Tech Hardware, Storage & Peripherals

Innovative Tech will face macroeconomic headwinds in a new “higher for longer” interest regime. Yet, the long-term opportunity of the cohort is tremendous. Investors need to be judicious with the timing of adding new capital to these themes to bolster long-term returns.

Generative AI is a major technological breakthrough that holds tremendous economic and investment promise and will have sweeping effects on wide swaths of the economy. We are bullish on generative AI as a long-term investment theme. However, at the moment we observe hallmarks of an investment frenzy. We believe that there will be a more attractive entry point for patient investors.

Macroeconomic and business conditions are gradually becoming more favorable for Tech as the bottoming of demand is in sight. Yet, we don’t believe that now is an attractive entry point - the good news is fully priced in, and technicals signal a pullback. However, the sector is worth monitoring as we are getting closer to a sustainable rebound. Our positioning remains unchanged.

Initiating a long S&P semis/short S&P technology hardware storage & peripherals (THS&P) pair trade is the ultimate reflationary play given its tight positive correlation with the 10-year US Treasury yield (top panel). Not only does the bond market spell more upside for this relative share price ratio, but the trade also captures a significant early supply chain advantage of chip stocks over their hardware brethren. Switching from macro to industry level data, and the news on the operating front is equally enticing. Chip capital outlays trounce THS&P stocks’ investments by a wide margin, which should further boost relative revenue prospects (bottom panel). In fact, chip sales already have the upper hand compared with tech hardware storage and peripherals revenues and a relative reacceleration phase looms as the chip industry’s bottlenecks get resolved in the back half of the year (not shown). Tack on recent news of President Biden’s preliminary infrastructure plans that include a $50bn sum for semiconductors in order to bolster US based manufacturing and research and development and the demand profile for chip stocks brightens further. Bottom Line: We initiated a long S&P semis/short S&P THS&P pair trade in a recent Special Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P semiconductors and S&P THS&P indexes are BLBG: S5SECO – INTC, TXN, ADI, AMD, MXIM, XLNX, MCHP, NVDA, AVGO, QCOM, MU, SWKS, QRVO, NXPI, MPWR, and BLBG: S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, HPE, WDC, NTAP, STX, respectively. Intra-sector Reflationary Trade Intra-sector Reflationary Trade

While the Fed’s dots dovishly surprised, the FOMC’s output and inflation projections were on the hawkish side. Adding the committee’s core PCE price inflation estimate for 2021 to their real GDP forecast results in a roughly 9% nominal GDP estimate, assuming the PCE and GDP deflators approximate one another. The last time the US economy hit such a high mark on a q/q annualized basis (ex-2020) was in late-2003 (Chart 1). Back then the Bush tax cuts were signed into law in late May 2003 turbocharging the economy. Chart 2 shows that the fed funds rate was pegged at 1% and the bond market was in selloff mode, with both the 10-year US Treasury yields surging violently and inflation breakevens galloping higher. While the S&P eventually shrugged off the bond market’s new equilibrium yield, drilling beneath the surface is revealing. Chart 1 Shades Of 2003/4? Shades Of 2003/4? Chart 2 Shades Of 2003/4? Shades Of 2003/4? As a reminder, back then the Fed was actually sowing the seeds of the housing bubble by keeping rates at 1%, which resulted in an economy running on steroids. Deep cyclical sectors outperformed the SPX and defensives significantly lagged the broad market especially as the economic data caught on fire in 2004 (see Appendix Charts A1, A2, A3, ). Financials were range bound and relative tech performance slumped in 2004 (for inclusion purposes Charts A4-A9 in the Appendix also show GICS2 sector relative performance). Bottom Line: Using the 2003/4 parallel as a guidepost we remain comfortable with our current positioning of preferring industrials and energy to consumer staples and communication services. Appendix Chart A1 Appendix Appendix Chart A2 Appendix Appendix Chart A3 Appendix Appendix Chart A4 Appendix Appendix Chart A5 Appendix Appendix Chart A6 Appendix Appendix Chart A7 Appendix Appendix Chart A8 Appendix Appendix Chart A9 Appendix Appendix  

Highlights The economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did have a lockdown. This proves that the current recession is not ‘man-made’, it is ‘pandemic-made’. While the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios: favouring US T-bonds in bond portfolios, and technology and healthcare in equity portfolios. The technology sector has become defensive, largely because it has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Fractal trade: short AUD/CHF. Feature Chart I-IASweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Sweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Sweden: Avoiding A Lockdown Did Not Prevent A Slump In Consumption... Chart I-1B...But Led To Many More ##br##Infections ...But Led To Many More Infections ...But Led To Many More Infections Sweden and Denmark are neighbours. They speak near-identical languages and share a broadly similar culture and demographic. Yet the two countries have followed completely different strategies to halt the coronavirus pandemic. Sweden chose not to impose a lockdown. Instead, it opted for a ‘trust based’ approach, relying on its citizens to act sensibly and appropriately. Whereas Denmark imposed one of Europe’s earliest and most draconian lockdowns. The contrasting approaches of Sweden and neighbouring Denmark provide us with the closest thing to a controlled experiment on pandemic strategies. The Recession Is Not ‘Man-Made’, It Is ‘Pandemic-Made’ The surprising thing is that the economic performance of Sweden, which did not have a lockdown, has been almost as bad as Denmark, which did. This year, the unemployment rates in both economies have surged by 2 percentage points (albeit the latest data is for May in Sweden and April in Denmark). Furthermore, high-frequency measures of consumption show that Sweden suffered almost as severe a contraction as Denmark (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Chart I-2Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark Unemployment Has Surged In Both No-Lockdown Sweden And Lockdown Denmark This surprising result challenges the popular view that this global recession is man-made. This view argues that without the government-imposed lockdowns, the global economy would not have entered a tailspin. But if this view is right, then why did consumption crash in Sweden? The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behaviour to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behaviour is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark. People will shun public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, and even think twice about letting their children go to school. In a pandemic, the majority of people will change their behaviour even without a lockdown. But if the cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why impose a lockdown? The answer is that without a lockdown, the majority will behave sensibly to avoid catching the virus, but a minority will take a ‘devil may care’ attitude. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all coronavirus infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. All of which brings us back to Sweden versus Denmark.  As a result of not imposing a mandatory lockdown to rein in its super-spreaders, Sweden now has one of the world’s worst coronavirus infection and mortality rates, four times higher than Denmark (Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark No-Lockdown Sweden Has Suffered Many More Deaths Than Lockdown Denmark Chart I-4Avoiding A Lockdown Meant More Infections… Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? Chart I-5…And More ##br##Deaths Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? Put simply, containing the pandemic depends on reining in a minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark. In contrast, the economy depends on the behaviour of the majority. In a pandemic the majority will voluntarily exercise caution. Which explains why no-lockdown Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in consumption. Looking ahead, will the widespread adoption of face masks and plexiglass screens change the public’s cautious behaviour? To a certain extent, yes – it will permit essential activities and let people take calculated risks. That said, if you are forced to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops, and you have to spread out in restaurants while being served by a masked waiter, then – rightly or wrongly – you are getting a strong signal: the danger is still out there. Meaning that many people will continue to shun discretionary activities and spending. The upshot is that while the pandemic remains in play, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Explaining Why Technology Is Now Defensive A defensive bias to your portfolio now requires an exposure to technology – because in 2020 the tech sector is behaving like a classic defensive. Its relative performance is correlating positively with the bond price, like other classic defensive sectors such as healthcare (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive... Chart I-7...Like Healthcare ...Like Healthcare ...Like Healthcare The behaviour of the technology sector in the current recession contrasts with its performance in the global financial crisis of 2008. Back then, it behaved like a classic cyclical – its relative performance correlated negatively with the bond price (Chart I-8). Begging the question: why has the tech sector’s behaviour flipped from cyclical to defensive? Chart I-8In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical The main reason is that the tech sector’s composition has flipped from hardware dominance to software dominance. In 2008, the sector market cap had a 65:35 tilt to technology hardware. But today, it is the mirror-image: a 65:35 tilt to computer and software services (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Tech Is More Defensive Now Because It Is Dominated By Software Computer and software services have many defensive characteristics suited to the current environment: For many companies, enterprise software is now business critical. It is a must-have rather than a like-to-have. Computer and software services use a subscription-based revenue model, minimising the dependency on discretionary spending. Computer and software services are helping firms to cut costs through automation and back-office efficiencies as well as facilitating the boom in ‘working from home’. The sector is cash rich. Despite these defensive characteristics, there remains a lingering worry: is the tech sector overvalued? The Rally In Growth Defensives Is Not A Mania  Some people fear that the recent run-up in stock markets does not make sense, other than as a ‘Robin Hood’ day-trader fuelled mania. After all, the pandemic is still very much in play, and so are other geopolitical risks, so how can some stock prices be near all-time highs? Yet the recent run-up in growth defensives such as tech and healthcare does make sense. Their valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield, implying that the rally is based on fundamentals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Tech And Healthcare Valuations Are Tracking The Bond Yield Simply put, if the 10-year T-bond is going to deliver a pitiful 0.7 percent a year over the next decade, then the prospective return from growth defensives must also compress. It would be absurd to expect these stocks to be priced for high single digit returns. Since late 2018, the decline in growth defensives’ forward earnings yield has broadly tracked the 250bps decline in the 10-year T-bond yield. Given that the forward earnings yield correlates well with the 10-year prospective return, the depressed bond yield is depressing the prospective return from growth defensives – as it should. Tech and healthcare valuations have moved in near-perfect lockstep with the bond yield. But with the pandemic and geopolitical risks menacing in the background, shouldn’t the gap between the prospective return on stocks and bonds – the equity risk premium – be larger? This is open to debate. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the appeal of owning bonds also diminishes because bond prices have limited upside. Nevertheless, the gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield has gone up this year and is much larger than in 2018 (Chart I-11). This suggests that valuations are taking some account of the pandemic and other risks. Moreover, in a longer-term perspective the current gap between the tech and healthcare forward earnings yield and the bond yield, at +4 percent, hardly indicates a mania. In the true mania of 2000, the gap stood at -4 percent! (Chart I-12) Chart I-11The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 The Equity Risk Premium Has Risen In 2020 Chart I-12Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania Tech And Health Care Valuations Are Not In A Mania In summary, until the pandemic is conquered, investors should maintain a defensive bias to their portfolios. Bond investors should overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Equity investors should overweight the growth defensives, technology and healthcare, which implies overweighting the technology-heavy US versus Europe. A new recommendation is to overweight technology-heavy Netherlands. Stay overweight healthcare-heavy Switzerland, and bank-light France and Germany (albeit expect a technical 5 percent underperformance of Germany versus the UK in the coming weeks). And stay underweight bank-heavy Austria. Fractal Trading System* The AUD is technically overbought and vulnerable to a tactical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short AUD/CHF, with a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 4.2 percent. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-13AUD/CHF AUD/CHF AUD/CHF 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  

Big Changes Big Changes Underweight Our intra-sector positioning shifts with the recent S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals downgrade to underweight1 and this Monday’s trimming of the S&P software index to neutral, reduce the S&P tech sector to a below benchmark allocation. Business investment in tech has been losing market share for the better part of the last year and according to the national accounts tech capex is contracting. Excluding the software industry, capital outlays are in dire straits (top & second panels). Meanwhile, lofty valuations, with the tech forward P/E trading at a 20% premium to the overall market, signal that there is no cushion for this deep cyclical sector that has 60% of sales originating abroad, the largest among its GICS1 peers (third panel). Tach on the coronavirus outbreak, and if supply chain breakdowns increase over the course of the next few weeks, then more tech profit warnings are looming and the resulting hit to still ultra-wide relative profit margins and EPS will likely be severe (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We trimmed the S&P tech sector to underweight. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report. ​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Crosscurrents" dated February 3, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chinese stocks made a comeback as soon as the speed of COVID-19 transmitting outside of the epicenter somewhat moderated. Inside the epicenter, the pandemic has not shown clear signs of easing, and could significantly prolong the region’s lockdown. Despite being a large manufacturing hub, Hubei-based companies represent relatively limited significance in China’s equity market. A protracted regional lockdown in Hubei may disrupt company-specific supply chains, but so far there is little evidence suggesting such disruptions will spill over to China’s broad equity market. Feature The stringent containment measures taken by China in its battle against the COVID-191  epidemic are indeed having economic consequences, both domestically and globally. However, the full extent of the repercussions remains to be seen. In the financial market, Chinese stocks regained significant ground following a sharp selloff when the financial markets reopened after an extended Chinese New Year holiday (Chart 1). The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases continues to rise. On the other hand, the number of new cases outside of Hubei province appears to have peaked on February 3rd and the official number within the province has plateaued (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Equities Rebounded Despite The Ongoing Epidemic Chinese Equities Rebounded Despite The Ongoing Epidemic Chinese Equities Rebounded Despite The Ongoing Epidemic Chart 2Has The Peak Arrived? Not Within The Epicenter The Evolving Crisis The Evolving Crisis The latest official data reinforces our view that the epidemic outside of Hubei is considerably less severe than within Hubei. While it is still too early to confirm that the number of new cases elsewhere in China has peaked, the epidemic in Hubei - particularly in Wuhan - is far from contained despite what the official data suggests. The near-collapsing municipal system in the epicenter leaves a large margin for error in recording and confirming the number of cases. The region’s strained medical resources also mean that the number of both new infections and fatalities may not reach a sustained peak in the weeks to come. Most cities in China’s 31 provinces and municipalities had partially resumed business activities by February 10, but we think that Hubei and especially Wuhan will likely remain in lockdown through the end of March, a month longer than scheduled by the provincial government. Will an extended lockdown of the Hubei province prevent a budding recovery in China’s economy from manifesting itself? In our view, the answer is no. And even in the case of a prolonged region-wide lockdown, our assessment is that the spillover effects from supply-chain disruptions in Hubei on the domestic equity market are unlikely to be significant. Quantifying The Potential Impact Of An Extended Lockdown In Hubei Hubei accounted for only 4.6% of China’s aggregate economy in 2019. If the majority of businesses in Hubei remain closed until March 20 and we assume no growth in the province in Q1 on an annual basis,2 it will shave 0.3 percentage points from China's total nominal growth in the quarter. Furthermore, if the manufacturing sector restarts production in Q2, but most activities in the service sector such as retail, hotel, transportation and real estate remain depressed, then China’s tertiary sector output growth in that quarter will be reduced by 0.4 percentage points. This will only reduce the country’s overall economic growth in Q2 by 0.2 percentage points. Hubei’s protracted but isolated lockdown will also have a minor impact on China’s overall financial market. Within the MSCI China Onshore Index, there are 16 Hubei-based companies representing only 1.2% of total market capitalization. In the offshore market, there are 14 listed companies registered in Hubei and their market value accounts for a mere 0.3% of the offshore MSCI China Index.3  Chart 3Chinese Equity Performance Rationally Reflects Economic Fundamentals So Far Chinese Equity Performance Rationally Reflects Economic Fundamentals So Far Chinese Equity Performance Rationally Reflects Economic Fundamentals So Far Given the small market capitalization of these Hubei-based companies, China’s index performance simply will not be affected on a fundamental basis by a longer shutdown of the province (Chart 3).   Bottom Line: We expect a more protracted shutdown of business in Hubei than is currently scheduled, which has the potential to weigh negatively on investor sentiment. But from a fundamental perspective, this will not derail the economic and stock market recoveries underway in China. Confirming Signals From The Equity Market Chart 4 shows that the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives is improving in both China’s onshore and offshore markets, which suggests investors share our view that outbreak will subside to a Hubei-specific phenomenon, and that a longer-than-expected shutdown of the province is unlikely to threaten China's overall economic recovery. Chart 4Risk-On Sentiment Ticking Up Risk-On Sentiment Ticking Up Risk-On Sentiment Ticking Up Chart 5Auto And Tech Manufacturers Having Large Presence In Wuhan The Evolving Crisis The Evolving Crisis ​​​​​​​ Importantly, supply chain disruptions due to a shutdown of Hubei’s production plants have not had significant spillover effects on industry performance in China’s equity markets.  Hubei, and more specifically Wuhan-based manufacturers, is a manufacturing hub and key supplier in the automobile and electronic equipment industries (Chart 5). Despite the region’s significant manufacturing presence, Hubei-based manufacturers have relatively limited impact on the equity performance of their industry groups, both onshore and offshore: The stocks of Hubei-based automobile and tech companies have mostly been underperforming relative to their respective industries and the broad Chinese market. Nevertheless, these industries and their overall sectors have managed to outperform relative to the broad market, which indicates that the supply chain constraints have not spilled over to Chinese companies outside of Hubei.  For example, Dongfeng Motor Co., a leading state-owned auto manufacturer located in Hubei, is a key supplier for Nissan and Honda. Dongfeng represents 6% of the automobile and components industry in the MSCI China Index. Chart 6 shows that while Dongfeng has been underperforming the industry and the broad market since the onset of the COVID-19 epidemic, performance in the auto industry relative to the broad market picked up last week when the number of new cases in the epidemic peaked. This suggests that supply-chain constraints are limited to Dongfeng and Hubei, and the downside risks in the automobile and components industry elsewhere in China are abating. Hubei-based tech companies account for 5% of the technology, hardware, and equipment industry group in China’s onshore equity market. Due to production cuts and transportation constraints, four of the five companies listed in the MSCI China onshore index have significantly underperformed both the industry and the broad market since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic (Chart 7).  The only Hubei-based constituent in the sector that has had large gains is a company that produces thermal imaging systems, an equipment widely used in monitoring contagious diseases. But the company’s 1% weight in the industry equity group means the industry’s outperformance is mostly from gains in companies outside of Hubei.  This suggests that despite disruptions inside Hubei, China’s domestic supply chains in the tech industry are relatively agile with manufacturers outside of Hubei stepping in to fill production shortages. Chart 6Supply Disruptions In Hubei's Auto Sector Not Affecting China's Overall Auto Industry Performance Supply Disruptions In Hubei's Auto Sector Not Affecting China's Overall Auto Industry Performance Supply Disruptions In Hubei's Auto Sector Not Affecting China's Overall Auto Industry Performance Chart 7Flexible Supply Chains In China Domestic Tech Industry Help Offset Production Shortages In Hubei Flexible Supply Chains In China Domestic Tech Industry Help Offset Production Shortages In Hubei Flexible Supply Chains In China Domestic Tech Industry Help Offset Production Shortages In Hubei   Bottom Line: While it is too early to conclusively say that the risk of further contagion outside of Hubei has abated, we think the positive equity market performance over the past week is warranted.  The negative impact of supply-chain disruptions in Hubei on China’s domestic overall equity market and industry performance has been minor. Hence, in the case of a prolonged region-wide lockdown, we think the broad financial market implications will not be significant. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Chinese Stocks Are Still Priced At A Deep Discount Chinese Stocks Are Still Priced At A Deep Discount Chinese Stocks Are Still Priced At A Deep Discount We maintain our bullish view on Chinese stocks, both in the near term and in the next 6-12 months. Despite regaining considerable ground in the past week, onshore and offshore equities are still priced at deep discounts (Chart 8). Cities and regions outside of the Hubei epicenter have partially resumed business activities this week. This, coupled with a reduction in the number of new cases, should further boost investors’ confidence in the recovery of China’s economy and risk assets. The reopening of businesses in Hubei could be delayed as late as the end of March. While this will have a devastating impact on the region’s economy and corporate profits, the spillover effects will most likely be contained within the region and not derail China’s economy. In addition, for now the resilience at both China’s industry and broad level equity performance appears to be outweighing the risk of a longer-than-announced shutdown.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Previously labeled as coronavirus or 2019-nCoV, the disease was officially named COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 11, 2020. 2   We consider this an overestimate of the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 epidemic. Even though manufacturing activities can potentially grind to a halt, healthcare-related investment and consumption will likely skyrocket. 3   As of February 10, 2020, according to the MSCI. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations