United States

Dear Client, I will be on vacation next week. Instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan will explore the risks posed to commercial real estate and the banking system from work-from-home policies and the potential for urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The Nasdaq 100 index is up 31% since the start of the year. The “Awesome 8” stocks (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, and Tesla) have gained a staggering 59%. Will tech outperformance continue? There are five reasons to think it will not: 1) The dismantling of pandemic lockdown measures, hopefully facilitated by a vaccine later this year, could shift some spending from the online realm back to brick-and-mortar stores; 2) Interest rates are unlikely to fall much further, which will remove one of the tailwinds propelling tech outperformance; 3) Tech valuations are now quite stretched; 4) Many marquee tech companies have become so big that further gains in market share may be difficult to achieve; 5) Regulatory and tax policy changes could negatively impact a number of prominent tech names. A pivot in market leadership from tech to non-tech is likely to foster the outperformance of value over growth and non-US over US stocks. Are The Awesome 8 At Risk Of Becoming The Awful 8? After plunging alongside the rest of the stock market in March, tech stocks have roared back. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 is up 31% since the start of the year. The “Awesome 8” stocks (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, and Tesla) have gained a staggering 59% on a market cap-weighted basis. Meanwhile, the median US stock has lost 14% this year (Chart 1). Will tech outperformance continue? There are five reasons to think it will not: Reason #1: The dismantling of pandemic lockdown measures could shift some spending from the online realm back to brick-and-mortar stores The pandemic has led to a major reallocation of spending from brick-and-mortar stores to online retailers. Sales at US online stores increased by 25% year-over-year in July versus -1% at physical stores (Chart 2). According to Bank of America, after rising steadily from about 5% in 2009 to 16% in 2019, the US e-commerce penetration rate has jumped to 33%, representing more than ten years of growth in only a few months. Chart 1Awesome 8 Propelling Tech Stocks To New Highs Chart 2Will The Dismantling Of Lockdown Measures Bring Brick-And-Mortar Retailers Back To Life?   There is little doubt that we are still in the midst of a secular transition towards e-commerce. However, it is likely that the dismantling of lockdown measures – hopefully facilitated by the release of a vaccine later this year – will bring back some spending to brick-and-mortar stores. This could produce a temporary air pocket in sales for online sellers, a risk that does not seem to be fully discounted (Chart 3). Chart 3Online Retail Spending Could Slow, At Least Temporarily, As Shopping Malls Reopen Chart 4The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge Meanwhile, other tech companies that have benefited from the pandemic could face headwinds. Netflix saw its global subscriber count jump 27% in the second quarter relative to a year earlier. If someone did not bother to purchase a Netflix subscription in March or April, how likely is it that they will subscribe for the first time in September? Along the same lines, global PC and server shipments surged to multi-year highs earlier this year as millions of people were forced to work from home (Chart 4). This likely brought demand for computers and peripheral equipment forward, which could produce a spending vacuum over the next few quarters. Reason #2: Interest rates are unlikely to fall much further, which will remove one of the tailwinds propelling tech outperformance Technology companies are used to cutting prices on older models as newer, more innovative versions come to market. In this sense, deflation is built into their business models. Many tech companies also trade on long-term growth prospects, which means that changes in discount rates have a disproportionately greater impact on the present value of their cash flows than for slower growing companies. All this means that tech stocks tend to outperform in environments where inflation and interest rates are falling. Chart 5Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Financials We do not expect inflation to surge over the next two years. Nevertheless, the deflationary impulse from the pandemic is likely to abate as spare capacity is absorbed and overall demand recovers. Likewise, bond yields are likely to rise modestly over the next 12 months. Higher bond yields will benefit bank shares (Chart 5). Reason #3: Tech valuations have gotten increasingly stretched Based on full-year estimates, the Nasdaq 100 trades at 32-times 2020 earnings and 27-times 2021 earnings. The Awesome 8 stocks are even more pricey, trading at 43-time and 34-times this year’s and next year’s earnings, respectively (Table 1). Table 1Equity Valuations: Tech Versus Non-Tech Outside the IT sector, the S&P 500 trades at 26-times 2020 earnings and 20-times 2021 earnings. It should be noted that these numbers overstate how expensive the non-tech part of the S&P 500 index really is because Amazon resides in the consumer discretionary sector while Facebook, Google, and Netflix sit in the communication sector. In fact, only three of the Awesome 8 are in the S&P 500 IT sector (Tesla has yet to be admitted into the S&P 500, despite having a market cap that would now make it the 10th most valuable company in the index, right ahead of P&G).  While the PE ratio on tech stocks is still well below the nosebleed levels reached during the dot-com bubble, other valuation measures are approaching their prior peaks. The S&P 500 IT sector now trades at 6.2-times sales, not far below the peak price-to-sales of 7.8 reached in 2000. Tech stocks trade at 9.6-times book value, the highest level since early 2001, and more than double their peak valuation level in 2007 (Chart 6). Reason #4: Many marquee tech companies have become so big that further gains in market share may be difficult to achieve The Nasdaq’s lofty valuation presumes that earnings will continue to rise at a rapid pace for many years to come. That has certainly been true for the past decade. The Nasdaq 100 enjoyed annualized earnings per share growth of 16% since 2010, 2.5-times the pace of the S&P 500 index and 3.2-times faster than the non-IT constituents of the S&P 500. Indeed, most of the outperformance of tech stocks can be chalked up to their faster earnings growth (Chart 7). Chart 6Tech Stocks: Some Valuation Measures Are Quite Stretched Chart 7Most Of The Outperformance Of Tech Stocks Can Be Attributed To Faster Earnings Growth But will such earnings growth continue? That is far from certain. Bottom-up estimates foresee earnings per share among Nasdaq 100 members rising by 20% in 2021. This is actually below the projected earnings growth of 27% for the S&P 500. One sees a similar pattern within S&P 500 sectors: The IT sector is expected to see earnings growth of 15% in 2021 compared with 31% for non-IT sectors (Table 2). Table 2Earnings Growth Projections Admittedly, the faster projected earnings growth of non-tech companies in 2021 will constitute a reversal of this year’s pandemic-induced earnings collapse, from which tech was largely insulated. Thus, there is a base effect at work. Nevertheless, if most investors focus mainly on annual growth rates, they could become enamoured with non-tech stocks, at least temporarily. Looking further out, the rapid growth in tech earnings could decelerate as many of today’s marquee tech companies struggle to expand market share. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. New opportunities for growth will undoubtedly arise, but there is no guarantee that today’s leaders will be able to take advantage of them. History is littered with tech companies that failed to keep up with a changing world: RCA, Kodak, Polaroid, Atari, Commodore, Novell, Digital, Sinclair, Wang, Iomega, Corel, Netscape, Altavista, AOL, Compaq, Sun, Lucent, 3Com, Nokia, and RIM were all major players in their respective industries, only to fade into oblivion. Stock market investors were very lucky that companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Oracle, Amazon, and Netflix issued shares to the public at an early stage in their development (Table 3). All seven had market caps below $1 billion when they went public. Such hidden gems are becoming less common: The number of publicly listed companies in the US is still well below what it was two decades ago (Chart 8). The median age of tech companies at the time of their IPO has risen from around 7 years in the 1990s to 11 years in 2019 (Chart 9). Table 3Big Gains From Once Small Companies Chart 8The Number Of US Publicly Listed Companies Is Not What It Once Was   Chart 9Tech Companies Entering The Public Arena Are Now More Mature Reason #5: Regulatory and tax policies could negatively impact a number of prominent tech names Historically, the US government has taken a laissez-faire approach towards the tech sector. As an avowedly pro-business party, the Republicans were happy to espouse deregulation and low corporate taxes, while lauding Silicon Valley’s dynamism and global dominance. The Democrats also had a cozy relationship with the tech sector. As Chart 10 shows, political donations from tech company employees are heavily skewed towards Democratic candidates. Chart 10Tech Company Employees Donate Heavily Towards Democrats Things may not be as easy for the tech sector going forward, however. Conservatives have accused social media companies of stifling their voices. According to a recent Pew Research study, 53% of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of big tech companies, up from 42% in 2018 (Chart 11). For their part, Democrats have expressed concerns about the growing monopoly power of tech companies and their perceived insouciant attitude towards consumer privacy. Chart 11Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies A Biden administration would not be as tough on tech companies as say, an Elizabeth Warren administration. Nevertheless, Biden has said that breaking up big tech companies is "something we should take a really hard look at."1  He has also argued that online platforms should not be granted legal immunity for user-generated content. On the tax side, Biden has vowed to reverse half of Trump’s corporate tax cuts, while introducing a minimum 15% corporate tax. The latter could disproportionately affect a number of prominent tech companies that have taken full advantage of the current tax code to minimize their tax liabilities. Meanwhile, tech companies are increasingly finding themselves in the crossfire between China and the US. While Joe Biden would not be as quick to impose unilateral tariffs on China as Donald Trump, BCA Research’s  geopolitical strategists warn that the rivalry between the two nations will intensify over the coming decade as they reduce their economic interdependency and vie for military advantage in Asia.2 This could have adverse implications for tech firms’ ability to maximize global market share, never mind optimizing global supply chains. Pivot Towards Value And International Stocks Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, while financials dominate value indices (Table 4). Thus, it is not surprising that the relative performance of tech versus financial stocks has closely mirrored the relative performance of growth versus value stocks (Chart 12). If tech stocks shift from being leaders to laggards, value stocks will shift from being laggards to leaders. Table 4Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Chart 12The Relative Performance Of Tech Stocks Has Closely Mirrored The Relative Performance Of Growth Versus Value Chart 13The Valuation Gap Between Value And Growth Is Larger Today Than At The Height Of The Dot-Com Bubble Value stocks usually appear “cheap” in relation to growth stocks, but the valuation gap is much larger today than in the past – larger, in fact, than at the height of the dot-com bubble (Chart 13). Despite their name, growth stocks usually underperform value stocks when global growth is on the upswing (Chart 14). Provided that progress is made towards developing a vaccine, global growth should remain above trend over the next 12 months, giving value stocks a lift. Chart 14Growth Stocks Usually Underperform Value Stocks When Global Growth Is On The Upswing Value stocks also generally do better when the US dollar is weakening. Recall that tech stocks did phenomenally well in the late 1990s when the dollar was rising, but faltered during the period of dollar weakness from 2001 to 2008 (Chart 15). As we discussed last week, the dollar is likely to depreciate further in the months ahead. Chart 15Value Stocks Generally Do Better When The US Dollar Is Weakening   Chart 16Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker US Dollar Tend To Be Good News For Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth and a weaker US dollar tend be good news for non-US stocks (Chart 16). As US tech stocks enter a holding pattern, stock markets outside the US will assume the upper hand. Investors should reallocate equity capital towards value stocks and overseas stock markets. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Hunter Woodall, “2020 hopeful Biden says he’s open to breaking up Facebook,” The Associated Press, May 13, 2019. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “A Tech Bubble Amid A Tech War,” dated July 31, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

The Fed’s minutes earlier this week served as a catalyst for a mini pullback in equities, as the US dollar caught a bid. Unemployment insurance claims above the million mark added insult to injury and the odds are rising that this mini-risk off phase morphs into a steeper drawdown. Sentiment as measured by the CBOE’s put/call ratios (both the composite and the equity one) are extremely stretched and a snapback is likely looming. Historically, the equity put/call ratio and the SPX 12-month forward P/E are near perfectly inversely correlated. Both data series hover near previous extremes and warn that investor complacency reigns supreme (put/call ratio shown inverted, bottom panel). The implication is that given that equities are fully valued, any minor hiccups – especially on the (geo)political front – can cause a disproportionate fall in equities. Bottom Line: We would refrain from chasing stocks higher here, and choose to deploy fresh capital late in the year at a better entry point, as the US Presidential election uncertainty recedes.

Highlights The stock market can apparently ignore the intensifying US-China conflict as long as massive monetary and fiscal stimulus continues. Hence the ongoing “stimulus hiccup” is a big problem. Ultimately a stimulus bill will pass, but risks are rising that it will come too late or fall short in size. The longer the negotiations drag on, the more likely that the absence of fiscal support, the spiraling US-China conflict, US political instability, and other risks will take center stage and upset the equity rally. Assuming a new stimulus package will ultimately pass, it will fuel Trump’s tentative comeback in opinion polls, increasing the risk that the revolution in the global trading system gets a new lease on life. Thus volatility is likely to rise from here until the US succession is settled. Stay long JPY-USD and health stocks in the near term and bullion in the long term. Feature Two of the key views we have hammered since May are coming to fruition: Stimulus Hiccup: The White House and Congress are struggling to get a new relief bill passed. We have argued that the next round of fiscal stimulus would face execution risks that would cause equity volatility to rise again, which is now occurring (Chart 1). Ultimately we expect the Republican Senate to capitulate to a major new stimulus bill. But the very near term is murky and the negotiations pose a clear and present danger to an equity market that has now surpassed its pre-COVID-19 highs (Chart 2). Chart 1Volatility Is Bottoming, Will Rise Ahead Of US Election Chart 2Markets Recovered, Near-Term Risk To Downside US-China Conflict: The White House has revoked Chinese tech giant Huawei’s general license, leaving the company in thrall to periodic Commerce Department allowances that will impede business. It has also expanded punitive measures to a slew of subsidiaries and Chinese software companies like TikTok (ByteDance) and WeChat (Tencent). We have argued that President Trump’s electoral vulnerability and economic stimulus in both countries lowered the bar to conflict and decoupling. Both countries have an interest in reducing their interdependency and the COVID-19 crisis has given them an opportunity to make structural changes that were previously more difficult. Neither the US tech sector, nor China-exposed US stocks, nor Taiwanese equities are pricing this monumental geopolitical risk at present (Chart 3). Combining these two views results in a dangerous outlook for global risk assets in the near term. The reason we argued that US-China tensions would escalate to the point of disrupting markets this year was that we viewed domestic stimulus as lowering the economic and financial bar that prevented conflict. Hence US and Chinese confrontational steps could go farther than the market expected and eventually something would snap (Chart 4). Chart 3Market Ignores US-China Escalation Chart 4US And Global Stimulus Enable US-China Fight Yet today tensions are escalating despite the failure to arrange a new jolt of domestic stimulus. This is true on both sides, as China is also seeing a deceleration in stimulus provision, mainly on the monetary side, that we also expect to be temporary but nevertheless has negative implications in the near term. The longer fresh stimulus is delayed, the more likely that markets will respond to the historic breakdown in US-China relations, US political instability, and other risks to corporate earnings and the economic recovery. Constraints On Politicians Support Cyclical Recovery To be sure, there is evidence that politicians are aware of their limits and already heading back to the negotiating table. Even with talks ongoing, the risks of delayed stimulus or Chinese retaliation are substantial. First, the White House, House Democrats, and Senate Republicans are continuing to negotiate despite being on recess while hosting national party conventions this week and next. House members are rushing back to Washington to vote on measures to boost the US postal service amid a controversy over how to handle mail-in voting for the election amid the pandemic. This has opened a pathway for stimulus talks to get back on track. It could result in a “skinny” stimulus bill quickly, or otherwise new developments could lead to the roughly $2.5 trillion blowout that we expect based on the two sides splitting the difference on most issues (Table 1). Table 1Stimulus Bill Will Hit $2.5 Trillion If Democrats And Republicans Split The Difference Chart 5Trump’s Reelection Bid Stands On The Economy Second, the US and China are arranging to keep talking. Ostensibly they are checking up on the status of the Phase One trade deal. The Trump administration cannot easily walk away from this deal– unless Trump irredeemably becomes a lame duck making a desperate bid to turn the tables on the Democrats. To do so would hurt Trump’s credibility on renegotiating US trade deals and likely trigger a selloff in the stock market that could set back the economic recovery and remove the last leg that his reelection bid stands on (Chart 5). The Chinese, for their part, have stuck with the deal despite US punitive measures because they do not want to provoke Trump, lest he attempt to inflict maximum damage on their economy in his final months or in a second presidential term. The renminbi is not depreciating relative to the dollar, suggesting that the tenuous truce is intact for now (Chart 6). Chart 6Renminbi Signals Phase One Trade Deal Intact ... For Now Yet The Market May Sell Before Politicians Soften Their Line Nevertheless in the very near term investors have very low visibility on what happens next. Congress could still fumble and cause greater doubts. It could easily fail to reach a new stimulus deal until after September 8 when the Senate returns or September 14 when the House returns. President Trump’s executive orders, and negotiating gestures from Republicans, are a tenuous bridge for markets as they fall far short of even the Republicans’ $1 trillion asking price. The stock market will plunge if the talks collapse, but it will also drop if the stimulus falls short. The market may have to sell off to force politicians to provide stimulus and temper strategic competition. Trump’s complicated attempt to extend relief via executive orders, and/or a skinny deal that does not include direct rebates to households and funding for state and local governments, would be inadequate for the needs of the economy (Chart 7). It is imperative for Senate Republicans to capitulate and come closer to the Democrats $2.4 trillion standing offer (down from $3.4 trillion) – but it is possible they could miscalculate and fail to compromise. Democrats will not cave because they ultimately benefit at the ballot box if stimulus flops and financial turmoil returns. Chart 7US Economy Needs Extended Period Of Fiscal Support On the China front, it is not guaranteed that China will refrain from retaliation against tech companies like Apple that depend on China for their operations. The market is betting that a rally entirely based on the tech sector can be sustained even in the face of an expanding tech war between the world’s biggest economies (Chart 8). Yet China suffers an economic and strategic blow from the US imposition of a technological cordon and Xi Jinping could decide to retaliate immediately. He could come to believe that the risk of not retaliating – which would entail continuing economic recovery and possibly Trump’s reelection on an anti-China platform – is greater than the risk of retaliation and financial turmoil. He has the ability to stimulate the domestic economy and benefits if he sets a precedent that American presidents lose if they attack China. China may not turn to Taiwan immediately, but since 2016 we have highlighted that Taiwan, not Hong Kong, is the major geopolitical risk stemming from the US-China crisis. Saber-rattling, cyber-rattling, and punitive economic measures are picking up in the Taiwan Strait and could lead to a global geopolitical crisis at any time. Here, too, the base case is that China will remain in a holding pattern until after the US election. It also should use economic sanctions long before it resorts to the final military option (Chart 9). But there is a large risk of miscalculation as the US seeks to cut off Taiwan semiconductor trade with China while Taiwan reduces its economic dependency on the mainland and tightens its defense relations with the United States. The Trump administration presents a window of opportunity so the risks are elevated in the lead up to and aftermath of the US election. Chart 8Tech Bubble Amid Tech War An Obvious Danger Chart 9China's Economic Card May Be Only Thing Preventing War We do not view Chinese economic sanctions on Taiwan as a tail risk but rather as our base case. Of course, we eschew conspiracy theories and usually seek to curb enthusiasm over war risks, as with Sino-Indian saber-rattling. But Taiwan is the epicenter of the political, military, and technological struggle between Washington and Beijing. War is a tail-risk, but even minor clashes would have a major impact on global financial markets. Other Risks Come To Forefront Amid Stimulus Hiccup Chart 10Trump’s Comeback Substantial If Stimulus Passes, Pandemic Subsides The longer stimulus is delayed, the more likely that other risks will rise to the forefront and trouble the equity market. The US election does not offer much upside for markets at this point. Other risks stem from Iran and Russia. In the US election, President Trump is beginning to make a comeback in the opinion polling (Chart 10). Trump’s approval rating benefits from signing off on deals, so a final stimulus bill from Congress is essential. But a stimulus bill, a continued rollover in new cases of COVID-19, and a revival of support among his base would improve his odds of winning. Former Vice President Joe Biden is not polling much better against Trump than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did back in 2016 (Chart 11). Biden’s momentum in national opinion polling has been arrested, especially in battleground states, and the lower end of the “band of uncertainty” around the polling also suggests that Trump is within striking distance (Chart 12). Chart 11Biden Polling About Same As Hillary Versus Trump   Chart 12Trump Still Within Striking Distance Of Biden Our election model suggests that Trump has a 42% chance of winning, which is higher than our subjective 35% (Chart 13). We will upgrade if a stimulus bill is agreed. A Trump comeback may be received well by US equity markets – as it prevents tax hikes, re-regulation, higher minimum wages, and a federal push to revive labor unions, all promoted by Biden and the Democrats. But then again, Biden’s agenda is more reflationary, whereas Trump faces obstacles in a still-Democratic House, leaving global trade as the path of least resistance – which is market-negative. The dollar may bounce on the prospect of a Trump second term (Chart 14). Tech stocks, Chinese currency, and other cyclicals, such as the euro and European stocks, will suffer a setback if Trump is reelected. Chart 13We Give Trump 35% Odds, Quant Model Shows Upside At 42% Lesser risks, still notable, include Iran and Russia. Chart 14Trump Could Trigger Near-Term Dollar Bounce We have maintained that the US and Iran are in a bull market of geopolitical tensions and that this could result in crisis around the election. The US’s decision on August 20 unilaterally to maintain the expiring international conventional arms embargo on Iran is a clear trigger for a military incident. The macro and market implications are different and less dire than with a US-China crisis. But oil price volatility would rise due to regional instability, President Trump’s reelection bid could benefit, and that would carry the implication of expanding trade war with China. Meanwhile our expectation of sharply rising Russian geopolitical risk is materializing both within Russia and in relations with Europe, which is preparing sanctions over the suppression of dissent within both Russia and its satellite state Belarus. Russia is capable of interfering in the US election while a Democratic victory would likely lead to a US policy offensive against Russia. Investors must look beyond the short term. If stimulus is passed, the stock market will go up, but the US and China will be further enabled and ultimately their strategic showdown will cap the gains by harming the tech sector. Meanwhile, if the stimulus fails, then the market will plunge. Investment Takeaways At present the stock market seems prepared for Trump to remain in the White House – or for Republicans to retain the Senate. The market’s YTD profile matches that of past elections that result in gridlock, as opposed to the Democratic “clean sweep” scenario that we have flagged as the likeliest outcome (Chart 15). However, this profile will change, the market will correct, if Trump does not sign a new relief act. Assuming stimulus ultimately passes, markets will cheer and Trump’s comeback in the polls will get a boost. He could still lose the election, given fundamental political and economic weaknesses captured in our state-by-state quantitative model above. But the election itself would be more closely fought – with a contested outcome more likely to occur and roil markets. Finally a Trump victory would give a new mandate to the US-China breakdown and the revolution in the global trading system, which is ultimately negative for risk assets and the cyclical recovery. Hence our confidence that the next few months will be marked by volatility. Ultimately geopolitical and macro fundamentals are negative for the dollar even if Trump provides the occasion for a last gasp in the past decade’s dollar bull market. The US is monetizing its debt and flooding the world with dollar liquidity. Meanwhile China and other powers are diversifying away from the dollar and into gold, the euro, the yen, and other reserve currencies over the long run (Chart 16). Chart 15Dollar Outlook Bearish In Medium Term Chart 16Stock Market Preparing For Trump Win And More Gridlock? The great US fiscal debate is over, regardless of Trump or Biden, as populism has made austerity impracticable and massive twin deficits will ensue. Thus we remain long gold and the Japanese yen. We have refrained from re-initiating our long EUR-USD trade given our expectation of stimulus hiccups and US-China tensions, but will reconsider if and when these hurdles are cleared. Our strategic portfolio continues to expect a global recovery over the next twelve months and beyond but tactically we are positioned against downside risks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear clients, The Foreign Exchange Strategy will take a summer break next week. We will resume our publication on September 4th. Best regards, Chester Ntonifor, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature The economy of Hong Kong SAR1 has been held under siege by two tectonic forces. With the highest share of exports-to-GDP in the world, and at very close proximity to China, the epicenter of the pandemic shock, economic growth has been knocked down hard. The second shock to Hong Kong’s economy has been political instability. The extradition bill that was proposed in February 2019, followed by the enactment of the national security law this past June, has been accompanied by cascading street-wide protests and social unrest. The spirit of the bill is that crimes committed in Hong Kong can be trialed in China. The US has moved to impose sanctions on Hong Kong, as it no longer sees the city-state as autonomous, the latest of which is revoking its extradition treaty with the former colony. Some commentators have defined this as the end of the one country, two systems socio-economic model that has been in place since the handover from British rule in 1997. From a currency perspective, these shocks put in question the sustainability of the Hong Kong dollar (HKD) peg. Historically, currency pegs more often than not fail, especially in the midst of both geopolitical and economic turmoil. This was the story of the Asian Financial crisis in the late 1990s, and the Mexican peso crisis earlier that decade. Is the Hong Kong dollar destined for the same fate? If so, what are the potential adjustments in the exchange rate? Finally, what indicators can investors look to as a guide for any pending adjustment? A Historical Perspective Chart 137 Years Of Stability The HKD is no stranger to shifting exchange-rate regimes. Over the last 170 years, it has been linked to the Chinese yuan, backed by silver, pegged to the British pound, free-floating, and, since 1983, tied to the US dollar. Therefore, a bet on the unsustainability of the peg is historically justified. That said, the stability of the peg to the US dollar has survived 37 years of economic volatility, suggesting the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has been able to successfully navigate a post-Bretton Woods currency era (Chart 1).   Beginning as a bi-metallic monetary regime in the early 19th century, the HKD was initially linked to gold and silver prices, akin to the commodity–monetary standard that dominated that era. When Britain colonized Hong Kong in 1841, and as new trade alliances developed, the drawbacks of the bi-metallic monetary standard became apparent. As bilateral trade boomed, adjustments to imbalances (surpluses or deficits) could not occur through the exchange rate since it was fixed. Therefore, they had to occur through the real economy. This led to very volatile and destabilizing domestic prices. The stability of the peg to the US dollar has survived 37 years of economic volatility. Most Anglo-Saxon countries finally converted from bi-metallic exchange rates to the gold standard in the late 1800s, and strong ties to China dictated that Hong Kong naturally adopted the silver dollar in 1863. However, the silver system had the same drawbacks as the bi-metallic standard. Specifically, when your money supply is fixed, any increase in output leads to “few dollars chasing many goods.” This is synonymous with falling prices, just as “many dollars chasing few goods” is synonymous with rising inflation. The petri dish for this phenomenon was the post-World War I construction boom. A fixed money supply under the gold (and silver) standard meant rapidly falling prices globally. By the late 1920s, most countries had overvalued exchange rates relative to gold (and silver), that exerted powerful deflationary forces on their domestic economies. This forced most Western governments to debase fiat money vis-à-vis gold to stop price deflation. Correspondingly, China had to abandon the silver standard in November 1935, with Hong Kong shortly following suit. At the time of debasement, the United Kingdom was the leading economic power. As a colony, it made sense for the Hong Kong government to link the HKD to the British pound. The established rate was GBP/HKD 16, giving birth to the currency board system (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as a trading hub, a peg with an international currency made sense. The problems there were two-fold. First, the pound was still gold-linked. And second, Britain’s subsequent decline in economic power was accompanied by a series of sudden and dramatic devaluations in the pound, which was hugely disruptive to Hong Kong’s financial system. By 1972, the British government decided to float the pound, which effectively ended the GBP/HKD peg. Chart 2A History Of The HKD Peg In July 1972, the authorities made the decision to peg the Hong Kong dollar to the US dollar at USD/HKD 5.65, which was another policy mistake. The switch made sense given the rising economic power of the US, as well as rising trade links (Chart 3). However, the dollar was also under a crisis of confidence following the Nixon devaluation in 1971. In February 1973, the HKD was freely floated. Chart 3The Peg Is Usually Against The Dominant Economic Power Counter-intuitively, the free-floating era for HKD was arguably the most volatile for its domestic economy. For one, discipline in monetary policy was gone. Money and credit growth exploded, inflation hit double-digits, home prices soared and the trade balance massively deteriorated. Political instability was also rife, given the uncertainty surrounding the end of British claims on the island. As the dialogue included China’s reclaim of political control over Hong Kong, there was uncertainty over the rule of law. This cocktail of political and economic uncertainty led to a 33% depreciation in the HKD between mid-1980 and October 1983. Panicked policymakers returned to the US dollar peg. Paul Volcker, then Federal Reserve chairperson, was establishing himself as the world’s most credible central banker, having dropped US inflation from almost 15% in 1980 to below 3% by 1983. Economic and financial links with the US also justified a peg. In August of 1983, the authorities announced a USD/HKD fixed rate of 7.80, which has remained in place since. The Current Peg: Advantages And Disadvantages Chart 4Fiscal Prudence In Hong Kong The advantage of the HKD peg is that the choice of the nominal anchor, the US dollar, renders it credible. First, the US dollar is an international reserve currency dominating international trade, which helps to facilitate settlements while instilling confidence among transacting participants. As a financial hub, this is crucial for Hong Kong. Meanwhile, such an anchor imposes fiscal discipline, since government deficits cannot be monetized by money printing. In the case where the government tries to be profligate, the rise in inflation will lower real rates and lead to capital outflows. This will force the HKMA to sell US dollars and absorb local currency. In the extreme case, the central bank can run out of reserves, causing the peg to collapse. Indeed, over the past several years, government debt in Hong Kong has been close to nil (Chart 4). The drawback of a fixed exchange rate regime is that a country or a region relinquishes control over independent monetary policy. In the case of Hong Kong, this means that interest rates are determined by the actions of the US Fed. Such a marriage was justified when the business cycles between the two economies were in sync, but in times of economic divergences, the fixed exchange rate leads to economic volatility. Chart 5Currency Peg And Internal Devaluation Chart 6Hong Kong Interest Rates In The Late 90's This divergence was clearly evident in the 1990s, as falling interest rates in the US supercharged a housing and stock market bubble in Hong Kong. When the Asian crisis finally came around in 1997, the lack of exchange-rate flexibility led to a vicious internal devaluation (Chart 5). A prolonged period of high unemployment and stagnant wages was needed for Hong Kong to finally improve its competitiveness. Most importantly, in 1998, in the depths of the Asian financial crisis, the peg attracted a concerted attack from speculators who believed a devaluation of the Hong Kong dollar alongside other regional currencies was inevitable. Their assault inflicted considerable pain, driving short-term HKD interest rates (Chart 6) and wiping out over a quarter of the local stock market in a matter of weeks. At the time, the Hong Kong government was successful in fending off the speculative attacks by intervening massively in both the foreign exchange and equity markets. Is An Adjustment Pending? If So, When?      Chart 7USD/HKD And Interest Rate Spreads As the above narrative suggests, the HKD is no stranger to socio-economic shocks and speculative attacks, and it has, more recently, weathered them pretty well. The more immediate question is whether the shift in the political landscape could be potent enough to crack the peg this time around. While plausible, it is unlikely for a few reasons. First, the HKD continues to trade on the stronger side of the peg as US interest rates have collapsed, wiping off any positive carry that would have catalyzed outflows. Fluctuations in the USD/HKD within the 7.75-7.85-band track the Libor-Hibor spread pretty closely (Chart 7). A currency board has unlimited ability to defend the strong side of the peg, since it can print currency and absorb foreign reserves (print HKDs and use these to buy USDs in this case). On the weak side, these foreign exchange reserves are drawn down. Therefore, any threat to the peg should be preceded by consistent trading on the weaker side, questioning the HKMA’s ability to keep selling FX reserves to defend the peg. Fluctuations in the USD/HKD within the 7.75-7.85-band track the Libor-Hibor spread pretty closely. Second, the Hong Kong peg remains extremely credible, since the entire monetary base is backed over two times by FX reserves (Chart 8). Even as a percentage of broad money supply, Hong Kong reserves are ample and very high by historical standards (Chart 8, bottom panel). Meanwhile, since 1983, the currency board system has undergone a number of reforms and modifications, allowing it to adapt to the changing macro environment. This represents a powerful insurance policy for the HKMA’s ability to defend the currency peg, significantly enhancing the system’s credibility. Chart 8Ample Foreign Exchange Reserves Chart 9Hong Kong Runs Recurring Surpluses Third, ever since the peg was instituted, Hong Kong has mostly run budget surpluses. As a result, government debt in Hong Kong is almost non-existent, as we illustrate above. This has removed any incentive to monetize spending, which remains an open argument in the US, Japan or even the euro area. One of our favored metrics on the health of a currency is the basic balance, and on this basis, Hong Kong scores much more favorably than the US. While Hong Kong has transitioned from being a goods exporter to that of services, it remains extremely competitive, with a healthy current account surplus of 5% of GDP (Chart 9). These recurring surpluses have propelled Hong Kong to one of the biggest creditors in the world, with a net international investment position that is a whopping 430% of GDP and rising (Chart 10).   Chart 10Hong Kong Is A Net Creditor To The World Fourth, over the past few years, productivity in Hong Kong has outpaced that of the US and most of its trading partners (Chart 11). This has lifted the fair value of the currency tremendously. This means it is more like that when the peg adjusts, the outcome will be HKD appreciation. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the HKD is not that overvalued compared to the US dollar, after accounting for the massive increase in relative productivity (Chart 12). It is notable that during the Asian financial crisis, currencies like the Thai bhat were massively overvalued, which is why the adjustment was back down toward fair value. Chart 11Hong Kong Is Highly Productive Chart 12Trade-Weighted HKD Is Slightly Expensive Fifth, there is a strong incentive for both Beijing and Hong Kong to defend the peg, because the relevance of Hong Kong is no longer as a shipping port, but as a financial center. The peg reduces volatility, as transactions are essentially dollarized. The relevance of Hong Kong in Asia can be seen by looking at the market capitalization of the Hang Seng index compared to that of the Topix index in Tokyo or the Shanghai Composite index. Any escalation in the US-China trade war, especially in the technology sphere, will only lead to more listings on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Equity flows through the HK-Shanghai and HK-Shenzhen stock connect program are rising, suggesting the market still considers Hong Kong an important intermediary in doing business with China (Chart 13).  On the political front, the most potent risk is that the US Treasury moves to unilaterally limit access to US dollars by Hong Kong banks. While this was discussed by President Trump’s top advisers, it was also dismissed as unwise due to the potential shock to the global financial system. Meanwhile, with massive swap lines with the Fed, Hong Kong’s international banks can always draw on US liquidity. Tariffs on Hong Kong goods are another option, but this again will not really deal a severe blow to the peg, since Hong Kong mainly re-exports, with very little in the way of domestic goods exports (Chart 14). Chart 13Hong Kong Is An Important Financial Center Chart 14Hong Kong Is Partially Insulated From Tariffs   Property Market Blues The property market is the one area in Hong Kong where a sanguine view is difficult to paint. Hong Kong is one of the most unaffordable cities on the planet, and high income inequality has been a reason behind resident angst. The gini coefficient, a measure of inequality in a society, is more elevated in Hong Kong compared to Singapore, China or even South Africa. After years of loose monetary policy, property prices in Hong Kong have completely decoupled from fundamentals. Housing is even more unaffordable now than it was back in 1997, and domestic leverage is very high. With such a high debt stock, even a gradual uptick in interest rates will have a significant impact on the debt service burden (Chart 15). Stocks and real estate prices are positively correlated, suggesting deleveraging pressures will likely be quite high if both unravel (Chart 16). Chart 15High Debt Service Burden##br## In Hong Kong Chart 16Hong Kong Stocks Are Tied To The Property Market However, there are offsetting factors. First, it is unlikely that interest rates in Hong Kong (or anywhere in the developed world for that matter) will rise anytime soon. COVID-19 has provided “carte blanche” in terms of global stimulus. More importantly, the US is at the forefront of this campaign, meaning interest rates in Hong Kong will remain low for a while. Second, in recent history, Hong Kong has proven that it has the resilience to handle volatility in the property markets. During the Asian crisis, property prices fell by 60%, yet no bank went bust. Share prices also collapsed but are much higher today, suggesting the drop was a buying opportunity. And with such a low government debt burden, any systemic threat to banks will nudge the authorities to bail out important companies and sectors. In terms of asset markets, the performance of the Hang Seng index relative to the S&P 500 is purely a function of interest rates. The US stock market is dominated by technology and healthcare that do well when interest rates fall, while banks and real estate dominate the Hong Kong market. So rising rates hurt the US stock market much more than Hong Kong (Chart 17). Meanwhile, the recent turmoil has made Hong Kong assets very cheap relative to its sister-city, Singapore (Chart 18). This suggests that a lot of the potential equity outflows have already occurred, based on today’s situation. Chart 17Interest Rates And The Hong Kong Stock Market Chart 18Hong Kong Has Cheapened Relative To Singapore The Future Of The Peg A peg to the Chinese RMB makes sense. The Hong Kong economy is now heavily tied to the Chinese economy, with over 50% of exports going to China (previously mentioned Chart 3). However, that will sound the death knell for Hong Kong’s status as a financial center, since the US dollar remains very much a reserve currency. There is also a risk that if Beijing uses RMB depreciation as a weapon in a blown-out confrontation with the US in the coming years, it will threaten the sustainability of the HKD peg, since it could inflate asset bubbles. What is more likely is that the option of re-pegging to the RMB comes many years down the road, when the yuan has become a fully convertible currency. The recent turmoil has made Hong Kong assets very cheap relative to its sister-city, Singapore. There is the option to assume another currency board akin to Singapore. This option makes sense, since this would give the HKMA scope to link to cheaper currencies, such as the yen and euro. Such an overhaul will require significant technical expertise and political will from both Beijing and Hong Kong. It is not very clear what the cost/benefit outcome would be of this initiative, but it is worth considering since the RMB itself is managed against other currencies. Finally, there is always the option to fully float the peg, but this is likely to increase volatility. As well, for policymakers, it makes sense to continue pegging the exchange rate to the US dollar as it depreciates against major currencies, since it ends up easing financial conditions for Hong Kong concerns.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China  Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights We expect limited upside to gas prices from current levels as the comeback of US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports will add to an already oversupplied market. In the short term, prices will remain below full-cycle costs. This will limit investment in LNG and the infrastructure required to get it to market in future. European storage will peak below maximum capacity. Gas forwards are pricing a rapid drawdown over the winter. Whether this occurs depends critically on winter demand in the northern hemisphere and a continued recovery in world economic activity. In the US, declining production in the prolific natural-gas shales and rising LNG exports will help balance its domestic gas markets: Rig counts in the Appalachian basin are at multiyear lows, which is weighing on output. Collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is dramatically reducing associated gas output, which represents more than 16% of total gas production. Still, a second wave of COVID-19 that results in another round of widespread lockdowns could send natgas prices back below $2/MMBtu as storage fills. Over the next few months, the balance of risk in natgas markets – especially in the US – remains to the downside, though highly uncertain. We are staying on the sidelines for now.  Over the medium term, global demand for LNG will catch up with supply by 2024, supported by additional coal-to-gas switching and slower supply growth. Feature The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. Global natural gas markets have been severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Natgas prices in Asia, Europe, and the US were amongst the worst performing commodities during the crisis (Chart 1). This reflects weak fundamentals – i.e. a significant global supply surplus – which gas markets faced even before the exogenous shock. The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. This development renders shipments of US gas overseas uneconomical. The cancellation of US cargoes is acting as the primary balancing factor and will allow inventories to stay below full capacity – assuming global economic activity continues to accelerate in 2H20. Henry Hub prices surged by 34% since the beginning of the month on the back of higher gas demand – from warmer-than-normal weather and rebounding global economic activity – depressed US LNG exports, and prolonged maintenance at Australia’s Gorgon plant. Chart 1Global Gas Benchmarks Collapsed In 1H20 Chart 2Relative Prices Will Favor Additional US LNG Exports As storage-related fears abate, LNG economics is turning favorable for cargoes to be delivered in 4Q20 and 1Q21. This will allow exports of US gas to Europe and Asia to resume as regional demand rises. This improvement is already apparent in relative futures curves (Chart 2). Still, we expect only limited price gains from current levels, especially in the US. The resurgence in US LNG exports will add to the global supply surplus and cap the upside. Relative prices will remain below LNG offtakers' (exporters) full-cycle costs, limiting additional investments in LNG projects over the medium term. We expect demand to catch up to supply by 2024. Gas Fundamentals Worsened In 2019 Global gas demand increased by 2% y/y in 2019, led by growth in the US and China as coal-to-gas switching intensified amid the low-price environment (Chart 3). However, this rate of growth is a marked slowdown relative to the average 3.5% y/y growth from 2016-2018. It was also slower than the strong global supply growth – up 3.4% y/y – and LNG export growth – up 12.7% y/y. Chart 3US, China Supported Gas Demand Growth In 2019 The US was the largest contributor to both new gas and LNG supply, accounting for 65% of the world’s incremental gas production (Chart 4). The liquefaction capacity addition from the first wave of investments – i.e. projects that received a final investment decision (FID) before 2017 – is now mostly operational. Chart 4US Dominated Natgas Supply And LNG Growth In 2019 US LNG capacity stands at ~10 Bcf/d and serves as a needed pressure valve to its oversupplied domestic market – a consequence of rapid shale production growth – forcing the excess gas to Europe and Asia. However, the economic slowdown in Asia in 2H19 meant the region could no longer adequately absorb these new volumes. As a result, global gas markets moved to a supply-surplus. Relative gas price spreads began trending downward and moved in favor of exports to Europe over Asia.1 Europe plays a growing role as a market of last resort for global natural gas – particularly US LNG – due to its well-developed storage infrastructure, regasification units, and pipeline networks. Around 80% of LNG exports from newly added terminals were absorbed by European markets, and most of that went into storage. Around 40% of the global natural gas supply increase last year ended up in storage, according to the IEA (Chart 5). Moreover, milder-than-expected weather last year exacerbated these trends and forced global prices to converge closer to Henry Hub. Chart 5European Storage Absorbed ~ 40% Of Global Gas Supply Growth By the end of 2019, gas storage in Europe was drastically higher than its 5-year average for that period (Chart 6). Chart 6Elevated US And Europe Gas Storage European Storage Will Stay Below Capacity-Testing Levels Cargo cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Global gas markets confronted the COVID-19 pandemic from a fragile starting point. The shock reinforced the imbalances that began in 2019 and completely erased US LNG’s competitiveness in European and Asian markets. As demand fell in response to lockdowns – down 2.8% in the US and 7% in Europe y/y in Jan-May by IEA’s reckoning – storage in Europe was projected to reach full capacity by end-August.2 Consequently, in June, natural gas prices plunged to a more than two-decade low to incentivize supply and demand adjustments. Around 100 LNG cargoes from the US were cancelled for delivery in June and July, based on EIA estimates (Chart 7). US LNG supply is now the main balancing factor in global gas markets: It is a high-cost source of supply when delivered to Europe or Asia and is contracted under more flexible agreements facilitating cargo cancellations. Over the short term, the number of vessels cancelled each month is an important indicator of storage availability in Europe. The decision to cancel a cargo is complex but mainly depends on whether the spreads between US Henry Hub (HH) and Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) or Japan Korea Marker (JKM) prices cover the exporter's variable costs. Based on a Cheniere-type contract,3 this implies the spread must be higher than 115% of Henry Hub prices plus shipping and regasification costs (Chart 2). Chart 7US LNG Vessel Cancellations Balance Global Gas Markets The spread failed to cover variable costs for most of 2020 and even moved to a premium – i.e. HH above TTF – in July. Moreover, because most contracts have a 40-day to 70-day notice period for cancellation, the supply of US LNG only reacted to the rapid drop in demand with a lag, aggravating the supply surplus and flooding European inventories. The resulting supply adjustments, combined with stronger-than-expected demand in Europe, have slowed the storage injections rates in August and pushed prices higher.4 Cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Forward curve behavior suggests market participants expect US LNG shut-ins, combined with robust demand recovery in Asia and Europe, to move price spreads above variable costs by November this year (Chart 8). This is mostly a consequence of rising Asian LNG prices. We expect this will incentivize added exports of US LNG over the coming months which will move Henry Hub prices slightly higher over the winter. Chart 8Relative Price Spreads Cover LNG Variable Costs, But Not Total Costs In fact, some cargoes are reportedly already selling their gas in forward Asian markets and taking longer routes or reducing their travel speed to remain at sea for longer and profit from these higher deferred prices.5 Still, the increase in US prices will be limited given that relative prices need to remain wide enough to cover LNG variable costs. While global prices will move up gradually over the winter, we believe their upside is bounded by the supply surplus, especially as US exports normalize. At current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu. On the demand side, low prices will favor additional coal-to-gas switching as economies recover in 2H20 (Chart 9). Current forward TTF prices are signaling deep drawdowns in European storage this winter as demand in the region increases (Chart 10). Chart 9Cheap Gas Favors Coal-To-Gas Switching Chart 10TTF Forwards Signaling Strong Inventory Draws This Winter In Chart 11, we simulated the remaining of the filling season based on previous monthly seasonal injection rates for Europe. This suggests storage remains at risk of being maxed out by October. However, we believe – in agreement with current forward curves – that the pickup in demand from recovering economic activity, coal-to-gas switching, and lower US exports will further diminish injection rates in Aug-Sep-Oct relative to historical rates (Chart 12). This will allow inventory to reach its seasonal peak slightly below capacity-testing levels. Chart 11Euopean Storage Remains A Significant Downside Risk Chart 12Low US LNG Exports, Warmer Weather Drastically Reduced Injections In July Moreover, flows from Europe to Ukraine should continue freeing up capacity in core EU storage facilities (Chart 13).6 Chart 13Filling Ukrainian Storage Acts As A Safety Valve Chart 14Lower US Gas Supply Slows Inventory Builds In the US, the multi-year-low active gas rigs in the Appalachian basin are starting to weigh on production. Moreover, collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is bringing associated gas – which is now more than 16% of total gas production – down rapidly (Chart 14). This contributes to the slowdown in domestic storage injection and to the recent Henry Hub price gains. Still, at current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu (Chart 15). Consequently, we believe short-term downside risks from lockdowns are too elevated to try to profit from the limited price increase expected this winter. Chart 15Renewed Lockdowns In Europe Would Push Storage to Capacity   Rising US-Russia Competition Keeps Prices Lower For Longer Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs. In 2019, a record volume of liquefaction capacity reached FID globally (Chart 16). By 2025, global LNG capacity is expected to reach ~73Bcf/d, a ~ 15Bcf/d increase from current levels. Despite the COVID-19 shock, most projects under construction in the US remain on track to be completed as previously scheduled in 2020.7 Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs – i.e. below variable costs plus a fixed contracted liquefaction capacity fee estimated at ~$3/MMBtu. Chart 16Record FID Risks Keeping Markets Oversupplied Mounting competition – especially from Russia – in both Europe and Asia will hold down prices over the coming years. In Europe, the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would add 5.3Bcf/d of cheap Russian gas supply and could keep prices ~ $1/MMBtu lower than otherwise.8 These new volumes would be absorbed by higher European consumption – fueled by low prices – and lower US LNG exports – from weak relative prices. Geopolitics is a major factor driving Russian behavior and hence oversupply: The US and Russia will vie with each other for market share in Europe. As gas markets further liberalize globally, Europe will be increasingly essential for US LNG as its destination of last resort in times of low demand elsewhere. If Russia floods this market with gas, it reduces Europe’s ability to absorb US gas, which will lead to lower Henry Hub prices. It will shut in US supply in times of low demand, making investments there riskier. While US administrations of either party almost always attempt to engage Russia at the beginning of a four-year term, the US foreign policy establishment no longer believes that engagement with Russia is beneficial (Chart 17). This is apparent under the Russia-friendly Trump administration but will be especially relevant if the Democratic Party wins the White House in November. Democrats blame Russia for undermining and ultimately reversing the Obama administration’s policies by betraying the US-Russia diplomatic “reset” and interfering in the 2016 election. Chart 17Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Hence the US will continue to impose sanctions on Russia and probably on a range of companies involved in Nord Stream 2 and Turkstream. If both pipelines are completed, then Washington will ask Europe to compensate for its Russia dealings in other ways. Meanwhile Russia will use a combination of commercial and strategic measures to woo Germany and the Europeans so that they do not commit to preferential bilateral deals with the United States. Because the US and Russia are engaged in a great power struggle – rather than healthy trade competition – they will attempt to achieve their aims through means other than price and volume. Punitive measures will create volatility by occasionally removing supplies but probably cannot change the backdrop of oversupply. The gist is that US-Russia relations will remain antagonistic and Europe will benefit from the oversupply except during times of surprise sanctions and strategic blows. In China, we expect imports of US LNG to increase. However, rising Russian LNG and pipeline supplies, increasing domestic gas output, and a persistent global oversupply of gas will limit the incentives for Chinese buyers to sign long-term agreements with US exporters at a price above full-cycle costs – i.e. ~ $7/MMBtu.9 The ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. This has large implications for the US gas market, as LNG capacity represents ~ 11% of its domestic supply – based on 1H20 production levels. Low demand growth for its gas in Europe or Asia will keep Henry Hub prices low to limit supply growth from shale gas and limit investment in additional liquefaction capacity. Here too geopolitics will undermine Henry Hub prices: China is strengthening economic ties with its strategic partner, Russia, and the ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. A Biden administration would approach China differently from the Trump administration but it would still have to face fundamental trade tensions due to China’s mercantilism and the US attempt to contain China’s technological rise. China is crucial for global LNG demand growth, but trade tensions will reignite even under Biden and spill over into China’s demand for US commodities. China has substitutes for American LNG. If trade tensions affect China’s imports of US LNG then they will lead to lower Henry Hub prices and possibly to vessel cancellations, especially if European storage once again proves unable to absorb these exports during the injection season. The Biden administration will not ultimately be China-friendly, looking beyond any diplomatic “reset” in its first year, and thus the risk of China diversifying away from US LNG is real. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. There are currently more than 6Bcf/d of approved, not yet FID, projects in the US. We do not expect much of this capacity to move forward until LNG economics turn favorable and buyers’ willingness to sign long-term contracts comes back. Large projects expected to start closer to 2025 – e.g. Shell’s LNG Canada and Total’s Mozambique LNG – could be delayed to the second half of the decade. On the demand side, persistent low prices will reinforce two ongoing trends. First, this will favor additional coal-to-gas switching in most regions, helping demand to catch up to supply by 2024 and eventually forcing European and Asian prices significantly higher in anticipation of tighter fundamentals. Second, low spot LNG prices in Asia and the availability of flexible supply will accelerate the shift to a merchant/trading market.10 The movement toward shorter and non-indexed-oil contracts continued in 2019, with spot and short term contracts reaching 34% of total LNG flows in 2019, up 32% vs. 2018 (Chart 18). The COVID-19 shock augmented the incentive to switch to non-oil-indexed contracts given the steep discount it created in LNG spot market prices versus oil-indexed contracts. Based on our Brent price forecasts, we expect this divergence to persist in 2021 (Chart 19). Chart 18Shorter, Gas-On-Gas Contracts Will Increase In Asia Chart 19Spot Prices Will Decouple From Oil-Indexed Again In 2021 The convergence in regional prices that began in 2019 is disrupting the standard LNG model based on significant regional price spreads. Low and uniform prices reduce the arbitrage of moving gas overseas. Companies will need to start using sophisticated financial instruments and will increasingly resort to spot and futures markets, like in oil markets.11 Crucially, our expectation that demand will catch up to supply assumes government policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions continue being implemented in major consuming countries. Future gas consumption is a function of economic – i.e. price incentives – and policy variables. A reversal in China’s environmental policies could drastically slow gas demand growth and remains a risk to our view. At present China’s policy setting aims for growth recovery at all costs, but the driver of Xi Jinping’s green policy is the middle class demand for healthier air and environment (Chart 20). Hence the slog to diversify away from coal will resume over the medium and long run. Bottom Line: The large collapse in prices will remain bearish for US LNG over the short term as global gas markets remain firmly oversupplied and storage levels hew dangerously close to maximum capacity. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. Relative prices will be capped close to variable costs. These unfavorable conditions for additional investments in LNG projects could create a supply deficit later in the decade. Chart 20China"s Green Policy Is Driven By Its Growing Middle Class   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1     These destination adjustments in response to price incentives are possible because of the flexibility in US long-term LNG agreements. These contracts, for the most part, have no predetermined destination clause. 2     For instance see "NWE gas storage sites could be 'almost' full by end-August: Platts Analytics" published by S&P Global Platts on May 21, 2020. 3    There exists two main types of LNG contracts in the US: (1) Tolling agreements in which the LNG exporter needs to secure the feedgas, transport the gas to the liquefaction facility, and ship it to the buyer. In this model, the LNG operator charges a fixed fee – usually in the range of $2.25 to $3.5/MMBtu, paid regardless of whether they use their contracted LNG space to liquefy the gas. The ownership of the gas remains in the hand of the offtaker. (2) Chienere-type agreements – or a hybrid merchant-tolling structure – in which the LNG operator secures the feedgas and transports it to its liquefaction facilities. It takes ownership of the gas until it is liquefied and sold to the exporter responsible for shipping the gas to the final buyer – the pricing scheme is usually ~115% of Henry Hub gas prices + a fixed liquefaction fee. In the US, the Cove Point, Freeport, Cameron, and Elba terminals mostly use the tolling model, while all of Cheniere’s installations – i.e. Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi – are operating under Cheniere-type models. In our analysis we use the Cheniere-type as it is slightly more flexible and seems more vulnerable to cargo cancellations – subject to a penalty, or fixed fee, to ensure a reliable cash flow to Cheniere. Moreover, it is difficult to estimate how much of the shipping cost are truly variable, some offtakers have long-term shipping contracts to diminish total variable costs. Please see “Steady as She Goes, Part 5 - How Global Prices Drive U.S. LNG Cargo Destinations,” published by RBN Energy on August 1, 2020 for a detailed discussion of LNG exporters’ costs. 4    Maintenance delays at Australia’s Gorgon LNG plant also contributed to the price increase, especially in Asia. Please see "Chevron says expects to restart Train 2 of Gorgon LNG plant in early September" published by reuters.com on July 28, 2020 for more details. 5    Please see "Buyers of U.S. LNG cancel September cargoes but pace slows, sources say," published by reuters.com on July 21, 2020. 6    Since May this year, the Ukrainian storage and gas pipeline managing company UkrTransGaz started offering discounts on transportation fees and other arrangements to incentivize European traders to storage gas at their facilities. Natgas stored by non-resident in customs warehouses with UkrTransGaz are more than four times higher than last year. Please see “European gas storage: backhaul helps open the Ukrainian safety valve,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in May 2020. 7     A few projects reported lockdown-related delays of up to 4 months. 8    Please see "Nord Stream 2 and the battle for gas market share in Europe" published by Wood Mackenzie on July 24, 2020. 9    Please see “No Upside: The U.S. LNG Buildout Faces Price Resistance From China,” published by The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), July 2020. 10   We highlighted in our October 4, 2018 report titled "US Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market" that the large LNG supply expansion in the US would incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. 11    Please see “Covid-19 And The Energy Transition,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in July 2020. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Our recent bump of the S&P materials sector to overweight on July 27th pushed our cyclicals vs defensives positioning to the overweight column. Since then, this bent has netted our portfolio roughly 6% of returns. Similar to any rate of change series that is mean reverting by construction, the cyclicals/defensives ratio is the ultimate mean reverting pairing of S&P 500 sectors.  Importantly, taking a cue from the ISM’s new orders-to-inventories (NOI) ratio, another consistent mean reverting macro pair, is in order. The chart shows that cyclicals/defensives relative share prices move in lockstep with the NOI ratio, and the current message is to expect a definitive breakout in the former. This is especially true as the economy is reopening and the “work from home” stock darlings pass the baton to the “back to business as usual” laggard stocks. Bottom Line: We reiterate our recent cyclicals versus defensives preference. For additional details please refer to our August 3, Special Report “Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives”.     

Feature Feature ChartThe Sales Of Makeup And Perfumes Collapsed, But The Sales Of Hair Care And Skin Care Grew The pandemic era is diminishing our close quarters intimacy with people, which raises a fascinating question. In a world of social and physical distancing, widespread use of face coverings, and virtual meetings on Zoom or Skype, is it still important to look good? Is it important to smell good? And perhaps the most fascinating question of all: is it important to feel good? The so-called ‘lipstick effect’ is a putative counter-cyclical phenomenon during recessions in which the demand for small treats and pick-me-ups increases while other spending is shrinking. One theory is that it is based on the basic human desire to feel good, even during hard times. When budgets are squeezed, people simply cut out large extravagances and substitute them with small luxuries, epitomised by lipstick. The lipstick effect was first recorded during the Great Depression. Between 1930 and 1933, unemployment in Germany surged to six million. But thanks to the booming demand for its cosmetics, the German firm Beiersdorf could boast that it did not have to lay off a single worker. Across the Atlantic, the same was true. When US economic output shrank by a third, cosmetics were one of the few products whose sales grew. The lipstick effect was also observed during the Great Recession. Between September 2008 and January 2009 when US consumer spending shrank, the sales of cosmetics bucked the downtrend, and grew (Chart I-2).  Chart I-2Cosmetics Sales Grew In The 2008 Recession... The Lipstick Effect Is Working In An Evolved Form Fast forward to 2020, and the pandemic-induced economic slump is the one recession in which we would expect not to observe the lipstick effect. After all, if you are in lockdown, or must maintain physical distancing with other people, or must wear a face covering when near other people, what is the point of wearing makeup or perfume? The sales of cosmetics and fragrances collapsed in the 2020 recession… Just as we would expect, between February and April this year, the US sales of cosmetics and fragrances collapsed by 18 percent, exactly in line with the plunge in US consumer spending. On the face of it, the lipstick effect does not work under a facemask (Chart I-3). Chart I-3...But Shrank In The 2020 Recession Yet on closer examination, the lipstick effect is working, albeit in an evolved form. While the sales of makeup and perfumes have collapsed in 2020, the sales of skincare and haircare products are growing (Chart I-1). As the pandemic took hold and forced hair and beauty salons to shutter, people replaced salon visits with at-home care routines. And interestingly, even in the Great Recession of 2008-09, the US sales of haircare and non-cosmetic personal products outperformed the sales of cosmetics (Chart I-4-Chart I-7). Chart I-4Hair Care And Skin Care Sales Grew In The 2008 Recession... Chart I-5...And Grew In The 2020 ##br##Recession Chart I-6Total Personal Products Sales Grew In The 2008 Recession... Chart I-7...And Have Held Up Well In The 2020 Recession In fact, 60 percent of the total beauty market comprises skincare and haircare products compared with 30 percent for makeup and perfumes (Chart I-8). It turns out that the cosmetics and personal products firms that have a diversified exposure to all segments of the beauty market are the ones that outperform in hard times as well as good. And it turns out that these companies are European. Chart I-8Skin Care And Hair Care Dominates The Beauty Market The European Cosmetics Sector Is Outperforming In hard times, the European cosmetics sector, led by L’Oréal, has consistently outperformed the US cosmetics sector, led by Estee Lauder, and the Japanese cosmetics sector, led by Shiseido. In hard times, the European cosmetics sector, led by L’Oréal, has consistently outperformed. Specifically, the 12-month forward earnings for the European cosmetics sector barely declined in the 2008-09 recession and have barely declined in the 2020 recession. In contrast, the forward earnings for the US and Japanese cosmetics sectors collapsed both then and now (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The European Cosmetics Sector Has Been Recession-Proof Furthermore, the latest quarterly reports show that while operating profits for L’Oréal are down by around 20 percent from a year ago, the operating profits for Estee Lauder and Shiseido have slumped by more than 80 percent.1 As a result, the L’Oréal share price took a much smaller hit than those of Estee Lauder and Shiseido in both the 2008 and the 2020 stock market crashes (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10L’Oréal Took A Smaller Hit Than Estee Lauder And Shiseido In 2008… Chart I-11…And In ##br##2020 An important reason for L’Oréal’s consistent outperformance is its diversified product range. L’Oréal acknowledges that for both its consumer products and luxury divisions “the health crisis triggered a sharp deceleration in the makeup market”. But the hit to makeup was counterbalanced by continued strong growth in skin care thanks, for example, to the launch of serums in its Revitalift range. Additionally, its hair care products grew thanks to Fructis Hair Food plus very strong performance in the “highly dynamic home-use hair colour market”.  Estee Lauder confirms that “Covid-19 and its various impacts have influenced consumer preferences due to the closures of offices, retail stores and other businesses and the significant decline in social gatherings”. While the demand for makeup and fragrance has slumped, the demand for skin care and hair care products has been more resilient. The trouble is that hair care accounts for less than 4 percent of Estee Lauder’s total sales. Meanwhile, the collapse in makeup sales has forced goodwill asset impairments to several of its makeup brands causing the 80 percent collapse in its overall profits. Likewise, Shiseido blames the 83 percent slump in its operating profits largely on “a product mix deterioration” which outweighed prompt cost-saving measures in response to the rapid deterioration of the market environment. Another vulnerability is that Shiseido’s sales are highly concentrated in Asia. By comparison, L’Oréal benefits from geographical diversification, with sales almost equally split between Europe, the Americas, and Asia (Table I-1). Table I-1L’Oréal Benefits From Geographical Diversification The European Personal Products Sector Is Also Outperforming Turning to the general personal products sector, the leading companies are Unilever and Beiersdorf in Europe, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly Clark in the US, and Kao in Japan. In the personal products sector too, Europe has consistently outperformed the US and Japan. In the personal products sector too, Europe has consistently outperformed the US and Japan. Indeed, while the European sector’s profits have steadily grown through the past decade, the US sector’s profits have been going nowhere since the mid-2010s (Chart 1-12). Chart I-12The European Personal Products Sector’s Profits Have Grown Through The Past Decade   One reason for the European personal products sector’s reliable growth is that both Unilever and Beiersdorf are highly exposed to the beauty sector – in fact, Unilever has an even larger market share than Estee Lauder (Chart I-13). And as we have just seen, a diversified exposure to all segments of the beauty sector – makeup, fragrances, skin care, and hair care – should produce resilient growth in all economic backdrops. Pre-pandemic, and potentially once the pandemic is over, makeup and fragrances were/will be the growth drivers. Whereas during the pandemic, skin care and hair care are the drivers. Chart I-13Unilever Is A Big Player In Beauty A final point is that despite the superior and safer growth prospects of the European cosmetics and personal products companies, they are not generally more richly valued than their peers in the US and Japan (Table I-2 and Table I-3). Table I-2The European Cosmetics Sector Is Not More Expensive Table I-3The European Personal Products Sector Is Not More Expensive To sum up, for the pandemic era and beyond, the European cosmetics and personal products sector is well set for diversified growth via product mix, price points, and regional exposures. And it is relatively well valued versus its peers elsewhere in the world. As such, the sector – dominated by L’Oréal, Unilever, and Beiersdorf – should remain a core holding in an investment portfolio.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Mohamed El Shennawy Research Associate mohamede@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The most recent quarterly report for Estee Lauder is due on August 20. But at the time of writing the latest quarterly report was to the end of June 2020 for L’Oréal and to the end of March 2020 for Estee Lauder and Shiseido.