United States

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming operating metrics, a capex upcycle, rock bottom valuations and deeply oversold conditions all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish Big Pharma. Upgrade to neutral, today. A looming M&A boom, excess liquidity leaking into biotech stocks, extremely pessimistic Wall Street analysts’ forecasts and severe undervaluation, all suggest that now is the time to go against the grain and overweight biotech equities. Recent Changes Lift the S&P pharmaceuticals index to neutral and remove it from the high-conviction underweight list cementing gains of 12.6% and 10.3% respectively. Boost the S&P biotech index to overweight today. Both of these moves also lift the S&P health care sector to an above benchmark allocation. Table 1 Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Feature The bulls have taken full control of the equity market and propelled almost every index to fresh all-time highs despite a muted earnings season. Not only are the SPX, the DOW industrials and transports, the NASDAQ composite and the NASDAQ 100 all flirting with uncharted territory, but also more obscure indexes like the Value Line Arithmetic (gauging the average US stock) and Geometric (gauging the median US stock) indexes have also cleared the all-time high bar (Chart 1). On a stock level, bellwether AAPL – the largest stock in the world – has yet to make the leap to new highs despite a blowout profit report and gargantuan buyback announcement, which is cause for near-term concern. Given that the Fed orchestrated this once in a lifetime bonanza, it is also the Fed that can spoil this party, at least temporarily, by removing the proverbial punchbowl. Peering toward the back half of the year, our view remains that the Fed will have to relent and taper asset purchases as inflation will be rearing its ugly head not in a transitory, but more on a semi-permanent fashion. Importantly, the USD can further fan this inflationary impulse. Chart 2 shows that US real GDP expectations are trouncing the rest of the world (ROW) as we first showed in early March. Similarly the ISM manufacturing dichotomy compared with the ROW PMIs is as good as it gets. While this would typically call for a surge in the greenback, counterintuitively we think the path of least resistance is lower for the US dollar as the US economy reaches an inflection point versus the ROW mid-year. Crudely put, if the USD merely ticked up on such a wide economic differential, once Europe and Japan play catch up as the vaccine rollouts and economic reopening smoothen up, then investors will likely flee the US dollar. Chart 1All Time Highs Everywhere All Time Highs Everywhere All Time Highs Everywhere Chart 2Relative Growth Expectations At A Zenith Relative Growth Expectations At A Zenith Relative Growth Expectations At A Zenith With regard to stock market dynamics, this is welcome news for revenue growth, especially for internationally sourced SPX sales that garner a 40% share of total revenues. Since the US dollar floated in the early 1970s, the inverse correlation has increased between top line S&P 500 growth and the greenback (Chart 3). The implication is that a US dollar debasing from current levels will further boost the allure of companies that can raise selling prices. On that front our Corporate Pricing Power Indicator (CPPI) that we recently updated has been on a tear, underscoring that sales growth will soon follow suit (Chart 4). Chart 3Depreciating USD A Boon For SPX Sales Depreciating USD A Boon For SPX Sales Depreciating USD A Boon For SPX Sales Chart 4Rising Inflation Will Boost Revenues Rising Inflation Will Boost Revenues Rising Inflation Will Boost Revenues Tack on optimistic Chief Executives, and the picture brightens further for SPX revenue prospects. Inflation breakevens also corroborate the messages from our soaring CPPI and surging business confidence (Chart 4). One level down to the SPX GICS1 sector level, Charts 5, 6 & 7 highlight sales growth expectations, with deep cyclicals reigning supreme –especially the energy complex– and defensives the clear laggards (all sectors are compared with the broad market). On the early cyclical front, consumer discretionary equities are forecast to grow sales by 500bps more than the SPX, while financials are slated to trail the overall market by 500bps. Chart 5Consumer Discretionary… Consumer Discretionary… Consumer Discretionary… Chart 6…And Deep Cyclicals… …And Deep Cyclicals… …And Deep Cyclicals… Chart 7…Have The Upper Hand …Have The Upper Hand …Have The Upper Hand With regard to the contribution to SPX sales growth for calendar 2021, Table 2 details sector sales growth, sector sales weight, all ranked by sector contribution to SPX sales growth. Chart 8 highlights that consumer discretionary, energy and health care comprise roughly half of the increase in overall revenue growth for 2021. Adding industrials and tech to the mix and these five sectors explain 80% of this year’s projected top line growth contribution to the SPX. Table 2SPX GICS1 Sector Sales Analysis Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Chart 8Sector Contribution To 2021 SPX Sales Growth Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Drilling further into industry sub-groups and for inclusion purposes, Table 3 shows our universe of coverage, ranking GICS1 sectors by 12-month forward sales growth and then re-ranking by sub-groups always from highest-to-lowest. Table 3Identifying S&P 500 Sector Sales Growth Leaders And Laggards Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Sell In May And Go Away Or Hold And Pray? Circling back to investment implications and gelling everything together, what should investors do given this backdrop? If portfolio managers can stomach volatility and sail through the seasonally weak month of May, then holding the line and sitting tight is the appropriate strategy. However, if investors cannot stomach the bout of volatility that is likely looming, then playing some defense would make sense. We stand closer to the latter camp, and this week we take profits on a defensive group and lift exposure to neutral and boost another beaten down health care sub-group to overweight. These two moves also lift the S&P health care sector to an above benchmark allocation. Exiting The ER The bearish undertones haunting the S&P pharmaceuticals index are well ingrained in investors’ minds and our portfolio has also handsomely benefited from avoiding this key health care industry group. However, it no longer pays to be negative Big Pharma and today we book gains of 12.6% and lift exposure to neutral, and also take this index out of our high-conviction underweight list locking in gains of 10.3% since the early December inception. Chart 9 shows that likely all the adverse news is priced in rock bottom valuations and extremely oversold technical conditions. In fact, the pharma forward P/E ratio is trading at a 40% discount to the SPX and all time low since the GICS reclassification of sectors took place in the early 1990s! While such drubbing is warranted, as this defensive index has to contend an economy exiting recession and also a near unanimous outcry against industry pricing power gains, the easy money has been made on the short/underweight side. This de-rating has coincided with a collapse in relative forward profit growth, on a 12-month and five-year basis, both of which are probing all-time lows (Chart 10). The implication is that the EPS bar is so low it is nearly guaranteed that Big Pharma will surpass it. Such extreme pessimism is contrarily positive and if there is even a whiff of positive profit news, an explosive rally will take root. Chart 9Unloved And Under-owned Unloved And Under-owned Unloved And Under-owned Chart 10Analysts Have Given Up On Pharma Analysts Have Given Up On Pharma Analysts Have Given Up On Pharma Encouragingly, our macro EPS growth models signal that pharma profits have a strong pulse and will outshine the overall market in the coming year (Chart 11). We recently highlighted the near perfect inverse correlation of the relative share price ratio with the US leading economic indicator and the US ZEW. Similarly, we have shown in the recent past that a number of subcomponents of the ISM manufacturing survey also move inversely with pharma relative profitability. Now that the ISM is at a zenith, staying bearish pharmaceutical stocks will likely prove offside. Meanwhile, Chart 12 shows that the fed funds rate impulse is neither contracting nor weighing on relative share prices. Similarly, the bond market has already priced in two hikes in two years, warning that the relative share price ratio risk/reward tradeoff is slowly shifting to the overweight column. Chart 11Out Of The Ward Out Of The Ward Out Of The Ward On the operating front, Big Pharma is investing anew with capex gone parabolic (bottom panel, Chart 13). The last time pharma capital outlays rose over 20%/annum was in the early 1990s! Chart 12There Is A Pulse There Is A Pulse There Is A Pulse Chart 13Capex To The Rescue? Capex To The Rescue? Capex To The Rescue? Industry shipments are climbing roughly at a double digit clip and pharma output is also expanding smartly, underscoring that soon industry productivity will also ascend, which is a boon for profits (Chart 14). Tack on the export relief valve pharma manufacturers are enjoying of late, and factors are falling into place for an earnings led rebound in pharma equities (second panel, Chart 14). Finally, the top panel of Chart 15 highlights that demand for pharmaceuticals in as upbeat as ever and has been significantly diverging from relative share prices. The implication is that this steep gulf will narrow via a catch up phase in the latter. Chart 14Glimmers Of Hope Glimmers Of Hope Glimmers Of Hope Chart 15Upbeat Demand, But Deflation Is A Tough Pill To Swallow Upbeat Demand, But Deflation Is A Tough Pill To Swallow Upbeat Demand, But Deflation Is A Tough Pill To Swallow Nevertheless, before getting outright bullish this heavyweight health care sub-group, there are two significant (and related) offsets. Industry pricing power is under attack and will remain in duress until it reaches a new equilibrium (middle panel, Chart 15). As a result, pharmaceutical profit margins have been in an almost uninterrupted multi year squeeze, warranting only a neutral allocation to Big Pharma manufacturers, until these dark profit clouds clear (bottom panel, Chart 15). Netting it all out, firming operating metrics, a capex upcycle, rock bottom valuations and deeply oversold conditions all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish Big Pharma. Upgrade to neutral, today. Bottom Line: Crystalize gains in the S&P pharma index of 12.6% since inception and lift exposure to neutral. We are also removing it from the high-conviction underweight list locking in gains of 10.3% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHARX– JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, VTRS, PRGO. Buy Biotech Stocks Against The Grain We recommend investors buy the budding recovery in biotech stocks, and today we are boosting the S&P biotech index to an above benchmark allocation. Rising interest rates have dampened demand for biotech stocks as these high growth stocks should command a lower multiple on the back of a rising discount rate (top panel, Chart 16). Add on waning US dollar liquidity and the relative underperformance phase gets explained away (bottom panel, Chart 16). However, there still remains a sizable gap between relative profits and relative share prices. If our four-pronged bullish thesis that we detail below pans out, then a catch up phase looms in crushed biotech stocks (Chart 17). Chart 16Bearish Story Well Documented Bearish Story Well Documented Bearish Story Well Documented Chart 17Peculiarly Wide Gap Peculiarly Wide Gap Peculiarly Wide Gap First, we posit that this highly fragmented industry is prime for consolidation. Even in the large cap S&P 500 biotech index there is scope for M&A activity. Not only intra-industry mergers, but also cash rich and drug pipeline extension thirsty Big Pharma is lurking in the shadows ready to deploy their cash hoard. Already, there is an ongoing mini M&A boom and given the recent biotech firms’ success stories in the race to discover the COVID-19 vaccine, they command a high profile in investment banking board rooms (Chart 18). Second, as long as the Fed remains committed to ZIRP and margin debt balances continue to balloon, some of this excess liquidity will flow toward biotech stocks that are more speculative than their safe-haven health care brethren. Historically, relative margin debt balances and relative share prices have been joined at the hip, and the message from spiking margin debt uptake is to expect a similar rebound in biotech equities (Chart 19). Chart 18M&A Boom Is Bullish M&A Boom Is Bullish M&A Boom Is Bullish Chart 19Speculative Excesses Go Hand-In-Hand With Biotech Stocks Speculative Excesses Go Hand-In-Hand With Biotech Stocks Speculative Excesses Go Hand-In-Hand With Biotech Stocks Third, the sell side has thrown in the towel on the prospects of the S&P biotech index. Relative sales growth expectations are negative, relative 12-month and five-year forward growth numbers are sinking like a stone and probing all-time lows (Chart 20). All this analyst pessimism is gaining steam at a time when the S&P biotech dividend yield is 2.5%, roughly 100bps higher than the 10-year US Treasury yield and 125bps higher than the SPX dividend yield (bottom panel, Chart 20). Finally, not only the relatively large dividend yield gap signals that biotech stocks are cheap, but on a forward P/E basis the S&P biotech index trades at a whopping 50% discount to the SPX (fourth panel, Chart 20). Our Valuation Indicator has collapsed to levels that have marked prior bull phases going back 25 years and similarly technicals are as downbeat as ever (Chart 21). Chart 20Low Threshold To Overcome Low Threshold To Overcome Low Threshold To Overcome Chart 21Cheap And Oversold Cheap And Oversold Cheap And Oversold In sum, a looming M&A boom, excess liquidity leaking into biotech stocks, extremely pessimistic Wall Street analysts’ forecasts and severe undervaluation, all signal that now is the time to go against the grain and overweight biotech equities. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P biotech index to overweight, today. This upgrade along with the S&P pharma upshift to neutral also lift the S&P health care sector to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOTX– AMGN, ABBV, GILD, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, BIIB, INCY.       Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Overdose? Overdose? Size And Style Views February 24, 2021 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives January 12, 2021  Stay neutral small over large caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, ABNB, V). January 22, 2018 ​​​​​​​Favor value over growth

Highlights Last week featured a lot of good news for financial markets and the economy … : US GDP grew at 6.4% in the first quarter, powered by 10.7% growth in consumption; the six largest companies in the S&P 500 reported first quarter earnings that exceeded expectations by an average of 41%; and the Fed remained resolutely dovish. … and we continue to believe that they are likely to remain in our “just-right” base-case scenario over the next twelve months … : Our Goldilocks base-case scenario is underpinned by strong growth and accommodative monetary policy. Strong growth is assured as long as the virus doesn’t come roaring back, and the Fed still isn’t even talking about talking about tapering its asset purchases, much less hiking the fed funds rate. … so our risk-friendly asset allocation recommendations remain unchanged: There are no signs yet that equities and credit will not continue to generate significant excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Feature We will be holding a webcast next Monday, May 10th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time in lieu of publishing a Weekly Report. Please join us with your questions to make it a fully interactive event. We will resume our regular publication schedule on the 17th. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. – Robert Frost, “Fire and Ice”   We continue to view financial markets and the economy through the lens of our stylized Goldilocks-and-the-Two-Tails distribution (Figure 1). Though the figure gives short shrift to our subjective probability that the Goldilocks base-case scenario will unfold over the next twelve months (≈ 70-75%), and overstates the likelihood of a too-cold outcome (≈ 5-10%), the size of the too-hot right tail (≈ 20-25%) is roughly in line with our expectations. Last week’s spate of economic data, company earnings releases and Fed guidance supported our view and shored up our conviction in it. The twin pillars of well-above-trend growth and extremely accommodative monetary policy remain firmly in place. Figure 1Goldilocks And The Two Tails Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice Last week’s data were especially strong. Sticking to the highlights, and skipping the uncertain impacts of the measures President Biden floated before a joint session of Congress, the following items suggest that the just-right scenario is considerably more probable than not. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index surged higher (Chart 1, top panel) and given the way it tends to track the jobs plentiful sub-index (Chart 1, bottom panel), the road ahead looks good, provided that job openings rise as businesses still operating at limited capacity ramp up their operations. We have not found that consumer confidence is a robust predictor of key economic series, but the advance supports the notion that several elements are falling into place. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Is Surging ... Consumer Confidence Is Surging ... Consumer Confidence Is Surging ... Initial jobless claims for the week ended April 23rd made their third straight post-pandemic low and the four-week moving average extended its recent descent (Chart 2). The four-week moving average is poised to take another step lower next week once the 742,000 April 2nd reading falls out of the calculation (the last three weeks have averaged 568,000). Headline first-quarter GDP growth of 6.4% was strong, albeit just shy of consensus expectations, but the underlying details were better. Adjusting for the 2.6-percentage-point drag from inventory destocking, which will turn into a boost when inventories are replenished in the future, and backing out the 0.9-percentage-point trade deficit, real final domestic demand surged at an annualized rate of 9.9%. Chart 2... And Layoffs Are Steadily Falling ... And Layoffs Are Steadily Falling ... And Layoffs Are Steadily Falling On the corporate earnings front, the six largest S&P 500 constituents, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Tesla, all reported earnings that easily surpassed consensus expectations (Table 1). Those six companies account for 23% of aggregate index market cap and their beats drove projected per-share first-quarter earnings more than 7% higher, from $42.69 to $45.83. Even if the reports were not necessarily greeted by share-price gains, they have the index poised to deliver a fourth consecutive earnings beat of outsized proportions (Chart 3). Although the biggest companies’ successes in the calendar first quarter cannot blindly be extrapolated into the future, they suggest that S&P 500 earnings over the next four quarters will be greater than the market expected before last week. The beat goes on. Table 1Lifting All Boats Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice Chart 3Four Straight Quarters Of Eye-Popping Beats Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice The Fed Maintains Its Poker Face While the FOMC acknowledged that the economy has strengthened since its mid-March meeting, it showed no inclination to accelerate its timetable for dialing back accommodation. Though all four of the tweaks to its mid-March statement amounted to a marginal upgrade of its assessment of the economy’s current state and/or prospects, Chair Powell held fast to his messaging and the committee stayed the course on asset purchases. We continue to take the Fed at its word that it will not hike rates until the economy passes its “three tests” and it will not begin to taper asset purchases until it judges that the economy has made "substantial progress" toward meeting them. The picture has surely improved, but the inflation and employment criteria are not yet within reach. To recap, the Fed’s three preconditions for hiking the fed funds rate are as follows: 12-month PCE inflation must be 2% or higher. Labor market conditions must have reached levels consistent with maximum employment. 12-month PCE inflation must be on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time. Whether or not the economy has made substantial progress toward meeting those criteria is a squishier concept and the Fed has already given itself pre-emptive discretion on the first and most objective criterion by saying it will look through any transitory factors that push measured inflation higher. Powell called out base effects from last year’s pandemic wipeout that will disappear by June. He also cited supply-chain bottlenecks, and while he conceded that it is much harder to predict when they will be resolved, the committee is certain that they will prove to be a temporary phenomenon as well. “Full employment” is also a subjective metric, but the quarterly Summary of Economic Projections, released after every other FOMC meeting, provides a ready proxy. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues have calculated the average monthly net payroll gains required to reach the low end, the midpoint and the high end of the range of the participants’ long-run unemployment rate estimates, which currently span 3.5% to 4.5%, under various labor force participation rate assumptions (Tables 2A, 2B and 2C). We are focused on the top row of each iteration of the table because only a return to the pre-pandemic labor force participation rate of 63.3% would seem to satisfy the Fed’s stated commitment to achieving broad-based employment gains. While a return to the 3.5% pre-pandemic unemployment rate would also be consonant with spreading the gains from the expansion most broadly, it is useful to consider the full range of plausible outcomes given the Fed’s desire to retain some decision-making flexibility. Table 2AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice Table 2BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice Table 2CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Fire, Not Ice Fire, Not Ice Per our colleagues’ simple assumptions, it would require an average of anywhere from 701,000 to 833,000 monthly net payroll additions to hit full employment by the end of the year, 534,000 to 631,000 by the middle of 2022, and 410,000 to 487,000 by the end of 2022. The year-end 2021 targets are probably too ambitious, but we think the economy can return to full employment at some point next year, given that labor demand will likely rise sharply upon the release of pent-up consumption demand. As a back-of-the-envelope check on the tables’ conclusions, we take a return to pre-pandemic employment as the goal for a return to full employment. Through March, 8.3 million fewer people were employed than at the pre-pandemic peak in December 20191 (Chart 4). It would take fourteen months (May 2022) to regain full employment at an average monthly pace of 600,000 net hires or seventeen months (August 2022) to achieve that goal at a 500,000-per-month clip. Chart 4More Than 8 Million Workers Still Don't Have A Job More Than 8 Million Workers Still Don't Have A Job More Than 8 Million Workers Still Don't Have A Job A 500,000-to-600,000 range seems doable to us if herd immunity can be achieved before the end of the summer and we expect that the economy will return to full employment somewhere around the middle of next year. That will position the Fed to hike rates for the first time in 2022, in line with the market’s December 2022 lift-off projection, and announce the start of tapering at the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022. Those Fed views support our recommendations to maintain below-benchmark duration within fixed income portfolios and underweight Treasuries. Press Conference Highlights Jay Powell stayed on message at the post-meeting press conference, resisting every attempt to goad him into revealing more about the tapering timetable or expressing concern about the pickup in inflation and inflation expectations or the economy’s potential to overheat following unprecedentedly large fiscal stimulus. On Tapering Direct questions about tapering bookended the press conference and Powell batted them away directly and concisely. Opening question: Is it time to start talking about talking about tapering yet? A: No, it is not time yet. We’ll give the public plenty of notice when it is. Final question: What are we getting for $120 billion [of Treasury and agency purchases each month] that we couldn’t get for less? A: There will come a time to talk about talking about tapering. That time is not now. On Inflation (And Armchair Quarterbacks) The combination of strong fiscal support and the reversal of a synchronized (and unprecedented) global economic shutdown has the economy beginning to move ahead with potent momentum. The re-opening is likely to produce increases in inflation but we are fully cognizant that they are likely to be temporary. While we are not going to adjust monetary policy unnecessarily in response to temporary inflation pressures, we do not want inflation expectations “materially above” 2% and we will use our tools to bring them down if they were to reach those levels. Our commitment to our price stability mandate is the key difference between now and the late sixties and seventies and we’re well aware of the history of that period. On Transitory Inflation Factors Base effects are going to add about one percentage point to headline and 70 basis points to core inflation in April and May. They will disappear and “carry no implications for the rate of inflation in later periods.” Bottlenecks are a temporary blockage or restriction in the supply chain that slows down the process of delivering a good or bringing it to market. We think of them as things that will naturally be resolved as businesses and individuals adapt. They therefore do not call for a change in monetary policy even if it’s difficult to predict when they will disappear. For the bottlenecks, it’s “a matter of when they will pass through, not whether they will pass through.” What’s happening to prices now is a function of the re-opening of the economy. Demand, spurred by fiscal transfers and people going back to work, has come back much more quickly while the supply side will take a little bit of time to adapt. On Overheating/Bubbles The overall financial stability picture is mixed, but we view it as manageable on balance. There’s some froth in capital markets and strong home price appreciation is not an “unalloyed good,” but the housing market is much more stable than it was before the crisis. Leverage in the financial system is not a problem, the large banks are very well capitalized and don’t have any funding issues and households are in very good shape. Investment Implications Although our conviction levels are lower against a backdrop of unprecedented fiscal stimulus and the inherent uncertainty surrounding a global pandemic, we continue to hold to our view that overheating is unlikely in the near term. The output gap has still not closed and while households have an enormous amount of dry powder in the form of what we estimate to be $2.1 trillion of excess savings, some of 2020’s foregone services demand has been lost forever. The share of foregone demand that has been deferred rather than destroyed will not be released immediately and may well be spread out over a broad range of price points where there is available capacity (think flying business instead of coach, sitting in the best seats at the stadium or the theater, or ordering more expensive bottles of wine). Most importantly on the inflation front, broad wage pressures have not yet emerged. As Chair Powell noted, if the labor market really were tightening, one would expect wages to be rising. We expect that idled workers will return to the labor force as vaccinations proceed, schools reopen and the pandemic becomes less of an impediment to working. We are skeptical that the $300 weekly federal unemployment insurance benefit supplement is having a material effect on labor force participation, but the program will cease in September in any event. Chart 5Neither TIPS Inflation Break-Evens ... Neither TIPS Inflation Break-Evens ... Neither TIPS Inflation Break-Evens ... Chart 6... Nor CPI Swap Inflation Break-Evens Are Sounding The Alarm ... Nor CPI Swap Inflation Break-Evens Are Sounding The Alarm ... Nor CPI Swap Inflation Break-Evens Are Sounding The Alarm Our biggest inflation concern revolves around long-term inflation expectations. As long as economic actors like workers and businesses do not believe the long-run trajectory of consumer prices has changed, they have no reason to change their behavior to demand wage and price increases to keep pace with an upward inflection in the CPI. The slope of the two-to-five-year and five-to-ten-year segments of the inflation expectations curve remain negative (Charts 5 and 6), suggesting that the inflation mindset necessary to support an upward price spiral has not taken hold. We will not worry about the risk-asset bull market’s fiery demise until the 2-year/5-year and 5-year/10-year break-even slopes start to test the top of their post-GFC range, implying that investors believe a new inflation era has arrived.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Per the household survey. The monthly employment situation report also includes the establishment survey of employers. We use the household survey here because it is used to calculate the unemployment rate though the establishment survey’s 8.4-million employment shortfall is nearly equivalent to the household survey's.

What Does Our S&P 500 Dividend Discount Model Say? What Does Our S&P 500 Dividend Discount Model Say? Since 2017, we have been updating our SPX dividend discount model (DDM) every April when the previous year’s annual S&P 500 dividend payment is finalized from the Standard & Poor’s. Table 1 below summarizes the results of our analysis. Our dividend growth estimates in the DDM result in an SPX 4,047 fair value target. As a reminder, we have been and remain very conservative in our other DDM assumptions. In more detail, we assume that no buybacks will occur, a long-held assumption of ours, i.e. we pencil in a steady divisor in the coming five-year time frame. 2026 is our terminal year when dividend growth settles at 6.6%, 60bps below the long-term average (bottom panel). Our 8.2% discount rate also mirrors the corporate junk bond yield historical average (please click here if you would like to receive our DDM and insert your own assumptions, along with our EPS/multiple sensitivity and ERP analyses that can also be found in the following Strategy Report). Bottom Line: Our DDM corroborates the message that the SPX is fully priced and points to 4,047 as the fair value price. What Does Our S&P 500 Dividend Discount Model Say? What Does Our S&P 500 Dividend Discount Model Say?

Highlights Biden’s first 100 days are characterized by a liberal spend-and-tax agenda unseen since the 1960s. It is not a “bait and switch,” however. Voters do not care about deficits and debt. At least not for now. The apparent outcome of the populist surge in the US and UK in 2016 is blowout fiscal spending. Yet the US and UK also invented and distributed vaccines faster than others. US growth and equities have outperformed while the US dollar experienced a countertrend bounce. While growth will rotate to other regions, China’s stimulus is on the wane. Of Biden’s three initial geopolitical risks, two are showing signs of subsiding: Russia and Iran. US-China tensions persist, however, and Biden has been hawkish so far. Our new Australia Geopolitical Risk Indicator confirms our other indicators in signaling that China risk, writ large, remains elevated. Cyclically we are optimistic about the Aussie and Australian stocks. Mexico’s midterm elections are likely to curb the ruling party’s majority but only marginally. The macro and geopolitical backdrop is favorable for Mexico. Feature US President Joe Biden gave his first address to the US Congress on April 28. Biden’s first hundred days are significant for his extravagant spending proposals, which will rank alongside those of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, in their impact on US history, for better and worse. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal The global financial market appraisal is that Biden’s proposals will turn out for the better. The market has responded to the US’s stimulus overshoot, successful vaccine rollout, and growth outperformance – notably in the pandemic-struck service sector – by bidding up US equities and the dollar (Chart 1). From a macro perspective we share the BCA House View in leaning against both of these trends, preferring international equities and commodity currencies. However, our geopolitical method has made it difficult for us to bet directly against the dollar and US equities. Geopolitics is about not only wars and trade but also the interaction of different countries’ domestic politics. America’s populist spending blowout is occurring alongside a sharp drop in China’s combined credit-and-fiscal impulse, which will eventually weigh on the global economy. This is true even though the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in vaccinations and economic normalization. As for traditional geopolitical risk – wars and alliances – Biden has not yet leaped over the three initial foreign policy hurdles that we have highlighted: China, Russia, and Iran. In this report we will update the view on all three, as there is tentative improvement on the Russian and Iranian fronts. In addition, we will introduce our newest geopolitical risk indicator – for Australia – and update our view on Mexico ahead of its June 6 midterm elections. Biden’s Fiscal Blowout From a macro point of view, Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was much larger than what Republicans would have passed if President Trump had won a second term. His proposed $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) is also larger, though both candidates were likely to pass an infrastructure package. The difference lies in the parts of these packages that relate to social spending and other programs, beyond COVID relief and roads and bridges. The Republican proposal for COVID relief was $618 billion while the Republicans’ current proposal on infrastructure is $568 billion – marking a $3 trillion difference from Biden. In reality Republicans would have proposed larger spending if Trump had remained president – but not enough to close this gap. And Biden is also proposing a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s praise for handling the vaccinations must be qualified by the Trump administration’s successful preparations, which have been unfairly denigrated. Similarly, Biden’s blame for the migrant surge at the southern border must be qualified by the fact that the surge began last year.1 A comparison with the UK will put Biden’s administration into perspective. The only country comparable to the US in terms of the size of fiscal stimulus over 2019-21 so far – excluding Biden’s AJP and AFP, which are not yet law – is the United Kingdom. Thus the consequence of the flare-up of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world since 2016 is a budget deficit blowout as these countries strive to suppress domestic socio-political conflict by means of government largesse, particularly in industrial and social programs. However, populist dysfunction was also overrated. Both the US and UK retain their advantages in terms of innovation and dynamism, as revealed by the vaccine and its rollout (Chart 2). Chart 2Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? No sharp leftward turn occurred in the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservatives had the benefit of a pre-COVID election in December 2019, which they won. By contrast, in the US, President Trump and the Republicans contended an election after the pandemic and recession had virtually doomed them to failure. There a sharp leftward turn is taking place. Going forward the US will reclaim the top rank in terms of fiscal stimulus, as Biden is likely to get his infrastructure plan (AJP) passed. Our updated US budget deficit projections appear in Chart 3. Our sister US Political Strategy gives the AJP an 80% chance of passing in some form and the AFP only a 50% chance of passing, depending on how quickly the AJP is passed. This means the blue dashed line is more likely to occur than the red dashed line. The difference is slight despite the mind-boggling headline numbers of the plans because the spending is spread out over eight-to-ten years and tax hikes over 15 years will partially offset the expenditures. Much will depend on whether Congress is willing to pay for the new spending. In Chart 3 we assume that Biden will get half of the proposed corporate tax hikes in the AJP scenario (and half of the individual tax hikes in the AFP scenario). If spending is watered down, and/or tax hikes surprise to the upside, both of which are possible, then the deficit scenarios will obviously tighten, assuming the economic recovery continues robustly as expected. But in the current political environment it is safest to plan for the most expansive budget deficit scenarios, as populism is the overriding force. Chart 3Biden’s Blowout Spending Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s campaign plan was even more visionary, so it is not true that Biden pulled a “bait and switch” on voters. Rather, the median voter is comfortable with greater deficits and a larger government role in American life. Bottom Line: The implication of Biden’s spending blowout is reflationary for the global economy, cyclically negative for the US dollar, and positive for global equities. But on a tactical time frame the rotation to other equities and currencies will also depend on China’s fiscal-and-credit deceleration and whether geopolitical risk continues to fall. Russia: Some Improvement But Coast Not Yet Clear US-Russia tensions appeared to fizzle over the past week but the coast is not yet clear. We remain short Russian currency and risk assets as well as European emerging market equities. Tensions fell after President Putin’s State of the Nation address on April 21 in which he warned the West against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” Biden’s sanctions on Russia were underwhelming – he did not insist on halting the final stages of the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany. Russia declared it would withdraw its roughly 100,000 troops from the Ukrainian border by May 1. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny ended his hunger strike. Putin attended Biden’s Earth Day summit and the two are working on a bilateral summit in June. Chart 4Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue De-escalation is not certain, however. First, some US officials have cast doubt on Russia’s withdrawal of troops and it is known that arms and equipment were left in place for a rapid mobilization and re-escalation if necessary. Second, Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists will be emboldened, which could increase fighting in Ukraine that could eventually provoke Russian intervention. Third, the US has until August or September to prevent Nord Stream from completion. Diplomacy between Russia and the US (and Russia and several eastern European states) has hit a low point on the withdrawal of ambassadors. Fourth, Russian domestic politics was always the chief reason to prepare for a worse geopolitical confrontation and it remains unsettled. Putin’s approval rating still lingers in the relatively low range of 65% and government approval at 49%. The economic recovery is weak and facing an increasingly negative fiscal thrust, along with Europe and China, Russia’s single-largest export destination (Chart 4). Putin’s handouts to households, in anticipation of the September Duma election, only amount to 0.2% of GDP. More measures will probably be announced but the lead-up to the election could still see an international adventure designed to distract the public from its socioeconomic woes. Russia’s geopolitical risk indicators ticked up as anticipated (Chart 5). They may subside if the military drawdown is confirmed and Biden and Putin lower the temperature. But we would not bet on it. Chart 5Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Bottom Line: It is possible that Biden has passed his first foreign policy test with Russia but it is too soon to sound the “all clear.” We remain short Russian ruble and short EM Europe until de-escalation is confirmed. The Russian (and German) elections in September will mark a time for reassessing this view. Iran: Diplomacy On Track (Hence Jitters Will Rise) While Russia may or may not truly de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the spring and summer are sure to see an increase in focus on US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Geopolitical risks will remain high prior to the conclusion of a deal and will materialize in kinetic attacks of various kinds. This thesis is confirmed by the alleged Israeli sabotage of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility this month. The US Navy also fired warning shots at Iranian vessels staging provocations. Sporadic attacks in other parts of the region also continue to flare, most recently with an Iranian tanker getting hit by a drone at a Syrian oil terminal.2 The US and Iran are making progress in the Vienna talks toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018. Iran pledged to enrich uranium up to 60% but also said this move was reversible – like all its tentative violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) so far (Table 1). Iran also offered a prisoner swap with the US. Saudi Arabia appears resigned to a resumption of the JCPA that it cannot prevent, with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman offering diplomatic overtures to both the US and Iran. Table 1Iran’s Nuclear Program And Compliance With JCPA 2015 Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Still, the closer the US and Iran get to a deal the more its opponents will need to either take action or make preparations for the aftermath. The allegation that former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s shared Israeli military plans with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is an example of the kind of political brouhaha that will occur as different elements try to support and oppose the normalization of US-Iran ties. More importantly Israel will underscore its red line against nuclear weaponization. Previously Iran was set to reach “breakout” capability of uranium enrichment – a point at which it has enough fissile material to produce a nuclear device – as early as May. Due to sabotage at the Natanz facility the breakout period may have been pushed back to July.3 This compounds the significance of this summer as a deadline for negotiating a reduction in tensions. While the US may be prepared to fudge on Iran’s breakout capabilities, Israel will not, which means a market-relevant showdown should occur this summer before Israel backs down for fear of alienating the United States. Tit-for-tat attacks in May and June could cause negative surprises for oil supply. Then there will be a mad dash by the negotiators to agree to deal before the de facto August deadline, when Iran inaugurates a new president and it becomes much harder to resolve outstanding issues. Chart 6Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Hence our argument that geopolitics adds upside risk to oil prices in the first half of the year but downside risk in the second half. The market’s expectations seem already to account for this, based on the forward curve for Brent crude oil. The marginal impact of a reconstituted Iran nuclear deal on oil prices is slightly negative over the long run since a deal is more likely to be concluded than not and will open up Iran’s economy and oil exports to the world. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects the Brent price to exceed expectations in the coming years, judging by supply and demand balances and global macro fundamentals (Chart 6). If an Iran deal becomes a fait accompli in July and August the Saudis could abandon their commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. The Russians and Saudis are not eager to return to a market share war after what happened in March 2020 but we cannot rule it out in the face of Iranian production. Thus we expect oil to be volatile. Oil producers also face the threat of green energy and US shale production which gives them more than one reason to keep up production and prevent prices from getting too lofty. Throughout the post-2015 geopolitical saga between the US and Iran, major incidents have caused an increase in the oil-to-gold ratio. The risk of oil supply disruption affected the price more than the flight to gold due to geopolitical or war risk. The trend generally corresponds with that of the copper-to-gold ratio, though copper-to-gold rose higher when growth boomed and oil outperformed when US-Iran tensions spiked in 2019. Today the copper-to-gold ratio is vastly outperforming the oil-to-gold on the back of the global recovery (Chart 7). This makes sense from the point of view of the likelihood of a US-Iran deal this year. But tensions prior to a deal will push up oil-to-gold in the near term. Chart 7Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Bottom Line: The US-Iran diplomacy is on track. This means geopolitical risk will escalate in May and June before a short-term or interim deal is agreed in July or August. Geopolitical risk stemming from US-Iran relations will subside thereafter, unless the deadline is missed. The forward curve has largely priced in the oil price downside except for the risk that OPEC 2.0 becomes dysfunctional again. We expect upside price surprises in the near term. Biden, China, And Our Australia GeoRisk Indicator Ostensibly the US and Russia are avoiding a war over Ukraine and the US and Iran are negotiating a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Only US-China relations utterly lack clarity, with military maneuvering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and tensions simmering over the gamut of other disputes. Chart 8Biden Still Faces China Test Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) The latest data on global military spending show not only that the US and China continue to build up their militaries but also that all of the regional allies – including Japan! – are bulking up defense spending (Chart 8). This is a substantial confirmation of the secular growth of geopolitical risk, specifically in reaction to China’s rise and US-China competition. The first round of US-China talks under Biden went awry but since then a basis has been laid for cooperation on climate change, with President Xi Jinping attending Biden’s virtual climate change summit (albeit with no bilateral summit between the two). If John Kerry is removed as climate czar over his Iranian controversy it will not have an impact other than to undermine American negotiators’ reliability. The deeper point is that climate is a narrow basis for US-China cooperation and it cannot remotely salvage the relationship if a broader strategic de-escalation is not agreed. Carbon emissions are more likely to become a cudgel with which the US and West pressure China to reform its economy faster. The Department of Defense is not slated to finish its comprehensive review of China policy until June but most US government departments are undertaking their own reviews and some of the conclusions will trickle out in May, whether through Washington’s actions or leaks to the press. Beijing could also take actions that upend the Biden administration’s assessment, such as with the Microsoft hack exposed earlier this year. The Biden administration will soon reveal more about how it intends to handle export controls and sanctions on China. For example, by May 19 the administration is slated to release a licensing process for companies concerned about US export controls on tech trade with China due to the Commerce Department’s interim rule on info tech supply chains. The Biden administration looks to be generally hawkish on China, a view that is now consensus. Any loosening of punitive measures would be a positive surprise for Chinese stocks and financial markets in general. There are other indications that China’s relationship with the West is not about to improve substantially – namely Australia. Australia has become a bellwether of China’s relations with the world. While the US’s defense commitments might be questionable with regard to some of China’s neighbors – namely Taiwan (Province of China) but also possibly South Korea and the Philippines – there can be little doubt that Australia, like Japan, is the US’s red line in the Pacific. Australian politics have been roiled over the past several years by the revelation of Chinese influence operations, state- or military-linked investments in Australia, and propaganda campaigns. A trade war erupted last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and China’s handling of it. Most recently, Victoria state severed ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the rise in Sino-Australian tensions, the economic relationship remains intact. China’s stimulus overweighed the impact of its punitive trade measures against Australia, both by bidding up commodity prices and keeping the bulk of Australia’s exports flowing (Chart 9). As much as China might wish to decouple from Australia, it cannot do so as long as it needs to maintain minimum growth rates for the sake of social stability and these growth rates require resources that Australia provides. For example, global iron ore production excluding Australia only makes up 80% of China’s total iron ore imports, which necessitates an ongoing dependency here (Chart 10). Brazil cannot make up the difference. Chart 9China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions Chart 10China Cannot Replace Australia China Cannot Replace Australia China Cannot Replace Australia This resource dependency does not necessarily reduce geopolitical tension, however, because it increases China’s supply insecurity and vulnerability to the US alliance. The US under Biden explicitly aims to restore its alliances and confront autocratic regimes. This puts Australia at the front lines of an open-ended global conflict. Chart 11Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Our newly devised Australia GeoRisk Indicator illustrates the point well, as it has continued surging since the trade war with China first broke out last year (Chart 11). This indicator is based on the Australian dollar and its deviation from underlying macro variables that should determine its course. These variables are described in Appendix 1. If the Aussie weakens relative to these variables, then an Australian-specific risk premium is apparent. We ascribe that premium to politics and geopolitics writ large. A close examination of the risk indicator’s performance shows that it tracks well with Australia’s recent political history (Chart 12). Previous peaks in risk occurred when President Trump rose to power and Australia, like Canada, found itself beset by negative pressures from both the US and China. In particular, Trump threatened tariffs and the Australian government banned China’s Huawei from its 5G network. Today the rise in geopolitical risk stems almost exclusively from China. There is potential for it to roll over if Biden negotiates a reduction in tensions but that is a risk to our view (an upside risk for Australian and global equities). Chart 12Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) What does this indicator portend for tradable Australian assets? As one would expect, Australian geopolitical risk moves inversely to the country’s equities, currency, and relative equity performance (Chart 13). Australian equities have risen on the back of global growth and the commodity boom despite the rise in geopolitical risk. But any further spike in risk could jeopardize this uptrend. Chart 13Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets An even clearer inverse relationship emerges with the AUD-JPY exchange rate, a standard measure of risk-on / risk-off sentiment in itself. If geopolitical risk rises any further it should cause a reversal in the currency pair. Finally, Australian equities have not outperformed other developed markets excluding the US, which may be due to this elevated risk premium. Bottom Line: China is the most important of Biden’s foreign policy hurdles and unlike Russia and Iran there is no sign of a reduction in tension yet. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator supports the point that risk remains very elevated in the near term. Moreover China’s credit deceleration is also negative for Australia. Cyclically, however, assuming that China does not overtighten policy, we take a constructive view on the Aussie and Australian equities. Biden’s Border Troubles Distract From Bullish Mexico Story The biggest criticism of Biden’s first 100 days has been his reduction in a range of enforcement measures on the southern border which has encouraged an overflow of immigrants. Customs and Border Patrol have seen a spike in “encounters” from a low point of around 17,000 in 2020 to about 170,000 today. The trend started last year but accelerated sharply after the election and had surpassed the 2019 peak of 144,000. Vice President Kamala Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, both with Mexico and Central American states. She does not have much experience with foreign policy so this is her opportunity to learn on the job. She will not be able to accomplish much given that the Biden administration is unwilling to use punitive measures or deterrence and will not have large fiscal resources available for subsidizing the nations to the south. With the US economy hyper-charged, especially relative to its southern neighbors, the pace of immigration is unlikely to slacken. From a macro point of view the relevance is that the US is not substantially curtailing immigration – quite the opposite – which means that labor force growth will not deviate from its trend. What about Mexico itself? It is not likely that Harris will be able to engage on a broader range of issues with Mexico beyond immigration. As usual Mexico is beset with corruption, lawlessness, and instability. To these can be added the difficulties of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. Tourism and remittances are yet to recover. Cooperation with US federal agents against the drug cartels is deteriorating. Cartels control an estimated 40% of Mexican territory.4 Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s perennial problems, we hold a positive view on Mexican currency and risk assets. The argument rests on five points: Strong macro fundamentals: With China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse slowing sharply, and US stimulus accelerating, Mexico stands to benefit. Mexico has also run orthodox monetary and fiscal policies. It has a demographic tailwind, low wages, and low public debt. The stars are beginning to align for the country’s economy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. US and Canadian stimulus: The US and Canada have the second- and third-largest fiscal stimulus of all the major countries over the 2019-21 period, at 9% and 8% of GDP respectively. Mexico, with the new USMCA free trade deal in hand, will benefit. US protectionism fizzled: Even Republican senators blocked President Trump’s attempted tariffs on Mexico. Trump’s aggression resulted in the USMCA, a revised NAFTA, which both US political parties endorsed. Mexico is inured to US protectionism, at least for the short and medium term. Diversification from China: Mexico suffered the greatest opportunity cost from China’s rise as an offshore manufacturer and entrance to the World Trade Organization. Now that the US and other western countries are diversifying away from China, amid geopolitical tensions, Mexico stands to benefit. The US cannot eliminate its trade deficit due to its internal savings/investment imbalance but it can redistribute that trade deficit to countries that cannot compete with it for global hegemony. AMLO faces constraints: A risk factor stemmed from politics where a sweeping left-wing victory in 2018 threatened to introduce anti-market policies. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) and his MORENA party gained a majority in both houses of the legislature. Their coalition has a two-thirds majority in the lower house (Chart 14). However, we pointed out that AMLO’s policies have not been radical and, more importantly, that the midterm election would likely constrain his power. Chart 14Mexico’s Midterm Election Looms Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) These are all solid points but the last item faces a test in the upcoming midterm election. AMLO’s approval rating is strong, at 63%, putting him above all of his predecessors except one (Chart 15). AMLO’s approval has if anything benefited from the COVID-19 crisis despite Mexico’s inability to handle the medical challenge. He has promised to hold a referendum on his leadership in early 2022, more than halfway through his six-year term, and he is currently in good shape for that referendum. For now his popularity is helpful for his party, although he is not on the ballot in 2021 and MORENA’s support is well beneath his own. Chart 15AMLO’s Approval Fairly Strong Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) MORENA’s support is holding at a 44% rate of popular support and its momentum has slightly improved since the pandemic began. However, MORENA’s lead over other parties is not nearly as strong as it was back in 2018 (Chart 16, top panel). The combined support of the two dominant center-right parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party, is almost equal to that of MORENA. And the two center-left parties, the Democratic Revolution Party and Citizen’s Movement, are part of the opposition coalition (Chart 16, bottom panel). The pandemic and economic crisis will motivate the opposition. Chart 16MORENA’s Support Holding Up Despite COVID Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Traditionally the president’s party loses seats in the midterm election (Table 2). Circumstances are different from the US, which also exhibits this trend, because Mexico has more political parties. A loss of seats from MORENA does not necessarily favor the establishment parties. Nevertheless opinion polling shows that about 45% of voters say they would rather see MORENA’s power “checked” compared to 41% who wish to see the party go on unopposed.5 Table 2Mexican President’s Party Tends To Lose Seats In Midterm Election Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) Biden’s First 100 Days In Foreign Policy (GeoRisk Update) While the ruling coalition may lose its super-majority, it is not a foregone conclusion that MORENA will lose its majority. Voters have decades of experience of the two dominant parties, both were discredited prior to 2018, and neither has recovered its reputation so quickly. The polling does not suggest that voters regret their decision to give the left wing a try. If anything recent polls slightly push against this idea. If MORENA surprises to the upside then AMLO’s capabilities would increase substantially in the second half of his term – he would have political capital and an improving economy. While the senate is not up for grabs in the midterm, MORENA has a narrow majority and controls a substantial 60% of seats when its allies are taken into account. In this scenario AMLO could pursue his attempts to increase the state’s role in key industries, like energy and power generation, at the expense of private investors. Even then the Supreme Court would continue to act as a check on the government. The 11-seat court is currently made up of five conservatives, two independents, and three liberal or left-leaning judges. A new member, Margarita Ríos Farjat, is close to the government, leaving the conservatives with a one-seat edge over the liberals and putting the two independents in the position of swing voters. Even if AMLO maintains control of the lower house, he will not be able to override the constitutional court, as he has threatened on occasion to do, without a super-majority in the senate. Bottom Line: AMLO will likely lose some ground in the lower house and thus suffer a check on his power. This will only confirm that Mexican political risk is not likely to derail positive underlying macro fundamentals. Continue to overweight Mexican equities relative to Brazilian.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1 The market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd and as such our Geopolitical Risk Indicators were not designed to predict political risk but to answer the question of whether and to what extent markets have priced that risk. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator (see Chart 11-12 above) uses the same simple methodology used in our other indicators, which avoid the pitfall of regression-based models. We begin with a financial asset that has a daily frequency in price, in this case the AUD, and compare its movement against several fundamental factors – in this case global energy and base metal prices, global metals and mining stock prices, and the Chilean peso. Australia is a commodity-exporting country. It is the largest producer of iron ore and is among the largest producers of coal and natural gas. It is also a major trading partner for China. Due to the nature of its economy the Australian dollar moves with global metal and energy prices and the global metals and mining equity prices. Chile, another major commodity producer also moves with global metal prices, hence our inclusion of the peso in this indicator. The AUD has a high correlation with all of these assets, and if the changes in the value of the AUD lag or lead the changes in the value of these assets, the implication is that geopolitical risk unique to Australia is not priced by the market. We included the peso as Chile is not as affected as Australia by any conflict in the South China Sea or Northeast Asia, which means that a deviation of the AUD from CLP represents a unique East Asia Pacific risk. Our indicator captures the involvement of Australia in a few regional and international conflicts. The indicator climbed as Australia got involved in the East Timor emergency and declined as it exited. It continued declining even as Australia joined the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which showed that investors were unperturbed by faraway wars, while showing measurable concern in the smaller but closer Timorese conflict. Risks went up again as the nation erupted in labor protests as the Howard government made changes to the labor code. We see the market pricing higher risk again during the 2008 financial crisis, although it was modest and Australia escaped the crisis unscathed due to massive Chinese stimulus. Since then, investors have been climbing a wall of worry as they priced in Northeast Asia-related geopolitical risks. These started with the South Korean Cheonan sinking and continued with the Sino-Japanese clash over the Senkaku islands. They culminated with the Chinese ADIZ declaration in late 2013. In 2016, Australia was shocked again when Donald Trump was elected, and investor fears were evident when the details of Trump-Turnbull spat were made public. The risk indicator reached another peak during the trade wars between the US and the rest of the world. Investors were not worried about COVID-19 as Australia largely contained the pandemic, but the recent Australian-Chinese trade war pushed the risk indicator up, giving investors another wall of worry. If the Biden administration forces Australia into a democratic alliance in confrontation with autocratic China then this risk will persist for some time.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, And The Fate Of Liberty This book is a sweeping review of the conditions of liberty essential to steering the world away from the Hobbesian war of all against all. In this unofficial sequel to the 2012 hit, Why Nations Fail: The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty, Daron Acemoglu (Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and James A. Robinson (Professor of Global Conflict Studies at the University of Chicago) further explore their thesis that the existence and effectiveness of democratic institutions account for a nation’s general success or failure. The Narrow Corridor6 examines how liberty works. It is not “natural,” not widespread, “is rare in history and is rare today.” Only in peculiar circumstances have states managed to produce free societies. States have to walk a thin line to achieve liberty, passing through what the authors describe as a “narrow corridor.” To encourage freedom, states must be strong enough to enforce laws and provide public services yet also restrained in their actions and checked by a well-organized civil society. For example, from classical history, the Athenian constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes “were helpful for strengthening the political power of Athenian citizens while also battling the cage of norms.” That cage of norms is the informal body of customs replaced by state institutions. Those norms in turn “constrained what the state could do and how far state building could go,” providing a set of checks. Though somewhat fluid in its definition, liberty, as Acemoglu and Robinson show, is expressed differently under various “leviathans,” or states. For starters, the “Shackled Leviathan” is a government dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting the weak against the strong, and creating the conditions for broad-based economic opportunity. Meanwhile, the “Paper Leviathan” is a bureaucratic machine favoring the privileged class, serving as both a political and economic brake on development and yielding “fear, violence, and dominance for most of its citizens.” Other examples include: The “American Leviathan” which fails to deal properly with inequality and racial oppression, two enemies of liberty; and a “Despotic Leviathan,” which commands the economy and coerces political conformity – an example from modern China. Although the book indulges in too much jargon, it is provocative and its argument is convincing. The authors say that in most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Importantly, many states believe that once liberty is achieved, it will remain the status quo. But the authors argue that to uphold liberty, state institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of society change. Thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a precarious balance between state and society; between economic, political, and social elites and common citizens; between institutions and norms. If one side of the balance gets too strong, as has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. The authors central thesis is that the long-run success of states depends on the balance of power between state and society. If states are too strong, you end up with a “Despotic Leviathan” that is good for short-term economic growth but brittle and unstable over the long term. If society is too strong, the “Leviathan” is absent, and societies suffer under a pre-modern war of all against all. The ideal place to be is in the narrow corridor, under a shackled Leviathan that will grow state capacity and individual liberty simultaneously, thus leading to long-term economic growth. In the asset allocation process, investors should always consider the liberty of a state and its people, if a state’s institutions grossly favor the elite or the outright population, whether these institutions are weak or overbearing on society, and whether they signify a balance between interests across the population. Whether you are investing over a short or long horizon, returns can be significantly impacted in the absence of liberty or the excesses of liberty. There should be a preference among investors toward countries that exhibit a balance of power between state and society, setting up a better long-term investment environment, than if a balance of power did not exist.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan – Province Of China Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Footnotes 1 "President Biden’s first 100 days as president fact-checked," BBC News, April 29, 2021, bbc.com. 2 "Oil tanker off Syrian coast hit in suspected drone attack," Al Jazeera, April 24, 2021, Aljazeera.com. 3 See Yaakov Lappin, "Natanz blast ‘likely took 5,000 centrifuges offline," Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org. 4 John Daniel Davidson, "Former US Ambassador To Mexico: Cartels Control Up To 40 Percent Of Mexican Territory," The Federalist, April 28, 2021, thefederalist.com. 5 See Alejandro Moreno, "Aprobación de AMLO se encuentra en 61% previo a campañas electorales," El Financiero, April 5, 2021, elfinanciero.com. 6 Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2019, 558 pages. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar