveys that are germane to the economic situation at hand. Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/ Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey US Chart 2US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Overall credit standards for US businesses, measured as an average of standards faced by small, medium and large firms, tightened dramatically in Q2/2020 (Chart 2). Unsurprisingly, gloomier economic outlooks, reduced risk tolerance, and worsening industry-specific problems were the top reasons cited by US banks for tightening standards. US banks reported that commercial and industrial (C&I) loan demand from all firms also weakened in Q2, owing to a decrease in customers’ inventory financing and fixed investment needs. This suggests that the surge in actual C&I loan growth data during the spring was fueled by companies drawing down credit lines to survive the lack of cash flow during the COVID-19 lockdowns and should soon peak. Standards for consumer loans tightened significantly in Q2, as well. A continuation of this trend would pose a major risk to the US economic recovery, given the still fragile state of US consumer confidence. Business lending standards typically lead US high-yield corporate bond default rates by about one year, suggesting that defaults will continue to climb over the next few quarters (Chart 2, top panel). Tightening US junk bond spreads have ignored the rising trend in defaults and now provide no compensation for the likely amount of future default losses, suggesting poor value in the overall US high-yield market (Chart 3). Turning to the real estate market, lending standards have tightened significantly for both commercial and residential mortgage loans (Chart 4). In a special question asked in the Q2 survey, US banks indicated that lending standards for both those categories are at the tighter end of the range that has prevailed since 2005. Business lending standards typically lead US high-yield corporate bond default rates by about one year, suggesting that defaults will continue to climb over the next few quarters. Chart 3US Junk Spreads Do Not Compensate For Default Risk US Junk Spreads Do Not Compensate For Default Risk US Junk Spreads Do Not Compensate For Default Risk Chart 4The White Picket Fence Is Looking Out Of Reach The White Picket Fence Is Looking Out Of Reach The White Picket Fence Is Looking Out Of Reach Euro Area Italy is seeing the greater benefit from ECB support, however, with loan growth now at a new cyclical high. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions In contrast to the US, credit standards actually eased slightly in the euro area in Q2/2020 (Chart 5). Banks reported increased perceptions of overall risk from a worsening economic outlook, but that was more than offset by the massive liquidity and loan guarantee programs that were part of the policy response to the COVID-19 recession. Going forward, banks expect lending standards to tighten as the maximum impact of those policies begins to fade. Credit demand from firms rose in Q2, driven by acute liquidity needs during the COVID-19 lockdowns. At the same time, demand for longer-term financing for capital expenditure was very depressed. Banks expect credit demand to normalize in Q3, as easing lockdown restrictions dampen the immediate need for liquidity. Credit demand from euro area households plummeted in Q2. Banks reported that plunging consumer confidence was the leading cause of decline in credit demand, followed closely by reduced spending on durable goods. Consumer confidence has already rebounded and banks expect demand to follow suit, as economies re-open and spending opportunities return. Chart 6HY Spreads In The Euro Area Are Unattractive HY Spreads In The Euro Area Are Unattractive HY Spreads In The Euro Area Are Unattractive As with the US, we expect that tighter credit standards to firms will drive up euro area high-yield default rates. Current euro area high-yield spreads offer little compensation for the coming increase in default losses, suggesting a similar poor valuation backdrop to US junk bonds (Chart 6). Looking at the four major euro area economies, credit standards eased across the board in Q2, with the largest moves seen in Italy and Spain (Chart 7). The ECB’s liquidity operations have helped support lending in those countries, each with a take-up from long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) equal to around 14% of total bank lending (Chart 8). Italy is seeing the greater benefit from ECB support, however, with loan growth now at a new cyclical high and Spanish banks projecting a much sharper tightening of lending standards in Q3 relative to Italian banks.   Chart 7Loan Growth Accelerating Across Most Of The Euro Area Loan Growth Accelerating Across Most Of The Euro Area Loan Growth Accelerating Across Most Of The Euro Area Chart 8Italy & Spain Taking Full Advantage Of LTROs Italy & Spain Taking Full Advantage Of LTROs Italy & Spain Taking Full Advantage Of LTROs UK For consumers, UK banks are projecting loan demand to improve in Q3, although that will require a sharper rebound in consumer confidence than has been seen to date. Chart 9UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions In the UK, corporate credit standards eased significantly in Q2 2020 thanks to the massive liquidity support programs provided by the UK government (Chart 9). Lenders reported a larger proportion of loan application approvals from all business sizes, with the greatest improvements seen in small businesses and medium-sized private non-financial corporations (PNFCs). However, lenders indicated that average credit quality on new PNFC borrowing facilities had actually declined, with default rates increasing, for all sizes of borrowers. This divergence between increased lending and declining borrower creditworthiness attests to the impact of the UK’s substantial liquidity provisions in response to the COVID-19 shock.   The credit demand side mirrors the supply story with a massive spike in Q2 2020. In contrast to euro area counterparts, UK businesses reportedly borrowed primarily to facilitate balance sheet restructuring. However, as with the euro area, the story for Q3 is much more bearish. Banks are projecting credit standards to turn more restrictive as stimulus programs run out and borrowers rein in credit demand. Going forward, decreasing risk appetite of UK banks will likely contribute to a tightening in lending standards. For consumers, UK banks are projecting loan demand to improve in Q3, although that will require a sharper rebound in consumer confidence than has been seen to date. UK banks surprisingly reported that the average credit quality of new consumer loans improved in Q2, suggesting that consumer loan demand could rebound strongly in Q3 as lockdown restrictions fade.   Japan Perversely, the latest improvement in Japanese business optimism could translate to lower business loan demand going forward. Chart 10Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Before the pandemic hit, credit standards in Japan were in a structural tightening trend for both firms and households (Chart 10). Fiscal authorities have taken a number of measures to ease conditions for businesses, including low interest rate loan programs and guarantees for large businesses as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, which has translated into the easiest credit standards for Japanese firms since 2005. The correlation between business loan demand and business conditions is not as clear-cut in Japan compared to other countries. Japanese firms tend to borrow more when the economic outlook is poor, indicating that loans are being used to meet emergency funding or restructuring needs rather than being put towards capital expenditure or inventory financing. Perversely, the latest improvement in Japanese business optimism could translate to lower business loan demand going forward. However, the consumer picture is a bit more conventional—consumer loan demand and confidence tend to track quite closely. While consumer confidence has yet to stage a convincing rebound, it has clearly bottomed. The more positive projections for consumer loan demand from the Japan bank lending survey seem to confirm this message.  Canada And New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards tightened in Q2/2020 as loan growth slowed (Chart 11). Although loan growth is far from contracting on a year-on-year basis, further tightening in conditions could pose an obstacle to Canadian recovery. On the mortgage side, the Canadian government has been active in easing pressures for lenders by relaxing loan-to-value requirements for mortgage insurance, making it easier for them to collateralize and sell their assets to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Although this has yet to translate to the standards faced by borrowers, residential mortgage growth remains buoyant. In New Zealand, credit standards for firms (including both corporates and SMEs) tightened significantly in Q2 (Chart 12). Many banks expect to apply tighter lending standards to borrowers in industries most impacted by the pandemic, such as tourism, accommodation, and construction. Demand for credit from firms was driven by working capital needs while capital expenditure funding demands fell drastically. Chart 11Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 12New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions   On the consumer side, residential mortgage standards increased somewhat, and banks expect to perform more due diligence on income and job security. The hit to credit demand was broad-based across credit card, secured, and unsecured lending and coincided with a sharp fall in loan demand.     Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Historically, soft-budget constraints have typically been followed by periods of poor equity market performance. Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinct economic scenarios: malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. Odds are that the US will continue to pursue easy money policies, sowing the seeds of US equity underperformance in the years ahead. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints, which will weigh on their growth in the near term. However, forced restructuring could boost efficiency and productivity leading to their equity and currency outperformance in the coming years. Unlike other developing economies, China is not currently facing hard-budget constraints. However, the structural overhang from the past 10 years of soft-budget constraints is lingering on and in some cases is increasing. The Thesis The consensus in the investment industry is that cheap money and ample stimulus are good for share prices. We do not disagree with this thesis when it is applied to the near and medium-term equity strategy. However, excessive stimulus and easy money policies — we refer to these as soft-budget constraints — bode ill for share prices in the long run. The investment relevance of this thesis is as follows. Since March, the US has implemented the largest fiscal and central bank stimulus in the world and will likely continue doing so in the coming years (Chart I-1). Such soft-budget constraints will likely support the US economy for now. Nevertheless, they will also sow seeds of future US equity underperformance and currency depreciation. Conversely, many emerging economies (excluding China) have failed to provide sufficient fiscal and credit support to their economies (Chart I-2). The resulting hard-budget constraints will foreshadow their economic underperformance vis-à-vis the US in the coming months. Chart I-1Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Chart I-2EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints   That said, hard-budget constraints will force companies in these EM economies into deleveraging, restructuring and improving efficiency. Ultimately, such hard-budget constraints will benefit EM shareholders in the long run. This thesis has been a key rationale behind our decision to close the short EM / long S&P 500 strategy on July 30, and to turn negative on the US dollar on July 9. In the months ahead, we will be looking for an opportunity to upgrade EM equities to overweight versus the S&P500. BOX 1 Gauging Budget Constraints In our opinion, the best way to gauge budget constraints for the real economy is by monitoring changes in the money supply. This is due to the following reasons: First, net changes in the money supply account for all net loan origination. Second, the money supply also reflects the monetization of public and private debt by the central bank and commercial banks. When a central bank and commercial banks acquire a security from or lend to a non-bank entity, they create new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not change the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. Securities transactions among non-banks do not create new or destroy existing deposits, i.e., they have no impact on the money supply. Rather, these constitute an exchange of securities and existing deposits between sellers and buyers. Provided these types of transactions do not expand the money supply, they do not, according to our framework, alter budget constraints. Finally, the broad money supply, not central bank assets, is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Commercial banks’ excess reserves at the central bank – a large item on the central bank balance sheet - do not constitute a part of the broad money supply. Empirical Evidence The following are examples of soft-budget constraints that were followed by periods of weakening productivity growth, diminishing return on capital and poor equity market performance: 1. China’s soft budget constraints in 2009-10 Due to the post-Lehman crisis stimulus, the change in broad money exploded above 40% of GDP (Chart I-3, top panel). The economy boomed from early 2009 until early 2011 as cheap and abundant money super-charged investment and consumption. Chart I-3China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance However, Chinese share prices — the MSCI China Investable equity index excluding technology, media and telecom (TMT)  — peaked in H1 2011 in absolute terms (Chart I-3, second panel). Relative to the global equity index excluding TMT, the Chinese investable stocks index began underperforming in late 2010 (Chart I-3, third panel). The basis for this equity underperformance was falling return on assets for non-financial companies due to capital misallocation, breeding inefficiencies and diminishing productivity gains (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). In China, the excessive stimulus of 2009 and 2010 and ensuing recurring rounds of soft-budget constraints put a floor under the economy but have destroyed shareholder value. 2. Money overflow in EM ex-China in 2009-10. China’s boom in 2009-10 produced a bonanza for other emerging economies. Not only Chinese imports from developing economies boosted the latter’s balance of payments and income but also international investors rushed into EM equity and fixed income. EM companies and banks took advantage of easy financing and their international borrowing skyrocketed. Finally, EM policy makers stimulated and domestic bank credit boomed. This period of soft-budget constraints led to complacency, lower productivity, falling return on capital and/or inflation in the following years (Chart I-4). Their financial markets performance in the 10 years that followed the soft-budget constraints in 2009-10 has been dismal. The share price index of EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan as well as the total return on their currencies (including the carry) versus the US dollar have been in a bear market (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). 3. The credit and equity bubbles in Japan, Korea and Taiwan of the late 1980s Money and credit bubbles proliferated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s (Chart I-5, Chart I-6 and Chart I-7).  Chart I-4EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market Chart I-5Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-6Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-7Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth   Their productivity growth rolled over in the late 1980s amid easy money policies. Share prices deflated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s (please refer to the middle and bottom panels of Charts I-5, I-6 and I-7). Chart I-8ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise 4. The boom-bust cycle in emerging Asia ex-China in the 1990s Soft-budget constraints prevailed in many emerging Asian economies in the first half of the 1990s. Foreign money inflows and domestic bank credit produced an economic boom. The consequences of such soft-budget constraints were debt-financed malinvestment, falling return on assets and massive current account deficits (Chart I-8). All of these culminated in epic currency and banking crises. 5. The credit bubbles in the US and Europe leading to the 2008 crash Lax credit standards propelled credit and property booms in the US and Southern Europe in the period of 2002-2007. Broad money ballooned in the euro area and swelled in the US (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 2). These property bubbles unraveled in 2007-08. These are well known, and we will not delve into the details. Soft-Budget Constraints Lead To Malinvestment Or Inflation Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinctive economic scenarios – malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. The malinvestment scenario occurs when easy money propels undisciplined capital spending. Easy and abundant money boosts medium-term growth and, thereby, creates the illusion of an economic miracle. The latter renders companies, creditors, investors and government officials complacent. Creditors lend a lot and do so based on optimistic assumptions while companies expand hastily and invest carelessly. The result is capital misallocation, i.e., companies pour money into projects that do not ultimately produce sufficient cash flow. Equity investors project high growth expectations into the future and bid up share prices. Government officials preside over an unsustainable growth trajectory overlooking lurking systemic risks and deteriorating economic fundamentals. Easy money and unlimited financing typically bode ill for efficiency and productivity— this is simply due to human nature. Companies neglect efficiency considerations and, as a result, productivity stagnates. Consequently, cost overruns and unprofitable investments suffocate corporate profits. Declining corporate earnings at a time of expanded capital base culminate in a collapse of return on capital. This is the crucial reason why share prices drop. As profits and return on capital decline, companies retrench by cutting costs and halting investment spending. Defaults mushroom, leading creditors to cut new financing. The inflation scenario transpires when easy money boosts consumption more than investment. Easy money and unlimited financing lift household income and consumption. This can arise from a large fiscal stimulus or private sector's borrowing and spending. On the one hand, robust household income growth inevitably leads to higher wage growth expectations. On the other hand, limited investment brings about productivity stagnation. Mounting wages and languishing productivity growth lead to rising unit labor costs and, ultimately, result in a corporate profit margin squeeze. Faced with corporate profit margin shrinkage, companies either raise prices, i.e., pass through higher costs, or retrench by shedding labor and shrinking capital spending even further. The latter produces a widespread economic downturn, and stifles business profits and share prices. A symptom of higher inflation is a wider current account deficit. With an economy’s productive capacity lagging behind demand, the gap between the two can be filled in by imports. In addition, escalating domestic costs make a country less competitive, which inhibits exports and bloats imports. When a central bank is unwilling to tighten monetary policy meaningfully amid high and rising inflation and/or a widening current account deficit, it falls behind the inflation curve. This constitutes a very bearish backdrop for the exchange rate. Currency depreciation erodes the country’s equity returns in common currency terms versus other bourses. Can an economy with soft-budget constraints, i.e., booming money growth, avoid both malinvestment and inflation? Yes, it can if it is able to boost productivity growth so that it avoids systemic capital misallocation (i.e., investments produce reasonable returns to pay off to creditors and shareholders) and escapes higher inflation by expanding output faster to meet growing demand. However, achieving higher productivity growth amid soft-budget constraints is easier said than done. Bottom Line: The scenario of malinvestment has been playing out in China since 2009. Capital misallocation also occurred in the US and parts of Europe during the 2002-2007 credit boom, and took place in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s. Malinvestment, with some elements of inflation, occurred in emerging Asian countries prior the 1997-98 crises as well as in many EM economies like India, Indonesia and Brazil in 2009-2012. Investment Implications It is fair to say that the unprecedented economic downturn in the US warranted an exceptionally large stimulus. The question for the next several months and years is whether US authorities will: overstay easy policies and make soft-budget constraints a permanent feature of the US economy, or tighten policy earlier than warranted, or navigate policy perfectly so that the economy is neither too hot nor too cold. Our sense is that US authorities will overstay their easy money policies. If the US continues to pursue macro policies in the form of soft-budget constraints, will the nation experience malinvestment or inflation? Our sense is that the US will likely experience asset bubbles and inflation. As the Federal Reserve stays behind the inflation curve in the coming years, the US dollar will be in a multi-year downtrend. Hence, the strategy should be selling the greenback into rebounds. We switched our short positions in select EM currencies— such as BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, IDR and PHP —away from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY on July 9. For now, EM currencies will lag DM currencies. US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world is in the late innings (Chart I-9). The pillars of US equity underperformance in common currency terms will be excessive US equity valuations, a potential new era of US return on capital underperforming the rest of the world and greenback depreciation. Chart I-9US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages The top panel of Chart I-10 illustrates that the difference between US investors owning international stocks and non-US investors holdings of US equities is at a record low. This reveals that both US and foreign investors currently "over-own" US stocks versus non-US equities. Perfect timing of a structural trend reversal is impossible, but we believe US equity outperformance will discontinue before year-end. That was the rationale behind terminating our short EM / long S&P 500 strategy and upgrading EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints which will weigh on their economic performance in the near term. This is why we are not rushing to upgrade EM stocks and currencies to overweight. However, the lack of cheap money will force these EM countries and their companies to do the right things: deleverage households and companies, clean up and recapitalize their banking systems and undertake corporate restructuring. Ultimately, hard-budget constraints will likely sow the seeds of high productivity and, with it, equity and currency outperformance in the years to come. China is a tricky case. On a positive note, it has not stimulated as much during the pandemic as it did in 2009. Besides, policymakers are now aware of the ills that come with soft-budget constraints and have been working hard to address these. Critically, the Chinese population, businesses and the authorities are all united in the nation’s confrontation with the US. Complacency in this context is not a major risk and the focus on efficiency and productivity will be razor sharp. On the negative side, the credit, money and property bubbles that had not been dealt with before the pandemic are now increasing with the stimulus. Continued malinvestment and falling return on capital in China’s old economy sectors is signified by the very poor performance of China’s cyclical “old economy” stocks (Chart I-11, top panel). In turn, bank share prices are making new cyclical lows underscoring their worsening structural outlook (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Chart I-11Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises   Weighing the pros and cons, we infer that the cyclical recovery in China has further to run. This will support China’s growth and equity outperformance for now. That is why we continue to recommend overweighting China within an EM equity portfolio. However, as the credit and fiscal impulses fade starting in H1 next year, structural malaises will resurface posing risks to China’s equity outperformance.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations