Style: Growth / Value

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

  In a webcast this Friday I will be joined by our Chief US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou to debate ‘Sectors To Own, And Sectors To Avoid In The Post-Covid World’. Today’s report preludes five of the points that we will debate. Please join us for the full discussion and conclusions on Friday, June 12, at 8:00 AM EDT (1:00 PM BST, 2:00 PM CEST, 8.00 PM HKT).   Highlights Technology is behaving like a Defensive. Defensive versus Cyclical = Growth versus Value. Growth stocks are not a bubble if bond yields stay ultra-low. The post-Covid world will reinforce existing sector mega-trends. Sectors are driving regional and country relative performance. Fractal trade: Long ZAR/CLP.   Chart of the WeekSector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price Sector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price Sector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price 1. Technology Is Behaving Like A Defensive How do we judge an equity sector’s sensitivity to the post-Covid economy, so that we can define it as cyclical or defensive? One approach is to compare the sector’s relative performance with the bond price. According to this approach, the more negatively sensitive to the bond price, the more cyclical is the sector. And the more positively sensitive to the bond price, the more defensive is the sector (Chart I-1).   On this basis the most cyclical sectors in the post-Covid economy are, unsurprisingly: energy, banks, and materials. Healthcare is unsurprisingly defensive. Meanwhile, the industrials sector sits closest to neutral between cyclical and defensive, showing the least sensitivity to the bond price. The tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced. The big surprise is technology, whose high positive sensitivity to the bond price during the 2020 crisis qualifies it as even more defensive than healthcare. This contrasts sharply with its behaviour during the 2008 crisis. Back then, tech’s relative performance was negatively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically cyclical. But over the past year, tech’s relative performance has been positively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically defensive (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2In 2008, Tech Behaved Like ##br##A Cyclical... In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical... In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical... Chart I-3...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive ...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive ...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive This is not to say that the big tech companies cannot suffer shocks. They can. For example, from new superior technologies, or from anti-oligopoly legislation. However, the tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced over the past decade. 2. Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value If we reclassify the tech sector as defensive in the 2020s economy, then the post mid-March rebound in stocks was first led by defensives. Cyclicals took over leadership of the rally only in May. Moreover, with the reclassification of tech as defensive, the two dominant defensive sectors become tech and healthcare. But tech and healthcare are also the dominant ‘growth’ sectors. The upshot is that growth versus value has now become precisely the same decision as defensive versus cyclical (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value 3. Growth Stocks Are Not A Bubble If Bond Yields Stay Ultra-Low Some people fear that growth stocks have become dangerously overvalued. There is even mention of the B-word. Let’s address these fears. Yes, valuations have become richer. For example, the forward earnings yield for healthcare is down to 5 percent; and for big tech it is down to just over 4 percent. This valuation starting point has proved to be an excellent guide to prospective 10-year returns, and now implies an expected annualised return from big tech in the mid-single digits. Yet this modest positive return is well above the extremes of the negative 10-year returns implied and delivered from the dot com bubble (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Moreover, we must judge the implied returns from growth stocks against those available from competing long-duration assets – specifically, against the benchmark of high-quality government bond yields. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. Meaning higher absolute valuations (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Chart I-7Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 In the real bubble of 2000, big tech was priced to return 12 percent (per annum) less than the 10-year T-bond. Whereas today, the implied return from big tech – though low in absolute terms – is above the ultra-low yield on the 10-year T-bond. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. The upshot is that high absolute valuations of growth stocks are contingent on bond yields remaining at ultra-low levels. And that the biggest threat to growth stock valuations would be a sustained rise in bond yields. 4. The Post-Covid World Will Reinforce Existing Sector Mega-Trends If a sector maintains a structural uptrend in sales and profits, then a big drop in the share price provides an excellent buying opportunity for long-term investors. This is because the lower share price stretches the elastic between the price and the up-trending profits, resulting in an eventual catch-up. However, if sales and profits are in terminal decline, then the sell-off is not a buying opportunity other than on a tactical basis. This is because the elastic will lose its tension as profits drift down towards the lower price. In fact, despite the sell-off, if the profit downtrend continues, the price may be forced ultimately to catch-down. This leads to a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion. After a big drop in the stock market, long-term investors should not buy everything that has dropped. And they should not buy the stocks and sectors that have dropped the most if their profits are in major downtrends. In this regard, the post-Covid world is likely to reinforce the existing mega-trends. The profits of oil and gas, and of European banks will remain in major structural downtrends (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Conversely, the profits of healthcare, and of European personal products will remain in major structural uptrends (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-8Oil And Gas Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Oil And Gas Profits In A Major Downtrend Oil And Gas Profits In A Major Downtrend Chart I-9Bank Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Bank Profits In A Major Downtrend European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Bank Profits In A Major Downtrend Chart I-10Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Chart I-11Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend   5. Sectors Are Driving Regional And Country Relative Performance Finally, sector winners and losers determine regional and country equity market winners and losers. Nowadays, a stock market’s relative performance is predominantly a play on its distinguishing overweight and underweight ‘sector fingerprint’. This is because major stock markets are dominated by multinational corporations which are plays on their global sectors, rather than the region or country in which they have a stock market listing. It follows that when tech and healthcare outperform, the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform, while healthcare-lite emerging markets (EM) must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. Sector mega-trends will shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance. Equally, when energy and banks underperform, the energy-heavy Norway and bank-heavy Spain stock markets must underperform. (Chart I-12 and Chart I-13). These are just a few examples. Every stock market is defined by a sector fingerprint which drives its relative performance.  Chart I-12Sector Relative Performance Drives... Sector Relative Performance Drives... Sector Relative Performance Drives... Chart I-13...Regional And Country Relative Performance ...Regional And Country Relative Performance ...Regional And Country Relative Performance If sector mega-trends continue, they will also shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance – favouring those stock markets that are heavy in growth stocks and light in old-fashioned cyclicals. Please join the webcast to hear the full debate and conclusions. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is to go long the South African rand versus the Chilean peso. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. In other trades, long Spanish 10-year bonds versus New Zealand 10-year bonds achieved its 3.5 percent profit target at which it was closed. And long Australia versus New Zealand equities is approaching its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-14ZAR/CLP ZAR/CLP ZAR/CLP   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ like technology that benefit from lower bond yields. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ like banks that suffer from lower bond yields. Structurally favour growth defensives given that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Adjust the sovereign bond portfolio to: Long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos. Short 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Long 10-year Spanish Bonos, short 10-year New Zealand bonds. Feature It has become increasingly meaningless to talk about ‘the stock market’ as one entity. The stock market has split into two distinct markets: a ‘good stock market’ and a ‘bad stock market’. To be clear, the split started before the coronavirus crisis, but the crisis has hastened the break-up (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market What distinguishes the good stock market from the bad stock market? The answer is the relationship with the bond yield. For the good market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a valuation boom and higher prices (Chart I-2); but for the bad market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a profits recession and lower prices. Chart I-2Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market For the good stock market, the valuation uplift that comes from lower bond yields far outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits. Conversely, for the bad stock market, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits far outweighs any valuation uplift from lower bond yields. For the ‘good stock market’, the valuation uplift from lower bond yields outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits.  The valuation uplift from lower bond yields is greatest for growth stocks. This is because the further into the future that cashflows are, the greater the increase in their ‘net present values’ Moreover, this valuation uplift becomes exponential at ultra-low bond yields. As bond prices start to have less upside than downside, they become riskier. Hence, both components of the required return on growth stocks – the bond yield and the equity risk premium – shrink together, justifying the exponentially higher net present value (Chart I-3).   Chart I-3Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Meanwhile, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits is greatest for cyclical stocks. For many cyclicals – such as airlines, hotels, and restaurants – the hit to sales, profits, and employment will be long-lasting, as consumer and business behaviour adapts to the post Covid-19 world. Hence: The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ whose epitome is technology. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ whose epitome is banks (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks suffer a double whammy. Not only does the lower bond yield signify a structurally poor outlook for credit creation which constitutes bank ‘sales’, but the flattening yield curve also signifies a shrinking net interest (profit) margin. Euro area banks suffer an additional complication. They are exposed to the sovereign yield spread on ‘periphery’ bonds such as Italian BTPs over German bunds. A widening of such spreads signals heightening tensions within the euro area, which hurts the solvencies of periphery banks with large holdings of periphery bonds (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads It follows that euro area banks need two conditions to rally. High quality bond yields must rise, and peripheral euro area yield spreads must fall. Given that such a star alignment is likely to be the exception rather than the norm, euro area banks should be bought for the occasional countertrend rally when technical signals justify it. Right now, the required signal is for high-quality bonds to become technically overbought, presaging a tactical bout of bond underperformance and bank outperformance. However, our most-trusted technical indicator is not yet giving the required signal. Stay tuned (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought In the meantime, we prefer to play the euro area’s increasing solidarity – specifically, to underwrite a €500bn coronavirus recovery plan – through relative value positions in sovereign bonds. In our recent webcast Why Leaving The Euro Would be MAD, But Mad Things Happen we pointed out that in the euro era, labour market competitiveness in Spain has improved by more than in France. Making it hard to justify the near 100bps yield premium on 30-year Spanish Bonos versus French OATs (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify Since inception a year ago, our long 30-year US T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus 30-year German Bunds and Spanish Bonos is up by 15 percent. It is time to adjust this bond portfolio. Go long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. And take profit on long 10-year Italian BTPs versus 10-year Spanish Bonos. Are Ultra-Low Bond Yields Sustainable? At first glance, the divergence of the stock market into a booming good part and a languishing bad part might tempt investors to play long-term ‘mean reversion’: specifically, to sell growth defensives like technology and buy value cyclicals like banks. But be careful. The concept of mean reversion is only meaningful if the underlying trend is sideways – or in technical terms ‘stationary’. Statistics 101 warns us that if the underlying trend is not stationary, the concept of mean reversion – and indeed the much-abused concept of ‘standard deviation’ – is meaningless. If inflation persists below 2%, bond yields will remain ultra-low. Given that all investment is now just one big correlated trade to the bond yield, this raises a crucial question: is the bond yield stationary? Put another way, are bonds in an almighty bubble? Are bond yields unsustainably low, and at risk of a violent spike upwards? The answer depends on a further question: is sub-2 percent inflation unsustainably low? (Chart I-8) If inflation persists below central banks’ totemic 2 percent inflation target, then central banks will have no choice but to push and hold the monetary easing ‘pedal to the metal’. Therefore, bond yields will keep trending lower until, one by one, they reach the lower bound at around -1 percent. Chart I-8Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? To us, the answer to this question is crystal clear. Not only is sub-2 percent inflation sustainable, it is the norm. Genuine price stability is not an arbitrary 2 percent inflation target that central banks can pluck out of the air. Rather, it is a steady state of broadly flat-lining prices that economies can remain in for centuries, so long as governments do not debase the broad money supply. Between 1675 and 1914 – when Great Britain was mostly on the gold standard – the price level barely budged, meaning inflation averaged near-zero for hundreds of years (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Today we have fiat money rather than the gold standard. However, the rapidly growing cryptocurrency asset-class is an embryonic 21st century gold standard ‘waiting in the wings.’ The mere fact that an alternative, and potentially superior, monetary system is waiting in the wings is a strong incentive for competent governments to preserve the value of fiat money. Which is to say, an incentive not to destroy the genuine price stability that advanced economies have now re-entered after a brief lapse in the 20th century. Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Here To Stay, Structurally Favouring Growth Defensives It is in the gift of governments to destroy price stability should they desire. Witness Argentina, Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Yet these examples and the example of the 1970s teach us that when price stability is destroyed, inflation appears non-linearly, which is to say unpredictably and uncontrollably. This is because it suddenly becomes rational for governments to create money as fast as possible, and for consumers and firms to spend it as fast as possible. As the product of money supply and its velocity equals nominal demand, inflation skyrockets (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Price Stability Is Destroyed, Inflation Appears Non-Linearly The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market An early warning sign that governments are on the road to Venezuela is that central banks lose their independence. Or, at the very least, their inflation-targeting remits become diluted. Neither of these seem conceivable right now. Sub-2 percent inflation was the norm for hundreds of years. Never say never – but in the advanced economies the destruction of price stability is a tail-risk rather than a central threat. The upshot is that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Long-term investors should structurally own the good stock market – growth defensives – and structurally avoid the bad stock market – value cyclicals. That said, from time to time, there will be tactical countertrend opportunities to go long value cyclicals like banks. Stay tuned for those tactical opportunities. This leaves one final question: when all investment has just become one big correlated trade to the bond yield, how can investors take on uncorrelated positions to diversify? The answer is to take long-short positions within growth defensives, and within value cyclicals. For example, within growth defensives right now, stay tactically long personal products versus healthcare. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, Spanish Bonos offer good relative value. They are also technically oversold relative to other developed market sovereign bonds. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long Spanish 10-year Bonos, short New Zealand 10-year bonds. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long PLN/EUR quickly achieved its 2 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-11 10-Year Bond: Spain VS. New Zealand 10-Year Bond: Spain VS. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Even though EM equities appear cheap, the key near-term threats to them are their poor fundamentals and a renewed sell off in the S&P 500. Given the immense uncertainty, the current equity risk premium (ERP) should be at the upper end of its historical range. Hence, the discount rate – the sum of the risk-free rate and the ERP – should be reasonably high. This makes US equity valuations rather expensive. The key risk to our defensive strategy is that the rally in global growth stocks evolves into a full-fledged mania. Feature Every investor is aware that global corporate profits have collapsed due to nationwide lockdowns and profits will eventually recover as the lockdowns are gradually eased. This thesis, though, is not helpful for equity investors. To price equities properly, investors need to know how low corporate profits will fall and how fast and strong the eventual recovery will be.  Currently, visibility on the magnitude and speed of the decline in profits and the subsequent recovery is factually nil. In fact, very few companies are providing any guidance. There is enormous uncertainty surrounding the pace at which economies will be reopened, the possibility of secondary infection outbreaks and the discovery of a remedy or a vaccine for this virus. Besides, it is hard to forecast how fast animal spirits will revive among consumers and businesses worldwide. Thus, it is impossible to reliably forecast the magnitude and pace of both the decline in corporate profits and the subsequent recovery. What framework should investors use to value stocks when facing extremely low visibility? The CAPE Ratio Presently, the best method for valuing stocks is the Cyclically-Adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. This is a structural valuation measure that looks beyond the profit cycle, i.e., removes the cyclicality of earnings per share (EPS) from P/E ratio calculations. When the profit outlook is as muddy as it is today and the possible range of outcomes is very wide, it is safe to assume that in the next 12-18 months corporate profits will revert to their historical trend, i.e., drop below and then recover to their structural trend. This is a better conjecture than any attempt to forecast the magnitude and speed of both the profit plunge and subsequent recovery. Hence, the appropriate question for investors at this time is: what is the forward P/E multiple on equities assuming that EPS will plummet and then recover to their historical trend over the next 12 to 18 months? The CAPE model provides the answer to this question. Presently, the best method for valuing stocks is the Cyclically-Adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. Chart I-1 illustrates our EM CAPE model, showing EM equities as cheap as they were at previous major bear market bottoms. The EM CAPE is presently 12.5 assuming EM EPS plunge further in the coming months but recover to their long-run trend in 12-18 months from now (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our measure for US CAPE presently stands in high 20s, well above its historical average of 18 (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Equity Valuations Are Low EM Equity Valuations Are Low EM Equity Valuations Are Low Chart I-2US Equity Valuations Are Expensive US Equity Valuations Are Expensive US Equity Valuations Are Expensive   Box I-1 on page 3 elaborates how our CAPE model is built and how it differs from Shiller’s CAPE ratio. Even though EM equities are very cheap, the key near-term threats to them are two-fold: (1) EM fundamentals remain downbeat, which is creating a near-term risk to share prices; and (2) a renewed sell off in the S&P 500 would drag EM stocks lower, despite cheap EM equity valuations. In the next section, we explore US equity valuations in a bit more detail. BOX I-1 Our CAPE Versus The Shiller CAPE: Differences In Methodologies Due to the lack of historical data for EM, we were unable to use Robert Shiller's methodology for constructing the CAPE ratio for developing markets. The Shiller method uses a 10-year moving average of EPS to calculate the cyclically adjusted EPS. However, in the case of EM aggregate EPS, data only goes back to 1986. If we were to calculate a 10-year moving average for EM EPS, we would lose 10 years of data, and the valuation indicator would only start in 1996. This is too short a time-frame for a structural valuation indicator. Chart I-3Comparing Two CAPE Methodologies Comparing Two CAPE Methodologies Comparing Two CAPE Methodologies Instead, we used the following methodology to construct the CAPE ratio for EM: We deflated EM EPS and EM equity prices (both in US dollar terms) by US consumer price inflation to get EM EPS and EM share prices in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms. Then we ran a regression of EM EPS in real US dollar terms against a time trend. The resulting trend line represents the cyclically adjusted or structural EPS in real US dollar terms (Chart I-1, bottom panel on page 1). Finally, we divided EM stock prices in real US dollar terms by the cyclically-adjusted real US dollar EM EPS trend line. The outcome is the EM CAPE ratio (Chart I-1, top panel on page 1). To be sure that our methodology produced a reasonable outcome, we computed a CAPE ratio using our methodology for the US stock market and compared it with the Shiller CAPE ratio. Chart I-3 illustrates that our methodology generated a CAPE ratio that is similar to Shiller’s CAPE ratio. We are therefore confident that the results generated by our CAPE methodology are robust and sensible. Low Visibility = High Equity Risk Premium Chart I-4CAPE Ratio Negatively Correlates With Corporate Bond Yields CAPE Ratio Negatively Correlates With Corporate Bond Yields CAPE Ratio Negatively Correlates With Corporate Bond Yields It is a well-known fact that US equity multiples are very high. However, a common narrative in the investment community often justifies currently high US equity multiples by very low interest rates. One consideration that is missing in this argument is the equity risk premium. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate.1 The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Chart I-4 demonstrates that US CAPE ratio has been inversely correlated with corporate bond (BAA) yields. The latter includes both risk-free government bond yields and corporate credit spreads. Presently, one should use an ERP that is materially higher than its historical mean. Investors are currently facing record high uncertainty related to the business cycle as well as the structural trends in economic, political and geopolitical spheres. In short, enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper range of its historical trend. Critically, ERP is not a static variable. Yet, many equity valuation models assume that the ERP is constant and, therefore, compare equity multiples with risk-free rates. Such models are wrong-headed because a change in the ERP can in itself cause large fluctuations in share prices. Chart I-5Estimated US Equity Risk Premium Estimated US Equity Risk Premium Estimated US Equity Risk Premium Going forward, visibility on both the evolution of the virus containment measures and the global business cycle will eventually improve and, thereby, decrease ERPs that investors require. This will produce a lower discount rate heralding higher equity multiples. As of today, however, the tremendous uncertainty about the outlook still warrants a higher ERP. Chart I-5 illustrates that the US ERP based on our CAPE model is presently 270 basis points. It is elevated but still below historic peaks recorded in 2008 and 2011. Provided we face extremely limited visibility about the global outlook, we contend that the US ERP will likely rise in the short run. The latter will depress US equity valuations and prices. Bottom Line: Given the immense ambiguities investors are facing in regard to the business cycle and to economic, political and geopolitical trends, the ERP should be at the upper end of its historical range. Hence, the discount factor – the sum of the risk-free rate and the ERP – should be reasonably high. We conclude that US equity valuations are rather expensive despite the very low risk-free rate. Falling US stocks will drag EM share prices lower.  EM Versus The S&P 500: Three Conditions For A Reversal Chart I-6Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus US Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus US Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus US The relative EM versus US CAPE ratio is shown on Chart I-6. According to it, EM equities relative to their US counterparts are as cheap as they were at their previous major bottom in 2001. Nevertheless, valuation is not a good timing tool. For EM to start outperforming the S&P 500, three conditions are required: 1. China’s economy should embark on a cyclical recovery that is greater than the natural snapback in activity that it has been experiencing in the wake of the end of its lockdown. So far, the mainland economy is still in a snapback phase rather than in an expansion mode. 2. Global equity sector leadership should rotate from growth to value stocks, such as resource-related and banks. This has not occurred yet. The EM equity index is more sensitive to the performance of financials than the S&P 500 is. Table I-1 and I-2 represents individual EM and US sector weights in terms of both market cap and total corporate earnings in their respective equity benchmark. Financials account for 36.6% of EM total earnings and 20.9% of EM market cap. The same ratios for US financials in America’s broad equity index are 22.2% for earnings and 10.5% for the market cap. Table I-1EM Equity Sector Earnings And Market Cap Weights Equity Valuations Amid Low Visibility Equity Valuations Amid Low Visibility Table I-2US Equity Sector Earnings And Market Cap Weights Equity Valuations Amid Low Visibility Equity Valuations Amid Low Visibility   Further, EM equity prices remain highly correlated to global materials stocks (Chart I-7). As we discussed in our October 10, 2019 report, the rationale is as follows: both industrial metal prices and EM equities are driven primarily by China. Enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper range of its historical trend. 3. The US dollar should enter an extended bear market. The greenback has been resilient despite the Federal Reserve’s outright debt monetization and the general risk-on mood in global equity and credit markets. Further, the EM ex-China currency index has failed to rebound despite the noteworthy rally in the S&P 500 since late March (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Stocks Correlate With Global Materials EM Stocks Correlate With Global Materials EM Stocks Correlate With Global Materials Chart I-8EM Currencies Have Failed To Rally EM Currencies Have Failed To Rally EM Currencies Have Failed To Rally   For the greenback to depreciate, US dollars should be recycled overseas via augmented US imports or capital outflows from the US. It seems that none of this is currently taking place. The dollar is probably experiencing the last leg of its structural bull market that commenced in 2011. In financial markets, the final phase of a structural trend can last longer and run further than many investors expect. Odds are that the greenback will overshoot before topping out. Chart I-9 presents the real effective exchange rate for the US dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen, based on unit labor costs. This is our favored currency valuation measure. It reveals that the greenback is already expensive, but that its valuation can become even more expensive and reach two standard deviations above fair value before the US dollar peaks. In turn, according to the same measure, valuations of commodity currencies like NZD, AUD and CAD have downshifted considerably (Chart I-10). Nevertheless, they are not yet very cheap. Therefore, further undershoots cannot be ruled out. Chart I-9G3 Currency Valuations G3 Currency Valuations G3 Currency Valuations Chart I-10Commodity Currencies Valuations Commodity Currencies Valuations Commodity Currencies Valuations   Bottom Line: The conditions for EM stocks to begin outperforming the S&P 500 have not yet been satisfied. EM outperformance is not imminent. The Key Risk The key risk to our strategy of not chasing the recent equity rebound is as follows: The rally in expensive global growth stocks could evolve into a full-fledged mania. The latter would then lift the broader equity index, including value stocks. The average retail investor in any corner of the world can now make the case for an exponential rise in growth stocks: major central banks are printing money, risk-free interest rates are at zero, businesses in “new economy” are relatively immune to COVID shutdowns and, moreover, they represent the future. All conditions for a bubble formation are present: a concept that captures the average person’s imagination, good fundamentals and solid past performance, as well as liquidity overflow.  Growth companies that are leading this rally are very expensive and over-owned while the laggards – the value stocks – have a ruinous profit outlook. The only problem with this thesis is that these stocks have already rallied massively over the past decade and are consequently expensive and over-owned (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Each Decade Had A Mania Each Decade Had A Mania Each Decade Had A Mania Can they still go higher, dragging up overall equity indexes? They can, as the human imagination has no limits. If retail investors continue piling up on stocks – and there is some evidence they have been doing so – share prices will rise despite the expensive valuation of growth companies and the disastrous profit outlook for value stocks. Like any bubble, this mania, if it occurs, will eventually culminate with a crash. Investment Conclusions Chart I-12Growth And Value Stocks Growth And Value Stocks Growth And Value Stocks EM equities have become cheap and oversold, which is why we closed our short position in EM stocks on March 19. Nevertheless, we have not yet recommended buying or overweighting EM stocks. The near-term outlook remains risky and EM valuations could remain depressed for a while given that investors currently face zero visibility. Consistently, the risk-reward of global and EM equities is yet not attractive. The basis is as follows: Growth companies that are leading this rally are very expensive and over-owned while the laggards – the value stocks – have a ruinous profit outlook (Chart I-12).  For now, we continue recommending underweighting EM versus DM equities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnote 1   The P/E ratio inversely correlates to the discount rate: P/E ratio = (Payout rate x (1 + Growth rate)) / (Discount rate – Growth rate)

Highlights As government bond yields have fallen to zero or below, many of our clients have asked us how to obtain income from other asset classes. In this report we analyze three income opportunities in the equity market: high-dividend yield stocks, dividend growth stocks, and preferred shares. High-dividend yield stocks have a large style bias to the value factor. Thus, investors who wish to invest in high-dividend yield stocks might be better served by investing in dividend plays in the non-value universe. Dividend growth stocks – such as the ones in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index – are historically less likely to cut their dividends, thanks to their defensive nature and corporate incentives. The Aristocrats should continue increasing dividends during this crisis. Our screening points to the following as the most attractive: ExxonMobil, Franklin Resources, 3M, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Genuine Parts. We would not buy US preferred shares, given that they are heavily weighted to Financials, a sector that will do poorly in an environment of low interest rates. Feature As the crisis caused by COVID-19 has battered risk assets, many of our clients have asked us how to obtain income in this current environment. In the past, investors could rely on a consistent coupon provided by government bonds. However, this is no longer the case. The crisis has dragged DM government bond yields around the world to below or near zero, which means that investors looking for income opportunities must search outside of government bonds, in riskier asset classes. One such asset class is equities. Over the last 50 years, income return has accounted for roughly a third of the total return of global equities (Chart 1, top panel). Moreover, in contrast to other sources of equity return such as earnings growth or multiple expansion, income return is always positive, making it much more consistent through time as well as resilient to recessions (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). However, there are a couple of drawbacks to equities as income-generating assets: The income yield of equities is not particularly high, especially when one compares them with asset classes such as corporate debt which have similar or lower volatility (Chart 2, top panel). As opposed to fixed-income assets, where a set income return is guaranteed provided there is no default and the security is held to maturity, companies can actually cut their equity dividends when they come under stress. As a consequence, while trailing dividend yield is often an accurate indicator of future income return, it can overestimate it during bear markets (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Chart 2The Income Return Of Equities Is Low And Can Be Deceiving During Bear Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets In this report we examine two different dividend strategies that try to address the issues above: high-dividend yield stocks and dividend growth stocks. In addition to these strategies within the common equity space, we also explore whether preferred shares can be an attractive income opportunity. For each of these three income strategies we try to answer the following questions: How are these dividend indices constructed? How has each strategy performed historically? How has it performed during bear markets? What is the sector composition of each strategy? How are valuations now? To answer these questions, we examine the MSCI High-Dividend Yield indices, the S&P Dividend Aristocrat indices and the iShares Preferred Shares indices. Moreover, based on our analysis, we also make some recommendations as to which is the best income strategy in equity markets for the current environment. Please see our Investment Implications section for more details. High-Dividend Yield Stocks As their name suggests, high-dividend yield indices select for stocks with the highest dividend yields. In practice however, many more screening criteria are imposed. In order to ensure some stability in dividend payout, MSCI excludes REITs, payout outliers, negative dividend growth stocks, low-quality stocks, and low-performance stocks. Once all of these screening criteria are applied, MSCI selects for stocks which have a dividend yield that is at least 30% higher than its benchmark. Table 1 shows details on these screening criteria. Table 1Criteria For MSCI High-Dividend Yield Indices Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets How has the MSCI High-Dividend index performed historically? Since 1996, high-dividend yield stocks have outperformed the benchmark at the global level by 50% (Chart 3, top panel). This outperformance has been mostly a result of the income advantage this index provides, given that price return has outperformed only by a paltry 3%. It is also worth noting that price performance has been particularly poor since the Financial Crisis, and has actually caused high-dividend yield stocks to underperform on a total return basis over the past decade. Relative performance has been flat to down, even in those markets where high-dividend yield had been very successful previously such as Canada, Japan, and Emerging Markets (Chart 3, bottom panel). What has caused this underperformance? One reason is the low allocation that the high-yield index has to Technology (Chart 4, panel 1). Another reason is style tilt. Factor analysis reveals that the high-dividend yield index has a very strong value bias1 (Chart 4, panel 2). This strong style tilt is likely responsible for the poor relative price performance of high-dividend yield stocks, as value has been notorious for underperforming over the past decade (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 3High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade Chart 4The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias   But while high-dividend yield stocks are an implicit bet on value, there is evidence that investing in high-dividend yield stocks within the non-value universe is a profitable strategy. In the paper “What Difference Do Dividends Make?”, Coronover et al. found that high-dividend yield companies actually outperform their low-dividend yield counterparts in the high and median price-to-book universes2 (Table 2). Additionally, they found that high-dividend yield stocks also performed better vis-à-vis low-dividend yield stocks in the mid-cap and large-cap universes. Table 2High-Dividend And Low-Dividend Yield Stocks Sorted By Price-To-Book And Market Cap Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Growth Stocks Dividend growth stocks are securities that have increased their dividend for a certain number of consecutive years.  In the US, companies with a track record of at least 25 years of dividend increases are usually called “dividend aristocrats”, while companies with a 10-year track record are known as “dividend achievers”.3 However, the requirements to be classified as a dividend aristocrat or a dividend achiever are not uniform across index providers, and even within providers they are not uniform across different countries, which means that investors need to pay attention to selection criteria when investing in a dividend growth index (Table 3). In this report we will focus on the best-known dividend growth index: the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index. Table 3Different Criteria To Become A Dividend Aristocrat In Different Countries Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets How has this index performed historically? The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index has outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 60% since 1995 in total-return terms and by more than 30% in price terms. Additionally, it has enjoyed less volatility and has outperformed significantly during recessions (Chart 5, panel 1). Chart 5Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets The main difference between the benchmark and the Aristocrats index comes down to sector tilt and leverage.  The second panel of Chart 5 shows that the Aristocrats index has a large overweight in Consumer Staples and a large underweight in Technology relative to the S&P 500. Meanwhile, while valuations are not that different, and equity profitability is actually lower, the companies in the Aristocrats index are significantly less levered than those of the S&P 500, a testament to their defensive nature (Table 4). Table 4Dividend Aristocrats Have Low Leverage Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets But are dividend aristocrats really a more reliable source of income than the rest of the market? Empirically, they have been. In the US, the likelihood of a dividend increase in any given year has historically been a function of how many consecutive dividend increases a company has done before (Chart 6). Beyond the strong balance sheets and stable business models that dividend aristocrat companies have, this is most likely a result of the incentives created by the asymmetry of the index: A multi-decade policy of dividend increases is a significant investment of time and resources to signal stability to the market. However, the status obtained by this policy – and all the resources devoted to it– is immediately lost the moment dividends are cut, with no possibility of reclaiming it in at least a quarter century.4 Importantly, the longer a company raises dividends the bigger the investment becomes, creating a very high incentive to not cut dividends. That being said, sometimes this incentive is not enough to overcome extreme business conditions, such as those that occurred in 2008. Chart 7 shows that the members of the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index declined by roughly a third during the Financial Crisis, mostly as a result of previously reliable banks that had to cut their dividends in 2008 and 2009.5 Chart 6The Likelihood Of A Dividend Increase Is Higher For Dividend Aristocrats Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Chart 7Extreme Business Conditions Can Force Some Aristocrats Off The Index Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets   Preferred Shares Preferred shares are securities which have traits of both debt and common equity: Like debt, they have a par value, no voting rights, and they provide a prespecified cash flow. Nevertheless, they do not have a maturity date and they represent an ownership stake in the company, just like common equity. Analyzing the historical performance of preferred shares is difficult since most indices begin only around the Financial Crisis. However, from the limited data we have, we can make some observations: Preferred shares in the US have underperformed common equity, investment- grade debt and high-yield debt since 2004 (Chart 8). They also experienced very deep selloffs during recessions, often similar to the selloffs that common equities have experienced (Table 5). However, preferred shares do seem to have similar return drivers to corporate credit. In particular, much like corporate credit, they tend to fall whenever yields on corporate debt rise (Chart 9). Chart 8Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Table 5Preferred Equity Has Similar Drawdowns To Common Equity During Recessions Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Chart 9US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields Chart 10US Preferred Shares Are Heavily Tilted To Financials Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets In theory, the co-movement of preferred equity and corporate debt is not that surprising. Much like credit, preferred shares are fixed-income securities which are subject to credit risk. Whenever yields on risky credit rise, these fixed-income securities become relatively less attractive, making their price fall. Chart 11Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play However, what is surprising is that preferred shares have underperformed both investment-grade and high-yield credit. How could an asset that technically has more risk – and thus should offer a better rate of return – underperform for such a long time? One plausible explanation is sector skew. Preferred shares are heavily skewed to Financials, a sector that has underperformed significantly over the past decade (Chart 10). While Financials tend to dominate most preferred indices, other factor may also affect returns. In Canada, the preferred share index is most sensitive to changes in the price of oil – a consequence of both the relatively high weight of Energy in the index, and the importance of the commodity for the Canadian economy (Chart 11). There are many types of preferred shares which include rate-resets, perpetuals, and variable rate. We do not analyze them in this report since indices tracking most of these securities have a very short history. We do advise our clients to be wary of compositional differences between indices, since sector composition could be a larger driver of returns than the type of preferred equity itself. Finally, while it is outside the scope of this report, it is worth remembering that preferred shares might still be worth looking at for taxable investors, given that dividends and interest income are often not taxed at the same rates. Investment Implications Dividend Growth Stocks Investors should consider including dividend growth stocks in their portfolios. Their defensive nature means that they should be able to weather the recession brought about by the coronavirus lockdowns better than the overall market, while their long-term dividend policy implies that these companies will be more reluctant to cut dividends. One drawback of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrat index is that it is yielding less than 3%. Thus, investors would be better served by selecting individual securities within the index. In order to help with this exercise, we have ranked the companies in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrat index according to our own GAA Income Score. The score is based on the following three traits: Raw Income: the company’s current dividend yield. Yield Stability: the number of consecutive years the company has raised its dividend. Attractiveness: The company’s current score from the BCA Equity Trading Strategy service. Please find the ranking of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats in Appendix A. According to our GAA Income Score the best S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats are ExxonMobil, Franklin Resources, 3M, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Genuine Parts. High-Dividend Yield Stocks What about high-dividend yield stocks? The MSCI All-Country World High-Dividend Yield index is currently yielding a formidable 5%, making it an attractive income opportunity. However, investors should remember that high-dividend yield stocks have a significant exposure to the value factor. GAA is currently neutral on value versus growth, but we are concerned that value continued to underperform when equities were falling and has not been able to outperform in recent weeks as equities rebounded. For those who do not want to take on value exposure, overweighting high-dividend yield within non-value stocks and mid and large caps might be a better option. Preferred Equity Currently preferred shares have a dividend yield of roughly 5%. Do they make an attractive income opportunity? We don’t believe so. Low interest rates and tepid loan growth even after the quarantines are over will likely weigh on Financials – the sector which preferred shares are most exposed to. Moreover, its strong similarity to corporate debt makes this asset somewhat redundant for investors who already own credit. Appendix Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Juan Correa Ossa  Associate Editor juanc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 This is in part by construction. The MSCI Value index uses dividend yield as one of its variables to asses value. 2 Mitchell Coronover, Gerald R. Jensen, and Marc W. Simpson, “What Difference Do Dividends Make?”, Financial Analyst Journal, Volume 72, Number 6 (2016). 3 Companies which have increased their dividend for at least 50 years are sometimes called “dividend kings”. 4 Eberner Asem and Ahamsul Alam, “The Market’s Reaction To Consecutive Dividend Increases,” (December 2017). 5 Not all companies exit the index due to dividend cuts. Some companies exit because of corporate restructurings or because they no longer meet the minimum market capitalization to qualify.

Highlights The liquidity-driven rally will soon be followed by an acceleration in global growth. The economic recovery will bump up expectations of long-term profit growth. The dollar has downside, but the euro will not benefit much. Overweight stocks relative to bonds and bet on traditional cyclical sectors and commodities. The potential for outperformance of value relative to growth favors European equities. The probability of a tech mania is escalating: how should investors factor an expanding bubble into their portfolios? Feature Chart I-1A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? Despite all odds, the nCoV-2019 outbreak is barely denting the S&P 500’s frenetic rally. Plentiful liquidity, thawing Sino-US trade relations and improving economic activity in Asia, all have created ideal conditions for risk assets to appreciate on a cyclical basis. Stocks may look increasingly expensive and are primed to correct, but the bubble will expand further. After lifting asset valuations, monetary policy easing will soon boost worldwide economic activity. Consequently, earnings in the US and Europe will improve. As long as central bankers remain unconcerned about inflation, investors will bid up stocks. Investors should remember we are in the final innings of a bull market. Stocks can deliver outsized returns during this period, but often at the cost of elevated volatility, and the options market is not pricing in this uncertainty (Chart I-1). Moreover, timing the ultimate end of the bubble is extremely difficult. Hence, we prefer to look for assets that can still benefit from easy monetary conditions and rebounding growth, but are not as expensive as equities. Industrial commodities fit that description, especially after their recent selloff. The dollar remains a crucial asset to gauge the path of least resistance for assets. If it refuses to swoon, then it will indicate that global growth is in a weaker state than we foresaw. The good news is that the broad trade-weighted dollar seems to have peaked. Accommodative Monetary Conditions Are Here To Stay Easy liquidity has been the lifeblood of the S&P 500’s rally. The surge in the index coincided with the lagged impact of the rise in our US Financial Liquidity Index (Chart I-2). Low rates have allowed stocks to climb higher, yet earnings expectations remain muted. For example, since November 26, 2018, the forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has increased from 15.2 to 18.7, while 10-year Treasury yields have collapsed from 3.1% to 1.6%. Meanwhile, expectations for long-term earnings annual growth extracted from equity multiples using a discounted cash flow model have dropped from 2.4% to 1.2%. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Yet, stocks and risk assets normally continue to climb when the economy recovers. Even without any additional monetary easing, as long as policy remains accommodative, risk assets will generate positive returns. Expectations for stronger cash flow growth become the force driving asset prices higher. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. Within this framework, peak monetary easing is probably behind us, even though liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative. Nominal interest rates remain very low, and real bond yields are still falling. Unlike in 2018 and 2019, dropping TIPs yields reflect rising inflation expectations (Chart I-3). Those factors together indicate that policy is reflationary, which is confirmed by the gold rally. Chart I-2A Liquidity Driven Rally A Liquidity Driven Rally A Liquidity Driven Rally Chart I-3Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary   Chart I-4Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Based on the historical lags between monetary easing and manufacturing activity, the global industrial sector is set to mend (Chart I-4). Moreover, the liquidity-driven surge in stock prices, combined with low yields and compressed credit spreads, has eased financial conditions, which creates the catalyst for an industrial recovery. Where will the growth come from? First, worldwide inventory levels have collapsed after making negative contributions to growth since mid-2018 (Chart I-5). Thus, there is room for an inventory restocking. Secondly, auto sales in Europe and China have rebounded to 18.5% from -23% and to -0.1% from -16.4%, respectively. Thirdly, China’s credit and fiscal impulse has improved. The uptick in Chinese iron ore imports indicates that the pass-through from domestic reflation to global economic activity will materialize soon (Chart I-6). Finally, following the Phase One Sino-US trade deal, global business confidence is bottoming, as exemplified by Belgium’s business confidence, Switzerland KOF LEI, Korea's manufacturing business survey, or US CFO and CEO confidence measures. The increase in EM earnings revisions shows that US capex intentions should soon re-accelerate, which bodes well for investment both in the US and globally (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Room For Inventory Restocking Room For Inventory Restocking Room For Inventory Restocking Chart I-6China Points To Stronger Global Growth China Points To Stronger Global Growth China Points To Stronger Global Growth   Construction activity, a gauge of the monetary stance, is looking up across the advanced economies. In the US, housing starts – a leading indicator of domestic demand – have hit a 13-year high. A pullback in this volatile data series is likely, but it should be limited. Vacancies remain at a paltry 1.4%, household formation is solid and affordability is not demanding (Chart I-8). In Europe, construction activity has been relatively stable through the economic slowdown. Even in Canada and Australia, housing transactions have gathered steam quickly following declines in mortgage rates (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Capex Is Set To Recover Capex Is Set To Recover Capex Is Set To Recover Chart I-8US Housing Is Robust US Housing Is Robust US Housing Is Robust Chart I-9Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Consumers will remain a source of strength for the global economy. The dichotomy between weak manufacturing PMIs and the stable service sector reflects a healthy consumer spending. December retail sales in Europe and the US corroborate this assessment. The stabilization in US business confidence suggests that household incomes are not in as much jeopardy as three months ago. As household net worth and credit growth improve further, a stable outlook for household income will underwrite greater gains in consumption. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. For the time being, US inflationary pressures are muted. The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over, hourly earnings growth has moved back below 3%, our pipeline inflation indicator derived from the ISM is weak, and core producer prices are flagging (Chart I-10). This trend is not US-specific. In the OECD, core consumer price inflation is set to decelerate due to the lagged impact of the manufacturing slowdown. Central banks are also constrained to remain dovish by their own rhetoric. The Fed's statement this week was a testament to this reality. Central banks are increasingly looking to set symmetrical inflation targets. After a decade of missing their targets, a symmetric target would imply keeping policy easier for longer, even if realized inflation moves back above 2%. A rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar. Finally, fiscal policy will make a small positive contribution to growth in most major advanced economies in 2020, particularly in Germany and the UK (Table I-1). Chart I-10Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Table I-1Modest Fiscal Easing In 2020 February 2020 February 2020   The Dollar And The Sino-US Phase One Deal At first glance, a rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar (Chart I-11). As we have often argued, the dollar’s defining characteristic is its pronounced counter-cyclicality. Chart I-11A Painful Backdrop For The Greenback February 2020 February 2020 Deteriorating dollar fundamentals make this risk particularly relevant. US interest rates are well above those in the rest of the G10, but the gap in short rates has significantly narrowed. Historically, the direction of rates differentials and not their levels has determined the trend in the USD (Chart I-12). Moreover, real differentials at the long end of the curve support the notion that the maximum tailwinds for the dollar are behind us (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Furthermore, now that the US Treasury has replenished its accounts at the Federal Reserve, the Fed’s addition of excess reserves in the system will likely become increasingly negative for the dollar, especially against EM currencies. Likewise, relative money supply trends between the US, Europe, Japan and China already predict a decline in the dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Chart I-13...Neither Do Money Supply Trends ...Neither Do Money Supply Trends ...Neither Do Money Supply Trends   Chart I-14The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious February 2020 February 2020 The recent Sino-US trade agreement obscures what appears to be a straightforward picture. According to the Phase One deal signed mid-January, China will increase its US imports by $200 billion in the next two years vis-à-vis the high-water mark of $186 billion reached in 2017. This is an extremely ambitious goal (Chart I-14). Politically, it is positive that China has committed to buy manufactured goods and services in addition to commodities. However, the scale of the increase in imports of US manufactured goods is large, at $77 billion. China cannot fulfill this obligation if domestic growth merely stabilizes or picks up just a little, especially now that the domestic economy is in the midst of a spreading illness. It will have to substitute some of its European and Japanese imports with US goods. A consequence of this trade deal is that the euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. Historically, European growth outperforms the US when China’s monetary conditions are easing and its marginal propensity to consume is rising (Chart I-15). However, given the potential for China to substitute European goods in favor of US ones, China’s economic reacceleration probably will not benefit Europe as much as it normally does. China may not ultimately follow through with as big of US purchases as it has promised, but it is likely, at least initially, to show good faith in the agreement. The euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. While the trade agreement is a headwind for the euro, it is a positive for the Chinese yuan. The US output gap stands at 0.1% of potential GDP and the US labor market is near full employment. The US industrial sector does not possess the required spare capacity to fulfill additional Chinese demand. To equilibrate the market for US goods, prices will have to adjust to become more favorable for Chinese purchasers. The simplest mechanism to achieve this outcome is for the RMB to appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is trading 16% below its equilibrium, which will allow European producers to fulfill US domestic demand. A widening US trade deficit with Europe would undo improvements in the trade balance with China. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated. The implication for the dollar is that the broad trade-weighted USD will likely outperform the Dollar Index (DXY). The euro represents 18.9% of the broad trade-weighted dollar versus 57.6% of the DXY. Asian currencies, EM currencies at large, the AUD and the NZD, all should benefit from their close correlation with the RMB (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Chart I-16EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB   Obviously, before the RMB and the assets linked to it can appreciate further, the panic surrounding the coronavirus will have to dissipate. However, the economic damage created by SARS was short lived. This respiratory syndrome resulted in a 2.4% contraction Hong-Kong’s GDP in the second quarter of 2003. The economy of Hong Kong recovered that loss quickly afterward. Investment Forecasts BCA continues to forecast upside in safe-haven yields. Global interest rates remain well below equilibrium and a global economic recovery bodes poorly for bond prices (Chart I-17). However, inflation expectations and not real yields will drive nominal yield changes. The dovish slant of global central banks and the growing likelihood that symmetric inflation targets will become the norm is creating long-term upside risks for inflation. Moreover, if symmetric inflation targets imply lower real short rates in the future, then they also imply lower real long rates today. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Easy monetary conditions, decreased real rates and an improvement in economic activity are also consistent with an outperformance of assets with higher yields. High-yield bonds, which offer attractive breakeven spreads, will benefit from this backdrop (Chart I-18). Furthermore, carry trades will likely continue to perform well. In addition to low interest rates across most of the G10, the low currency volatility caused by an extended period of easy policy will continue to encourage carry-seeking strategies. Chart I-17Bonds Are Still Expensive Bonds Are Still Expensive Bonds Are Still Expensive Chart I-18Where Is The Value In Credit? Where Is The Value In Credit? Where Is The Value In Credit?   An environment in which growth is accelerating and monetary policy is accommodative argues in favor of stocks. Our profit growth model for the S&P 500 has finally moved back into positive territory. As earnings improve, investors will likely re-rate depressed long-term growth expectations for cash flows (Chart I-19). The flip side is that equity risk premia are elevated, especially outside the US (Chart I-19). Hence, as long as accelerating growth (but not tighter policy) drives up yields, equities should withstand rising borrowing costs. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. The 400 point surge in the S&P 500 since early October complicates the picture. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated, based on their short-term momentum and sentiment measures, such as the put/call ratio (Chart I-20). Foreign equities will continue to correct along US ones, even if they are cheaper. Chart I-19Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Chart I-20Tactical Risks For Stocks Tactical Risks For Stocks Tactical Risks For Stocks   Chart I-21Buy Commodities/Sell Stocks? Buy Commodities / Sell Stocks? Buy Commodities / Sell Stocks? The coronavirus panic seems to be the catalyst for such a correction. When a market is overextended, any shock can cause a pullback in prices. Moreover, as of writing, medical professionals still have to ascertain the virus’s severity and potential mutations. Therefore, risk assets must embed a significant risk premium for such uncertainty, even if ultimately the infection turns out to be mild. However, that risk premium will likely prove to be short lived. During the SARS crisis in 2003, stocks bottomed when the number of reported new cases peaked. The tech sector has plentiful downside if the correction gathers strength. As indicated in BCA’s US Equity Sector Strategy, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook account for 18% of the US market capitalization, which is the highest market concentration since the late 1990s tech bubble. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Commodity prices are trading at a large discount to US equities. Moreover, the momentum of natural resource prices relative to stocks has begun to form a positive divergence with the price ratio of these two assets (Chart I-21). Technical divergences such as the one visible in the ratio of commodities to equities are often positive signals. Low real rates, an ample liquidity backdrop, a global economic recovery, a weak broad trade-weighted dollar and a strong RMB, all benefit commodities over equities. Tech stocks underperform commodities when the dollar weakens and growth strengthens. Moreover, our positive stance on the RMB justifies stronger prices for copper, oil and EM equities (Chart I-22). Chart I-22The Winners From A CNY Rebound February 2020 February 2020 Our US Equity Strategy Service has also reiterated its preference for industrials and energy stocks, and it recently upgraded materials stocks to neutral.1 All three sectors trade at significant valuation discounts to the broad market and to tech stocks in particular. They are also oversold in relative terms. Finally, their operating metrics are improving, a trend which will be magnified if global growth re-accelerates. Do not make these bets aggressively. A weakening broad trade-weighted dollar would allow for a rotation into foreign equities and an outperformance of value relative to growth stocks. The share of US equities in the MSCI All-Country World Index is a direct function of the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-23). Moreover, since 1971, the dollar and the relative performance of growth stocks versus value stocks have exhibited a positive correlation (Chart I-24). Thus, the dollar’s recent strength has been a key component behind the run enjoyed by tech stocks. Chart I-23Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Chart I-24Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Despite the risks to the euro discussed in the previous section, European equities could still outperform US equities. Such a move would be consistent with value stocks beating growth equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). This correlation exists because the euro area has a combined 17.7% weighting to tech and healthcare stocks compared with a 37.1% allocation in US benchmarks. Moreover, a cheap euro should allow European industrials and materials to outperform their US counterparts. Finally, the recent uptick in the European credit impulse indicates that an acceleration in European profit growth is imminent, a view that is in line with our preference for European financials (Chart I-25).2 Chart I-25Euro Area Profits Should Improve Euro Area Profits Should Improve Euro Area Profits Should Improve Bottom Line: The current environment remains favorable for risk assets on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we expect stocks and bond yields to continue to rise in 2020. Moreover, a pick-up in global growth, along with a fall in the broad trade-weighted dollar, should weigh on tech and growth stocks, and boost the attractiveness of commodity plays, industrial, energy and materials stocks, as well as European and EM equities. Forecast Meets Strategy Liquidity-driven rallies, such as the current one, can carry on regardless of the fundamentals. As Keynes noted 90 years ago: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The gap between forecast and strategy can be great. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. We assign a substantial 30% probability to the risk of another tech mania. Outflows from equity ETFs and mutual funds have been large. Investors will be tempted to move back into those vehicles if stocks continue to rally on the back of plentiful liquidity and improving global growth (Chart I-26). In the process, the new inflows will prop up the over-represented, over-valued, and over-extended tech behemoths. Chart I-26Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up The current tech bubble can easily run a lot further. Based on current valuations, the NASDAQ trades at a P/E ratio of 31 compared with 68 in March 2000 (Chart I-27). Moreover, momentum is becoming increasingly favorable for the NASDAQ and other high-flying tech stocks. The NASDAQ is outperforming high-dividend stocks and after a period of consolidation, its relative performance is breaking out. Momentum often performs very well in liquidity-driven rallies. Chart I-27Where Is The Bubble? Where Is The Bubble? Where Is The Bubble? Chart I-28Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere A full-fledged tech mania would make our overweight equities / underweight bonds a profitable call, but it would invalidate our sector and regional recommendations. Moreover, with a few exceptions in China and Taiwan, the major tech bellwethers are listed in the US. A tech bubble would most likely push our bearish dollar stance to the offside. Bubbles are dangerous: participating on the upside is easy, but cashing out is not. Moreover, financial bubbles tend to exacerbate the economic pain that follows the bust. During manic phases, capital is poorly invested and the economy becomes geared to the sectors that benefit from the financial excesses. These assets lose their value when the bubble deflates. Moreover, bubbles often result in growing private-sector indebtedness. Writing off or paying back this debt saps the economy’s vitality. Making matters worse, today overall indebtedness is unprecedented and central banks have little room to reflate the global economy once the bubble bursts (Chart I-28). Finally, US/Iran tensions will create additional risk in the years ahead. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, warns that the ratcheting down of tensions following Iran’s retaliation to General Soleimani’s assassination is temporary.3 As a result, the oil market remains a source of left-handed tail-risk. Section II discusses other potential black swans lurking in the geopolitical sphere. We continue to recommend that investors overweight industrials and energy, upgrade materials to neutral, Europe to overweight, and curtail their USD exposure as long as US inflation remains well behaved and the US inflation breakeven rate stays below the 2.3% to 2.5% range. However, do not make these bets aggressively. Moreover, some downside protection is merited. Due to our very negative view on bonds, we prefer garnering these hedges via a 15% allocation to gold and the yen. The yen is especially attractive because it is one of the few cheap, safe-haven plays (Chart I-29). Chart I-29The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 30, 2020 Next Report: February 27, 2020   II. Five Black Swans In 2020 Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked? chart 5 Has China's Stimulus Peaked? Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… February 2020 February 2020 The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan February 2020 February 2020   Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression February 2020 February 2020 One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.3 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-13…Popular Support… February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority February 2020 February 2020 This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically February 2020 February 2020   Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump February 2020 February 2020 The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist February 2020 February 2020     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory February 2020 February 2020 Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat February 2020 February 2020 It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism February 2020 February 2020 The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 rally looks increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective. The US benchmark is overbought, and the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages is rolling over at elevated levels. Additionally, the number of NYSE new highs minus new lows has moved in a parabolic fashion and has hit levels that in previous years have warned of an imminent correction. The spread of nCoV-2019 is likely to be the catalyst to a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. An improving outlook for global growth, limited inflationary pressures and global central banks who maintain an accommodative monetary stance bode well for stocks. Therefore, the anticipated equity correction will not morph into a bear market. For now, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator has strengthened. Additionally, our BCA Composite Valuation index suggests that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. Finally, our Speculation Indicator is elevated, but is not so high as to warn of an imminent market top. This somewhat muted level of speculation is congruent with the expectation of low long-term growth rates for profits embedded in equity prices. In contrast to our Revealed Preference Indicator, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is moving in accordance with our constructive cyclical stance for stocks. Indeed, the WTP for the US, Japan and Europe continues to improve. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Meanwhile, net earnings revisions appear to be forming a trough. 10-year Treasury yields remain extremely expensive. Moreover, according to our Composite Technical Indicator, T-Note prices are losing momentum. The fear surrounding the spread of the new coronavirus has cause bonds to rally again, but this is likely to be the last hurrah for the Treasury markets before a major reversal takes hold. The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and Belgium’s Business Confidence surveys, or the improvement in Asia’s export growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24.5% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, the negative divergence between the dollar and our Composite Momentum Indicator suggests that the dollar is technically vulnerable. In fact, the very modest pick-up in the dollar in response to the severe fears created by the spreading illness in China argues that dollar buying might have become exhausted. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of the coronavirus. However, they have not pulled back below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advance/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Three EPS Scenarios," dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Insight Report "Bombed Out Energy," dated January 8, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Special Report "Industrials: Start Your Engines," dated January 21, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "January 2020," dated December 20, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions," dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Feature The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart 1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart 1Manias: An Historical Roadmap Manias: An Historical Roadmap Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Chart 2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart 2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. And its decline was pre-written into its “source code.” Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data date back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated (Chart 3). Chart 3Profit Margin Trouble Profit Margin Trouble Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are more often than not business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart 4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart 4). Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart 5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. Chart 5It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After All The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart 6). Chart 6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more main stream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. The caveat? If President Trump strikes a short-term deal with China ahead of the 2020 election, the de-globalization theme will suffer a setback. But our geopolitical strategists expect a ceasefire at best, not a durable deal, and also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US.  Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart 7). Our October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s. These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Chart 7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks Table 1 Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table 1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries to rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and what companies that data is being shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market of the states. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and net profit margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart 8)! This is unsustainable and will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom overhead, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. Chart 8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks that has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart 9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart 9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Chart 9Software Is Eating The World Software Is Eating The World Software Is Eating The World Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate will gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart 10). Chart 10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort Millennials Are The Largest Cohort Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and derivative industries. Further, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership themes noted in the report above lead us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart 11). Chart 11Buy BCA’s Millennial Equity Basket Buy BCA’s Millennial Equity Basket Buy BCA’s Millennial Equity Basket Investors seeking long term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.1 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind the as reported in the FT “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last Wednesday, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart 12). Chart 12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we deem will play out, and centered recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart 13). Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart 13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasury bonds is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart 14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart 13Unsustainable Debt Profiles Unsustainable Debt Profiles Unsustainable Debt Profiles Chart 14Greenback’s Historical Ebbs And Flows Greenback’s Historical Ebbs And Flows Greenback’s Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.   Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector. If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. Chart 15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group marko@clocktowergroup.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary The Bank Credit Analyst mathieu@bcaresearch.com   References Please click on the links below to view reports: Peak Margins - October 7, 2019 The Polybius Solution - July 5, 2019 War! What Is It Good For? Global Defense Stocks! - October 31, 2018 The Dollar: Will The U.S. Invoke A "Nuclear" Option? - August 30, 2018 Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? - August 1, 2018 Millennials Are Not Coming Of Age; They Are Already Here - June 11, 2018 Brothers In Arms - October 31, 2016 The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?  - April 13, 2016 Apex of Globalization  - November 12, 2014 Footnotes 1           https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

Analysis on Chile is available below. Highlights Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or corrections. Hence, a major broad selloff will likely be a precondition for EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks to commence outperforming. The odds that EM equities will underperform the S&P 500 or DM share prices in an equity drawdown are 65-70%. A weaker dollar is essential to EM outperformance. We remain bullish on the dollar and are underweight/short EM. Feature The current decade has been characterized by the substantial outperformance of growth versus value stocks, the S&P 500 versus emerging and other international markets. BCA held its annual conference in New York last week. One of the key topics that investors wanted to get a handle on was the potential for a leadership rotation in global equity markets. The current decade has been characterized by the substantial outperformance of growth versus value stocks, the S&P 500 versus emerging and other international markets, FAANG share prices versus commodities and “old economy” stocks. Is this trend about to reverse? Opinions among our conference speakers certainly differed. Some still showed a penchant for growth stocks and U.S. equities, while others recommended global value and EM stocks. Our Themes For The Decade Our key long-term themes – laid out in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade1 – have shaped our investment strategy over the past decade have been: Commodities and materials and energy equity sectors as well as machinery stocks will be in a bear market because Chinese capital spending has peaked. Hence, investors should avoid EMs that are very sensitive to resource prices. Favoring EM/Chinese consumer plays, namely technology as well as healthcare stocks in general and healthcare equipment stocks in particular, is the way to play China/EM growth this decade. Given tech and healthcare account for a smaller weighting in EM stock indexes than in DM ones, we have been recommending that investors underweight EM against DM stocks. Needless to say, these themes have panned out extremely well, with EM, resources, commodities-related and machinery equity sectors underperforming massively (Chart I-1), and tech, consumer and healthcare stocks outperforming (Chart I-2). These themes have guided our strategy over the past nine years, leading us to be underweight EM equities in favor of the S&P 500, which is heavily dominated by tech, consumer and healthcare companies. Chart I-1China Capex Plays Have Underperformed This Decade China Capex Plays Have Underperformed This Decade China Capex Plays Have Underperformed This Decade Chart I-2Our Favorites For This Decade Have Outperformed Our Favorites For This Decade Have Outperformed Our Favorites For This Decade Have Outperformed Any investment trend has a beginning and an end. It is essential not to overstay in winning strategies. Critically, Chart I-3 shows that the magnitude of the rise in FAANG stocks over the past 10 years is comparable to bubbles of previous decades. This chart compares asset prices in real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. dollar terms. Chart I-3FAANG And Previous Bubbles In Perspective FAANG And Previous Bubbles In Perspective FAANG And Previous Bubbles In Perspective Only history will tell whether FAANGs are currently in a bubble or not. Presently, we do not have a high conviction view on this matter. However, even if they are not in a bubble, they are extremely overbought and expensive. Their failure to break above their 2018 highs is a negative technical signal. Altogether, this warrants a cautious stance on the absolute performance of FAANGs. Bottom Line: Regardless of the direction of FAANG stocks, odds are that EM share prices will relapse in absolute terms before a sustainable bottom emerges. For a detailed discussion on this, please refer to pages 6-9. In such a scenario, it is hard to envision FAANG stocks rallying. They may continue outperforming on a relative basis, but they will still deflate in absolute terms. Equity Rotations Occur Around Bear Markets The relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs. With respect to equity leadership rotation, it is crucial to note that equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or corrections in global share prices. Chart I-4 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM – and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a correction in global share prices. Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Chart I-5Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, structural trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or corrections. Hence, a major selloff is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks begin to outperform. We will contemplate changing our relative equity strategy if a major broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 30-35% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500, as it did during the carnage in global stocks in the fourth quarter of last year. In short, the probability that EM share prices underperform the S&P 500 and DM is 65-70%. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service remains bullish on the dollar and is underweight/short EM. A Breakdown In EM And Global Cyclicals? With China’s manufacturing PMI once again on the rise, it is critical to challenge our view on the Chinese business cycle as well as global manufacturing and trade. In our opinion, the latest rise in the mainland manufacturing PMI is an aberration rather than a new trend: Chinese share prices over the years have been coincident with or leading mainland manufacturing PMI. Stocks are currently pointing to a relapse in the latter (Chart I-7). The message from Chinese share prices is that the latest improvement in the nation’s manufacturing PMI should be faded. Chart I-7Chinese Share Prices And Manufacturing PMI Chinese Share Prices And Manufacturing PMI Chinese Share Prices And Manufacturing PMI The global manufacturing recession is still spreading. The global manufacturing recession is still spreading. This has yet to be discounted in global cyclical equity sectors. The latter have been moving sideways over the past year and a half, despite the contraction in global manufacturing activity (Chart I-8). Equity investors’ patience may be wearing thin as the expected global manufacturing recovery has so far failed to materialize. Chart I-8Global Cyclical Stocks And Manufacturing PMI bca.ems_wr_2019_10_03_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2019_10_03_s1_c8 Chart I-9EM EPS And Korean Exports: Moving In Tandem EM EPS And Korean Exports: Moving In Tandem EM EPS And Korean Exports: Moving In Tandem Korean exports in September contracted at a rate close to 10% year-on-year (Chart I-9, top panel). Interestingly, the level of EM corporate earnings per share (EPS) in U.S. dollar terms exhibits a similar pattern with Korean exports (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Both are at the same level they were in 2010. Hence, over this decade EM EPS and Korean exports in U.S. dollar terms have not expanded at all. U.S. high-beta stocks in aggregate as well as share prices of high-beta industrials and technology stocks are close to breaking below their technical support lines (Chart I-10). They could be canaries in a coal mine for the S&P 500. Chart I-10U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Breaking Down U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Breaking Down U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Breaking Down Chart I-11A Bearish Signal For EM And Commodities bca.ems_wr_2019_10_03_s1_c11 bca.ems_wr_2019_10_03_s1_c11 Despite a very weak U.S. manufacturing PMI, the dollar remains well bid. This signifies that the global manufacturing recession emanates from the rest of the world – not the U.S. In fact, the U.S. manufacturing sector has been the last domino to fall. Persistent strength in the greenback is a symptom of weakening global growth. Our Risk-On / Safe-Haven Currency ratio2 – which is agnostic to dollar trends – is plunging, corroborating the downbeat outlook for global growth in general and commodities prices in particular (Chart I-11). Finally, overall EM and Asian high-yield corporate credit spreads are widening versus investment grade ones. This is a sign of rising risk aversion.  EM credit markets and local currency bonds have so far been reasonably resilient, despite the selloff in EM share prices and currencies (Chart I-12). The basis for such decoupling has been the indiscriminate search for yield rather than improving EM growth dynamics. Chart I-12EM Credit Markets Will Recouple To Downside With Stocks And Currencies EM Credit Markets Will Recouple To Downside With Stocks And Currencies EM Credit Markets Will Recouple To Downside With Stocks And Currencies Deteriorating growth will eventually cause a widening of EM credit spreads. Besides, persistent EM currency depreciation will likely lead to outflows from EM high-yield local bond markets. Bottom Line: EM equities, credit markets and high-yielding local currency bonds are at risk of a major selloff. Our list of country allocations across various EM asset classes as well as our trades can always be found at the end of our reports, please refer to pages 14-15. We continue to recommend shorting the following basket of EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Still Favor Bonds Over Stocks; Bet On Lower Inflation We have been betting on sluggish growth, lower interest rates and a weakening currency in Chile. These positions have panned out well as the economy has slowed considerably, local bond yields have plunged and the currency depreciated significantly (Chart II-1, top and middle panels). However, our overweight position in Chilean equities within a dedicated EM stock portfolio has performed poorly (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Is it time to reconsider our position? Chart II-1Our Strategy For Chile Our Strategy For Chile Our Strategy For Chile Having re-examined the cyclical dynamics of this economy and putting it in the context of the global backdrop, we reiterate our investment recommendations. We also see a new investment opportunity within the Chilean fixed-income markets – investors should consider betting on lower inflation expectations, i.e., going long domestic bonds and shorting inflation-linked bonds. We believe the bond market’s medium-to long-term inflation expectations are overstated and will drop in the coming months. The Chilean economy will likely weaken further and inflation is set to drop considerably beyond the near term. Even though the central bank has already cut rates by 100 basis points, it will take both more easing and time before the credit impulse turns positive and lifts domestic demand. The credit impulse for businesses points to a relapse in capital spending (Chart II-2). The adopted fiscal stimulus has been negligible at 0.21% of GDP for 2019 and 2020. While government spending growth is bottoming, overall fiscal expenditures account for 20% of GDP. In brief, they are too small to make a major difference for the economy. Chart II-2Chile: Falling Credit Impulse = Weak Capex Chile: Falling Credit Impulse = Weak Capex Chile: Falling Credit Impulse = Weak Capex With non-mining exports contracting and commodities prices plunging, the export sectors will continue to depress growth. Corporate profits are shrinking and this will dent capital spending and hiring. Critically, rising unit labor costs are depressing corporate profit margins (Chart II-3). The latter have spiked because the output slowdown has not yet been matched by layoffs or lower wage growth. In turn, forthcoming layoffs amid the already rising unemployment rate will certainly lead to considerable wage disinflation (Chart II-4). Chile has seen massive inflows of immigrants from Venezuela in recent years, which will prove to be a major disinflationary force for this economy in the medium-term. Finally, goods price inflation – which has stemmed from currency depreciation – could prevent consumer inflation from falling in the near term. Yet, this phenomena will not be sustainable beyond the near term. Chart II-3Shrinking Profits Will Lead Businesses To Reduce Unit Labor Costs Shrinking Profits Will Lead Businesses To Reduce Unit Labor Costs Shrinking Profits Will Lead Businesses To Reduce Unit Labor Costs Chart II-4Wage Growth Is Unsustainably High Wage Growth Is Unsustainably High Wage Growth Is Unsustainably High On the whole, the fixed-income market will look through currency depreciation-induced goods inflation and begin pricing in much lower inflation expectations. We recommend betting that 3-year inflation expectations will decline from 2.5% to 1.5% in the next 12 months (Chart II-5). We have been receiving 3-year swap rates since May 31st, 2018 and this position remains intact. The peso will continue to depreciate as copper prices fall further. Notably, the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs – computed by the OECD – suggests that the peso is still expensive (Chart II-6). The last datapoint is as of September 2019. This is probably due to depreciation in other Latin American currencies. Chart II-5Chile: Inflation Expectations To Plunge Chile: Inflation Expectations To Plunge Chile: Inflation Expectations To Plunge Chart II-6The CLP Is Not Cheap The CLP Is Not Cheap The CLP Is Not Cheap Finally, we are reluctant to downgrade the Chilean bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Policy easing and large underperformance as well as the positive structural outlook should produce a period of outperformance by this stock market amid the selloff in the overall EM equity universe. Local asset allocators should continue favoring bonds versus stocks. Bottom Line: As a new trade for fixed-income investors: We recommend going long 3-year domestic bonds and shorting 3-year inflation-linked bonds.   Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade”, dated June 8, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Investors should pay particular attention to definition and methodology when evaluating value versus growth strategies, both academically and in practice. Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap universe. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large- and mid-cap investors should not be making bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels.  GAA remains neutral on value versus growth, but prefers to use sector positioning (cyclicals versus defensives, financials versus tech and health care) and country positioning (euro area versus U.S.) to implement style tilts. Investing by way of style is as old as investing itself. Value versus growth has been one of the most frequently asked questions among our clients of late, particularly given the sharp style reversal in recent weeks. In this report, we attempt to answer some of the most often-asked questions on value versus growth. We have arranged these questions into five separate sections: First, we look at 93 years of history of the Fama-French value and growth portfolios to see how value, growth, and size have interacted over time, because academics have mostly used the Fama-French framework. Second, we look at how comparable U.S. style indices are, including the S&P, the Russell and the MSCI, since practitioners mostly use these commercial indices as their benchmarks. Third, we investigate if international markets share the same value-growth performance cycles as the U.S., using the MSCI suite of value-growth indices (since MSCI is the only index provider that produces value-growth indices for each market under its global coverage). Fourth, we investigate if pure exposure to value and growth can actually improve the value-growth performance spread by comparing the pure style indices from the S&P and the Russell to their standard counterparts. Finally, we present the GAA approach to style tilts in a section on our investment conclusions. 1. Is It True That Value Outperforms Growth In The Long Run? There has been overwhelming academic evidence supporting the existence of the value premium.1 Academically, the “value premium”, also known as the HML (high minus low) factor premium, or the value outperformance, is defined as the return differential between the cheapest stocks and the most expensive. Even though Fama and French used book-to-price as the sole valuation criterion,2 many researchers have combined book-to-price with other valuation measures such as earnings-to-price, sales-to-price, dividend yield,3 and so on.  There is also academic evidence suggesting that “value outperformance is almost non-existent among large-cap stocks.”4 What is more, in 2014 Fama and French caused a huge stir by publishing “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model” working paper demonstrating that “HML is a redundant factor” because “the average HML return is captured by the exposure of the HML to other factors” (such as size, profitability, and investment pattern) based on U.S. data from 1963 to 2013.5 Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth. For non-quant practitioners, especially the long-only investors, value and growth are two separate investment styles, even though the style classification shares the same principle as the academic “value factor.” Their definitions vary, as evidenced by how S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell, and MSCI define their value and growth indexes (see next section on page 7). In general, value stocks are cheap, with lower-than-average earnings growth potential, while growth stocks have higher-than-average earnings growth potential but are very expensive. The indices published by commercial index providers do not have very long histories, however. Fortunately, Fama and French also provide value-growth-size portfolios on their publicly available website.6 Table II-1 shows that for 93 years, from July 1926 to June 2019, U.S. value portfolios in both large-cap and small-cap buckets based on the well-known Fama-French approach have returned more than their growth counterparts, no matter whether the portfolios are equal-weighted or market-cap-weighted. Most strikingly, equal-weighted small-cap value outperformed its growth counterpart by over 10% a year in absolute terms, and has more than doubled the risk-adjusted return compared to its growth counterpart. Table II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Portfolio Performance* October 2019 October 2019 Some media reports have claimed that value stocks are “less volatile” because they are on average “larger and better-established companies.”7 This may be true for some specific time periods. For the 93 years covered by Fama and French, however, this common belief is not supported. In fact, value portfolios in both the large- and small-cap universes have consistently had higher volatility than growth portfolios, no matter how the components are weighted. The excess returns, however, have more than offset the higher volatilities in three out of four pairs, with the exception being market cap-weighted large-cap growth, which has a slightly higher risk-adjusted return due to much lower volatility than its value counterpart. From a very long-term perspective, the value outperformance does come from taking higher risk. Further investigation shows that the superior long-run outperformance of value relative to growth came mostly in the first 80 years of Fama and French’s 93-year sample. In more recent years since 2007, however, value has underperformed growth significantly in three out of the four Fama-French value-growth pairs, with the equal-weighted small-cap value-growth pair being the sole exception, as shown in Table II-2. Even though the equal-weighted small-cap value has still outperformed its growth counterpart in the most recent period, the hit ratio drops to 54% compared to 76% in the first 80 years, while the magnitude of average calendar-year outperformance drops to a meager 1.3%, compared to 12.5% in the first 80 years. Table II-2The Fight Between Value And Growth* October 2019 October 2019 Statistical analysis is sensitive to the time period chosen. How have value and growth been performing over time? Chart II-1 shows the long-term dynamics among value, growth, and size. The following conclusions are clear: Chart II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Value investors should favor small caps over large caps, while growth investors should do the opposite, favoring large caps over small caps, albeit with much less potential success (Chart II-1, panel 1). Small-cap investors should favor value stocks over growth stocks (panel 2). Value outperformance in the large-cap space (panel 3) is much weaker than in the small-cap space (panel 2). Fama and French define small and large caps based on the median market cap of all NYSE stocks on CRSP (Center for Research In Security Prices), then use the NYSE median size to split NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ (after 1972) into a small-cap group and a large-cap group. The value and growth split is based on book-to-price, with stocks in the lowest 30% classified as growth, and the highest 30% as value. Interestingly, small-cap value and small-cap growth account for only a very small portion of the entire universe, as shown in Charts II-2A and II-2B. Value stocks’ average market cap is about half of that of growth stocks, in both the large- and small-cap universes (panel 3 in Charts II-2A and II-2B). Again, this does not support some media claims that value stocks are larger and better-established companies. However, it does add further support to the claim that all investors should favor small-cap value stocks. Unfortunately, “small-cap value” is a very small universe. As of June 2019, the CRSP total U.S. equity market cap was $26.2 trillion, with small-cap value accounting for only 1.5% (about $383 billion); even large-cap value comprises only a relatively small weight, 13% (US$3.5 trillion). Chart II-2ASmall-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Small-Cap Value Growth Portfolios Small-Cap Value Growth Portfolios Chart II-2BLarge-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Large-Cap Value Growth Portfolios Large-Cap Value Growth Portfolios   The U.S. market is dominated by large-cap growth stocks with a heavy weight of 56% (US$14.7 trillion, as of June 2019). This is encouraging because academic research does show that the value premium among large caps is weak. But the large-cap value weakness mostly started from 2007, after 80 years of strength relative to large-cap growth (Chart II-1, panel 3). The Fama-French approach is widely used in academic research, partly due to its long history from 1926. For non-quant practitioners, especially long-only investors, however, commercial indexes from FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI are more often used as performance benchmarks. In this report, we study a series of commercial value-growth indexes in the U.S. and globally to shed light on value-growth dynamics, and how asset allocators can incorporate them into their decision-making processes. 2. Not All U.S. Style Indexes Are Created Equal Three major index providers have style indices. They are FTSE Russell (which launched the industry’s first set of value-growth indexes in 1987), S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI. MSCI is the only provider that has a full suite of value-growth indices for all individual markets under coverage. While all three provide “standard” style indices that include the full component of the parent index, the FTSE Russell and the S&P Dow Jones also provide “pure” style indices. There are two major differences between “standard” and “pure” style indices: 1) the standard indices are market-cap weighted, while the “pure” indices are weighted based on style score. 2) Standard value and standard growth have overlapping components, while pure value and pure growth do not share any common components. We prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts tactically. Other than book-to-price, the value variable used by the Fama-French approach, the three providers have added different variables in the determination of value and growth, as shown in Table II-3. This also reflects the evolution of the industry’s understanding on value and growth. For example, when MSCI first launched its style index in 1997, it used only book-to-price, but changed its approach in May 2003 to the current “multi-factor two-dimension” framework. Table II-3Value-Growth Index Criteria October 2019 October 2019 Because of the differences in index construction methodology, value-growth indices for the U.S. have behaved differently. The S&P 500, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI standard (large and mid-cap) indices are widely followed institutional benchmarks, with back-tested history dating to the 1970s. Chart II-3 shows the relative value/growth performance dynamics from the three index providers, together with that from Fama and French (market value-weighted, to be consistent with the approach from the index providers). One can observe the following: Chart II-3Which Value/Growth? Which Value/Growth? Which Value/Growth? None of the three pairs looks exactly like Fama-French’s market-cap value-weighted value/growth. This raises the question of how historical analysis based on the long history of Fama-French value/growth portfolios can be applied to the commercial indices. In the first cycle from 1975 to February 2000, all three index pairs made a round trip, with flat performance between value and growth. Also, even though the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 were more closely correlated with one another than with the MSCI, the three were quite similar. In the current cycle that began in February 2000, however, Russell value/growth has rebounded much more strongly than the other two. But in the down period that started in 2007, the three indices performed in line with each other, as shown in Table II-4. Table II-4U.S. Style Index Performance* October 2019 October 2019 In addition, the difference between S&P and Russell does not just lie between the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000. It actually exists in every market-cap segment, as shown in Chart II-4. Unfortunately, MSCI does not provide history from 1975 for the detailed cap segments. In the current cycle since February 2000, S&P value rebounded the least between 2000 and 2006. Why? Chart II-4Know Your Benchmark Know Your Benchmark Know Your Benchmark Chart II-5Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P Further investigation reveals some interesting observations, as shown in Chart II-5. At the aggregate level, the S&P 1500, the Russell 3000 and their respective style indices have performed largely in line with one another in the most recent cycle starting from February 2000 (Chart II-5, panel 4), reflecting the industry trend of index convergence. In different market cap segments, however, the divergence is still prominent, especially in the small-cap space (panel 1). The S&P 600 has consistently outperformed the Russell 2000 in both the value and growth categories. In addition to different style factors, this consistency also reflects different universes, size distribution, and sector exposure, as explained in an earlier GAA Special Report on small caps.8 Managers with Russell 2000 as their performance benchmark could simply beat it by doing a total-return-performance swap between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600. Bottom Line: Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth.  3. How Have Value And Growth Performed Globally? MSCI is the only index provider that also produces value-growth indices for each equity market under its global coverage, using the same methodology. Unfortunately, only the “standard” (i.e., large- and mid-cap) universe has a long history, dating from December 1974. Charts II-6A and II-6B show the value/growth dynamics in major DM and EM markets. The relative performance of MSCI DM value versus growth shares a similar pattern to that of the U.S. in the latest cycle since 2000, but looks very different in the period before 2000 (Chart II-6A). The ratio of EM large- and mid-cap value versus growth did not peak until February 2012, about five years after the peak of its DM peer (Chart II-6B, panel 1). On the other hand, EM small-cap value has resumed its outperformance versus growth since early 2016 after having peaked around the same time as its large-cap counterpart. Chart II-6AIs Value Dead In DM? Is Value Dead In DM? Is Value Dead In DM? Chart II-6BIs Value Dead In EM? Is Value Dead In EM? Is Value Dead In EM?   The global value/growth dynamics also show that the “value outperforming growth” effect is more prominent in the small-cap space. But why has small value also underperformed small growth in most DM markets? Our explanation is that the EM universe is much less efficient than the DM universe because there are not many quant funds dedicated to the EM small-cap space – in addition to the fact that, in general, EM small caps are much smaller than those in DM markets. This is also in line with our finding that, in general, factor premia are more prominent in the EM universe.9 Bottom Line: Value premium is more prominent in non-U.S. markets, especially the EM small-cap universe. 4. Do Pure Style Indices Improve Performance? Both S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell provide pure-value and pure-growth indices. Unlike the standard value-growth indices, which target about 50% of the parent market cap, the pure-style indices include only stocks with the strongest value and growth characteristics. There is no overlap between the two. In theory, the pure-style indices should outperform the standard-style indices because of their concentrated exposure to style factors. How do they do in reality? Table II-5 shows that in terms of absolute return, this is indeed the case for 14 out of the 18 pairs of indices from S&P and Russell for the period between 1998 and 2019. However, the higher returns from greater exposure to style factors have largely come from much higher volatility in 17 out of the 18 pairs. Pure style has higher volatility than standard style in general, the only exception being the Russell mid-cap value space. As such, on a risk-adjusted basis, pure style is not necessarily better. Table II-5Purer Is Not Necessarily Better October 2019 October 2019 Charts II-7A and II-7B show the different performance dynamics for the S&P and Russell families of style indices. For the S&P indices, pure growth has outperformed standard growth for the entire period in all three market-cap segments, but only the S&P 500 pure value outperformed its standard counterpart. Therefore, more concentrated exposure to style characteristics has improved the value-growth spread only in the large-cap space, but it has actually worsened the value-growth spread in the mid- and small-cap universes (Chart II-7A). Chart II-7AS&P Pure Styles* S&P Pure Styles* S&P Pure Styles* Chart II-7BRussell Pure Styles* Russell Pure Styles* Russell Pure Styles*   For the Russell indices, it’s clear that there were a lot more tech stocks in its pure-growth indices leading up to the 2000 tech bubble, because pure growth shot up significantly more than the standard growth before the bubble burst, and also crashed more severely following it. Overall, only in the small-cap space did the value-growth spread improve by the more concentrated exposure to style factors. However, this improvement was not because of the outperformance of the pure-style relative to the standard indices. In fact, both pure value and pure growth in the small-cap universe underperformed their standard counterparts, but pure growth performed even worse (Chart II-7B and Table II-5). 5. Investment Conclusions Value and growth can mean very different things and behave very differently. Investors should pay special attention to the definitions and methodologies when evaluating style indices or strategies, both academically and in practice. Depending on an investor’s mandate, the following is recommended: Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap space. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large-and mid-cap investors should not make bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels. Price-to-book is the only common variable used in the determination of value and growth by academics and practitioners. Its track record as a systematic return predictor has been poor, as shown in panel 2 of Charts II-8A and II-8B. Another factor we have a long history for is dividend yield. Its predictive power is even worse than that of price-to-book (panel 3). Chart II-8AValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Valuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Valuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Chart II-8BValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Globally Valuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Valuation Is A Poor Timing Tool   Many factors have been used in conjunction with price-to-book by both academics and practitioners to time the rotation between value and growth. However, the results have been mixed. Regression models that correctly predicted in the past may not work in the future. For example, a regression model based on valuation spread and earnings-growth spread using data from January 1982 to October 1999 successfully predicted the rebound of value outperformance starting in early 2000,10 but the universal suffering of value funds over the past several years implies that this model may have given many false signals. Chart II-9 demonstrates how difficult it is to use regression models as a timing tool for value and growth rotation. A simple regression is conducted between value and growth return differentials (subsequent 60-month returns) and relative price-to-book. For data from December 1974 to July 2019, the r-squared for the MSCI world is 0.38 and for the U.S. it is 0.09. In hindsight, both models predicted the value outperformance starting in early 2000. However, the gaps between actual value and fitted value started to open, long before 2000. By late 1998, the gaps were already wider than the previous cycle lows, yet they continued to widen as value continued to underperform growth until February 2000. Chart II-9How Good Is The Fit? How Good Is The Fit? How Good Is The Fit? What should investors currently do, based on these models? The gaps are large, but not as large as in early 2000. At which point should investors start to shift into value given its more than 12 years of underperformance? We have often written that we prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts.11, 12  This preference has not changed. Value and growth indices have sector tilts that change over time. Currently, the S&P Dow Jones large- and mid-cap value indices have a clear overweight in financials but an underweight in tech and health care compared to their growth counterparts (Table II-6). Table II-6Sector Bets In Value And Growth Indices* October 2019 October 2019 Chart II-10Prefer Sector And Country Positioning To Style Prefer Sector and Country Positioning To Style Tilts Prefer Sector and Country Positioning To Style Tilts We have been neutral on value and growth, but would likely change this view if we change our country equity allocation between the U.S. and the euro area, and our equity sector allocation between cyclicals and defensives as well as between financials and information technology (Chart II-10). Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President​​​​​​​ Global Asset Allocation   Footnotes 1     Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR Working Paper, July 2, 2019. 2     Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993). 3     Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 42 No.1, Fall 2015. 4     Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 108, Issue 2, May 2013 5      Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Working Paper, University of Chicago, September 2014. 6             Fama-French value-growth-size portfolios. 7     Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” Investopedia, Jun 25, 2019. 8     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact or Myth?” dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?” dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 10    Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2000. 11     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - March 2016,” dated March 31, 2016, and available at gaa. bcaresearch.com. 12     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - April 2019,” dated April 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors should pay particular attention to definition and methodology when evaluating value versus growth strategies, both academically and in practice. Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap universe. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large- and mid-cap investors should not be making bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels.  GAA remains neutral on value versus growth, but prefers to use sector positioning (cyclicals versus defensives, financials versus tech and health care) and country positioning (euro area versus U.S.) to implement style tilts. Feature Investing by way of style is as old as investing itself. Value versus growth has been one of the most frequently asked questions among our clients of late, particularly given the sharp style reversal in recent weeks. In this report, we attempt to answer some of the most often-asked questions on value versus growth. We have arranged these questions into five separate sections: First, we look at 93 years of history of the Fama-French value and growth portfolios to see how value, growth, and size have interacted over time, because academics have mostly used the Fama-French framework. Second, we look at how comparable U.S. style indices are, including the S&P, the Russell and the MSCI, since practitioners mostly use these commercial indices as their benchmarks. Third, we investigate if international markets share the same value-growth performance cycles as the U.S., using the MSCI suite of value-growth indices (since MSCI is the only index provider that produces value-growth indices for each market under its global coverage). Fourth, we investigate if pure exposure to value and growth can actually improve the value-growth performance spread by comparing the pure style indices from the S&P and the Russell to their standard counterparts. Finally, we present the GAA approach to style tilts in a section on our investment conclusions. 1. Is It True That Value Outperforms Growth In The Long Run? There has been overwhelming academic evidence supporting the existence of the value premium.1 Academically, the “value premium”, also known as the HML (high minus low) factor premium, or the value outperformance, is defined as the return differential between the cheapest stocks and the most expensive. Even though Fama and French used book-to-price as the sole valuation criterion,2 many researchers have combined book-to-price with other valuation measures such as earnings-to-price, sales-to-price, dividend yield,3 and so on.  There is also academic evidence suggesting that “value outperformance is almost non-existent among large-cap stocks.”4 What is more, in 2014 Fama and French caused a huge stir by publishing “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model” working paper demonstrating that “HML is a redundant factor” because “the average HML return is captured by the exposure of the HML to other factors” (such as size, profitability, and investment pattern) based on U.S. data from 1963 to 2013.5 For non-quant practitioners, especially the long-only investors, value and growth are two separate investment styles, even though the style classification shares the same principle as the academic “value factor.” Their definitions vary, as evidenced by how S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell, and MSCI define their value and growth indexes (see next section on page 7). In general, value stocks are cheap, with lower-than-average earnings growth potential, while growth stocks have higher-than-average earnings growth potential but are very expensive. The indices published by commercial index providers do not have very long histories, however. Fortunately, Fama and French also provide value-growth-size portfolios on their publicly available website.6  Table 1 shows that for 93 years, from July 1926 to June 2019, U.S. value portfolios in both large-cap and small-cap buckets based on the well-known Fama-French approach have returned more than their growth counterparts, no matter whether the portfolios are equal-weighted or market-cap-weighted. Most strikingly, equal-weighted small-cap value outperformed its growth counterpart by over 10% a year in absolute terms, and has more than doubled the risk-adjusted return compared to its growth counterpart. Table 1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Portfolio Performance* Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Some media reports have claimed that value stocks are “less volatile” because they are on average “larger and better-established companies.”7 This may be true for some specific time periods. For the 93 years covered by Fama and French, however, this common belief is not supported. In fact, value portfolios in both the large- and small-cap universes have consistently had higher volatility than growth portfolios, no matter how the components are weighted. The excess returns, however, have more than offset the higher volatilities in three out of four pairs, with the exception being market cap-weighted large-cap growth, which has a slightly higher risk-adjusted return due to much lower volatility than its value counterpart. From a very long-term perspective, the value outperformance does come from taking higher risk. Further investigation shows that the superior long-run outperformance of value relative to growth came mostly in the first 80 years of Fama and French’s 93-year sample. In more recent years since 2007, however, value has underperformed growth significantly in three out of the four Fama-French value-growth pairs, with the equal-weighted small-cap value-growth pair being the sole exception, as shown in Table 2. Even though the equal-weighted small-cap value has still outperformed its growth counterpart in the most recent period, the hit ratio drops to 54% compared to 76% in the first 80 years, while the magnitude of average calendar-year outperformance drops to a meager 1.3%, compared to 12.5% in the first 80 years. Table 2The Fight Between Value And Growth* Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Statistical analysis is sensitive to the time period chosen. How have value and growth been performing over time? Chart 1 shows the long-term dynamics among value, growth, and size. The following conclusions are clear: Value investors should favor small caps over large caps, while growth investors should do the opposite, favoring large caps over small caps, albeit with much less potential success (Chart 1, panel 1). Small-cap investors should favor value stocks over growth stocks (panel 2). Value outperformance in the large-cap space (panel 3) is much weaker than in the small-cap space (panel 2). Chart 1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth. Fama and French define small and large caps based on the median market cap of all NYSE stocks on CRSP (Center for Research In Security Prices), then use the NYSE median size to split NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ (after 1972) into a small-cap group and a large-cap group. The value and growth split is based on book-to-price, with stocks in the lowest 30% classified as growth, and the highest 30% as value. Interestingly, small-cap value and small-cap growth account for only a very small portion of the entire universe, as shown in Charts 2A and 2B. Chart 2ASmall-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Small-Cap Value Growth Portfolios* Small-Cap Value Growth Portfolios* Chart 2BLarge-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Large-Cap Value Growth Portfolios* Large-Cap Value Growth Portfolios* Value stocks’ average market cap is about half of that of growth stocks, in both the large- and small-cap universes (panel 3 in Charts 2A and 2B). Again, this does not support some media claims that value stocks are larger and better-established companies. However, it does add further support to the claim that all investors should favor small-cap value stocks. Unfortunately, “small-cap value” is a very small universe. As of June 2019, the CRSP total U.S. equity market cap was $26.2 trillion, with small-cap value accounting for only 1.5% (about $383 billion); even large-cap value comprises only a relatively small weight, 13% (US$3.5 trillion). The U.S. market is dominated by large-cap growth stocks with a heavy weight of 56% (US$14.7 trillion, as of June 2019). This is encouraging because academic research does show that the value premium among large caps is weak. But the large-cap value weakness mostly started from 2007, after 80 years of strength relative to large-cap growth (Chart 1, panel 3). The Fama-French approach is widely used in academic research, partly due to its long history from 1926. For non-quant practitioners, especially long-only investors, however, commercial indexes from FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI are more often used as performance benchmarks. In this report, we study a series of commercial value-growth indexes in the U.S. and globally to shed light on value-growth dynamics, and how asset allocators can incorporate them into their decision-making processes. 2. Not All U.S. Style Indexes Are Created Equal Three major index providers have style indices. They are FTSE Russell (which launched the industry’s first set of value-growth indexes in 1987), S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI. MSCI is the only provider that has a full suite of value-growth indices for all individual markets under coverage. While all three provide “standard” style indices that include the full component of the parent index, the FTSE Russell and the S&P Dow Jones also provide “pure” style indices. There are two major differences between “standard” and “pure” style indices: 1) the standard indices are market-cap weighted, while the “pure” indices are weighted based on style score. 2) Standard value and standard growth have overlapping components, while pure value and pure growth do not share any common components. Other than book-to-price, the value variable used by the Fama-French approach, the three providers have added different variables in the determination of value and growth, as shown in Table 3. This also reflects the evolution of the industry’s understanding on value and growth. For example, when MSCI first launched its style index in 1997, it used only book-to-price, but changed its approach in May 2003 to the current “multi-factor two-dimension” framework. Table 3Value-Growth Index Criteria Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Because of the differences in index construction methodology, value-growth indices for the U.S. have behaved differently. The S&P 500, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI standard (large and mid-cap) indices are widely followed institutional benchmarks, with back-tested history dating to the 1970s. Chart 3 shows the relative value/growth performance dynamics from the three index providers, together with that from Fama and French (market value-weighted, to be consistent with the approach from the index providers). One can observe the following: Chart 3Which Value/Growth? Which Value/Growth? Which Value/Growth? None of the three pairs looks exactly like Fama-French’s market-cap value-weighted value/growth. This raises the question of how historical analysis based on the long history of Fama-French value/growth portfolios can be applied to the commercial indices. In the first cycle from 1975 to February 2000, all three index pairs made a round trip, with flat performance between value and growth. Also, even though the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 were more closely correlated with one another than with the MSCI, the three were quite similar. In the current cycle that began in February 2000, however, Russell value/growth has rebounded much more strongly than the other two. But in the down period that started in 2007, the three indices performed in line with each other, as shown in Table 4. Table 4U.S. Style Index Performance* Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! In addition, the difference between S&P and Russell does not just lie between the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000. It actually exists in every market-cap segment, as shown in Chart 4. Unfortunately, MSCI does not provide history from 1975 for the detailed cap segments. In the current cycle since February 2000, S&P value rebounded the least between 2000 and 2006. Why? Chart 4Know Your Benchmark Know Your Benchmark Know Your Benchmark Further investigation reveals some interesting observations, as shown in Chart 5. Chart 5Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P At the aggregate level, the S&P 1500, the Russell 3000 and their respective style indices have performed largely in line with one another in the most recent cycle starting from February 2000 (Chart 5, panel 4), reflecting the industry trend of index convergence. In different market cap segments, however, the divergence is still prominent, especially in the small-cap space (panel 1). The S&P 600 has consistently outperformed the Russell 2000 in both the value and growth categories. In addition to different style factors, this consistency also reflects different universes, size distribution, and sector exposure, as explained in an earlier GAA Special Report on small caps.8 Managers with Russell 2000 as their performance benchmark could simply beat it by doing a total-return-performance swap between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600. Bottom Line:  Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth.  3. How Have Value And Growth Performed Globally? MSCI is the only index provider that also produces value-growth indices for each equity market under its global coverage, using the same methodology. Unfortunately, only the “standard” (i.e., large- and mid-cap) universe has a long history, dating from December 1974. Charts 6A and 6B show the value/growth dynamics in major DM and EM markets. The relative performance of MSCI DM value versus growth shares a similar pattern to that of the U.S. in the latest cycle since 2000, but looks very different in the period before 2000 (Chart 6A). The ratio of EM large- and mid-cap value versus growth did not peak until February 2012, about five years after the peak of its DM peer (Chart 6B, panel 1). On the other hand, EM small-cap value has resumed its outperformance versus growth since early 2016 after having peaked around the same time as its large-cap counterpart. Chart 6AIs Value Dead In DM? Is Value Dead In DM? Is Value Dead In DM? Chart 6BIs Value Dead In EM? Is Value Dead In EM? Is Value Dead In EM? The global value/growth dynamics also show that the “value outperforming growth” effect is more prominent in the small-cap space. But why has small value also underperformed small growth in most DM markets? Our explanation is that the EM universe is much less efficient than the DM universe because there are not many quant funds dedicated to the EM small-cap space –  in addition to the fact that, in general, EM small caps are much smaller than those in DM markets. This is also in line with our finding that, in general, factor premia are more prominent in the EM universe.9 Bottom Line: Value premium is more prominent in non-U.S. markets, especially the EM small-cap universe. 4. Do Pure Style Indices Improve Performance? Both S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell provide pure-value and pure-growth indices. Unlike the standard value-growth indices, which target about 50% of the parent market cap, the pure-style indices include only stocks with the strongest value and growth characteristics. There is no overlap between the two. We prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts tactically. In theory, the pure-style indices should outperform the standard-style indices because of their concentrated exposure to style factors. How do they do in reality? Table 5 shows that in terms of absolute return, this is indeed the case for 14 out of the 18 pairs of indices from S&P and Russell for the period between 1998 and 2019. However, the higher returns from greater exposure to style factors have largely come from much higher volatility in 17 out of the 18 pairs. Pure style has higher volatility than standard style in general, the only exception being the Russell mid-cap value space. As such, on a risk-adjusted basis, pure style is not necessarily better. Table 5Purer Is Not Necessarily Better Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Charts 7A and 7B show the different performance dynamics for the S&P and Russell families of style indices. For the S&P indices, pure growth has outperformed standard growth for the entire period in all three market-cap segments, but only the S&P 500 pure value outperformed its standard counterpart. Therefore, more concentrated exposure to style characteristics has improved the value-growth spread only in the large-cap space, but it has actually worsened the value-growth spread in the mid- and small-cap universes (Chart 7A). Chart 7AS&P Pure Styles* S&P Pure Styles* S&P Pure Styles* Chart 7BRussell Pure Styles* Russell Pure Styles* Russell Pure Styles* For the Russell indices, it’s clear that there were a lot more tech stocks in its pure-growth indices leading up to the 2000 tech bubble, because pure growth shot up significantly more than the standard growth before the bubble burst, and also crashed more severely following it. Overall, only in the small-cap space did the value-growth spread improve by the more concentrated exposure to style factors. However, this improvement was not because of the outperformance of the pure-style relative to the standard indices. In fact, both pure value and pure growth in the small-cap universe underperformed their standard counterparts, but pure growth performed even worse (Chart 7B and Table 5). 5. Investment Conclusions Value and growth can mean very different things and behave very differently. Investors should pay special attention to the definitions and methodologies when evaluating style indices or strategies, both academically and in practice.  Depending on an investor’s mandate, the following is recommended: Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap space. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large-and mid-cap investors should not make bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels. Price-to-book is the only common variable used in the determination of value and growth by academics and practitioners. Its track record as a systematic return predictor has been poor, as shown in panel 2 of Charts 8A and 8B. Another factor we have a long history for is dividend yield. Its predictive power is even worse than that of price-to-book (panel 3). Chart 8AValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Chart 8BValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Globally Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Many factors have been used in conjunction with price-to-book by both academics and practitioners to time the rotation between value and growth. However, the results have been mixed. Regression models that correctly predicted in the past may not work in the future. For example, a regression model based on valuation spread and earnings-growth spread using data from January 1982 to October 1999 successfully predicted the rebound of value outperformance starting in early 2000,10 but the universal suffering of value funds over the past several years implies that this model may have given many false signals. Chart 9 demonstrates how difficult it is to use regression models as a timing tool for value and growth rotation. A simple regression is conducted between value and growth return differentials (subsequent 60-month returns) and relative price-to-book. For data from December 1974 to July 2019, the r-squared for the MSCI world is 0.38 and for the U.S. it is 0.09. In hindsight, both models predicted the value outperformance starting in early 2000. However, the gaps between actual value and fitted value started to open, long before 2000. By late 1998, the gaps were already wider than the previous cycle lows, yet they continued to widen as value continued to underperform growth until February 2000.  Chart 9How Good Is The Fit? How Good Is The Fit? How Good Is The Fit? What should investors currently do, based on these models? The gaps are large, but not as large as in early 2000. At which point should investors start to shift into value given its more than 12 years of underperformance? We have often written that we prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts.11, 12 This preference has not changed. Value and growth indices have sector tilts that change over time. Currently, the S&P Dow Jones large- and mid-cap value indices have a clear overweight in financials but an underweight in tech and health care compared to their growth counterparts (Table 6). Table 6Sector Bets In Value And Growth Indices* Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Chart 10Prefer Sector And Country Positioning To Style Tilts Prefer Sector and Country Positioning To Style Tilts Prefer Sector and Country Positioning To Style Tilts We have been neutral on value and growth, but would likely change this view if we change our country equity allocation between the U.S. and the euro area, and our equity sector allocation between cyclicals and defensives as well as between financials and information technology (Chart 10).     Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR Working Paper, July 2, 2019. 2Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993). 3Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 42 No.1, Fall 2015.  4Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,”Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 108, Issue 2, May 2013 5Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Working Paper, University of Chicago, September 2014. 6Fama-French value-growth-size portfolios. 7Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” Investopedia, Jun 25, 2019. 8Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact or Myth?” dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?” dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2000. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - March 2016,” dated March 31, 2016, and available at gaa. bcaresearch.com. 12Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - April 2019,” dated April 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.