Policy

Table 1 How Dangerous Is Biden’s Tax Hike? How Dangerous Is Biden’s Tax Hike? Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy’s 55% odds for the "Blue Wave" scenario. Therefore, it pays to examine what will be the likely impact of a blue wave on the US stock market. Specifically, Biden is planning to increase the US corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and possibly even higher. In our most recent Special Report, we have conducted a similar exercise to the one we did in late-2017, when we calculated a one time boost to S&P 500 EPS due to Trump’s tax cut. This time, however, we reversed the calculation to compute by how much S&P 500 EPS are likely to fall should Biden raise the corporate tax rate. Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. For more information, please refer to our most recent Special Report discussing Biden and his policies’ likely effects on the US stock market.  

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

Feature Over the last several years when I travelled to Europe, I would meet with Ms. Mea, an outspoken client of the Emerging Markets Strategy service. We have published our conversations with Ms. Mea in the past and this semi-annual series has complemented our regular reports. She has challenged our views and convictions, serving as a voice for many other clients. In addition, these conversations have highlighted nuances of our analysis, for her and to the benefit of our readers. With travel restrictions in force, this time we had to resort to an online meeting with Ms. Mea. Below are the key parts of our conversation from earlier this week. Ms. Mea: Let’s begin with your main thesis, which over the past several years has been as follows: China’s growth drives EM business cycles and financial markets overall. Indeed, as long as China’s growth dithers, EM growth and asset prices languish. However, since the pandemic started China has stimulated aggressively and there are clear signs that the economy is recovering. The latest surge in Chinese share prices confirms that a robust recovery is underway. Why do you not think China’s economy is on the upswing? Answer: True, we believe China’s business cycle is instrumental to EM economies’ growth and balance of payments. We upgraded our outlook for Chinese growth in our May 28 report as the National People’s Congress set the objective for monetary policy in 2020 to significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth as well as both private and public credit have accelerated since April and will continue to increase (Chart I-1). Domestic orders have also surged though export orders are still languishing (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating Chart I-2China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones     That said, financial markets, including the ones leveraged to China, have run ahead of fundamentals and a pullback is overdue. We have been waiting for such a setback to turn more positive on EM risk assets and currencies. Further, the snapback in business activity following the lockdown should not be confused with an economic expansion. As economies around the world reopened, business activity was bound to improve. Were any asset markets priced to reflect months or a whole year of closures? Even at the nadir of the global equity selloff in late March, we do not think risk assets were priced for extended lockdowns. The Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the nearterm outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. In our view, the rally in global stocks and commodities has been much stronger than is warranted by the near-term economic conditions in a majority of economies around the world. In short, we have not been surprised at all by the economic data that has emerged since economies have reopened, but we have been perplexed by the markets’ response to these data. Even in China, which is ahead of all other countries in regards to the reopening and normalization of business activity, the level and thrust of economic activity remains worrisome. Specifically: China's manufacturing PMI new orders and the backlog of orders sub-components remain below the neutral 50 line (Chart I-3). The imports subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI has shown signs of peaking below the 50 line, portending a risk to industrial metals prices (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 Chart I-4A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities   Marginal propensity to spend for both enterprises and households continues to trend lower (Chart I-5). These gauge the willingness of consumers and companies to spend and, hence, reflect the multiplier effect of the stimulus. These indicators contend that the multiplier so far remains low/weak. Finally, with the exception of new economy stocks (such as Ali-Baba and Tencent) that have been exceptionally strong worldwide, Chinese share prices leveraged to capital expenditure and consumer discretionary spending had not been particularly strong before last week, as illustrated in Chart I-6.  Chart I-5Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart I-6Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones In a nutshell, the Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the near-term outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. As to EM risk assets, the key risk to our stance is a FOMO-driven rally buoyed by the “visible hand” of governments. Ms. Mea: What is your interpretation of the latest policy push in China for higher share prices? Is it also a part of the “visible hand” of government? Don’t you think this could create another strong multi-month run like it did in early 2015? Answer: Yes, this is one of many instances of the “visible hand” of governments around the world. It is not clear why Beijing is boosting investor sentiment and explicitly promoting higher share prices given how badly similar efforts in 2015 ultimately ended. At the moment, we can only speculate that one or several of the following reasons are behind this move: Beijing is preparing for an escalation in the US-China geopolitical confrontation ahead of the US presidential elections. This latter is highly probable in our opinion.1 To limit the impact of this confrontation on their economy, they want to ensure that the stock market remains in an uptrend. The same can be said for the US authorities. Apparently, the “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Robust equity markets will become a prominent feature of the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. In the long run, however, this is a very negative phenomenon for the world because the two of the largest and most prominent stock markets could increasingly be driven by the “visible hand” of their governments rather than by fundamentals. As a result, equity markets could regularly send wrong price signals and will no longer serve as an efficient mechanism of capital allocation. Chart I-7Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Beijing has been luring foreign investors to buy onshore stocks and bonds and this strategy has become more vital in expectation of an escalation in the US-China confrontation. Chart I-7 shows that net inflows into onshore stocks and bonds have been surging. The more US investors buy into mainland markets, the more these investors will exercise pressure on the current and future US administrations to go soft on China. Like those US companies relying on Chinese demand, large US investment funds will have a notable exposure to Chinese financial markets and will accordingly lobby the White House and Congress to take a less adversarial stance toward China. This will reduce the maneuvering room of US politicians in this geopolitical confrontation. Finally, it is also possible that these latest media reports encouraging a bull market in China were not initiated by leaders in Beijing but were in fact spurred by mid-level bureaucrats. If that is the case, a full-blown mania akin to the one in 2015 will not be repeated and the latest frenzy surrounding Chinese stocks could end up being the final surge before a correction sets in. In brief, Chinese stocks, like other bourses worldwide, are in a FOMO-driven mania that might last for a while. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we reiterate our overweight stance on Chinese equities within the EM benchmark. Also, we have a strong conviction with respect to the merits of a long Chinese/short Korean stocks trade. Both these positions were initiated on June 18 before the latest surge in Chinese stocks. The “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Ms. Mea: What will it take for you to go long EM risk assets and currencies in absolute terms? Answer: EM equities, credit markets and currencies are driven by three, or more recently four, factors. We need to witness or foresee an imminent improvement in three out of four of these to go outright long. These factors include: (1) China’s business cycle and its impact on EM via global trade; (2) each individual EM country’s domestic fundamentals (inflation/deflation, balance of payments, return on capital, domestic economic cycles, monetary and fiscal policies, health of the banking system, domestic politics, etc.); (3) global risk-on and risk-off cycles that drive portfolio flows into EM. The direction of the S&P500 is an important trendsetter for these risk-on and risk-off cycles; (4) swings in geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. The first element – China’s impact on EM – is becoming positive. There could be a minor setback in mainland business cycles in the near term, but this should be used as a buying opportunity. As to structural problems in China like credit/money and property bubbles as well as the misallocation of capital, ongoing money and credit growth acceleration will fill in holes and kick the can down the road. That said, those structural problems will become even more challenging in the years to come. In short, Beijing is making credit, money and property bubbles even bigger. The second factor – domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – remain downbeat. The COVID-19 outbreak has been out of control in a number of EM economies (Chart I-8). In addition, outside of China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in DM economies. Critically, the monetary transmission mechanism has been broken in several developing economies. In particular, central banks’ rate cuts have not translated to lower lending rates in real terms (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies Chart I-9Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   The basis is two-fold: First, banks saddled with non-performing loans are reluctant to bring down their lending rates and lend more; and second, the considerable decline in EM inflation has pushed up real lending rates (Chart I-9). The third variable driving EM financial markets – the S&P 500 – remains at risk of a material setback. If the S&P drops more than 10 or 15%, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets will also sell off markedly. Finally, there is the fourth aspect of the EM view – geopolitics – which could be critical in the coming months. The US-China confrontation will likely heighten leading up to the US elections. This will likely involve North and South Korea and Taiwan. Chart I-10EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies Chinese investable stocks as well as Korean and Taiwanese equities altogether make up 65% of the MSCI EM benchmark. Hence, a flareup in geopolitical tensions will weigh on these three bourses. Outside these markets, EM share prices and currencies have already rolled over (Chart I-10). In sum, out of the four factors listed above only the Chinese business cycle warrants an upgrade on overall EM. The other three drivers of the EM view are still negative. This keeps us on the sidelines for now. Importantly, we have been gradually moving our investment strategy from bearish to neutral on EM. Specifically, we: Took profits on the long EM currencies volatility trade on March 5. Took large profits on the long gold / short oil and copper trade on March 11. Booked gains on the short position in EM stocks on March 19. Recommended receiving long-term (10-year) swap rates (or buying local currency bonds while hedging the exchange rate risk) in many EMs on April 23. Upgraded EM sovereign credit from underweight and booked profits on our short EM corporate and sovereign credit / long US investment grade bonds strategy on June 4. The only asset class where we have not yet closed our shorts is EM currencies. In fact, we now recommend shifting our short in EM currencies (BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, PHP and IDR) from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: What is the rationale behind switching your short positions in EM currencies against the US dollar to short positions versus the Swiss franc, the euro and Japanese yen? Wouldn’t the selloff in global stocks drive the greenback higher? Answer: We have been bullish on the US dollar since 2011, consistent with our negative view on EM and commodities prices and recommendation of favoring the S&P 500 versus EM. What is making us question this strategy are the following, in order of importance: First, the Federal Reserve is monetizing US public and some private debt. The amount of US dollars is surging. Meanwhile, the pace of broad money supply growth is much more timid in the euro area, Switzerland and Japan. Broad money growth is 23% in the US, 9% in the euro area, 2.5% in Switzerland, 5% in Japan and 11% in China. This will reduce investors’ willingness to hold dollars as a store of value, incentivizing them to switch to other DM currencies. Second, the pandemic is out of control in the US and this will damage its near-term growth outlook. More fiscal stimulus and more debt monetization will be required to revive the economy. Third, the Fed will not hike interest rates even if inflation rises well above their 2% target in the next several years. This implies that the Fed will prefer to be behind the inflation curve in the years to come, which is bearish for the greenback. Finally, the yen and the euro as well as EM currencies are cheaper than the US dollar (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap Chart I-12EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap     The broad trade-weighted US dollar has yet to break down as per the top panel of Chart I-13, but we are becoming nervous about it. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: That is interesting. Has there ever been an episode where the US dollar depreciated while the S&P 500 sold off? Answer: Yes, it occurred in late 2007 and H1 2008. The 2007-08 bear market in global stocks can be split into two periods. During the initial phase of that bear market, the US dollar depreciated substantially despite the drawdowns in global equity and credit markets (Chart I-14, top and middle panels). Chart I-13Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market   EM stocks performed in line with DM ones during the first phase (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The economic backdrop was characterized by the US recession and US banks tightening credit. In fact, EM growth was still robust during that phase even though the US economy was shrinking. Remarkably, commodities prices were surging – oil reached $140 per a barrel and copper $4 per ton in June 2008. The second phase of that bear market commenced in autumn of 2008 when Lehman went bust. The orderly bear market in global stocks gave way to an acute phase – a crash in all global risk assets. Business activity collapsed worldwide and the US dollar surged. In the current cycle, the order will likely be the reverse of the 2007-08 bear market. March 2020 witnessed a crash in global risk assets and the global economy plunged similar to the second phase of the 2007-08 bear market while the US dollar surged. The second stage of this recession could resemble the first phase of the 2007-08 bear market. There will be neither worldwide lockdowns nor a crash in business activity. However, the level of activity might struggle to recover as rapidly as markets have priced in or there might be relapses in economic conditions in certain parts of the world. This is especially true for the US and other countries where the pandemic has not been effectively contained. On the whole, the second downleg in the S&P 500 and global stocks will be less dramatic but could last for a while and still be meaningful (more than 10-15%). Critically, unlike the March 2020 selloff, the greenback will likely struggle during this episode for the reasons we outlined above. Ms. Mea: What about overweighting EM equities and credit versus their DM peers? Will EM equities, credit and currencies underperform their DM peers in the potential selloff that you expect? Wouldn’t USD weakness help EM risk assets to outperform even in a broad risk selloff? Answer: Yes, we can see a scenario where EM stocks and credit markets perform in line or better than their DM peers in a potential selloff. The key is the dollar’s dynamics. If the dollar rebounds, EM stocks and credit markets will underperform their DM counterparts. If the dollar weakens during this selloff, EM stocks and credit will likely perform in line with or better than their DM peers. In sum, a technical breakdown in the broad trade-weighted dollar and a breakout in the emerging Asian currency index – both shown in Chart I-13 – would lead us to upgrade our EM allocation in both global equity and credit portfolios. For now, we are only switching our shorts in EM currencies from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Ms. Mea: What are some of your other current observations on financial markets? Answer: The breadth and thrust of this global equity rally has already peaked and is weakening. It is just a matter of time before a narrowing breadth translates into lower aggregate stock indexes for both EM and DM equities as illustrated by our advance-decline lines in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over Chart I-16Cyclicals And High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Consistently, there has already been a decoupling between various sectors and industries. The rally has been solely focused on tech and new economy stocks. Equity prices in China and Taiwan have been surging while the rest of the EM equity index has been languishing. In the DM equity space, global industrials, US high-beta stocks and micro caps have already rolled over (Chart I-16). Further, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency index is flashing red for EM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-17A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? Chart I-18Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Finally, EM share prices have outperformed DM stocks since late May mostly due to the sharp rally in Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Hence, the breadth of EM equity outperformance has been subdued. Ms. Mea: To wrap up our conversation, I want to ask you what is your strongest conviction trade for the coming months? Answer: Our strongest conviction trade is long gold / short global or EM stocks (Chart I-18). This trade will do well regardless of the direction of global share prices, the US dollar, and bond yields. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Watch Out For A Second Wave (Of US-China Frictions)," dated June 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, I will present our view on China’s economic recovery, geopolitical risks, and implications on financial markets in two live webcasts. The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, July 15 at 10:00AM EDT (English) and at 9:00PM EDT (Mandarin). Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights China’s economic recovery continues through June, but the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009. The intensity of the PBoC’s monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to stay on the easing course and keep liquidity conditions ample. Bank lending to the corporate sector should increase further in H2. Chinese stocks rallied through last week’s enactment of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government. The existing US sanctions should have limited impact on Hong Kong and mainland China’s economies and financial markets. We remain positive on Chinese stocks despite the recent rallies in China’s equity markets. Feature June’s official and Caixin manufacturing PMIs indicate that China’s economic recovery continues at a steady rate, with the production side of the economy picking up slightly faster than the demand side. The drag on China’s economic recovery from lackluster demand growth should be temporary. Unlike in 2015 when policy uncertainties hindered the recovery in both economic activity and stock prices, the Chinese government has been determined to support its economy and job market in the current cycle. The massive stimulus implemented since March has tremendously boosted activities in China’s construction sector. While households and the corporate sector remain reluctant to spend and to invest, their marginal propensity to spend usually catches up with credit growth with about a 6-9-month lag (Chart 1). The sharp pickup in credit growth should meaningfully support China’s economic rebound, while a better global growth outlook in H2 should also provide some modest tailwinds. On June 30, the PBoC announced a 0.25 percentage point cut to its relending rates for small and rural enterprises and to its general rediscount rate. While the scale of rate cuts in H2 will unlikely match that of Q1, China’s monetary and fiscal policy support will remain in place through the rest of the year. Chinese investable and domestic equities were some of the best performers among global asset classes in June, whereas they were the third-worst the month prior (Chart 2). In the first week of July, both Chinese investable and domestic stocks rallied even further. As we noted in our last week’s report,1 China’s stronger economic outlook, less uncertainty related to its domestic COVID-19 containment, and policy support should provide more room for Chinese stocks to trend upwards. Last week’s passing of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, in our view, should have limited impact on investors’ sentiment for now. Chart 1China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months Chart 2Chinese Equities Are Taking Flight China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review   Tables 1 and 2 present key developments in China’s economic and financial market performance in the past month, and we highlight several of these developments below: Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review China’s June official manufacturing PMI ticked up to 50.9 from 50.6 in the previous month. The Caixin manufacturing PMI came in at 51.2, beating the expectation of 50.5 and compared to 50.7 in May. Both suggest that China’s manufacturing sector continues to expand, however the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009 (Chart 3). Although the import and export subcomponents have fared better in June from the low levels in April and May, their readings in June were still below the 50 boom-bust line (Chart 4). Headwinds remain strong for global trade as the US and many of emerging economies are still struggling with the pandemic. Even without re-imposing lockdowns, the resurge in the number of new cases in the US may result in a drag on consumption and global trade. The IMF projects a 12% contraction in global trade in 2020. While the external demand may improve in H2, positive contribution to China's GDP growth from the net exports will be limited this year. Chart 3Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Chart 4Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted   The employment situation in the manufacturing sector has worsened since May, and has returned to contraction following a brief improvement in March and April (Chart 5). An estimated 8.7 million new graduates in 2020,2 a historical high number, will hit the job market in July and August. As such, China’s labor market will likely remain under significant pressure. Even though employment usually lags economic recoveries, depressed expectations on the job market will refrain policymakers from prematurely withdrawing stimulus measures. Small and micro enterprises are an important part of China’s private sector, which provides 80% of jobs in China. The manufacturing PMI of small enterprises fell below the 50 boom-bust line in June, reflecting a persistent weakness in this part of China’s economy. The recent relending and rediscount rate cuts suggest that the PBoC is committed to stay on the easing course. The intensity of monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to keep liquidity conditions ample and encourage banks to accelerate lending to the corporate sector. The contraction in Chinese producer prices deepened to -3.7% (year-over-year) in May. However, we think PPI deflation is likely to bottom in Q3. Both the purchasing and producer price subcomponents of the manufacturing PMI ticked up sharply in June, while the drawdown in industrial product inventory relative to new orders has accelerated (Chart 6). The ongoing accommodative policy should provide powerful tailwinds to both economic activity and the PPI in H2. The improvement in the PPI will help to boost industrial profits growth, which turned positive in May (year-over-year) for the first time this year. We expect year-to-date industrial profits to end the calendar year with a modest positive growth rate.  Chart 5Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Chart 6PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom   China’s property market indicators have notably trended up in May, with year-over-year growth in housing demand normalizing to its pre-pandemic level (Chart 7A & Chart 7B). As the demand in housing rebounded faster than the supply, housing prices have correspondingly turned the corner in May after trending down for 6 consecutive months. Chart 7AHousing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Housing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Housing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Chart 7BStrong Rebound In Property Investments Strong Rebound In Property Investments Strong Rebound In Property Investments   Chart 7B shows that housing investments and land purchases have also recovered to near their pre-pandemic levels. Financing restrictions for property developers that were put in place since 2018 have been loosened in H1, which helped to boost real estate investments. We expect the property sector financing conditions to remain accommodative through the rest of this year. Moreover, there is a possibility that the PBoC will lower the 5-year MLF (medium lending facility) rate in Q3. As downward pressures on China's labor market and household income growth intensify, the government is likely to lower the mortgage rate to ease payment constraints on households. Chart 8Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Despite the passing of China’s new and controversial national security law for Hong Kong on June 30 and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, stock prices in both China’s onshore and offshore markets rallied (Chart 8). While we agree the US may impose further and more concrete sanctions on China during the months leading up to the November US presidential election, our preliminary assessment points to a limited economic cost on China from the existing US sanctions. The removal of Hong Kong’s special trade status will subject Hong Kong’s export goods to the same tariffs the US levies on Chinese exports. But the raised tariffs will barely make a dent in Hong Kong or mainland China’s export status quo. Hong Kong’s economy consists mainly of the financial, logistical and services sectors. The manufacturing sector only accounts for 1% of its overall economy. Chart 9 shows that Hong Kong’s exports to the US only accounted for around 1% of its total exports and 1.3% of its GDP in 2019. More importantly, of the $5 billion goods Hong Kong exports to the US, only 10% is actually produced in Hong Kong. Most of Hong Kong's exports to the US are goods produced in China that are re-exported through Hong Kong, which are already subject to the same tariffs as the goods China exports to the US directly.3 On the other hand, US exports to Hong Kong accounts for 2% of its total exports, with a trade surplus of about $30 billion in the past two years (Chart 9, bottom panel). The US trade surplus with Hong Kong has drastically reduced since the US-China trade war broke out in 2018, suggesting that the US has already imposed restrictions on its export goods to mainland China through Hong Kong. Moreover, the large trade surplus with Hong Kong as well as China’s commitment to the Phase One trade deal may be part of the reason President Trump is unwilling to impose more substantial sanctions on China right now. The US senate and house have also passed a bill which, if signed and implemented by President Trump, will allow the US government to levy any foreign financial institutions for knowingly conducting business with individuals who are involved in jeopardizing Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chinese banks with operations in the US will be mostly exposed to such sanctions. However, Chinese banks are largely domestic-focused with very low reliance on foreign-currency funding (Chart 10). Hence, the direct impact of a deteriorating operating environment in the US will be limited on Chinese banks. Chart 9Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Chart 10Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Upgrading Chinese Stocks To Overweight," dated July 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 iiMediaReport, Analysis report on current situation and development trend of Chinese employment entrepreneurship market in 2020. 3 Please see Nicholas Lardy, “Trump’s latest move on Hong Kong is bluster”. Peterson Institute For International Economies, dated June 1, 2020.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, US Investment Strategy will take the first of two summer breaks next week, so there will be no publication on July 13th. We will return on July 20th with the latest installment of our Big Bank Beige Book, reviewing the five largest banks’ second quarter earnings calls. Best regards, Doug Peta   Highlights Bottom-up S&P 500 earnings expectations for 2021 are probably high: I/B/E/S expectations incorporating periods six or seven quarters away are little more than extrapolations and investors shouldn’t get hung up on them. The higher corporate income tax rates that would follow a Democratic sweep are a bigger concern. Policymakers have decisively won the early rounds of their bout with the pandemic’s economic effects, … : Transfer payments pushed April and May personal income well above its February level, and households have accordingly stayed current on their rent and other financial obligations. … and they will win the fight provided Congress doesn’t tire, … : Volatility may rise amidst the back and forth of negotiations, but Republican Senators cannot risk allowing aid to elapse three months before the election. … but what’s good for the economy in the long run may come at the expense of active managers’ performance: Value investors can’t catch a break, and all stock pickers will have to contend with a policy backdrop that challenges their established modus operandi.   Feature We have not traveled any farther for work than the kitchen table in three and a half months. Renewing our expiring passport could take a year, and the clock is ticking on our ability to fly domestically on a driver’s license from the persona non grata state of New York. Unless the administration or the electorate has a change of heart, the REAL ID rules may prevent us from seeing a client in person until well into 2021. At least the construction at LaGuardia may be finished by then. Even if we’re not seeing clients face to face, however, communication continues. Several topics have come up repeatedly in virtual discussions and we devote this week’s report to examining them. Our overriding impression is that global investors have been surprised by risk assets’ resilience and are skeptical that it can be sustained. We share the surprise and some measure of the skepticism, though we are more constructive than most BCA clients because of our conviction that policymakers can bridge the economic gap created by the pandemic and the commercially restrictive measures undertaken to combat it. Yes, Estimates Are Too High (But It’s Mainly An Election Story) Q: Consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates for next year are in line with actual 2019 earnings, yet 2019 was the tenth full year of an expansion and we’re likely to begin 2021 with an unemployment rate close to 10%. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture? We agree that consensus estimates for 2021 S&P 500 earnings are too high. It seems unlikely on its face that 2021 earnings, currently estimated at $163, will match 2018 ($162) and 2019 ($163) when the public health and economic backdrops are so uncertain. An additional 14% of EPS growth in 2022 seems like a pipe dream. We put very little stock in consensus estimates more than two quarters into the future, however, because analysts put very little effort into producing them. They focus on the current quarter and the following quarter; estimates beyond that range are nothing more than simple extrapolation. Investors familiar with sell-side analysts’ processes presumably don’t look beyond near two-quarter estimates themselves. We therefore doubt that the equity market is hanging on stated 2021 estimates and will be at risk when they are eventually revised down. We simply conclude that the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter earnings multiple of 24 is somewhat more elevated than it appears to the naked eye. Stocks are not cheap, and investors have probably gotten somewhat complacent. Equities have little margin for safety now and are therefore vulnerable to a near-term decline. Valuation is a notoriously poor timing tool, however, and we are content to remain neutral on equities over the tactical zero-to-three-month timeframe. A much stronger case against the earnings outlook for 2021 and beyond comes from the president’s flagging re-election prospects. Our Geopolitical Strategy service continues to estimate Joe Biden’s probability of winning the election at 65%. The virtual betting market PredictIt places Biden’s odds at 62%, and has had him as the favorite since May 30th. It is too simplistic to say that a Democratic president, backed by majorities in both houses of Congress,1 would be bad for the economy, but a Biden victory would introduce two profit headwinds. First, reversing half of the decline in the top marginal corporate tax rate, as the Biden campaign has proposed, would directly strike at the earnings stream available to common shareholders. Precisely quantifying that drop is not easy. S&P 500 constituents’ effective tax rates vary widely, with only a small proportion paying the statutory rate, and they do not disclose the federal component of their tax bill. We make the simple back-of-the-envelope assumption that the maximum net earnings impact of the cut in the top marginal rate from 35% to 21%, beginning in 2018, was 21.5%, as .79 (1-.21) is 21.5% greater than .65 (1-.35). Similarly, the maximum net earnings impact of hiking the top marginal rate to 28% from 21%, beginning in 2021, would be -9%, as .72 (1-.28) is nearly 9% less than .79 (1-.21). Equities seem to be ignoring the negative profit margin consequences of an increasingly likely Democratic sweep. Chart 1The Tax Cut Materially Boosted Median S&P 500 Earnings Q&A Q&A The change in effective tax rates before and after the 2018 tax cuts was about half of our maximum ballpark estimate. In the two years before the rate cut, excluding 4Q17 and its myriad one-time adjustments, the median effective tax rate for S&P 500 constituents was around 28%; in the two subsequent years, excluding 1Q18, the median rate has hovered near 20% (Chart 1). The change suggests that the tax cuts have boosted median S&P 500 earnings by about 11%.2 In addition to raising taxes, a Biden administration would be considerably more friendly to labor than the Trump administration. A soft labor market in which full employment is at least a few years away argues against broad wage gains, but companies that have benefitted from a complaisant National Labor Relations Board for the last four years could face a rude awakening. If Biden wins, we wager that McDonald’s workers will be unionized before next summer,3 a scenario that McDonald’s stock clearly does not anticipate (Chart 2). Chart 2For McDonald's, A Biden Win Means An NLRB Reversal For McDonald's, A Biden Win Means An NLRB Reversal For McDonald's, A Biden Win Means An NLRB Reversal Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would weigh on earnings via higher corporate income tax rates and revived advocacy for labor at executive branch departments like the NLRB. Considering these incremental drags, it is unlikely that S&P 500 earnings will match their 2019 levels in 2021. Policymakers Versus The Virus: The Fight So Far Chart 3D.C. Is Keeping Households Afloat ... D.C. Is Keeping Households Afloat ... D.C. Is Keeping Households Afloat ... Q: Your constructive cyclical take depends on policymakers’ ability to offset the pandemic’s economic consequences. How do the data say that’s going so far? The data say that it’s going swimmingly. Thanks to generous transfer payments from the federal government, personal income in April and May comfortably surpassed February’s pre-pandemic peak (Chart 3). Households have not spent much of their windfall (Chart 4), choosing instead to squirrel it away, driving the savings rate to 32% in April and 23% in May. The mountain of savings will make it easy for households to service their debt (Chart 5), which they have been paying down. Chart 4... And They're Saving The Money, ... ... And They're Saving The Money, ... ... And They're Saving The Money, ... Chart 5... Much To Their Creditors' Relief ... Much To Their Creditors' Relief ... Much To Their Creditors' Relief The apartment REITs will not likely disclose June rent collection data before their earnings calls, but the National Multifamily Housing Council rent tracker shows that June collections have built on May’s month-over-month improvement. Through June 27th, June collections are tracking ahead of April and May collections and are barely off of last year’s pace (Table 1). Table 1Apartment Tenants Are Paying Their Rent Q&A Q&A Table 2Consumer Borrowers Are Making Their Payments Q&A Q&A TransUnion’s monthly consumer loan delinquency data for May reinforce the conclusion that policymakers are achieving their goal of preventing a default spiral. Auto loan delinquencies rose sharply in May, but delinquencies in all other personal loan categories fell on a month-over-month basis (Table 2). Mortgage delinquencies are below their year-ago level, while credit cards and other personal loans have risen only slightly from a low base. Auto loan delinquencies are up appreciably from May 2019, but TransUnion’s data show that the true rot is concentrated in loans made by independent lenders. Their 60-day delinquencies rose to 7.2% in May from 4.5% in April, while bank (0.62%) and credit union delinquencies (0.51%) eased slightly in May. Bottom Line: Extremely generous income assistance has helped households amass formidable cash reserves. The aid has allowed households to pay their rent and service their debt, shielding landlords, banks and many specialty lenders from pressure. Policymakers Versus The Virus: Going The Distance Q: What might cause the Fed to waver in its resolution to help the economy battle the virus? Will the Senate block future stimulus efforts? Nothing will cause the Fed to waver in its resolution to shield the economy from the virus; investors can take Chair Powell’s pledge to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to the bank. Capitol Hill’s commitment is much less certain and public posturing during Senate negotiations could stoke market volatility. Elected officials reliably respond to career incentives, however, and those incentives will keep recalcitrant Senate Republicans from blocking another round of fiscal largesse. Investors need not worry that Republicans in the Senate will pull the rug out from under the economy and markets – doing so would wreck their own political fortunes. The Republicans’ election prospects have been sliding for a month. Four months is an eternity in a campaign, and they have ample time to reverse their fortunes. But if Republican Senators were to obstruct the passage of the next aid bill, they would be signing their own death warrant. They simply cannot cut off ailing households’ lifeline, or strip municipalities of essential services, as the campaign enters the homestretch. Any individual Senator would be imperiling his/her own quest for influence, and the party’s majority status and relevance, if s/he were to cast one of the votes that blocked a new spending round, and it would be folly to do so over a minor matter like principle. Policymakers Versus Active Managers Q: If valuations no longer matter, how do we show our clients that we’re adding value? It chagrined us to acknowledge on a call last week that equity valuations have been greatly deemphasized in our base case scenario. That scenario calls for overweighting equities in balanced portfolios over a twelve-month timeframe on the view that the flood of emergency stimulus will linger in the system long after it’s needed, stoking aggregate demand and pushing up the prices of cyclically exposed assets. Provided that policymakers succeed in limiting defaults and bankruptcies, thus preventing a pernicious chain reaction from taking hold, we are willing to overlook elevated valuations. Massive accommodation makes active managers' jobs harder because there's no telling who's swimming naked when policymakers won't let the tide go out. Those valuations are supported arithmetically by discount rates which appear as if they will remain very low for an extended period as long as investors don’t become nervous and demand a higher equity risk premium, diluting the impact of nominally lower interest rates. Our base case is that they won’t, but there is no doubt that equity investors’ margin of safety is quite thin. We cannot use the term margin of safety without thinking of Benjamin Graham, and it gives us a pang to think that his disciples may face another few years of wandering in the wilderness. Value investing is predicated on making distinctions between individual companies, as is security analysis more generally. A rising tide lifts all boats, however, and the massive stimulus efforts that have been unleashed in all the major economies (Chart 6) have the effect of obliterating differences between companies. That potentially limits the value that skilled active managers can add to an investment portfolio via a focus on traditional bottom-up metrics. Chart 6All Together Now Q&A Q&A Our solution is to try to focus on the varying impact top-down factors will have on different companies and sub-industry groups. We are overweight the SIFI banks because we view them as the biggest beneficiary of policymakers’ attempt to suppress defaults and their rock-bottom valuations stand in sharp contrast with the rest of the market. We echo our fixed income strategists’ recommendations to buy the bonds the Fed is buying. We also think that positioning portfolios for regulatory changes that might ensue in 2021 and beyond could be a rich source of alpha if a blue wave really is poised to strike the US on the first Tuesday in November.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Our geopolitical team expects the Democrats to take the Senate if they win the White House. PredictIt markets imply that Democrats have a 61% probability of winning a Senate majority. 2After-tax earnings before the tax cut were 72 cents on the dollar (1-28%) = .72. After the tax cut, they rose to 80 cents (1-20%) = .80. 80 is 11.11% greater than 72. 3Please see the NLRB/McDonald’s discussion on pp.7-9 of the February 3, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 3: The Public-Approval Contest,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Global Growth & Inflation: An increasing number of growth indicators worldwide are tracing out a “v”-shaped pattern from the COVID-19 recession. However, high unemployment and a lack of inflationary pressure will ensure that global monetary policies remain highly stimulative for some time. Duration:  Maintain a neutral duration stance in global fixed income portfolios, as the recent negative correlation between inflation expectations and real yields is likely to continue.  Stay overweight higher-yielding government bonds in the US, Canada and Italy versus core Europe and Japan.  Also, favor inflation-linked bonds over nominals - particularly in the US, Canada and euro area – as breakevens will continue drifting higher over the next 6-12 months. Corporate Credit: Maintain a neutral overall allocation to global spread product, focused on overweights in markets directly supported by central bank purchases (US investment grade corporates of maturities up to five years, US Ba-rated high-yield). Feature Today marks the midway point of what has already become one the most eventful years of our lifetimes. Investors have had to process multiple massive shocks: a global pandemic; a historically deep worldwide recession; and in the US, nationwide social unrest and a now politically vulnerable president.  Yet despite the severe economic shock and persistent uncertainties, financial market performance over the entire first six months of the year has not been terrible. The S&P 500 index is only down -5.5% year-to-date, while the NASDAQ index is up +10.5% over the same period. Meanwhile, the Barclays Global Aggregate benchmark fixed income index is up +3.9% so far in 2020 (in hedged US dollar terms).  In light of the magnitude of losses suffered by global equity and credit markets in February and March, those are impressive year-to-date returns. CHART OF THE WEEKA Tug Of War A Tug Of War A Tug Of War Falling government bond yields, driven lower by an aggressive easing of global monetary policies through rate cuts and quantitative easing (QE), have played a major role in driving the recovery in risk assets. With the number of global COVID-19 cases now accelerating rapidly once again, however, the odds are increasing that investors become more reluctant to drive equity and credit valuations even higher (Chart of the Week). At the halfway point of the calendar year, this is a good time to review our most trusted indicators, and current investment recommendations, for global government debt and corporate credit. Duration Allocation: A Non-Inflationary Growth Recovery – But With Higher Inflation Expectations Our current recommended overall global duration stance is NEUTRAL. Global growth has started to recover from the sharp COVID-19 recession.  Survey data like manufacturing and services purchasing managers indices (PMIs) have rapidly rebounded from the huge March/April drops, although most PMIs remain below the 50 level suggesting accelerating economic growth (Chart 2). While there is less timely “hard data” available due to reporting lags, there are signs of improvement in critical measures like US durable goods orders, which soared +15.8% in May after falling by similar amounts in both March and April.  Global realized inflation data remains very weak, however, with headline CPI flirting with deflation in most major develop economies.  Combined with still very high levels of unemployment, which will take years to return anywhere close to pre-COVID levels, the backdrop will keep central banks highly dovish for a long time. The US Federal Reserve has already signaled that the fed funds rate will remain near 0% until the end of 2022, while the Bank of Japan has said no rate hikes will happen before 2023 at the earliest. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of three elements - our global leading economic indicator and its diffusion index, along with the global ZEW measure of economic expectations - has already returned to pre-COVID levels (Chart 3).  This leading, directional indicator of bond yields suggests that the downward pressure on yields seen over the first half of 2020 is over.   Chart 2Growth, But Not Inflation, Is Recovering Growth, But Not Inflation, Is Recovering Growth, But Not Inflation, Is Recovering Chart 3Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 However, it is far too soon to expect a big bond selloff, with nominal government bond yields now pulled in opposing directions by their real yield and inflation expectations components. As we discussed in last week’s report, our models for market-based inflation expectations indicate that breakevens derived from inflation-linked bonds are too low.1 Hyper-easy monetary policies from the Fed, ECB and other major central banks will help lift inflation expectations, especially with oil prices likely to continue rising over the next 12-18 months according to BCA’s commodity strategists.  Chart 4Higher Inflation Breakevens Should Eventually Help Steepen Yield Curves Higher Inflation Breakevens Should Eventually Help Steepen Yield Curves Higher Inflation Breakevens Should Eventually Help Steepen Yield Curves The rise in inflation breakevens already seen over the past three months in places like the US, Canada and Australia – combined with dovish forward guidance on future interest rates that has kept shorter-maturity bond yields anchored -  should have resulted in a bearish steepening of government bond yield curves.  Yet the differences between 10-year and 2-year yields across the major developed markets have gone sideways since the beginning of April, even as 10-year inflation breakevens have increased (Chart 4). This has also kept the overall level of nominal 10-year yields nearly unchanged over the same period; for example, the 10-year US Treasury yield is now at 0.64% compared to the 0.58% closing level seen back on April 1. An outcome of rising inflation expectations with stable nominal yields must mean that real bond yields have declined by nearly as much as breakeven inflation rates have increased.  That is exactly what has happened when looking at the actual real yield on 10-year inflation-linked bonds in the US, euro area, Canada, Japan, the UK and Australia. Using the US as an example, the 10-year inflation breakeven has increased +44bps since April 1, while the 10-year real yield has declined by -38bps. The decline in global real bond yields has coincided with the major central banks aggressively easing monetary policy, including large-scale purchases of government bonds.  This occurred even in countries that had not engaged in major QE programs before, like Australia and Canada. The sizes involved for the new QE purchases have been massive, given the significant increase in the size of central bank balance sheets in absolute terms and relative to GDP (Chart 5).  An outcome of rising inflation expectations with stable nominal yields must mean that real bond yields have declined by nearly as much as breakeven inflation rates have increased.   Chart 5Global QE Is Helping Drive Real Bond Yields Lower Global QE Is Helping Drive Real Bond Yields Lower Global QE Is Helping Drive Real Bond Yields Lower It is possible that the decline in real yields is due to other factors besides QE purchases, like markets pricing in structurally slower economic growth (and lower neutral interest rates) following the severe COVID-19 recession.  Or perhaps it is more fundamentally economic in nature, reflecting a surge in domestic savings at a time of falling investment spending.  The key takeaway for investors is that rising inflation expectations do not necessarily have to translate into higher nominal bond yields if the markets do not expect central banks to signal a need to tighten monetary policy in the near future, which would push real bond yields higher. For this reason, we continue to prefer structural allocations to inflation-linked bonds out of nominal government debt, rather than maintaining below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed income portfolios.  That is a position that benefits from both higher inflation breakevens and lower real yields, while still having the benefit of maintaining a neutral level of safe-haven duration exposure given the lingering uncertainties over the accelerating global spread of COVID-19. At the specific country level, we recommend overweighting inflation-linked bonds over nominals in the US, Italy and Canada where breakevens appear most cheap on our models. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral duration stance in global fixed income portfolios, as the recent negative correlation between inflation expectations and real yields is likely to continue.  Stay overweight higher-yielding government bonds in the US, Canada and Italy versus core Europe and Japan.  Also, favor inflation-linked bonds over nominals - particularly in the US, Canada and euro area – as breakevens will continue drifting higher over the next 6-12 months. Corporate Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Our current recommended overall stance on global corporate credit is NEUTRAL. The same reflationary arguments underlying our recommended inflation-linked bond positions also help support our views on global corporate debt.  Aggressively easy monetary policies, combined with some recovery in global economic growth, will help minimize the risk premium on corporate debt.  Yield-starved investors will continue to have no choice but to look to corporate bond markets for income over the next 6-12 months. The same reflationary arguments under-lying our recommended inflation-linked bond positions also help support our views on global corporate debt.   The combined growth rate of the balance sheets for the major central banks (the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England) has been a reliable leading indicator of excess returns for global investment grade and high-yield debt since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). With that combined balance sheet now expanding at a 34% year-over-year pace after the ramp up of global QE, this suggests continued support for global corporate outperformance versus government bonds over the next year. Corporate debt is also benefitting from direct central bank purchases by the Fed, ECB and Bank of England. Unsurprisingly, the 2020 peak in US investment grade and high-yield corporate spreads occurred on March 20, literally the last trading day before the Fed announced its corporate bond purchase programs (Chart 7).  Chart 6Global QE Will Continue To Support Risk Assets Global QE Will Continue To Support Risk Assets Global QE Will Continue To Support Risk Assets Chart 7The Fed Has Removed The 'Left Tail' Risk Of US Credit The Fed Has Removed The 'Left Tail' Risk Of US Credit The Fed Has Removed The 'Left Tail' Risk Of US Credit   The Fed’s announced plan for its corporate bond buying was to have it focused on shorter maturity (1-5 year) investment grade credit.  Later, the Fed allowed the programs to buy high-yield ETFs while also allowing “fallen angel” debt of investment grade credits downgrade to junk to be held within the programs.  Since that announcement in late March, risk premiums for US corporate debt across all credit tiers and maturities have narrowed.  However, the limits of that broad-based spread tightening may have now been reached, as some of the dislocations in US corporate bond markets created by the global market rout in February and early March have now been corrected.  Chart 8Relative US Corporate Spread Relationships Have Normalized Relative US Corporate Spread Relationships Have Normalized Relative US Corporate Spread Relationships Have Normalized For example, the spread on the Bloomberg Barclays 1-5 year US investment grade index – a proxy for the universe of bonds the Fed is buying – has moved from a level 25bps above that of the 5-10 year US investment grade index, seen before the Fed announced its purchase programs, to 53bps below the longer maturity index (Chart 8, top panel). This is a more normal “slope” for that spread maturity curve relationship, in line with levels seen over the past decade. This suggests that additional spread tightening in US investment grade corporates may be more widespread across all maturities, even with the Fed still focusing its own purchases on shorter-maturity bonds. A similar dynamic is evident in the US high-yield universe.  The spread between the riskier B-rated and Caa-rated credit tiers to Ba-rated names has narrowed since late March to the lower bound of a rising trend channel in place since mid-2018 (bottom panel).  The market appears to be pricing in a structurally rising risk premium between lower-rated junk and higher-rated US high-yield debt – likely a sign of a US credit cycle that was already maturing before COVID-19. The implication going forward is that additional outperformance of lower-rated US junk bonds will be difficult to achieve. The market appears to be pricing in a structurally rising risk premium between lower-rated junk and higher-rated US high-yield debt – likely a sign of a US credit cycle that was already maturing before COVID-19.  European corporate debt has also been witnessing similar trends to those seen in the US.  Euro area investment grade corporate spreads have tightened alongside US spreads since the March 20 peak, but that trend has now stabilized given the recent uptick in market volatility measures like the VIX and VStoxx index (Chart 9).  The spread tightening in euro area high yield has also stalled, with spreads seeing a slight uptick alongside the recent increase in market volatility (Chart 10). Chart 9Global IG Spread Tightening Has Stalled Global IG Spread Tightening Has Stalled Global IG Spread Tightening Has Stalled Chart 10Have Global HY Spreads Bottomed? Have Global HY Spreads Bottomed? Have Global HY Spreads Bottomed? Given the renewed uncertainty over the accelerating number of global COVID-19 cases, hitting large US population areas in the US southern states and across the emerging economies, it will be difficult for global market volatility and credit spreads to return to even the recent lows, much less the pre-COVID levels. Thus, we continue to recommend a “selective” approach to global corporate bond allocations, based on valuations, while maintaining a neutral exposure to credit versus government bonds. Our preferred method for evaluating the attractiveness of credit spreads is to look at 12-month breakeven spreads, or the amount of spread widening that would make corporate bond returns equal to duration-matched government debt over a one-year horizon.  We compare those breakeven spreads to their own history to determine if the current level of credit spreads offer value, while adjusting for the underlying spread volatility backdrop. In the US, the 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is now less attractive than was the case back in March, now sitting at the long-run median level (Chart 11, top panel). The 12-month breakeven for US high-yield is much more attractive, sitting near the highest readings dating back to the mid-1990s (bottom panel).  Of course, this approach only looks at spreads relative to their volatility and does not incorporate credit risk, which is an obvious risk after the recent collapse in US economic growth. In other words, high-yield needs to offer very high 12-month breakeven spreads to be attractive in the current environment. In the euro area, 12-month breakevens for high-yield are only at long-run median levels, while the breakevens for investment grade are a bit more attractive sitting at the 65th percentile of its own history (Chart 12). Chart 11US Corporate Breakeven Spreads: HY Looks Attractive, But Beware Defaults US Corporate Breakeven Spreads: HY Looks Attractive, But Beware Defaults US Corporate Breakeven Spreads: HY Looks Attractive, But Beware Defaults Chart 12European Corporate Breakeven Spreads: Now At Median Levels European Corporate Breakeven Spreads: Now At Median Levels European Corporate Breakeven Spreads: Now At Median Levels Importantly, 12-month breakeven spreads in both the US and euro area, for investment grade and high-yield, have not fallen into the lower quartile rankings, even after the sharp tightening of spreads since late March. This is a sign the current rally in global corporates has more room to run, strictly from a spread compression perspective.  For high-yield credit, however, the risk of default losses coming after a short, but intense, recession must be factored into any assessment of valuation. Chart 13Default-Adjusted HY Spreads In The US & Europe Are Unattractive Default-Adjusted HY Spreads In The US & Europe Are Unattractive Default-Adjusted HY Spreads In The US & Europe Are Unattractive Looking at default-adjusted spreads – spread in excess of realized and expected credit losses – shows that the current level of junk spreads on both sides of the Atlantic offers little-to-no compensation for credit losses (Chart 13).  Default-adjusted spreads are already well below long-run median levels, but if a typical 10-12% recessionary default rate is applied, expected credit losses over the next twelve months will exceed the current level of spreads, thus ensuring negative excess returns on allocations to junk bonds versus government bonds. Tying it all together, our valuation metrics for corporates suggest the following recommended allocations: Overweight US investment grade corporates, but focused on the 1-5 year maturity range that is supported by Fed purchases Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield (also eligible for Fed holdings), while underweighting lower-rated B- and Caa-rated junk Neutral allocation to euro area investment grade Underweight euro area high-yield across all credit tiers This allocation is in line with our current allocations within our model bond portfolio, which are on pages 13-14. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral overall allocation to global spread product, focused on overweights in markets directly supported by central bank purchases (US investment grade corporates of maturities up to five years, US Ba-rated high-yield).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations”, dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Recommendations Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Money Supply Drivers: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. Money Supply Impact: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Bank Bonds: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Feature The COVID-19 recession and associated policy response have led to unprecedented moves in a number of economic indicators. In this week’s report we focus on one such move that is particularly difficult to square with the rest of the economic landscape, at least judging by the large volume of client questions we’ve received on the topic. The move in question: Broad money supply growth (M1 & M2) is faster today than at any time since the mid-1940s (Chart 1). This week, we look at what has driven money growth to such heights and consider what it might mean for bond investors. We also update our call to overweight subordinate bank bonds based on last week’s release of the Fed’s bank stress tests. Chart 1Massive Money Growth! Massive Money Growth! Massive Money Growth! Money Supply Drivers The US economy’s broad money supply is more or less the sum total of all the money sitting in bank deposits at any point in time. More specifically, the M1 measure includes currency in circulation, demand deposits and traveler’s checks. The M2 measure includes all of M1 plus savings accounts, time deposits and retail money market funds. Fed asset purchases and bank lending are the two drivers of money supply growth. There are two ways for these broad money supply measures to grow. First, the Fed can purchase securities from the private market. Second, banks can lend money to the private sector. We consider both of these drivers in turn. The Federal Reserve’s Contribution To Money Growth The Fed influences the money supply by changing the amount of reserves in the banking system. To see how this works, Table 1 shows recent balance sheets for both the Fed and the aggregate US banking system. Table 1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply The largest line items on the Fed’s balance sheet are the securities it owns (on the asset side) and the reserves it supplies to the banking system (on the liability side). The Treasury Department’s General Account has also become a sizeable liability for the Fed during the past couple of months (see Box). Box 1: The Large Treasury General Account Is Not Stimulus Waiting To Be Deployed The Treasury General Account (TGA), aka the Treasury Department’s cash account at the Fed, has skyrocketed during the past couple of months and now totals $1.6 trillion (Chart 3). This has prompted more than a few client questions, mostly asking whether this large amount of money represents fiscal stimulus that is waiting to be deployed. Chart 3Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer It does not. Any new fiscal stimulus must be authorized by Congress and with most of the funds from the CARES act having already been paid out, any further fiscal stimulus is contingent upon Congress passing a follow-up bill. So why is the TGA balance so large? The Treasury Department’s job is to finance the federal government’s deficit by issuing bonds. To do this, it must make estimates about what tax revenues and government spending will be in the future. To avoid a situation where it has not issued enough bonds to finance the deficit, it will typically err on the side of caution and issue some extra bonds, holding the proceeds in cash in its account at the Fed. Due to the heightened uncertainty of the current macro environment, it recently decided to target a larger-than-usual cash balance of $800 billion. It even overshot that target during the past couple of months, likely because tax revenues came in higher than expected. Going forward, heightened uncertainty about federal deficit projections will ensure that the Treasury continues to hold an elevated cash balance. However, it will probably try to bring the TGA balance down a bit in the second half of the year, closer to its stated $800 billion target. It will accomplish this by simply issuing fewer T-bills in the second half of the year. This will have the result of increasing the broad money supply through the same mechanism as Fed asset purchases. That is, any drawdown in the TGA increases the amount of reserves supplied on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys a Treasury security it removes that security from the private market and replaces it with cash in the form of a bank reserve. Those bank reserves are a liability for the Fed, but appear on the asset side of the banking sector’s aggregate balance sheet. Please note that the amount of reserves supplied on the Fed’s balance sheet in Table 1 doesn’t exactly match the amount of reserves shown on the banking sector’s balance sheet. This is only because the numbers were recorded on different days. Turning to the banking sector’s balance sheet, we see that when the amount of reserves increases there are only a few different things that can occur to keep the balance sheet in balance. Banks can accommodate the increase in reserves by reducing the amount of loans or securities they hold. Alternatively, banks can raise capital, borrow in private debt markets or show an increase in deposits. When banks accommodate the increase in reserves by raising deposits, the money supply rises. Charts 2A and 2B show the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of February. First, we see that banks did not reduce their other asset holdings in response to the sharp increase in reserves. Neither did they raise capital or debt. Rather, deposit growth accommodated the entire increase in bank reserves. Chart 2AChange In Commercial Bank Assets: February 26 To June 17, 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Chart 2BChange In Commercial Bank Liabilities & Capital: February 26 To June 17, 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply In fact, deposits have grown by about $2 trillion since February compared to reserve growth of $1.4 trillion. Roughly, we can say that Fed asset purchases are responsible for 70% of the growth in the money supply since then. The remaining 30% is attributable to the second driver of the money supply: bank lending. Bank Lending’s Contribution To Money Growth Looking again at Table 1, we see that an increase in bank loans must also lead to an increase in deposits, unless the bank raises debt and/or capital instead. Further, Chart 2A shows that increased bank lending since February accounts for about 30% of the growth in deposits. However, we expect bank loan growth to moderate in the coming months, easing some of the upward pressure on the money supply. This year's increase in bank loan growth has been driven entirely by C&I loans. A look at bank loan growth by category shows that this year’s increase has been driven entirely by Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans (Chart 4). Growth in other major loan categories – commercial real estate, residential real estate and consumer – has flagged. Further, the increase in C&I lending has been mostly due to firms drawing on existing credit lines. Chart 4A Spike In C&I Lending A Spike In C&I Lending A Spike In C&I Lending The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for the first quarter of 2020 showed a small increase in C&I loan demand. But the survey also asked about potential reasons for the demand uptick (Chart 5). When faced with that question, 95% of respondents reported that “precautionary demand for cash” was a “very important” reason for increased C&I loan demand in Q1. 71% of respondents also pointed to a lack of internally generated funds as a “very important” reason. Importantly, no respondents reported increased C&I loan demand due to investment needs or M&A activity. Chart 5Possible Reasons For Greater C&I Loan Demand In Q1 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply The distinction is important. Greater investment needs and M&A activity would suggest an improving economic back-drop, and would imply a more sustainable increase in bank lending. In contrast, there is a limit to how much firms can tap existing credit lines for immediate cash needs, and this activity should taper off during the next few months. Bottom Line: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. The Implications Of Rapid Money Growth According to some theory and popular thought, there are three possible channels through which rapid money growth could impact the economy and financial markets: Fast money growth could lead to stronger economic growth in the future. Fast money growth could lead to rising inflationary pressures. A larger money supply could suggest that there are more funds available to deploy in financial markets. As such, it could lead to price appreciation in risky financial assets. We are inclined to downplay the importance of M1 and M2 as indicators in all three of these areas, for reasons discussed below. The Money Supply’s Impact On Economic Growth In the past, measures of the broad money supply (M1 and M2) did a good job of forecasting economic growth and were tracked closely (and at times targeted) by the Federal Reserve. But as the banking and monetary systems evolved, M1 and M2 became less important. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan explained in 1996:1 At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. […] Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Chairman Greenspan’s insight is backed up by the empirical data (Chart 6). Real M2 growth was an excellent leading indicator of economic growth until the early 1990s. The relationship has broken down since then, and in fact, the only reliable trend in Real M2 since the 1990s is that it tends to spike during recessions. Chart 6Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s The Conference Board also noticed this trend and removed Real M2 from its Leading Economic Indicator in 2012. According to the Conference Board, Real M2 ceased to function as a leading economic indicator because (i) the Fed began targeting interest rates instead of monetary aggregates and (ii) the creation of interest-bearing checking accounts and money market funds increased safe haven demand for M2. The latter helps explain why money growth has surged during the last three recessions. All in all, broad money growth is now a poor indicator for GDP. The Money Supply’s Impact On Inflation Another popular theory is that money growth is a leading indicator of inflation. This stems from the following identity, aka the Equation of Exchange: MV = PY Where: M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level and Y = real output The identity holds, but is of little practical value, mainly because there is no good way to measure (or model) velocity (V) without relying on money growth and nominal GDP (P*Y). This means that an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about inflation, because we have no idea how velocity will respond. In fact, many commentators have observed that the stronger empirical correlation is actually between money velocity (PY/M) and core inflation (Chart 7). When nominal GDP growth exceeds money growth, core inflation tends to rise 18 months later. However, this relationship also holds if we remove money supply from the equation entirely (Chart 7, bottom panel). What we’re actually observing is that core inflation tends to lag economic growth by about 18 months. Chart 7Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Since we’ve already seen that money supply does a poor job forecasting economic growth, it’s clear that indicators such as M1 and M2 don’t improve our ability to forecast inflation, and in fact probably only confuse the picture. The Money Supply’s Impact On Financial Markets BCA’s US Bond Strategy definitely subscribes to the notion that the stance of monetary policy is one of the most important drivers of financial market performance. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and signals to the market that rates will stay low for a long time, then we would expect investors to chase greater returns in riskier assets, driving up the prices of corporate bonds and equities. That being said, the appropriate way to measure the stance of monetary policy is with interest rates. Money supply measures like M1 and M2 are not helpful guides for risk asset performance. We have already seen that an increase in the money supply can only arise via (i) greater bank lending or (ii) the Fed’s purchase of securities and injection of reserves into the banking system. Both of these things are likely to occur when interest rates are low and monetary policy is accommodative. Low interest rates boost loan demand, and large-scale Fed asset purchases are more likely to occur when interest rates are already at the zero-lower-bound. We would argue that it is, in fact, low interest rates that influence both money growth and financial asset prices. The drivers of money supply growth – bank lending and Fed asset purchases – don’t offer any new information beyond what the interest rate already tells us. On loan growth, both loan demand and risk asset price appreciation are functions of low interest rates. In fact, financial markets will respond more quickly to changes in interest rates than will bank lending: Stock prices are included in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, while C&I bank lending is included in the Lagging Economic Indicator.2 This means that, practically, any money supply growth that is driven by bank lending is not useful as an indicator for financial asset prices. What about money growth that is driven by Fed asset purchases? Here, we need to distinguish between the signaling impact of Fed asset purchases and any other potential impact that purchases might have on asset prices. In the first half of 2019, financial markets responded to the Fed's dovish interest rate policy, not to its shrinking balance sheet. Though the data are difficult to parse, our reading is that the only meaningful impact of Fed purchases on financial asset prices is through what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the future path of interest rates. To test this theory, we need to search for periods when the Fed’s signaling about its future interest rate policy diverges from its balance sheet policy. That is, we need to find periods when the balance sheet is shrinking and Fed rate guidance is becoming more dovish, or periods when the balance sheet is growing and rate policy is becoming more hawkish. Unfortunately, we can only identify one such period and that is the first half of 2019 when the Fed was simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and signaling to markets that interest rate policy was becoming more dovish (Chart 8A). During that period, financial markets responded to the more dovish interest rate policy and not to the shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet (Chart 8B). Bond yields fell, the dollar weakened and both corporate bonds and equities delivered strong returns. Chart 8ARates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 8BRates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Subordinate Bank Bonds: Still In The Sweet Spot Chart 9Still In The Sweet Spot Still In The Sweet Spot Still In The Sweet Spot Two months ago we made the case for owning subordinate bank bonds.3 The premise for this call is that subordinate bank bonds are a high-quality cyclical sector, exactly the sweet spot of the investment grade corporate bond market that we want to own in the current environment. We expect that extraordinary Fed support for the market will cause investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. In that environment we want to focus on cyclical (or “high beta”) bond sectors, ones that outperform the index during periods of spread tightening. However, we also recognize that the Fed’s emergency lending facilities will not prevent a surge in ratings downgrades. Therefore, the sweet spot we want to own is cyclical bonds that are unlikely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated securities, like subordinate bank bonds, fit the bill nicely. Chart 9 shows that the subordinate bank bond index has a duration-times-spread ratio above 1.0.4 This confirms that the sector will trade cyclically relative to the corporate benchmark. We also see that subordinate bank bonds have outperformed both the overall corporate index and other Baa-rated bonds since the start of the year (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, subordinate bank bonds offer a spread pick-up versus the corporate index in both option-adjusted spread terms (Chart 9, panel 3) and 12-month breakeven spread terms (Chart 9, bottom panel).   What Did We Learn From The Stress Tests? Last week the Fed released the results of its 2020 bank stress tests. Results for individual banks were released for a “severely adverse scenario”, the details of which had been publicly available since February. However, because of concern that the “severely adverse scenario” wasn’t dire enough to capture the potential fallout from the pandemic, the Fed also stress tested three COVID-specific scenarios and released results only for the banking system in aggregate. The three scenarios are: A ‘V’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 and Q4 of this year after contracting significantly in the first half. A ‘U’-shaped recovery, where the growth pick-up in the second half of 2020 is much milder. A ‘W’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 but then dips again near the end of the year. Table 2 shows a few key assumptions of the three scenarios along with how the actual economy is tracking. It seems that, absent the re-imposition of lock-down measures, the economy is tracking to be in a slightly better place than in any of the three scenarios. Note that the unemployment rate has already peaked below 15%, lower than assumed by any of the three scenarios. Table 2Three Stress Test Scenarios* The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Chart 10Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Chart 10 shows the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio for the aggregate banking sector, and the dashed horizontal lines show how far it would fall in the three different COVID scenarios. The results show that the ‘V’-shaped scenario is manageable for the banking system, but a significant number of banks would run into trouble in the ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios.   The good news for bank credit quality is that, based on how the economy is tracking and the prospects for further fiscal stimulus, the worst ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios will probably be avoided. Further, the Fed has already suspended share buybacks and capped dividend payouts. It will also re-run the stress tests later this year. Another round of stress tests this year is credit positive, as it will encourage banks to strengthen their capital buffers during the next few months. Bottom Line: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19961205.htm 2 https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

  Highlights In the short run, extreme policy uncertainty is problematic for risk assets. In the long run, gargantuan fiscal and monetary stimulus continues to support cyclical trades. Equity volatility always increases in the lead-up to US presidential elections. Trump has a 35% chance of reelection. The US-China trade deal is intact for now but the risk of a strategic crisis or tariffs is about 40%. Our Turkish GeoRisk Indicator is lower than it should be based on Turkey’s regional escapades. Feature US equities fell back by 2.6% on June 24 as investors took notice of rising near-term risks to the rally. With gargantuan global monetary and fiscal stimulus, we expect the global stock-to-bond ratio to rise over the long run (Chart 1). However, we still see downside risks prevailing in the near term related to the pandemic, US politics, geopolitics, and the rollout of additional stimulus this summer. Chart 1Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Chart 2Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Global economic policy uncertainty is skyrocketing – particularly due to the epic the November 3 US election showdown. Yet Chinese policy uncertainty remains elevated and will rise higher given that the pandemic epicenter now faces an unprecedented challenge to its economic and political order. China’s economic instability will increase emerging market policy uncertainty (Chart 2). Only Europe is seeing political risk fall, yet Trump’s threats of tariffs against Europe this week highlight that he will resort to protectionism if his approval rating does not benefit from stock market gains, which is currently the case. The COVID-19 outbreak is accelerating in the US in the wake of economic reopening and insufficient public adherence to health precautions and distancing measures. The divergence with Europe is stark (Chart 3). Authorities will struggle to institute sweeping lockdowns again, but some states are tightening restrictions on the margin and this will grow. Chart 3US COVID-19 Outbreak Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) The divergence between daily new infection cases and new deaths in the US, as well as countries as disparate as Sweden and Iran, is not entirely reassuring. The US is effectively following Sweden’s “light touch” model. Ultimately COVID is not much of a risk if deaths are minimized – but tighter social restrictions will frighten the markets regardless (Chart 4). President Trump’s election chances have fallen under the weight of the pandemic – followed by social unrest and controversy over race relations. But net approval on handling the economy is holding up well enough (Chart 5). Chart 4Divergence In New Cases Versus New Deaths Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 5Trump’s Lifeline Is The Economy Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Our subjective 35% odds of reelection still seem appropriate for now – but we will upgrade Trump if the financial and economic rebound is sustained while his polling improves. His approval should pick up in the face of a collapse of law and order, not to mention left-wing anarchists removing or vandalizing historical monuments to America’s Founding Fathers and some great public figures who had nothing to do with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Equity volatility will increase ahead of the US election. Chart 6Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Equity volatility always increases in the lead up to modern American elections (Chart 6) and this year’s extreme polarization, high unemployment, and precarious geopolitical environment suggest that negative surprises could be worse than usual, notwithstanding the tsunami of stimulus. So far this year the S&P 500 is tracing along the lower end of its historical performance during presidential election years. This is consistent with a change of government in November, unless it continues to power upward over the next four months – typically a change of ruling party requires a technical correction on the year. Our US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou, also expects the market to begin reacting to political risk – and he precisely timed the market’s peak and trough over the past year (Chart 7). We suspect that the positive correlation between the S&P and the Democratic Party’s odds of a full sweep of government is spurious. The reason the S&P has recovered is because of the economic snapback from the lockdowns and the global stimulus. The reason the odds of a Blue Wave election have surged is because the pandemic and recession decimated Trump and the Republicans. Going forward, the market needs to do more to discount a Democratic sweep. At 35%, this scenario is underrated in Chart 8, which considers all possible presidential and congressional combinations. Standalone bets put the odds of a Blue Wave at slightly above 50%. We have always argued that the party that wins the White House in 2020 is highly likely to take the Senate. Chart 7Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Chart 8Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' True, the US is monetizing debt and this will push risk assets higher regardless over the long run. But if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidency, he will create a negative regulatory shock for American businesses, and if his party takes the Senate, then corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, federal minimum wages, liability insurance, and the cost of carbon (implicitly or explicitly) will all rise. The market must also reckon with the possibility that Trump is reelected or that he becomes firmly established as a “lame duck” and thus takes desperate measures prior to the election. His threat to impose tariffs on Europe this week underscores our point that if Trump’s approval rating stays low, despite a rising stock market, then the temptation to spend financial capital in pursuit of political capital will rise. This will involve a hard line on immigration and trade. Bottom Line: Tactically, there is more downside. Strategically, we remain pro-cyclical. Stimulus Hiccups This Summer One reason we have urged investors to buy insurance against downside risks this month is because of hurdles in rolling out the next round of fiscal stimulus. The four key drivers of the global growth rebound are liquidity, fiscal easing (Chart 9), an enthusiastic private sector response, and the large cushion of household wealth prior to the crisis. This is according to Mathieu Savary – author of our flagship Bank Credit Analyst report. Mathieu argues that it will be harder for investors to overlook policy uncertainty after the stimulus slows, i.e. the second derivative of liquidity turns negative. Chart 9Gargantuan Fiscal Stimulus Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) The massive increase in budget deficits and the quick recovery in activity amid reopening have reduced politicians’ sense of urgency. We fear that the stock market will have to put more pressure on lawmakers to force them to provide more largesse. Ultimately they will do so – but if they delay, and if delay looks like it is turning into botching the job, then markets will temporarily panic. Why are we confident stimulus will prevail? In the United States, fiscal bills have flown through Congress despite record polarization. Democrats cannot afford to obstruct the stimulus just to hurt the economy and the president’s reelection chances. Instead they have gone hog wild – promoting massive spending across the board to demonstrate their fundamental proposition that government can play a larger and more positive role in Americans’ lives. Their latest proposal is worth $3 trillion, plus an infrastructure bill that nominally amounts to $500 billion over five years. President Trump, for his part, was always fiscally profligate and now wants $2 trillion in stimulus to fuel the economic recovery, thus increasing his chances of reelection as voters grow more optimistic in the second half of the year. He also wants $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending over five years. Yet Republican Senators are dragging their feet and offering only a $1 trillion package. In the end they will adopt Trump’s position because if they do not hang together, they will all hang separately in November. The debate will center on whether the extra $600 in monthly unemployment benefits will be continued (at a cost of $276bn in the previous Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act). Republicans want to tie benefits to returning to work, since this generous subsidy created perverse incentives and made it more economical for many to stay on the dole. There will also be a debate over whether to issue another round of direct cash checks to citizens ($290bn in the CARES Act). Republicans want to prioritize payroll tax cuts, again focusing on reducing unemployment (Chart 10). Chart 10US Fiscal Stimulus Breakdown Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Our US bond strategist, Ryan Swift, has shown that the cash handouts present a substantial fiscal “cliff.” Without the original one-time stimulus checks, real personal income would have fallen 5% since February, instead of rising 9% (Chart 11). If Republicans refuse to issue a new round of checks, yet the extra unemployment benefits stay, then over $1 trillion in income will be needed to fill the gap so that overall personal income will end up flat since February. In other words, an ~8% increase in income less transfers from current levels is necessary to prevent overall personal income from falling below its February level. China and the EU will eventually provide more largesse. Republican Senators will capitulate, but the process could be rocky and the market should see volatility this summer. China may also be forced to provide more stimulus in late July at its mid-year Politburo meeting – any lack of dovishness at that meeting will disappoint investors. European talks on the Next Generation recovery fund could also see delays (though they are progressing well so far). Brexit trade deal negotiations pose a near-term risk. There is also a non-negligible chance that the German Constitutional Court will raise further obstructions with the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing programs on August 5. European risks are manageable on the whole, but the market is not discounting much (Chart 12). Chart 11Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Bottom Line: We expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 2800 and 3200 points during this period of limbo in which risks over pandemic response and political risks will come to the fore while the market awaits new stimulus measures, which may not be perfectly timely. Chart 12European Risks Are Getting Priced European Risks Are Getting Priced European Risks Are Getting Priced Has The Phase One China Deal Failed Yet? President Trump’s threat this week to slap Europe with tariffs, if it imposes travel restrictions on the US over the coronavirus, points to the dynamic we have highlighted on the more consequential issue of whether Trump hikes broad-based tariffs on China, and/or nullifies the “Phase One” trade deal. Our sense is that if Trump is doing extremely poorly, or extremely well, in terms of opinion polls and the stock market, then the roughly 40% odds of sweeping punitive measures of some kind will go up (Diagram 1). Cumulatively we see the chance of a major tariff hike at 40%. Diagram 1Decision Tree: Risk Of Significant Trump Punitive Measures On China In 2020 Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) White House trade czar Peter Navarro’s comments earlier this week, suggesting that the Phase One trade deal was already over, prompted Trump to tweet that he still fully supports the deal. Negotiations between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chinese Politburo member Yang Jiechi also nominally kept the lid on tensions. However, China may need to depreciate the renminbi to ease deflationary pressures on its economy – and this would provoke Trump to retaliate (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump We have always argued against the durability of the Phase One trade deal. Investors should plan for it to fall apart. Judging by our China GeoRisk Indicator, investors are putting in a higher risk premium into Chinese equities (Chart 14). They are also doing so with Korean equities, which are ultimately connected with US-China tensions. Only Taiwan is pricing zero political risk, which is undeserved and explains why we are short Taiwanese equities. After China’s imposition of a controversial national security law in Hong Kong and America’s decision to prepare retaliatory sanctions, reports emerged that Chinese authorities ordered state-owned agricultural traders to halt imports of soybean and pork – and potentially corn and cotton. These reports were swiftly followed by others that highlighted that state-owned Chinese firms purchased at least three cargoes of US soybeans on June 1, in spite of China’s decision to stop imports.1 Thus this aspect of the deal has not yet collapsed. But we would emphasize that the constraints against a failure of the deal are not prohibitive this year. The $200 billion worth of additional Chinese imports over 2020-2021 promised in the deal included $32 billion worth of additional US farm purchases – with at least $12.5 billion in 2020 and $19.5 billion in 2021 over 2017 imports of $24 billion. However, to date, US agricultural exports to China suggest that China may not even meet 2017 levels (Chart 15). Chart 14GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk Chart 15Trade Deal Durability Still Shaky Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Soybeans account for roughly 60% of US agricultural exports to China. While Chinese imports are up so far this year relative to 2019, they remain well below pre-trade war levels. Although lower hog herds on the back of the African Swine Flu and disruptions caused by COVID-19 may be blamed, they are not the only cause of subdued purchases. The share of Chinese soybean imports coming from the US is also still below pre-trade war levels (Chart 16). Chart 16China Still Substituting Away From US Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) New Chinese regulation requiring documents assuring food shipments to China are COVID-19 free adds another hurdle – China already banned poultry imports from Tyson Foods Inc. plants. Although the US’s share of China’s pork imports has picked up significantly, it will not go far toward meeting the trade deal requirements. China’s pork purchases from the US were valued at $0.3 billion in 2017, while soybean imports came in at $14 billion. Bottom Line: Trump’s only lifeline at the moment is the economy which pushes against canceling the US-China deal. But if he becomes a lame duck – or if exogenous factors humiliate him – then all bets are off. The passage of massive stimulus in the US and China removes economic constraints to conflict. Will Erdogan Overstep In Libya? We have long been bearish on Turkey relative to other emerging markets due to President Tayyip Erdogan’s populist policies, which erode monetary and fiscal responsibility and governance. Turkey’s intervention in Libya has marked a turning point in the Libyan civil war. The offensive to seize Tripoli on the part of General Khalifa Haftar of the Tobruk-based Libyan National Army (LNA) has been met with defeat (Map 1). Map 1Libya’s Battlefront Is Closing In On The Oil Crescent Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Foreign backing has enabled the conflict. Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are the Libyan National Army’s main supporters, while Turkey and Qatar support Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN recognized Government of National Accord (GNA). The GNA’s successes this year can be credited to Turkey, which ramped up its intervention in Libya, even as oil prices collapsed, hurting Haftar and his supporters. Now the battlefront has shifted to Sirte and the al-Jufra airbase – the largest in Libya – and is closing in on the eastern oil-producing crescent, which contains over 60% of Libya’s oil. The victor in Sirte will also have control over the oil ports of Sidra, Ras Lanuf, Marsa al-Brega, and Zuwetina. With all parties eying the prize, the conflict is intensifying. Tripoli faces greater resistance as its forces move east. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s June 6 ceasefire proposal, dubbed the Cairo Initiative, was rejected by al-Sarraj and Turkey. Instead, the Tripoli-based government wants to capture Sirte and al-Jufra before coming to the table. The recapturing of oil infrastructure would bring back some of Libya's lost output (Chart 17). Nevertheless, OPEC 2.0 is committed to keeping oil markets on track to rebalance, reducing the net effect of a Libyan production increase on global supplies. However, the GNA’s swift successes in the West may not be replicable as it moves further East, where support for Haftar is deeper and where the stakes are higher for both sides. This is demonstrated by the GNA’s failed attempt to capture Sirte on June 6. The battlefront is now at Egypt’s red line – GNA control of al-Jufra would pose a direct threat to Egypt and is thus considered a border in Egypt’s national security strategy. A push eastward risks escalating the conflict further by drawing in Egypt militarily. In a televised speech on June 20, al-Sisi threatened to deploy Egypt’s military if the red line is crossed. The statement was interpreted by Ankara as a declaration of war, raising the possibility that Egypt will go to war with Turkey in Libya. On paper, Egypt’s military is up to the task. Its recent upgrades have pulled up its ranking to ninth globally according to the Global Fire Power Index, surpassing Turkey’s strength in land and naval forces (Chart 18). However, while Turkey’s military has been active in other foreign conflicts such as in Syria, Egypt’s army is untested on foreign soil. Its most recent military encounter was the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Even after years of fighting, it has yet to declare victory against terrorist cells in the Sinai Peninsula. Thus Egypt’s rusty forces could face a protracted conflict in Libya rather than a swift victory. Chart 17GNA/Turkish Success Would Revive Libyan Oil Production Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 18Egypt Is Militarily Capable … On Paper Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Other constraints may also deter al-Sisi from following through on his threat: Other Arab backers of the Libyan National Army – the UAE and Saudi Arabia – are unlikely to provide much support as their economies have been hammered by low oil prices. Egypt’s own economy is in poor shape to withstand a protracted war, with public debt on an unsustainable path. Not coincidentally, Egypt faces another potential military escalation to its south where it has been clashing with Ethiopia over the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. The dam will control Egypt’s water supply. The latest round of negotiations failed last week. While Cairo is hoping to obtain a bilateral agreement over the schedule for filling the dam, Addis Ababa has indicated that it will begin filling the dam in July regardless of whether an agreement is reached. Al-Sisi’s response to the deadlocked situation has been to request an intervention by the UN Security Council. However, as the July filling date nears, the Egypt-Ethiopia standoff risks escalating into war. For Egypt, there is an urgency to secure its future water supplies now before Ethiopia begins filling the dam. And while resolving the Libyan conflict is also a matter of national security – Egypt sees the Libyan National Army as a buffer between its porous western border and the extremist elements of the GNA – the risks are not as pressing. Thus a military intervention in Libya would distract Egypt from the Ethiopian conflict and risk drawing it into a war on two fronts. Moreover, Egypt generally, and al-Sisi in particular, risk losing credibility in case of a defeat. That said, Egypt has high stakes in Libya. A GNA defeat could annul the recent Libya-Turkey maritime demarcation agreement – a positive for Egypt’s gas ambitions – and eliminate the presence of unfriendly militias on its Western border. Thus, if the GNA or GNA-allied forces kill Egyptian citizens, or look as if they are capable of utterly defeating Haftar on his own turf, then it would be a prompt for intervention. Meanwhile Turkey’s regional influence and foreign policy assertiveness is growing – and at risk of over-extension. Erdogan’s interests in Libya stem from both economic and strategic objectives. In addition to benefitting from oil and gas rights and rebuilding contracts, Ankara’s strategy is in line with its pursuit of greater regional influence as set out in the Mavi Vatan, its current strategic doctrine.2 There are already rumors of Turkish plans to establish bases in the recently captured al-Watiya air base and Misrata naval base. This would be in addition to Ankara’s bases in Somalia and in norther Iraq. Erdogan is partly driven into these foreign policy adventures to distract from his domestic challenges and keep his support level elevated ahead of the 2023 general election (Chart 19). However, his growing assertiveness threatens to alienate European neighbors and NATO allies, which have so far played a minimal role in the Libyan conflict yet have important interests there. For now, the western powers seem focused on countering Russian intervention in Libya and the broader Mediterranean. Prime Minister al-Sarraj and General Stephen Townsend, head of US Africa Command (AFRICOM), met earlier this week and reiterated the need to return to the negotiating table and respect Libyan sovereignty and the UN arms embargo, with a focus on stemming Russian interference. However, Turkish relations with the West may take a turn for the worse if Erdogan oversteps. Turkey continues to threaten Europe with floods of refugees and immigrants if its demands are not met. This pressure will grow due to the COVID-19 crisis, which will ripple across the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Ankara also continues to press territorial claims in the Mediterranean Sea, ostensibly for energy development.3 Turkey has recently clashed with Greece and France on the seas. In sum, the Libyan conflict is intensifying as it moves into the oil crescent. The Turkey-backed GNA will face greater resistance in Sirte and al-Jufra, even assuming that Egypt does not follow through on its threat of intervening militarily. Erdogan’s foreign adventurism will provoke greater opposition in Libya and elsewhere among key western powers, Russia, and the Gulf Arab states. Bottom Line: The implication is that a deterioration in Turkey’s relationship with the West, military overextension, and continued domestic economic mismanagement will push up our Turkey GeoRisk Indicator, which is a way of saying that it will weigh on the currency (Chart 20). Chart 19Erdogan’s Fear Of Opposition Drives Bold Policy Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 20Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Stay short our “Strongman Basket” of emerging market currencies, including the Turkish lira. Investment Takeaways We entered the year by going strategically long EUR-USD, but closed the trade upon the COVID-19 lockdowns. We have resisted reinitiating it despite the 5% rally over the past three months due to extreme political risks this year, namely the US election and trade risks. Trump’s threat of tariffs on Europe this week highlights our concern. We will wait until the election outcome before reinstituting this trade, which should benefit over time as global and Chinese growth recover and the US dollar drops on yawning twin deficits. Throughout this year’s crisis we have periodically added cyclical and value plays to our strategic portfolio. We favor stocks over bonds and recommend going long global equities relative to the US 30-year treasuries. We are particularly interested in commodities that will benefit from ultra-reflationary policy and supply constraints due to insufficient capital spending. This month we recommend investors go long our BCA Rare Earth Basket, which features producers of rare earth elements and metals that can substitute for Chinese production (Chart 21). This trade reflects our macro outlook as well as our sense that the secular US-China strategic conflict will heat up before it cools down. Chart 21Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Karl Plume et al, "China buys U.S. soybeans after halt to U.S. purchases ordered: sources," Reuters, June 1, 2020. 2 The Mavi Vatan or “Blue Homeland Doctrine” was announced by Turkish Admiral Cem Gurdeniz in 2006 and sets targets to Turkish control in two main regions. The first region is the three seas surrounding it – the Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea, and Black Sea with the goal of securing energy supplies and supporting Turkey’s economic growth. The second region encompasses the Red Sea, Caspian Sea and Arabian Sea where Ankara has strategic objectives. 3 Ankara’s gas drilling activities off Cyprus have been a form of frequent provocation for Greece and Cyprus. Ankara has also stated that it may begin oil exploration under a controversial maritime deal with Libya as early as August. Section II: 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

Despite the strong rally in stocks since mid-March and a looming second wave of the pandemic, we continue to recommend that investors overweight equities on a 12-month horizon. Needless to say, this view has raised some eyebrows. With that in mind, this week we present a Q&A from the perspective of a skeptical reader who does not fully share our enthusiasm. Q: You said last week that a second wave of the pandemic is now your base case, yet you’re still sticking with your positive 12-month equity view. Why? A: A second wave of the pandemic, along with uncertainty about how the coming fiscal cliff in the US will be resolved, could unnerve investors temporarily. Nevertheless, we expect global equities to rise by about 10% from current levels over the next 12 months, handily outperforming bonds. While low interest rates and copious amounts of cash on the sidelines will provide a supportive backdrop for stocks, the main impetus for higher equity prices will be a recovery in economic activity and corporate profits. Q: It is hard to see the economy recovering very much if there is a second wave. A: It is important to get the arrow of causation right. Part of the reason we expect a second wave is because we think policymakers will continue to relax lockdown measures even if, as has already occurred in a number of US states, the infection rate rises. Granted, a second wave will moderate the pace at which containment measures can be dismantled. It will also prompt people to engage in more social distancing. Thus, a second wave would make the economic recovery slower than it otherwise would have been. However, it is doubtful that growth will grind to a halt. The appetite for continued lockdowns has clearly waned. For better or for worse, most western nations will follow the “Swedish model” of trying to limit the spread of the virus without imposing draconian restrictions on society. Chart 1CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly Q: Even if the Swedish model works, and I doubt it will, we are still in a very deep economic hole. The unemployment rate in many countries is the highest since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office does not foresee the US unemployment rate falling below 5% until 2028. A return to positive growth seems like a very low bar for success. We may need many years of above-trend growth just to get back to the pre-pandemic level of GDP! A: The Congressional Budget Office is too pessimistic in assuming that the recovery will be as sluggish as the one following the Great Recession (Chart 1). That recovery was weighed down by the need to repair household balance sheets after the bursting of a debt-fueled housing bubble. The current downturn was caused by external forces – an exogenous shock in econospeak. Historically, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than recoveries following recessions that were instigated by endogenous problems. Q: That may be so, but Wall Street is already penciling in a very rapid recovery. Last I checked, analysts expect S&P 500 earnings next year to be close to where they were last year. A: One has to be careful when comparing earnings estimates with economic growth projections. Chart 2 shows a breakdown of S&P 500 EPS estimates by sector. Appendix A also shows the evolution of these estimates over time. While analysts expect overall earnings per share (EPS) to return to last year’s levels in 2021, this is mainly because of the resilient profit outlook in the technology and health care sectors (the two biggest sectors in the S&P 500 by market cap). Outside those two sectors, EPS in 2021 is expected to be down 8.6% from 2019 levels, or 11.2% in real terms. Chart 2Breakdown Of S&P 500 EPS Estimates By Sector Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A If one looks at the cyclically-sensitive industrials sector, earnings are projected to fall by 16% between 2019 and 2021. Energy sector earnings are projected to decline by 65%. Earnings in the consumer discretionary sector are expected to decline by 8%, despite the fact that Amazon accounts for nearly half of the sector by market cap.1 This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped economic recovery than a V-shaped one. Chart 3The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q: Fair enough, but I am ultimately more interested in what the market is pricing in than what analysts are expecting. It seems to me that stock prices have rebounded much more rapidly than one would have anticipated based on the evolution in earnings estimates. A: That is true, but it is important to keep in mind that the fair value of the stock market does not solely depend on the expected path of earnings. It also depends on the discount rate we use to deflate those earnings. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that S&P 500 earnings only manage to reach $144 per share next year (10% below current consensus) and take five years to return to their pre-pandemic trend. All things equal, such a decline in earnings would reduce the present value of stocks by 4.2% relative to what it was at the start of the year (Chart 3). However, all things are not equal. The US 30-year Treasury yield, adjusted for inflation, has declined by 59 basis points this year. If we use this real yield as a proxy for the discount rate, the fair value of the S&P has actually increased by 8.7% since January 1st, despite the decline in earnings. Q: I think you’re doing a bit of a bait and switch here. You’re assuming that earnings estimates return to trend by the middle of the decade, but that long-term bond yields remain broadly unchanged over this period. If the economy and corporate earnings recover, won’t bond yields just go back to where they were last year, if not higher? A: Not necessarily. Conceptually, there is not a one-to-one mapping between interest rates and the full-employment level of aggregate demand.2 For example, consider a case where an adverse economic shock hits the economy, making households and businesses more reluctant to spend. If that were all there was to the story, the stock market would go down. But there is more to the story than that. Suppose the central bank cuts interest rates in response to this shock, which boosts demand by enough to return the economy to full employment. Now we have a new equilibrium where the level of demand – and by extension, the level of corporate profits – is the same as before but interest rates are lower. The fair value of the stock market has gone up! Q: Hold on. Central banks came into this recession with little fire power left. I agree that their actions have helped the stock market, but they have not been enough to rehabilitate the economy. A: Good point. That is where the role of fiscal policy comes in. One of the unsung benefits of lower interest rates is that they have incentivised governments to borrow more at a time when the economy needs all the fiscal support it can get. As Chart 4 shows, the fiscal response during this year’s downturn has been significantly larger than during the Great Recession. Thus, it is more correct to say that the combination of lower interest rates and fiscal easing have conceivably increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 4Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q:  And yet despite all this fiscal and monetary support, GDP remains depressed. A: The point of the stimulus was not to raise output or employment. It was to keep households and businesses solvent during a time when their regular flow of income had dried up. Q: If households and businesses did not spend much of that money, where did it go? A: Much of it remains in the banking system. The US savings rate shot up to 33% in April. As Chart 5 illustrates, this was almost perfectly mirrored by the increase in bank deposits. Anyone who claims that savings have nothing to do with deposits should study this chart. Chart 5Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around   Chart 6Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Q: And now, I suppose, these deposits are flowing into the stock market? A: Correct. That is one reason why stocks popular with retail investors have outperformed the S&P 500 by 30% since mid-March (Chart 6). Q: Have these retail flows really been important enough to matter? A: They have probably been more important than widely portrayed. Many of the online brokerages touting zero-commission trades make their money by selling order flow to hedge funds. Thus, the trading of individuals is magnified by the trading of institutional investors. More liquid markets tend to generate higher prices. There is also another subtle multiplier effect worth considering. You mentioned that money was “flowing into the stock market.” Technically speaking, “flow” is not the best word to use. For the most part, if I decide to buy some shares, someone else has to sell me their shares. On a net basis, there is no inflow of cash into the stock market. Rather, what happens is that my buy order lifts the price of the shares by enough to entice someone to sell their shares. Thus, if retail investors bid up the price of stocks to the point that institutions are forced to sell, those institutions are now left with excess cash that they have to deploy elsewhere in the stock market. As the value of investors’ stock portfolios rises, the percentage of their net worth held in cash falls. This game of hot potato only ends when the percentage of cash held by investors shrinks to a level that is consistent with their preferences. Importantly, this means that changes in the amount of cash on the sidelines can have a “multiplier” effect on stock prices. For example, if cash holdings go up by a dollar, and people want to hold ten times as much stock as cash, then stock market capitalization has to go up by ten dollars. Q: How far along are we in this game of hot potato? A: Despite the rally in stocks since mid-March, cash held in money market funds and savings deposits is still 10% higher as a share of market capitalization than at the start of the year. This suggests that the firepower to fuel further increases in the stock market has not been fully spent. Chart 7Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Q: Wouldn’t you think that after a pandemic people would be more risk-averse and hence inclined to hold more cash? A: That would be a logical assumption, but it is not clear whether it is empirically true. There is some evidence from the psychological literature that people who survive life-threatening events tend to become less risk averse rather than more risk averse after the event has passed.3 A pandemic seems to qualify as a life-threatening event. In any case, when considering the equity risk premium, we should not only think about the riskiness of stocks; we should also think about the riskiness of bonds. Bond yields are near record lows. To the extent that yields cannot fall much from current levels, this makes bonds a less attractive hedge against downside economic news than they once were. So perhaps the equity risk premium, which is still quite high, should actually be lower than it currently is (Chart 7). Q: It seems that much of your optimism is based on the assumption that policy will stay stimulative. On the monetary side, that seems like a safe assumption. However, as you yourself mentioned at the outset, there is a risk that stocks will be upended by a premature tightening in fiscal policy. A: This is indeed a risk. In the US, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) will run out of funds over the coming month. The additional $600 per week in benefits that jobless workers are receiving will expire on July 31st, causing average unemployment payments to fall by about 60%. Direct payments to households have also ceased. Together, these three fiscal measures amount to about 5.5% of GDP. Furthermore, most states begin their fiscal year on July 1st. Despite receiving $275 billion in federal aid, they are still facing a roughly $250 billion (1.2% of GDP) financing shortfall in the coming fiscal year, which could force widespread layoffs. The good news is that both Republicans and Democrats want to avert this fiscal cliff. While negotiations over the next stimulus package could unnerve investors for a while, they will ultimately culminate in a deal. The Democrats want more spending, as does the White House. And if public opinion polls are to be believed, congressional Republicans will also cave in to voter demands for continued fiscal largess (Table 1). Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q: It seems to me that the fiscal cliff is not the only political risk to worry about. Tensions with China are running high and there is domestic unrest in many cities around the world. Even if fiscal policy remains accommodative, President Trump will probably lose in November. This makes a repeal of his tax cuts more likely than not. A: It is true that betting markets now expect Joe Biden to become president (Chart 8). They also expect Democrats to regain control of the Senate. My personal view is that Trump has a better chance of being reelected than implied by betting markets. While the protests have hurt Trump’s favorability ratings in recent weeks, ongoing unrest could help him, given his claim of being the “law and order” president. It is worth recalling that after falling for more than 20 years, the nationwide homicide rate spiked by 23% between 2014 and 2016 following protests in cities such as St. Louis and Baltimore (Chart 9). This arguably helped Trump get elected, just like the Watts Riot in Los Angeles helped Ronald Reagan get elected as Governor of California in 1966. Chart 8Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A If Senator Biden were to prevail, then yes, Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal of the Trump tax cuts would reduce EPS of S&P 500 companies by about 12%. Chart 9Continued Unrest May Help Trump, As It Has In The Past Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A However, it is possible that Democrats would choose to only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, while also lifting taxes on higher-income households. One should also note that trade tensions with China would probably diminish under a Biden presidency, which would be a mitigating factor for equity investors. Chart 10Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Q: So to sum up, you are still bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon, although you see some near-term risks stemming from the likelihood of a second wave of the pandemic and uncertainty about how and when the fiscal cliff problem in the US will be resolved. What are your favorite sectors, regions, and styles? A: Cyclical sectors should outperform defensives over the next 12 months as global growth recovers. Cyclicals are overrepresented outside the US, which should favor overseas markets. A weaker dollar should also help non-US stocks (Chart 10). The dollar generally trades as a countercyclical currency, implying that it will sell off as global growth recovers. Moreover, unlike last year, the greenback no longer enjoys the benefit of higher interest rates than those abroad. In terms of style, value should outperform growth. Growth stocks have done very well in a falling interest rate environment (Chart 11). However, interest rates cannot fall much further from current levels. Small caps should outperform large caps, both because small caps are more growth-sensitive and because they tend to be more popular among day traders. Google searches for “day trading” have spiked in the past few months (Chart 12). Chart 11Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Chart 12Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Beyond the pure macro plays, the pandemic could lead to a number of unexpected changes that have yet to be fully discounted by markets. For example, we will likely see a surge in the demand for automobiles as people shun public transit. The pandemic could also accelerate the reshoring of manufacturing activity, particularly in the health care sector. Contract manufacturing companies with significant domestic operations will benefit. Additionally, more people will move to the suburbs to work from home and escape the virus and rising crime. This could boost the demand for new houses and lift suburban real estate prices. Since most suburbs are built on top of land previously zoned for agriculture, farmland prices could also rise. Appendix A Evolution Of S&P 500 EPS Estimates By Sector Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Amazon EPS is projected to rise by 54% between 2019 and 2021, from 11% of overall consumer discretionary earnings to 19%. 2 One can see this within the context of the IS-LM model that is taught to economics undergraduates. If the LM curve shifts outward while the IS curve shifts inward, one could end up with the situation where aggregate demand is the same as before, but the equilibrium interest rate is lower. 3  For example, Gennaro Bernile, Vineet Bhagwat, and P. Raghavendra Rau investigated the link between the intensity of early-life experiences on CEO’s attitudes towards risk. Their results suggest that CEOs who witnessed extreme levels of fatal natural disasters appear more cautious in approaching risk. In contrast, those that experience disasters without very negative consequences become desensitized to risk. For details, please see Gennaro Bernile, Vineet Bhagwat, and P. Raghavendra Rau, “What Doesn't Kill You Will Only Make You More Risk-Loving: Early-Life Disasters and CEO Behavior,“ The Journal of Finance, (72:1) February 2017.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Current MacroQuant Model Scores Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A

Highlights When retail investors invest aggressively and central banks buy assets en masse, economic fundamentals take the back seat and momentum becomes king. Global risk assets are at a fork in the road: either they will relapse meaningfully as they have run well ahead of fundamentals or a budding mania will push global share prices to fresh new highs.   A budding mania is the basis behind our strategy of chasing momentum from this point on. Investors should adjust their strategy based on momentum in global stocks and the broad trade-weighted US dollar in the coming weeks. We are upgrading Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight and downgrading the Korean bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Feature Chart I-1Make It Or Break It Moment For US Dollar Make It Or Break It Moment For US Dollar Make It Or Break It Moment For US Dollar Global share prices have reached a point where they are no longer oversold. In turn, the trade-weighted US dollar has worked out its overbought conditions and is sitting on major defensive lines (Chart I-1). If the dollar relapses below its technical resistances, it will enter a bear market. Consistently, EM risk assets will enter a bull market. The trajectory of EM risk assets and currencies in the coming months will ultimately depend on what happens to the ongoing global FOMO (fear-of-missing-out) rally. We refer to it as a FOMO rally because both the DM and EM equity rallies have been taking place despite deteriorating corporate profit expectations, as we documented in our June 4 report. Why The FOMO Rally May Still Have Legs There are a number of reasons why this FOMO-driven rally could persist: Chart I-2Helicopter Money In The US Helicopter Money In The US Helicopter Money In The US First, the Federal Reserve is explicitly targeting higher asset prices, and to achieve this goal it is deploying its “nuclear” arsenal – printing money and monetizing public debt, lending to the private sector as well as buying corporate bonds. US broad money growth is at an all-time high (Chart I-2). Consequently, the risk of a full-blown equity bubble formation in the US cannot be ruled out. If this occurs, all EM risk assets will rally along with the S&P 500. US policymakers are throwing everything into the system to keep financial asset prices inflated. It seems that after any day that the S&P 500 sells off, the Fed or the US administration comes up with some sort of new measure to support the economy and asset prices. Historically, investors have placed a lot of weight on the Fed’s actions. Aggressive measures by the Fed have recently led investors to purchase stocks and corporate bonds, irrespective of the condition of the underlying economy. As a result, share prices worldwide have decoupled from corporate profit expectations (Chart I-3A and I-3B). If US policymakers succeed in lifting US share prices further, every investor will likely chase the rally and the US equity market will become a full-scale bubble. Chart I-3AGlobal Stocks Are Pricing In A Lot Of Good News Global Stocks Are Pricing In A Lot Of Good News Global Stocks Are Pricing In A Lot Of Good News Chart I-3BSurging EM Share Prices Amid Plunging Forward EPS Surging EM Share Prices Amid Plunging Forward EPS Surging EM Share Prices Amid Plunging Forward EPS Chart I-4Retail Investors Have Driven Up Trading Volumes Retail Investors Have Driven Up Trading Volumes Retail Investors Have Driven Up Trading Volumes At some point, the bubble will start cracking even if corporate earnings find their way back to a recovery path. When equities make up a large share of investors’ assets, any trigger could lead to marginal sellers outnumbering marginal buyers. As we discuss below, there are plenty of risks that could result in a trigger. Both retail and institutional investors are very averse to losses, and when the market begins to slide, investors will sell their shares simultaneously. The market will plunge. The Fed will be forced to buy stocks to avert the negative impact of falling share prices on the economy. In a nutshell, US equities and corporate bonds have become extremely dependent on the Fed. This might be good news in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, it is negative for the US in the long run. Second, when retail investors rush into the market and actively trade, fundamentals take the back seat. This is what has been occurring since March. Retail investors appear to be especially attracted to crushed or near-bankrupt US stocks as well as popular tech stocks. This is illustrated by the surge in turnover volumes on the Nasdaq as well as in Southwest Airline, Norwegian Cruise Lines and Chesapeake Energy stocks (Chart I-4). Yet the impact of their actions is not limited to these stocks. Stocks are fungible. When retail investors purchase shares of near-bankrupt companies at elevated prices (at higher than fundamentals warrant), institutional investors sell those stocks and move capital to other companies. In aggregate, the stock market index rises.  The ongoing retail investor mania is not solely a US phenomenon. It has become prevalent in many other countries. There are anecdotes that Japanese retail investors have been actively trading Jasdaq stocks, while Korean, Taiwanese and Filipino retail investors have been buying local shares en masse.1  The top panel of Chart I-5 illustrates that Korean individual investors have been accumulating stocks while foreigners have been selling out. In Taiwan, the share of individual investors in equity trading has been rising at the expense of domestic institutional investors (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Retail investors do not do much fundamental analysis, and it should not come as a surprise that share prices have decoupled from their fundamentals (profits) and have gained despite lingering massive risks. Retail investors appear to be especially attracted to crushed or near-bankrupt US stocks as well as popular tech stocks.  Third, the mania phase – the last and most speculative stage – in bubble formation typically lasts between nine and 18 months. This is based on the duration of the mania phase in the Nikkei (1989), the NASDAQ (1999-2000), oil (2008) and Chinese A shares (2014-‘15) (Chart I-6). The retail investor-driven equity mania began in March and is now three months old. If the duration of previous manias is any guide, the current rally could last another six months at least. Chart I-5Strong Retail Buying Is Also Evident In Korea And Taiwan Strong Retail Buying Is Also Evident In Korea And Taiwan Strong Retail Buying Is Also Evident In Korea And Taiwan Chart I-6How Long Mania Phase Lasted During Previous Bubbles? How Long Mania Phase Lasted During Previous Bubbles? How Long Mania Phase Lasted During Previous Bubbles? Chart I-7China A-Share Bubble: A Divergence Between Stocks And EPS China A-Share Bubble: A Divergence Between Stocks And EPS China A-Share Bubble: A Divergence Between Stocks And EPS The current equity mania resembles the one in China’s A-share market in 2014-‘15 in two aspects: (1) it is driven by retail investors and (2) it is occurring amid very underwhelming corporate profits. Chart I-7 demonstrates that Chinese A-share prices skyrocketed in H1 2015, despite a deteriorating corporate profit picture. It lasted for a while and ended with a bust without any policy tightening taking place. Finally, retail investors are not quick to give up when they lose money. Having acquired a taste for capital gains over the past few months, retail investors will likely become even more aggressive and will keep buying the dips. In such a scenario, institutional and professional investors may be forced to capitulate and chase risk assets higher. We are at a fork in the road: either retail investors will begin reducing their equity holdings soon, or institutional and professional investors will capitulate and start buying en masse. In the first scenario, stocks will tumble as retail investors rapidly head for the exits. The latter scenario on the other hand will push share prices considerably higher. This is the basis behind our strategy of chasing momentum from this point on. Bottom Line: All financial market manias eventually crash. However, if the market breaks out, the rally could endure for several months. Not chasing the rally will be very painful for portfolio managers. This is why even though we believe the current global equity rally has been a FOMO-driven mania, we recommend to play it if EM share prices break above, and the broad-trade weighted dollar relapses below, current levels. Plenty Of (Disregarded) Risks Chart I-8Number Of New Inflections Is Rising In Large EM Countries Number Of New Inflections Is Rising In Large EM Countries Number Of New Inflections Is Rising In Large EM Countries Even though global risk assets have been rallying, the global investment landscape remains poor, with plenty of risks. In particular: Geopolitical tensions are bound to rise between the US and China. Taiwan and its semiconductor sector are at the epicenter of the US-China technological and geopolitical standoffs. Timing any escalation is tricky, but Taiwanese stocks are not pricing in these risks. Further, odds are high that North Korea will test a strategic weapon, which will undermine the credibility of President Trump’s foreign policy. This is negative for the KOSPI and the Korean won. An escalation in US-China tensions encompassing technology, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Koreas is negative for equity markets in China, South Korea and Taiwan alike. Together they account for about 60% of the EM MSCI equity benchmark market cap. Moreover, the China-India skirmish is a risk for Indian stocks. The number of new Covid-19 infections is rising in the majority of EM countries excluding China, Korea and Taiwan as demonstrated in Chart I-8. It will be hard to ameliorate consumer and business confidence and thereby boost spending in these countries amid a worsening trend in the global pandemic. Indeed, a second wave of the coronavirus now hitting Beijing is evidence that even the very efficient Chinese system is not able to prevent pockets of renewed infection outbreaks. This risk still looms large over many advanced and developing nations after the first wave subsides. The post-lockdown natural snapback in economic activity is creating a mirage of a V-shaped recovery. Like any mirage, it can last and drive markets for a while. However, it will eventually fade. When that happens, misalignments in financial markets will be ironed out rather abruptly. A snapback in economic activity around the world is natural following the unwinding of strict lockdowns. Nevertheless, the level of business activity remains very low. Going forward, persistent social distancing, the threat of a second wave and an initial substantial income drawdown will cap the speed of recovery in household and business spending around the world. In our February 20 report titled EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown, we contended that the most likely trajectory for Chinese growth is the one demonstrated in Chart I-9. It assumed the plunge in business activity would be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, this snapback would likely be followed by weaker growth in the following months. This is also our roadmap for the business cycles of many DM and EM economies. Even though on May 28 we upgraded our economic outlook for Chinese growth from negative to mildly positive, near-term risks for China-related plays remain. Consistent with the trajectory described above, the Chinese economy has been coming back to life, aided in large part by significant credit and fiscal stimulus (Chart I-10, top and middle panel). Traditional infrastructure investment has accelerated strongly (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Chart I-9Our Roadmap For China’s Business Cycle EM: Follow The Momentum EM: Follow The Momentum Chart I-10China: Money/Credit And Infrastructure Are Accelerating China: Money/Credit And Infrastructure Are Accelerating China: Money/Credit And Infrastructure Are Accelerating   Consequently, mainland demand for commodities has been very robust and raw materials prices have rallied. However, it remains to be seen if the recent strength in commodities purchases can be maintained going forward. A couple of our indicators and market price signals are also suggesting that caution is warranted in the near term with respect to China-related plays. First, our indicators for marginal propensity to spend among households and enterprises continue to deteriorate, even when May data points are included (Chart I-11). These indicators have been good pointers for consumer discretionary spending and business investment/demand for industrial metals, as illustrated in Chart I-11. Chart I-11Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Falling For Consumers And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Falling For Consumers And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Falling For Consumers And Enterprises Chart I-12Copper: Shanghai/London Premium And Prices Copper: Shanghai/London Premium And Prices Copper: Shanghai/London Premium And Prices   Second, the copper price premium in Shanghai over London has been a good coincident indicator for copper prices and has recently been flagging short-term risks to copper prices (Chart I-12). A rising Shanghai/London copper premium implies more robust demand in China, while a declining premium signals weaker copper demand in the mainland. Finally, share prices of property developers, industrials and materials in the onshore market have failed to advance much (Chart I-13). This fact does not corroborate that there is a strong recovery occurring in China’s broad capital spending outside infrastructure. Chart I-13Chinese Stocks Do Not Corroborate A Strong Recovery Chinese Stocks Do Not Corroborate A Strong Recovery Chinese Stocks Do Not Corroborate A Strong Recovery A similar message stems from the investable universe of Chinese stocks. We are using the sector indexes from the onshore market because they are less hyped by the global FOMO rally, and the number of companies included in these onshore sector indexes is larger than in the investable indexes. Bank share prices have done even worse (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Overall, near-term risks to China-plays remain and we are looking for a better entry point in the weeks and months ahead. The trend-setting US equity market is expensive, as we corroborated in our report on EM and US equity valuations a month ago. The forward P/E ratio stands at 22, using analysts’ 12-month forward EPS expectations that we believe are still optimistic. Global financial market correlations are presently high, and domestic conditions in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan are rather grim. If the S&P 500 relapses for whatever reason, there is little chance EM risk assets will avoid selling off. Bottom Line: Risks are abundant and fundamentals (profits, valuations, geopolitical risks, the ongoing pandemic) do not justify higher share prices. However, if a FOMO-driven rush into stocks persists, financial markets will continue ignoring fundamentals. Investment Strategy: Momentum Is Now King When retail investors invest aggressively and central banks buy assets en masse, it is not the time for fundamental analysis. Indeed, momentum becomes king. Investors should adjust their strategy based on momentum in global stocks and the broad trade-weighted US dollar in the coming weeks. Our composite momentum indicator for global share prices has risen to zero from extremely oversold levels (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Global Share Prices Are At A Critical Juncture Global Share Prices Are At A Critical Juncture Global Share Prices Are At A Critical Juncture If global and EM share prices break meaningfully above their 200-day moving averages and the US dollar breaks materially below its 200-day moving average (see Chart I-1 on page 1), our advice will be for investors to chase the rally. Even if DM and EM share prices break out, the odds are that EM stocks will continue underperforming DM ones. Hence, we continue to underweight EM in a global equity portfolio. The basis is that North Asian equity markets (China, Korea and Taiwan) are at risk of a heightened geopolitical confrontation between the US and China, as per our discussion above. Meanwhile, the remainder of EM is struggling with the pandemic. Hence, EM will continue to underperform, even if global share prices rise a lot. The current equity mania resembles the one in China’s A-share market in 2014-‘15 in two aspects: (1) it is driven by retail investors and (2) it is occurring amid very underwhelming corporate profits. That said, if global stocks and commodities prices break out and the greenback breaks down, we will close our remaining short positions in EM currencies and upgrade our stance on EM fixed-income markets from neutral to bullish. We have been receiving rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, India, China, Korea, Pakistan, Ukraine and Egypt, but have been reluctant to take on currency risk. Also, we upgraded our stance on EM credit markets to neutral on June 4. We will likely upgrade EM local currency bonds and EM credit markets further to “buy” if the above-mentioned breakouts transpire. Upgrade Chinese, Downgrade Korean Stocks Chart I-15DRAM And Korean Tech Stocks DRAM And Korean Tech Stocks DRAM And Korean Tech Stocks We are moving China from neutral to overweight and downgrading Korea from overweight to neutral relative to the EM equity benchmark. Regarding Korean equities, the risks are as follows: First, rising threats of North Korea testing a strategic weapon is negative for South Korea’s equities and currency. Second, DRAM prices and volumes are dropping. Chart I-15 shows that the DRAM revenue proxy is falling, a bad omen for Korean tech stocks that derive a lot of operating profits from DRAM sales.  Finally, the Korean bourse is heavy in old-economy stocks, which will experience a slow recovery in their profits from very low levels amid the enduring global trade downturn.  The reasons to upgrade Chinese investable stocks relative to the EM equity benchmark include: As we discussed above, the medium-term growth outlook for China is mildly positive due to the credit and fiscal stimulus Beijing has unleashed. The outlook for domestic demand is worse in many other developing economies. The credit and money bubble in China will inflate further and will pose a major challenge in the years ahead. That said, another round of major credit/money expansion will likely stabilize the system in the medium term. If the FOMO-driven mania continues, FAANG stocks will likely outperform, which will spread to similar stocks around the world. The Chinese investable index includes Alibaba, Tencent and other new economy stocks that will likely outperform the EM benchmark. If global markets correct and EM currencies drop, the Chinese RMB will appreciate relative to most EM exchange rates. This will help China’s equity performance relative to other EM bourses. Finally, if US-China tensions escalate and EM markets sell off, Chinese authorities will support share prices by deploying the national team and other government proxies to buy Chinese stocks. This will help the broad universe of Chinese stocks to outperform the EM benchmark. Chart I-16Long Chinese Investable / Short Korean Equities Long Chinese Investable / Short Korean Equities Long Chinese Investable / Short Korean Equities Bottom Line: We are upgrading Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight and downgrading the Korean bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Market-neutral investors should consider the following trade: long Chinese / short Korean equities (Chart I-16).   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   1     Please see the following articles: Coronavirus spawns new generation of Japanese stock pickers Stuck at Home, More Filipinos Try Luck at Stock Investing   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations