Technology

The global semiconductor industry has been experiencing a record amount of IPOs and M&A deals in recent months. A flurry of IPOs and M&As in any industry often serves as a sign of a top in share prices (Chart 1). Chat 1Will Booming Semiconductor IPOs And M&As Mark A Peak In Share Prices? Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan The basis is that IPO and M&A booms usually occur when investor sentiment on that industry is super optimistic, which often coincides with a top in share prices. Does this mean that semiconductor stocks in general, and the ones in Taiwan and Korea in particular, are at their zenith? Our broad judgement is that semi stocks have not reached a secular peak. First, as we argued in a recent Special Report, the semiconductor industry is in a structural uptrend due to the continuing rollout of 5G networks and phones, a wider adoption of data centers, further technological advancements in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, edge computing and smaller nodes for chip manufacturing. Second, it is critical to differentiate a macro call on semiconductors from a bottom-up call on individual stocks. Not all semi companies have rallied in recent years, i.e., there has been great divergence among global semi stocks as shown in Chart 2. Chat 2The Performance Of Semiconductor Stocks Has Varied Greatly Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Several semiconductor companies – like TSMC, Nvidia and AMD – have achieved technological breakthroughs, putting them in a position to enjoy high order volumes and charge higher prices. Not surprisingly, revenues of these companies have outpaced the industry average by a wide margin (Chart 3). Chat 3Semiconductor Companies' Revenues Have Diverged Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Others – like Intel and Analog Devices - have posted inferior revenue gains because they have fallen behind technologically or because they are specializing in certain types of semiconductors for which demand and pricing have been lackluster. Chat 4One-Off Surge In Demand For Semis Might Be Over Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Finally, if the global reflation trade resumes and global stocks continue advancing, as the first post-US election day suggests, there is little reason for global semiconductor stocks to falter at this moment. From the macro perspective, lower interest rates in the long run will support not-so-cheap semiconductor stock valuations. In addition, companies with access to unique technological capabilities will be able to raise their product prices benefiting their profits.    That said, there are also several signs that the global semi demand cycle might have entered a period of indigestion: The one-off demand surge for personal computers and gadgets and one-off ramp up of global server shipments due to the pandemic might be drawing to a close (Chart 4, top panel). Digitimes Research has reported that global server shipments are estimated to have slipped 6% sequentially in Q3 from Q2 and are projected to drop another 12% in Q4 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Unlike those in March-April, renewed lockdowns are unlikely to produce another surge in demand for digital equipment and, hence, for semis. Many people and companies have already settled into working from home. In short, as the effect of the one-off demand surge for digital hardware fades, global semi demand will moderate.  Semiconductor companies in general, and the ones in Korea and Taiwan in particular, have greatly benefited from China having stockpiled semiconductors in 2019 and 2020 in preparation for US sanctions on Huawei that went into effect on September 15, 2020 (Chart 5). The US supply ban on semiconductors to China for 5G technology will remain in place regardless of the outcome of the US presidential elections. Restrictions on semi sales to China will weigh on certain semi producers. In addition, smartphone sales in China generally, including 5G smartphone sales, have plunged as of late (Chart 6). Chat 5China Has Been Accumulating Semis Inventories Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Chat 6China: Smartphone Shipments, Including 5G, Are Weak Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan   Finally, the PMI new orders sub-index for Taiwan’s electronic industry has rolled over, signaling a slowdown in its growth rate (Chart 7).   Similarly, the memory chip revenue indicator has recently rolled over, signaling a potential risk to memory stocks such as Samsung and Hynix which make up the Korean technology index (Chart 8). Chat 7A Moderation In The Taiwanese Semis Industry? Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Chat 8Proxy for Value Of Memory Chips And Korean Tech Stocks Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan Asian Semi Stocks: Upgrade Korea But Not Taiwan   We have been advocating a neutral allocation to both the Korean and Taiwanese stock markets within the EM equity universe. One of our arguments for this strategy has been a potential escalation in the US-China confrontation going into the US elections. However, this risk has not materialized. We are upgrading the Korean bourse to overweight. As to Taiwan, a contested US election and the resulting vacuum of power in the next couple of months might lead to a rise in all types of geopolitical risks around the world. Taiwan could be one of these. We maintain a neutral allocation to the Taiwanese bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Bottom Line: In absolute terms, Korean and Taiwanese equity performance depends on the direction of global stocks. We will discuss the outlook for global and EM stocks in a Strategy Report to be published early next week when there is more clarity on the outcome of the US presidential elections. Within an EM equity universe, we are upgrading Korean stocks from neutral to overweight but keeping Taiwan’s allocation at neutral. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthur@bcaresearch.com Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Buenos Aires Consensus Buenos Aires Consensus The Fed remains a key player enabling the transition from Washington to fiscally loose Buenos Aires consensus as we outlined in this Monday’s Weekly Report. As fiscal valves open and debt piles rise, the bond market will be the only regulatory mechanism. The implication is that the interplay between future fed funds rate (FFR) expectations and the 10-year US Treasury yield becomes a key variable to monitor. The most recent, and similar to today, period was during the GFC, when the Fed held the FFR near zero from December 2008 until December 2015. In this seven-year period, the interplay between the FFR change expectations and the 10-year US Treasury yield reveals that the sensitivity of interest rates to FFR change expectations stood near 2-to-1; i.e. a 50bps increase in the FFR change expectations would push the 10-year yield 100bps higher and vice versa. Year-to-date, the 10-year US Treasury yield’s sensitivity to FFR change expectations has ranged between 1-to-1 and 2-to-1. Looking ahead post the election, the odds are rising of a mammoth fiscal package, especially if there is a “Blue Sweep” but also potentially in a renewed Trump administration. Under such a backdrop the 10-year US Treasury yield would spike and so will FFR hike expectations. Bottom Line: Any selloff in the bond market will serve as a catalyst for a rotation out of fully valued tech stocks and into deeply undervalued financials (see chart).  ​​​​​​​

A Complete Circuit A Complete Circuit Neutral Today, we are removing our downgrade alert from the S&P semiconductors index on the back of an improving macro backdrop. First and foremost, the semi sales cycle is tied to global rates that tend to lead by approximately 18 months. As Central Banks across the globe are committed to remain on the easening path, global semi sales will likely rebound further (middle panel). A revival of chip M&A activity which effectively reduces the supply of stocks does not show any signs of abating, and will continue to underpin semi stocks as premia paid remain elevated (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We remain neutral the S&P semiconductors index, but are removing our downgrade alert. On a related note, our underweight stance in the sister chip equipment index remains intact. Stay tuned.      

Continue To Avoid Semi Cap Names Continue To Avoid Semi Cap Names Underweight We are currently underweight the S&P semi equipment index in line with our broader strategy of preferring defensive software & services tech stocks at the expense of the more aggressive hardware & equipment tech stocks. Recent news of the Trump administration’s potential tightening of the noose on Chinese chip company SMIC (the country’s largest foundry) was a net negative for US semi cap names. It also was a wake up call for investors with regard to the sector’s vulnerability to a flare up in the US/China trade tensions, especially given the sell-side’s extremely optimistic sales and earnings projections (see chart).   Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P semiconductor equipment index. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5SEEQ – AMAT, KLAC, LRCX. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Portfolio Strategy We opt to stay patient and refrain from deploying fresh capital especially in the tech sector in the near-term; a better entry point will likely materialize between now and the end of the year. The softening demand backdrop that is weighing on selling prices, the rekindling of the US/China tech-related trade war and the risk of a reflex rebound in the US dollar, all warn to shy away from semi cap stocks. A balanced outlook keeps us on the sidelines in the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Churning Churning Feature Equities tried to regain their footing last week, but risks still lingering on the (geo)political front should sustain the tug of war between bulls and bears and rekindle volatility. While monetary and fiscal policies will remain loose, the intensity of easing is waning as both the Fed’s impulse (i.e. second derivative) of asset purchases has ground to a halt and Congress has hit a stalemate over the next round of stimulus. Crudely put, the thrust of monetary and fiscal policies is at heightened risk of shifting from stimulative to contractive (Chart 1). As a result, we remain patient with fresh capital and will wait to deploy it when the dust settles hopefully by the end of the year. Turning to equity market internals and other high frequency financial market data is instructive in order to get a clearer picture of the direction of the broad equity market. The value line arithmetic and geometric indexes and small cap stocks that led the March 23 SPX trough are emitting a distress signal (Chart 2). Chart 1Running Out Of Thrust Running Out Of Thrust Running Out Of Thrust Chart 2Market Internals... Market Internals... Market Internals... Drilling deeper on a sector basis, hypersensitive chip stocks, energy shares, and discretionary versus staples equities will likely weigh on the prospects of the broad equity market (Chart 3). The VIX index, the vol curve and the yield curve, all excellent leading indicators of the S&P 500, have crested and warn that the shakeout phase has yet to run its course (VIX shown inverted ,Chart 4). Chart 3...Say It Is Prudent... ...Say It Is Prudent... ...Say It Is Prudent... Chart 4...To Remain On The Sidelines ...To Remain On The Sidelines ...To Remain On The Sidelines Trying to quantify the SPX drawdown, we turn to CBOE’s equity put/call (EPC) ratio. The EPC ratio is nowhere near recent extreme readings. SPX pullbacks since the early-2018 “Volmageddon” have corresponded to significantly higher EPC ratio readings. In the past 10 such iterations, the median EPC ratio has been 0.86, the mean 0.93, with a range of 0.77 to 1.28 (Table 2). Currently, the EPC ratio is hovering near 0.58 suggesting that downside risks persist (EPC ratio shown inverted, Chart 5). Chart 5Downside Risks Persist Downside Risks Persist Downside Risks Persist Table 2Equity Put/Call (EPC) Ratio During Pullbacks Since 2018 Churning Churning Finally, the commodity complex is also firing warnings shots. Lumber has collapsed nearly $300/tbf from the recent peak, oil is trailing gold bullion and silver is also cresting versus the yellow metal, iron ore is petering out and the Baltic dry index is wobbling. True, copper and materials stocks are holding their own, but overwhelmingly commodity market internals are waving a yellow flag (Chart 6). Chart 6Commodity Yellow Flags Commodity Yellow Flags Commodity Yellow Flags Netting it all out, we opt to stay patient and refrain from deploying fresh capital especially in the tech space in the near-term; a better entry point will likely materialize between now and the end of the year. This week we reiterate our underweight stance in a niche technology index and shed more light on our recent downgrade to neutral of a key consumer discretionary subgroup. Chip Equipment Update: Tangled Up In The Trade War We remain committed to our intra-tech strategy of preferring defensive software and services tech names to aggressive hardware and equipment tech stocks. In that light, we reiterate our underweight stance in the niche S&P semi equipment index. Recent news of the Trump administration’s potential tightening of the noose on Chinese chip company SMIC (the country’s largest foundry) was a net negative for US semi cap names, similar to export restrictions of American technology to Huawei was a net negative for US semi cap names. As a reminder, these manufacturers count China as one of their largest export market alongside Taiwan and South Korea. Thus, this flare up in the US/Sino trade war bodes ill for semi cap companies’ future sales and profit growth projections (Chart 7). There are high odds that relative share prices have plateaued earlier this month and a fresh down cycle has commenced. Under such a backdrop, this hyper-sensitive manufacturing group will likely overshoot to the down side as is evident in the historical tight correlation with the ISM manufacturing survey: these violent oscillations are warning that a cooling off in the ISM will be severely felt in this niche manufacturing intense index (Chart 8). Chart 7Lofty Expectations Lofty Expectations Lofty Expectations Chart 8Violent Oscillations Violent Oscillations Violent Oscillations On the global demand front, there is an element that COVID-19 is stealing sales from the future and bringing demand forward. Already global semi sales are rolling over, and a couple of industry pricing power proxies are deflating at an accelerating pace: Asian DRAM prices are topping out in the contraction zone and Taiwanese export prices are sinking like a stone, warning that a deficient demand down cycle will squeeze semi cap profit margins (Chart 9). Importantly, Taiwanese tech capex, which TSMC dominates, has crested, warning that all the euphoria behind 5G deployment and uptake is likely baked in the relative share price ratio. The implication is that semi cap names remain vulnerable to any global 5G-related hiccups (top panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Waning Selling Price Backdrop Waning Selling Price Backdrop Waning Selling Price Backdrop Chart 10Cresting Cresting Cresting Finally, the tight positive correlation between Bitcoin prices and the relative share price ratio remains intact. Were a knee-jerk rebound in the US dollar to knock down Bitcoin, at least temporarily, it would serve as a catalyst to shed chip equipment stocks (bottom panel, Chart 10). Moreover, 90% of the industry’s sales originate abroad, thus a rise in the greenback would eat into their P&L via FX translation losses. Adding it all up, a softening demand backdrop that is weighing on selling prices, the rekindling of the US/China tech-related trade war and a reflex rebound in the US dollar, all warn to shy away from semi cap stocks. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P semiconductor equipment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5SEEQ – AMAT, KLAC, LRCX. Home Improvement Retailers: Stay On The Sidelines Two weeks ago our trailing stop was triggered in the S&P home improvement retail index (HIR) and we monetized gains of 15% since the mid-April inception and moved to the sidelines. Today we reiterate our benchmark allocation in this consumer discretionary sub group. Clearly, HIR was a major beneficiary of the lockdown as the US and Canadian governments deemed these retailers “essential” and allowed them to stay open during the peak of the pandemic. These Big Box retailers saw their sales soar as the fiscal easing package replenished consumers’ wallets, and coupled with the lockdown, caused a surge in DIY remodeling activity. Our portfolio also greatly benefited from the stellar performance of the S&P HIR index, as existing home sales staged a significant comeback and inventories of homes for sale receded substantially thus further tightening the residential real estate market (top & middle panels, Chart 11). As reminder, historically a vibrant housing market is synonymous with handsome returns in relative share prices and vice versa. But now a number of stiff headwinds, which our HIR model encapsulates, signal that a lateral digestive move is in store in the coming months (Chart 12). Chart 11Unsustainable Front Running Unsustainable Front Running Unsustainable Front Running Chart 12Stiff Headwinds Stiff Headwinds Stiff Headwinds First, a repeat of the spike in demand for home improvement projects is highly unlikely, especially given that demand was brought forward. Also during the autumn and winter months there is a natural slowdown in the take-up of remodeling projects until the spring home selling season arrives. Second, the industry’s sales-to-inventories (S/I) ratio is literally off the charts (bottom panel, Chart 11). An inventory build-up and easing in demand will bring back the S/I ratio back to a more reasonable level. Lastly, lumber prices have taken a beating of late collapsing from over $900/tbf to below $600/tbf. This drubbing of this economically hypersensitive commodity directly cuts into HIR earnings. These Big Box retailers make a set margin on lumber sales so as prices fall they take a big bite out of profits (bottom panel, Chart 13). Nevertheless, a few offsets prevent us from turning outright bearish in this early cyclical retailers. Namely, the industry’s profit growth bar is on a par with the broad market and thus does not pose a large hurdle to overcome. Importantly, given that HIR earnings have kept pace with the massive run-up in stock prices (second panel, Chart 14), they have kept relative valuations at bay. While, the S&P HIR 12-month forward P/E trades at a market multiple, the relative forward P/E changes hands at a 20% discount to the historical mean. Thus, HIR enjoy a significant valuation cushion (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Timber! Timber! Timber! Chart 14But There Are Powerful Offsets But There Are Powerful Offsets But There Are Powerful Offsets Finally, the Fed just explicitly committed to stay on the zero interest rate line until 2023! This easy monetary policy as far as the eye can see is a powerful tonic to early cyclical and interest rate-sensitive home improvement retailers (fed funds rate shown inverted, top panel, Chart 14). Netting it all out, a balanced outlook keeps us on the sidelines in the S&P HIR index.  Bottom Line: Stick with a benchmark allocation in the S&P home improvement retail index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HOMI – HD, LOW.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth

Languishing Buybacks Languishing Buybacks This summer we have been highlighting unsustainable trends in the US equity market and today we turn our attention to buybacks. As we first pointed out in the late-2019 Weekly Report, share buybacks have been a key pillar underpinning stocks since the GFC averaging roughly $500bn/annum since 2010, and reaching nearly the $1tn/annum mark in 2018 on the back of President Trump’s massive fiscal easing package. Clearly, such breakneck pace was unsustainable and a renormalization was overdue.  Fast forward to Q2, and even our conservative quarterly $125bn equity retirement estimate proved overly optimistic. From the recent peak to just below $90bn/qrt, SPX buybacks have fallen by a whopping 67%. Such a corporate buyer’s strike is negative for the near term prospects of the S&P 500 (top panel). Drilling deeper beneath the surface is revealing. When we disaggregate the headline buybacks number into GICS1 sectors, we observe that once again the tech titans (comprising the S&P technology and the S&P communication services indexes) are doing all the heavy lifting accounting for 70% of the overall number (bottom panel). Q2 was the first time in recent memory that a cross has occurred where tech accounts for more buybacks that all the other sectors put together! Bottom Line: We continue to recommend investors keep some powder dry and refrain from deploying capital at the current juncture. A better entry point in the broad equity market will likely materialize in late Q4.

This report contains an error in the section related to consumer spending and fiscal policy. That error somewhat changes the conclusions from the report, and it particularly impacts Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. The attached note explains the mistake and includes corrected versions of Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. Highlights Duration: A re-rating of Tech stock valuations is likely not a near-term catalyst for significantly lower bond yields. Congress’ continued failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act is a greater near-term risk for bond bears. We continue to recommend an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance alongside duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Fiscal Policy: Without additional household income support from Congress, at least on the order of $500 - $800 billion, consumer spending will massively disappoint expectations during the next 6-12 months. Inflation: Inflation will continue its rapid ascent between now and the end of the year, but it is likely to level-off in 2021. We recommend staying long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, but we will be looking to take profits on that position later this year. Feature Bond Implications Of A Tech Stock Sell-Off Risk-off sentiment reigned in equity and credit markets during the past two weeks. The S&P 500 fell 7% between September 2nd and 8th and the average junk spread widened from 471 bps to 499 bps. This represents the largest sell-off since June when the equity market saw a similar 7% decline and the junk spread widened from 536 bps to 620 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions A comparison between the September and June episodes is particularly interesting for bond investors because Treasuries behaved very differently in each case. In June, bonds benefited from a flight to quality out of equities and the 10-year Treasury yield fell 22 bps. But this month, Treasuries actually delivered negative returns and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 3 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1Selected Asset Class Performance During Last Two Equity Sell-Offs More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Why would Treasuries perform so well in June but fail in their role as a diversifier of equity risk in September? The answer lies in the underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline, which are easily identified when we look at the performance of different equity sectors. Table 1 shows the performance of different equity sectors in both the June and September sell-offs. In June, it was the cyclical equity sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – that led the decline. These sectors tend to be the most sensitive to global economic growth. This month’s equity drawdown was led by Tech stocks, while cyclical and defensive sectors saw much smaller drops. Table 1 also shows that a broad measure of commodity prices – the CRB Raw Industrials index – rose by 0.79% during the September equity sell-off, significantly outpacing gains in the gold price. In June, the CRB index still rose but it lagged gold by a wide margin. The underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline explain why Treasuries performed well in June and underperformed in September. We bring up the performance of different equity sectors, commodity prices and gold because bond yields correlate most strongly with: The performance of cyclical equities over defensive equities (Chart 2, top panel). The ratio of CRB Raw Industrials over gold (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators These correlations explain why bond yields fell a lot in June but not in September. June’s equity sell-off was more like a traditional risk-off event that saw investors questioning the sustainability of the global economic recovery. The cyclical equity sectors that are most exposed to the global economic cycle experienced the worst losses and demand for safe-haven gold far outpaced the demand for growth-sensitive industrial commodities. In contrast, this month’s sell-off was driven by a re-rating of Tech stock valuations, not so much expectations for a negative economic shock. Technology now makes up such a large portion of the equity index’s market cap that this sort of move can cause the entire stock market to fall, but the pass-through to bonds will be much smaller for any equity sell-off that isn’t prompted by a negative economic shock and led by cyclical equity sectors. Implications For Bond Investors Even after this month’s drop, there remains a legitimate concern about extreme Tech stock valuations. The fact that many of the larger Tech names, like Microsoft and Apple, have benefited from the pandemic only makes it more likely that their stock prices will suffer as the world slowly returns to normal. From a bond investor’s perspective, we doubt that even a large drop in Tech stock prices would lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. Bond yields will only turn down if the market starts to question the sustainability of the economic recovery, an event that would be negative for cyclical equity sectors but much less so for the big Tech names. With that in mind, our base case outlook calls for continued economic recovery during the next 6-12 months, but we do see a significant risk that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act will lead to just such a deflationary shock during the next couple of months. We therefore recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, while positioning for continued economic recovery via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The Outlook For Consumer Spending And The Necessity Of Fiscal Stimulus After plunging during the lock-down months of March and April, consumer spending has rebounded strongly during the past few months. But can this strong rebound continue? Our view is that it cannot. That is, unless Congress delivers more income support to households. Even a large drop in Tech stock prices is unlikely to lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. In this section we consider several different economic scenarios and estimate the amount of further income support that is necessary to sustain an adequate level of consumer spending. First off, to make forecasts for consumer spending we need to consider two main parameters: household income and the personal savings rate (Chart 3). More income leads to more spending in most cases. The only exception would be if cautious households decide to increase the amount they save relative to the amount they spend. Chart 3Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We’ve actually seen that exception play out somewhat during the past five months. The CARES act provided households with an income windfall, but the savings rate also shot higher. This suggests that households had enough income to spend even more during the past few months but have been much more cautious than usual. We cannot overstate the role the CARES act has played in supporting household incomes since March. Disposable income has grown 7.4% during the past five months compared to the five months prior to COVID, and the CARES act’s provisions pressured income 10.3% higher during that period (Chart 4). The CARES act’s one-time $1200 stimulus checks and expanded $600 weekly unemployment benefits were the two most important provisions in this regard. Together, they pushed disposable income higher by 7.5%. Chart 4Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed This presents an obvious problem. The income support from the CARES act is now expired and Congress has yet to pass a follow-up stimulus bill. How vital is it that we get a new bill? And how large does it need to be? To answer these questions, we first need to set a target for adequate consumer spending growth. The second panel of Chart 3 shows 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth. That is, it looks at total consumer spending during the last 12 months and shows how much it has increased (or decreased) compared to the previous 12 months. Notice that the worst 12-month period during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) saw 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth of -3%. During the economic recovery that followed, consumer spending growth fluctuated between +2% and +6%. Exercise 1: The March 2020 To February 2021 Period Chart 5Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings In our first exercise, we consider the 12-month period starting at the very beginning of the COVID recession in March 2020 and ending in February 2021. As a bare minimum, we target consumer spending growth of -3% for this 12-month period on the presumption that 12-month spending growth equal to the worst 12 months seen during the GFC is the bare minimum that markets might tolerate. We also consider somewhat rosier scenarios of 0% and 2% spending growth. In addition to consumer spending targets, we also make assumptions for household income and the savings rate. We consider income coming from all sources including automatic government stabilizers, but without assuming any additional fiscal support from the government. We consider three scenarios (Chart 5): A pessimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate hold steady at current levels. An optimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate return to pre-COVID levels by February 2021. A “split the difference” scenario where both income and the savings rate get halfway back to pre-COVID levels by next February. Table 2 shows how much additional income support from the government is needed between now and February to achieve each of our consumer spending growth targets in each of our three scenarios. For example, in the optimistic scenario the government will need to provide $434 billion of additional income support between now and February for consumer spending to hit our minimum -3% threshold. In the more realistic “split the difference” scenario, households will require another $777 billion of stimulus. Table 2 also shows that stimulus on a monthly basis and compares the monthly rate of stimulus to the rate provided by the CARES act. For example, an additional $777 billion of income doled out between August and February works out to $111 billion per month, 61% of the amount of monthly stimulus provided by the CARES act between April and July. Table 2Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Two main conclusions jump out from this analysis. The first is that more income support from Congress is absolutely required. Otherwise, consumer spending will come in worse during the March 2020 to February 2021 period than it did during the worst 12 months of the GFC. Second, unless we assume a truly dire economic scenario, the follow-up stimulus does not need to be as large as the CARES act. In our most realistic “split the difference” scenario, that $777 billion of required stimulus is only 61% of what the CARES act doled out on a monthly basis. In that same scenario, a follow-up bill that delivered the same monthly stimulus as the CARES act would lead to positive 12-month consumer spending growth. Exercise 2: The August 2020 To July 2021 Period Chart 6One More Scenario One More Scenario One More Scenario One potential problem with our last exercise is that our target was for total consumer spending between March 2020 and February 2021. This period includes five months for which we already have data and the exercise is therefore partially backward-looking. A more relevant analysis might target consumer spending on a purely forward-looking basis from August 2020 to July 2021. We therefore perform our calculations again for the August 2020 to July 2021 period. This time, we consider only one economic scenario where income and the savings rate both return to pre-COVID levels by July 2021 (Chart 6). This scenario works out to be slightly more optimistic than the “split the difference” scenario we considered earlier. Also, since our target 12-month spending growth period no longer contains the downtrodden months of March and April, we require a more ambitious target than -3% growth. A return to the post-GFC range of 2% to 6% represents a target that is likely more representative of market expectations. Table 3 shows the results of this second analysis. Once again, we see that some additional government stimulus is necessary to meet our spending targets. Even to achieve 0% spending growth over the next 12 months will require another $249 billion from the government, and that outcome would almost certainly disappoint markets. We calculate that an additional $534 billion is required to achieve 2% spending growth during the August 2020 to July 2021 timeframe. This result is consistent with the $777 billion we calculated in Table 2, though it has come down a bit because we have made slightly more optimistic economic assumptions. Table 3At Least Half A Trillion More Government Income Support Is Needed More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Bottom Line: Our analysis suggests that further stimulus is needed to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. A new stimulus package doesn’t need to be as large as the CARES act on a monthly basis, but it should provide at least $500 - $800 billion of additional income support to households. With Congress still dithering on this issue, financial markets appear overly complacent in the near-term. While the economic constraints suggest that a deal should be reached soon, policymakers may need to see a spate of negative economic data and/or poor market performance before being spurred into action. In acknowledgement of this significant near-term risk to the economic outlook, bond investors should refrain from getting too bearish, and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. Inflation’s Snapback Phase Chart 7Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot The core Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% in August, the third large monthly increase in a row (Chart 7). We see inflation continuing to come in hot between now and the end of the year, before tapering off in 2021. As of now, we would describe inflation as being in a snapback phase. That is, back in March and April, when lock-down measures were widespread across the country, the sectors that were most affected by the shutdowns experienced massive price declines. However, notice that core inflation fell by much more than median or trimmed mean inflation during this period (Chart 7, panels 2 & 3). The median sector’s price didn’t fall that much, but the overall inflation number moved down because of deeply negative prints in a few sectors. Now that the economy is re-opening, many of the sectors that were most beaten down in March and April are coming back to life. As a result, those massive price declines are turning into massive price increases. Once again, the median and trimmed mean inflation figures have been much more stable. This “snapback” dynamic is illustrated very clearly in Chart 8 which shows the distribution of monthly price changes for 41 different sectors in April and in August. Notice that while the middle of the distribution hasn’t changed that much, April’s massive left tail has morphed into August’s massive right tail. Chart 8Distribution Of CPI Expenditure Categories More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this snapback phase has further to run. In other words, we will likely continue to see strong inflation prints for a few more months as the sectors that were most downbeat in March and April continue their rebounds. However, once core catches back up to the median and trimmed mean inflation measures, this snapback phase will come to an end and inflation’s uptrend will probably level-off. The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this inflation’s snapback phase has further to run.  We recommend that bond investors continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries during this snapback phase, but we will be looking for an opportunity to go underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries later this year, once core inflation moves closer to the median and trimmed mean measures and the snapback phase ends. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success.   Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Chart 1 Chart 1 Chart 1 Today, we continue cautioning investors about how overstretched the equity market is and highlight a few key reasons not to chase it higher; especially technology stocks. The top five stocks in the SPX (AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL & FB) have added $5.8tn to the S&P 500 market cap since 2015, whereas the bottom 495 stocks have added $5.1tn. Crudely put, as a contribution the SPX’s return the former account for 53%, whereas the bottom 495 stocks account for the remaining 47% of the advance over the same time frame. In percent return terms, these five tech titans’ market capitalization has more than quadrupled or risen by 350% over the past 5 ½ years from $1.67tn to $7.5tn. In marked contrast, the S&P 495 market cap has gone nowhere rising a mere 31% (increasing from 16.57tn to $21.7tn) during the same time frame (Chart 1, top panel). If investors have not been in these tech titans, then they have not really participated in the SPX’s run up. The measly return since 2015 in the Value Arithmetic index and negative return in the Value Line Geometric index gauging the mean and median US stock, respectively, corroborate our analysis (not shown).   Chart 2 Chart 2 Chart 2 Drilling deeper, the over concentration risks become even more apparent, even within the tech universe itself. Chart 2 shows that the S&P tech sector excluding AAPL & MSFT is just above the February highs, and nearly all the tech related return sits with the top five titans that are up almost 60% year-to-date (ytd). Worrisomely, the remaining S&P 426 stocks (which exclude all the tech names) are down 6% ytd. Once again, Chart 2 further reiterates the message that even the tech sector is a bifurcated market where only a handful of stocks have been generating all the alpha. Such extreme concentration, while not unprecedented, is a sign of an unhealthy overall market backdrop which makes it vulnerable to a significant shock.   Chart 3 Chart 3 Chart 3 Naturally, the overconcentration in the SPX is even more acute in the NASDAQ. While the top five SPX stocks comprise over a quarter of the index, the same five tech titans carry a 50% weight in the NASDAQ 100. True, the collapse in interest rates has boosted the NASDAQ forward P/E to the stratosphere, but the longer these high-flying stocks defy gravity the more painful the eventual snap will be (Chart 3, bottom panel). Already there are signs of trouble brewing beneath the surface. NASDAQ breadth is sinking, and this has proven a reliable leading indicator in the recent past, warning that a pullback is looming (Chart 3, top panel). The hypersensitive chip stocks are also suffering from exhaustion, unable to outperform the tech titan led NASDAQ (Chart 3, middle panel). Any hiccups in the tech space will negatively reverberate in the SPX: currently the S&P tech sector plus the FANG (FB, AMZN, NFLX & GOOGL) comprise 41% of the S&P 500.       Chart 4 Chart 4 Chart 4 Switching gears and drilling deeper into an S&P tech sub-group doesn’t brighten the short-term picture. The S&P technology hardware storage & peripherals (HS&P) index is in unchartered territory. The second panel of Chart 4 shows that the relative share price ratio is at the highest level as a percentage of its 200-day moving average since the late-1990s. Shown as a z-score, this technical indicator is stretched to the tune of almost four standard deviations above the historical mean (Chart 4, third panel). The last two times technical conditions were so overbought, it marked a multi-year peak in relative performance (Chart 4, top panel). Given that this sub-sector is home to AAPL, such extreme readings even on the index level confirm that the market is vulnerable to a snapback.                 Chart 5 Chart 5 Chart 5 Finally, going down to a stock level a couple of historical parallels are also in order. Specifically, Chart 5 compares the titans of the late 20th century with the current market leaders. The second and bottom panels of Chart 5 reveal that the market capitalization concentration of the top five stocks in the S&P 500 surpassed the late-1990s. However, there is an offsetting factor. In terms of valuation overshoot, the current 12-month forward P/E of these top five stocks near 45x is 3/4 that of late-1990s parabolic episode (Chart 5, top & third panels). Bottom Line: While we maintain a cyclical and structural (please see upcoming Weekly Report after Labor Day) bullish stance in the broad equity market, the shorter-term risk/reward trade-off is tilted to the downside, especially in the technology universe.

Highlights EM domestic fundamentals, global trade and commodities prices, as well as global financial market themes are the main drivers of EM financial assets and currencies. The positive effect of improving global growth and rising commodity prices on EM currencies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has been offset by these countries’ inferior domestic fundamentals. The odds of a near-term US dollar rebound are rising. This will likely produce a setback in EM currencies, fixed-income markets and equities. However, such a setback will likely prove to be a buying opportunity. Increased central bank intervention in asset markets may diminish the importance of fundamentals in determining the asset prices. Feature Chart I-1Unusual Divergences Unusual Divergences Unusual Divergences EM risk assets have done well in absolute terms but have underperformed their DM counterparts.  This is unusual given the substantial weakness in the US dollar and the rally in commodities prices since April (Chart I-1). Until early this year, many commentators had argued that monetary policies of DM central banks were the principal drivers of EM financial markets. Given the zero interest rates and money printing that is prevalent in DM, the underperformance of EM equities and currencies is especially intriguing. Is this underperformance an aberration or is it fundamentally justified? What really drives EM performance? Back To Basics As we have argued over the years, EM risk assets and currencies are primarily driven by their domestic fundamentals, rather than by the actions and policies of the US Federal Reserve or the ECB. The critical determinant of EM stocks’ absolute as well as relative performance versus DM equities has been corporate profits. Chart I-2 illustrates that relative equity performance and relative EPS between EM and the US move in tandem, both in common and, critically, local currency terms. Similarly, the main reason why EM share prices in absolute terms have failed to deliver positive returns over the past 10 years is that their profits have been stagnant over the same period, even prior to the pandemic (Chart I-3). Interestingly, fluctuations in EM EPS resemble those of Korea’s exports. This reflects the importance of global growth in shaping EM profit trends. Chart I-2Corporate Profits Drive EM Absolute And Relative Performance Corporate Profits Drive EM Absolute And Relative Performance Corporate Profits Drive EM Absolute And Relative Performance Chart I-3EM EPS Has Been Flat For 10 Years EM EPS Has Been Flat For 10 Years EM EPS Has Been Flat For 10 Years   The key drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have been and remain: 1. EM domestic fundamentals that can be encapsulated by a potential risk-adjusted return on capital. The latter is impacted by both cyclical and structural growth trajectories, as well as by the quality and composition of growth. Risks to growth can be gauged based on factors such as (but not limited to): productivity, wages, inflation, fiscal and balance of payment positions, the global economic and financial environment, and the health of the banking system. In EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan), the fundamentals remain challenging: The business cycle recovery is slower in these economies than it is in China and advanced economies. Fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in many advanced countries, while the pandemic situation has been worse. Their banking systems were already fragile before the pandemic, and have lately been hit by defaults stemming from the unprecedented recession. These governments have less room than in DM and China, to stimulate fiscally and bail out debtors and banks. Banks in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) will continue struggling for some time, and their ability to finance a new expansion cycle will, for now, remain constrained (Chart I-4). A restructuring of non-performing loans and a recapitalization of banks will be required to kick-start a new credit cycle in many of these economies. 2. Global growth, especially relating to China’s business cycle and commodities. The recovery in China since April, along with rising commodities prices have been positive for EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan). Given the substantial stimulus injected into the Chinese economy, its recovery will continue well into next year (Chart I-5). As a result, higher commodities prices will benefit resource producing economies by supporting their balance of payments and enhancing income growth. Chart I-4EM ex-China: Limited Bank Support For Growth EM ex-China: Limited Bank Support For Growth EM ex-China: Limited Bank Support For Growth Chart I-5China's Stimulus Entails More Upside In Commodity Prices China's Stimulus Entails More Upside In Commodity Prices China's Stimulus Entails More Upside In Commodity Prices   3. Global financial market themes: a search for yield and leadership of new economy stocks. Global investment themes have an important bearing on EM financial markets. For example, in recent years, the increased market cap of new economy and semiconductor stocks – due to an exponential rise in their share prices – has amplified their importance for the aggregate EM equity index. The largest six mega cap stocks in the EM benchmark are new economy and semiconductor companies, and make up about 25% of the EM MSCI market cap. The six FAANGM stocks presently account for about 25% of the S&P 500. Hence, the concentration risk in EM is as high as it is in the US. Consequently, the trajectory of new economy and semiconductor stocks globally will be essential to the performance of the EM equity index. On August 20, we published an in-depth Special Report assessing near-term and structural outlooks for global semiconductor stocks. With new economy and semiconductor share prices going parabolic worldwide, we are witnessing a full-fledged mania, as we discussed in our July 16 report. The equal-weighted US FAANGM stock index has risen by 24-fold in nominal and 20-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, since January 1, 2010 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6History Of Manias Of Past Decades History Of Manias Of Past Decades History Of Manias Of Past Decades In brief, with respect to magnitude and duration, the bull market in FAANGM is on par with the bubbles of previous decades (Chart I-6). Those bubbles culminated in bear markets, where prices fell by at least 50% after topping out. Chart I-7EM ex-TMT Stocks: Absolute And Relative Performance EM ex-TMT Stocks: Absolute And Relative Performance EM ex-TMT Stocks: Absolute And Relative Performance We do not know when the FAANGM rally will end. Timing a reversal in a powerful bull market is impossible. Also, we are not certain about the magnitude of such a potential drawdown. Nevertheless, our message is that the risk-reward tradeoff of chasing FAANGM at this stage is very unattractive. Excluding technology, media and telecommunication (TMT) – as most growth stocks are a part of TMT– EM equities remain in a bear market (Chart I-7, top panel). In relative terms, EM ex-TMT stocks have massively underperformed their global peers (Chart I-7, bottom panel).  Even with a larger weighting of mega-cap growth TMT stocks than the overall DM equity index, the aggregate EM equity index has underperformed the overall DM index. Bottom Line: EM domestic fundamentals, global trade and commodities prices, and global financial market themes are the main drivers of EM financial assets and currencies. What About The Dollar? The high correlation of the trade-weighted US dollar and EM equities is due to the following: (1) the greenback has been a countercyclical currency; and (2) the US dollar’s exchange rate against EM currencies reflects relative fundamentals in the US versus EM economies. When a global business cycle accelerates, the broad trade-weighted US dollar weakens. If this growth acceleration is led by China and other emerging economies, the greenback depreciates considerably versus EM currencies. The opposite is also true. In other words, the US dollar exchange rate’s strong negative correlation to EM equities is primarily due to the fact that the greenback’s exchange rates against EM currencies reflect both the global business cycle as well as EM growth and fundamentals. Chart I-8Divergence Between DM And EM Currencies Divergence Between DM And EM Currencies Divergence Between DM And EM Currencies In recent months, the greenback has: (1) depreciated due to the global economic recovery; (2) tumbled versus DM currencies due to the still raging pandemic and the socio-political instability in the US as well as the Fed’s commitment to staying behind the inflation curve in the years to come; and (3) not fallen much against EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) currencies because their fundamentals have been poor, as discussed above. Bottom Line: Exchange rates in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) have failed to appreciate versus the dollar despite the latter’s plunge versus other DM currencies (Chart I-8). The positive effect of improving global growth and rising commodities prices on EM currencies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has been offset by these countries’ inferior domestic fundamentals. Flows And Cash On The Sidelines Chart I-9Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization What about capital flows? Aren’t they essential in driving EM financial markets? Of course, they are important. However, we view flows as resulting from and determined by fundamentals. Over the medium and long term, we assume that capital flows to regions where the return on capital is high or rising. Thus, we see ourselves as responsible for directing investors to those areas that we have identified as providing a high or rising return on capital (and cautioning investors when the opposite is true). The presumption is that beyond short-term volatility, investment flows will gravitate to countries/sectors/asset classes with high or rising returns on capital, just as they will abandon areas of low or falling returns on capital. In brief, fundamentals drive flows and flows determine asset price performance. Isn’t sizable cash on the sidelines a reason to be bullish? Yes, there is substantial cash on the sidelines. Along with zero short-term rates, this has been the potent force leading investors to purchase equities, credit and other risk assets since late March. Below we examine the case of the US, but this has also been true in many markets around the world. The top panel of Chart I-9 demonstrates that US institutional and retail money market funds – a measure of cash on the sidelines - presently stand at $4.2 trillion, having increased by $900 billion since March. Yet, the Fed and US commercial banks have increased their debt securities holdings by $2.9 trillion since March.   Furthermore, the Fed and US commercial banks hold $10.6 trillion of debt securities (Chart I-9, middle panel) – amounting to 18% of the aggregate equity and US dollar fixed-income market value (Chart I-9, bottom panel). These securities, held by the Fed and US commercial banks, are not available to non-bank investors. Chart I-10Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Is Still Elevated Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Is Still Elevated Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Is Still Elevated Excluding debt securities owned by the Fed and commercial banks, we reckon that cash on the sidelines is equal to 8.4% of the value of equities and US dollar debt securities available to non-bank investors (Chart I-10). This is a relatively high cash ratio. Unprecedented purchases by the Fed and US commercial banks have not only removed a considerable chuck of debt securities from the market; they have also created money “out of thin air”. When central or commercial banks acquire a security from, or lend to, a non-bank entity, they are creating new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not affect the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. In sum, the Fed’s large purchases of debt securities amount to a de facto monetization of public and private debt. These operations have both reduced the amount of securities available to investors and boosted the latter’s cash balances. Hence, the Fed has boosted asset prices not only indirectly, by lowering short-term interest rates, but also directly, by printing new money and shrinking the amount of securities available to investors. We have in recent months argued that global risk assets are overpriced relative to fundamentals. However, investors have continued to deploy cash in asset markets, pushing prices higher. Given the zero money market interest rates and the still elevated cash balances, one can envision a scenario in which cash continues to be deployed in asset markets, pushing valuations to bubble levels across all risk assets. Pressure on investors to deploy their cash amid rising asset prices implies that only a major negative shock might be able to reverse this rally. There have been plenty of reasons to be cautious, including escalating US-China geopolitical tensions, the increasing odds of a contested US presidential election and, hence, elevated political uncertainty, the possibility of a US fiscal cliff, and a potential second wave of the pandemic. However, investors have so far shrugged off all of these and continue to allocate capital to risk assets. Bottom Line: Increased central bank intervention in asset markets may diminish the importance of fundamentals in determining the price of risk assets. This would also mean that the role of momentum investing and psychology may increase. Investment Strategy Currencies: The US dollar has become oversold and could stage a rebound in the near term. The euro has risen to its technical resistance (Chart I-11). The EM currency index (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has failed to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-12, top panel).  The emerging Asian trade-weighted currency index (ADXY) has rebounded to the upper boundary of its falling channel (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11A Short-Term Resistance For Euro/USD A Short-Term Resistance For Euro/USD A Short-Term Resistance For Euro/USD Chart I-12EM Currencies Have Not Entered A Bull Market EM Currencies Have Not Entered A Bull Market EM Currencies Have Not Entered A Bull Market   Such technical profiles suggest that EM currencies have not yet entered a bull market despite the greenback’s considerable depreciation against DM currencies. This is a reflection of the poor fundamentals of EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan). In short, the odds of a US dollar rebound are rising. This could dent commodities prices and weigh on EM currencies. We continue recommending shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the euro, CHF and JPY. The downside in these DM currencies versus the greenback is limited. The euro could drop to 1.15, but not much below that level. Our basket of EM currencies to short includes: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, PHP, KRW and IDR. Chart I-13EM Local Currency Bonds: Looking For A Better Entry Point EM Local Currency Bonds: Looking For A Better Entry Point EM Local Currency Bonds: Looking For A Better Entry Point Fixed-Income Markets: We have been neutral on EM local currency bonds and EM credit markets (USD bonds) since April 23 and June 4, respectively. The strategy is to wait for a correction in these markets before going long. The rebound in the US dollar and correction in commodities will provide a better entry point for these fixed-income markets (Chart I-13). Equities: On July 30, we recommended shifting the EM equity allocation within a global equity portfolio from underweight to neutral. In the near term, EM share prices will likely continue underperforming their DM counterparts. A bounce in the US dollar, rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China, as well as the continuation of a FAANGM-driven mania in US equities will result in EM equity underperformance versus DM. However, in the medium- to long-term, the balance of risks no longer justifies an underweight allocation. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations