United States

Dear client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, July 9 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Markets will trade nervously over the coming weeks in response to the second wave of the pandemic and the looming US fiscal cliff. Nevertheless, we would “buy the dip” if global equities were to fall 5%-to-10% from current levels. While the pace of reopening will slow, there is little appetite for the sort of extreme lockdown measures that were implemented in March. The US Congress will ultimately extend fiscal support for households and firms. Around the world, both fiscal and monetary policy will remain highly accommodative, which should provide a supportive backdrop for stocks. Many institutional investors missed the rebound in stocks and are eager to get back in. High levels of “cash on the sidelines” will further buttress equities. Remain overweight stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Favor cyclical sectors over defensives and non-US stocks over their US peers. The US dollar has entered a bear market. A weaker greenback will boost commodity prices and EM assets. Global bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years. However, they will remain extremely low by historic standards. Bond yields will only surge once inflation reaches uncomfortably high levels. At that point, the equity bull market will end. Fortunately, this is unlikely to happen for at least three years. I. Macro And Markets Financial markets’ response to the pandemic has followed three distinct phases: Phase One: Hope and Denial. While equities did buckle on the news that a previously unknown coronavirus had emerged in China, they quickly recovered in the hope that the epidemic would be contained. Equities remained resilient even as the virus resurfaced in South Korea and Iran, prompting us to pen a report in February entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.”1 Phase Two: The Wile E. Coyote Moment.2 The second phase began with the outbreak in Italy. Scenes of overflowing emergency rooms prompted governments to order all non-essential workers to stay home. The resulting decline in commerce caused equities to plummet. Credit spreads widened, while funding markets began to seize up (Chart 1). Phase Three: Recovery. With memories of the 2008 global financial crisis still fresh in their minds, policymakers sprung into action. The combination of massive monetary and fiscal easing helped stabilize financial markets. Risk assets received a further boost as the number of new cases in Italy, Spain, New York City and other hotspots began to decline rapidly in April (Chart 2). The hope that lockdown measures would be relaxed continued to power stocks in May and early June. Chart 1Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Chart 2Sharp Decline Of New COVID-19 Cases In April Allowed Equities To Recover Fast forward to the present and things do not seem as straightforward. Despite today’s rally, global equities are still down 4.7% from their June 8th high. The key immediate question for investors is whether the recent bout of volatility marks the end of Phase Three or just a temporary pause in a new cyclical bull market for stocks. On balance, we lean towards the latter scenario. As we discuss in greater detail below, while we do think that the next few months will be more treacherous for investors due to a resurgence in the number of Covid cases in some countries, as well as uncertainty over how the looming US fiscal cliff will be resolved, we expect global equities to be higher 12 months from now. Stocks And The Economy Pundits such as Paul Krugman often like to recite the mantra that “the stock market is not the economy.” While there is some truth to that, equities still tend to track the ups and downs of the business cycle. This can be observed simply by looking at the strong correlation between the US ISM manufacturing index and the S&P 500 (Chart 3).  Chart 3Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks As happened in 2009 and during prior downturns, stocks bottomed this year at roughly the same time as leading economic indicators such as initial unemployment insurance claims peaked (Chart 4). Chart 4Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Will the economic data continue to improve, allowing equities to move higher? In the past, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than those following recessions that arose from endogenous problems. The pandemic would seem to qualify as an exogenous shock. Temporarily furloughed workers have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in US unemployment this year (Chart 5). As lockdown measures are relaxed, the hope is that most of these workers will return to their jobs. Chart 5Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Bumps In The Road Nevertheless, the recovery will be a bumpy one. In the near term, the main barrier will be the virus itself. Globally, the number of new cases has been trending higher since early May. The number of deaths has also reaccelerated (Chart 6). In the US, the epicenter of the pandemic has shifted from the Northeastern tri-state corridor to the southern states. Florida, Texas, and Arizona have been particularly hard hit. Contrary to President Trump’s claims, more testing does not explain the rise in case counts. As Chart 7 shows, the fraction of tests coming back positive has actually been trending higher in all three states. Chart 6Globally, The Number Of New Cases Has Been Trending Higher Since Early May, While The Number Of Deaths Has Moved Off Its Recent Lows Chart 7Fraction Of Tests Coming Back Positive Has Been Moving Higher In Certain States It did not have to be this way. The evidence suggests that the widespread use of masks could have kept the virus at bay while still allowing most economic activities to resume (Chart 8). Unfortunately, the question of whether to wear a mask, like almost everything else in the US, has become another front in the culture war. Chart 8Masks On! Mask wearing is much more common in China and the rest of east Asia, which is one key reason why the region has suffered far fewer casualties than elsewhere. Hence, a second wave is likely to be much more muted there. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand should also remain largely unscathed going forward. Luckily, treatment options have improved over the past few months, as medical professionals have learned more about the virus. Hospitals have also built up capacity to deal with an influx of patients. Another less well recognized development is that protocols have been put in place to protect residents in long-term care facilities. In Canada, more than 80% of COVID deaths have occurred in nursing homes. All this suggests that while a second wave will weigh on global growth over the coming months, we are unlikely to see the sort of broad-based economic dislocations experienced in March. A Structural Break Even if a second wave does not turn out to be as disruptive as the first, it probably will be several years before spending in the sectors most affected by the virus returns to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, there is a chance that some sectors may not ever fully recover. The technology to work from home was in place before the pandemic began. Many workers chose not to do so because they did not want to be the odd ones out. The pandemic may have nudged society to a new equilibrium where catching a red-eye flight to attend a business meeting becomes more the exception than the rule, while working from home is seen as perfectly acceptable (and safer) than going to the office. If that happens, there will be, among other things, less business travel going forward, as well as less demand for office space. Such a transformation could end up boosting productivity down the road by allowing companies to slash overhead costs and unnecessary expenses. However, it will impose considerable near-term dislocations, particularly for airlines, hotels, commercial real estate operators and developers, and associated lenders to these sectors. The Role Of Policy It would be unwise for policymakers to try to prevent the shift of capital and labor towards sectors of the economy where they can be more efficiently deployed. However, policy can and should smooth the transition. Chart 9Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession Most of the suffering during recessions comes in the form of collateral damage. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 9). One does not have to fill a half-empty swimming pool through the same pipe from which the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs will likely find new jobs in other sectors. This is where the role of monetary and fiscal policy takes center stage. Central banks moved quickly to ease monetary policy as soon as the pandemic began. Unfortunately, with rates already quite low in most countries, there was only so much that conventional monetary policy could achieve. The Federal Reserve, which had more scope to cut rates than most, brought the fed funds rate down 150 bps to a range of 0%-to-0.25%. As helpful as this action was, it fell well short of the more than five percentage points in easing that the Fed has delivered, on average, during past recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around With conventional monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, central banks turned to unconventional tools, the most important of which were asset purchases, lending backstops, and forward guidance. These tools blurred the line between fiscal and monetary policy. To some extent, this was by design. By offering to buy government debt in unlimited quantities and at extremely low rates, central banks incentivized governments to run larger budget deficits. Even if one excludes loan guarantees, governments have eased fiscal policy by an extraordinary degree this year (Chart 11). The G7 as a whole has delivered 11.7% of GDP in fiscal stimulus, compared to 4% of GDP in 2008-10. In China, we expect the credit impulse to reach the highest level since the Global Financial Crisis, and the budget deficit to hit the highest level on record (Chart 12).  Chart 11Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Chart 12China Has Opened The Spigots   Fiscal Austerity? Don’t Bet On It The recovery following the Great Recession was hampered by the decision of many governments, including the US, Germany, and Japan, to tighten fiscal policy prematurely, despite a lack of pressure from bond markets to do so. While a repeat of such an outcome cannot be excluded, we think it is quite unlikely. Politically, stimulus remains very popular (Table 1). Unlike during the housing bust, there has been little moral handwringing about bailing out households and firms that “don’t deserve it.” Thus, while the US faces a daunting fiscal cliff over the next two months – including 3% of GDP in expiring Paycheck Protection Program funding and over 1% of GDP in expanded unemployment benefits and direct payments to individuals – we expect Congress to ultimately take action to avert most of the cliff. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus This will probably involve rolling over some existing programs and supplanting others with new measures such as increased aid to state and local governments. The same pattern is likely to be repeated globally. II. Long-Term Focus: Inflation And The Fiscal Hangover The combination of large budget deficits and falling output has caused the ratio of government debt-to-GDP to explode. The IMF now expects net government debt to reach 132% of GDP in advanced economies in 2021, up from an earlier estimate of 104% made last October (Chart 13). What will happen to all that debt? The answer partly hinges on what happens to the neutral rate of interest, or more precisely, the difference between the neutral rate and the trend growth rate of the economy. The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. When policy rates are above the neutral rate, unemployment will tend to rise, and vice versa. Most estimates of the neutral rate, such as those produced by the widely used Laubach-Williams model, suggest that it is currently quite low — certainly lower than the potential growth rate of most economies (Chart 14). Theoretically, when GDP growth exceeds the interest rate the government pays on its borrowings, the debt-to-GDP ratios will eventually converge to a stable level, even if the government keeps running a huge budget deficit.3 Chart 13Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Chart 14The Neutral Rate Is Lower Than The Potential Growth Rate In Most Economies   The catch is that this “stable” level of the debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be very high. This would leave the government extremely vulnerable to any future change in interest rates. Specifically, if at some point the neutral rate were to rise above the trend growth rate of the economy – and the central bank were to align policy rates with the new higher neutral rate – the government’s borrowing costs would soar. The government would then need to cut spending and/or increase in taxes to make room for additional interest payments.4  The Inflation Solution What if highly indebted governments refuse to tighten fiscal policy? At that point, they would either have to: 1) allow debt levels to spiral out of control; 2) default on the debt; or 3) lean on their central banks to keep rates low. The first two options are unlikely to be politically feasible, implying that the third one would be chosen. By definition, the third option would entail keeping policy rates below their neutral level, or in other words, keeping monetary policy more stimulative than is necessary to maintain full employment and stable inflation. Eventually, this would result in rising inflation. In theory, the increase in inflation can be temporary and limited. Rising consumer prices will lift nominal GDP, causing the ratio of debt-to-GDP to decline. Once the ratio shrinks by enough, central banks could raise interest rates to a suitably high level in order to bring inflation back down. Unfortunately, in practice, the whole process of driving inflation up in order to erode the real value of a government’s bond obligations could be quite destabilizing. This would be especially the case if, as is likely, a period of high inflation leads to a significant repricing of inflation expectations. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced Chart 15Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Investors are not too worried that inflation will accelerate anytime soon. The CPI swap market expects inflation to remain subdued for decades to come (Chart 15). This could turn out to be an erroneous assumption. While central banks do not want inflation to get out of hand, they would be happy for it to increase from current levels. After all, they have been obsessing about the zero-lower bound constraint for the better part of two decades. If inflation is, say, 4% going into a downturn, central banks could cut nominal rates to zero, taking real rates to -4%. That would be quite stimulative. Such a deeply negative real rate would not be achievable if inflation were running at 1% going into a downturn.  As noted above, heavily indebted governments would also prefer higher inflation to higher interest rates. The former would erode the real value of debt, while the latter would require that tax dollars be diverted from social program to bondholders. The Neutral Rate May Rise The catch is that for inflation to rise, the neutral rate has to increase well above current policy rates. Will that happen? Our guess is that such an outcome is more likely than most investors believe. For one thing the neutral rate itself depends on the stance of fiscal policy. Looser fiscal policy will generate more demand in the economy. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply, this implies that larger budget deficits will increase the neutral rate. If, as seems likely, we are entering an era where political populism promotes big budget deficits, this makes it more likely that economies will, at some point, overheat. Savings Glut May Dissipate The structural forces that have depressed the neutral rate over the past few decades could also abate, and perhaps even reverse course. Take the example of demographics. Starting in the mid-1970s, the ratio of workers-to- consumers – the so-called “support ratio” – began to steadily increase as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined (Chart 16). An increase in the number of workers relative to consumers is equivalent to an increase in the amount of production relative to consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the global support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers leave the labor force in droves. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 17). As populations continue to age, the global savings glut could dissipate, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. Chart 16The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 17As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate Meanwhile, globalization, a historically deflationary force, remains on the backfoot. The ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 18). Globalization took a beating from last year‘s trade war, and is taking another bruising from the pandemic, as more companies relocate production back home in order to gain greater control over their supply chains. It is possible that newfangled technologies will allow companies to cut costs, thereby helping them to bring down prices. But, so far, this remains more a hope than reality. As Chart 19 shows, productivity growth in the major economies remains abysmal. Weak supply growth would slow income gains, potentially leading to a depletion of excess savings. Chart 18The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade Chart 19Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal   Social Unrest Continued social unrest could further disrupt the supply side of the economy. Violent crime has already spiked in a number of major US cities,5 just as it did five years ago in the aftermath of demonstrations in cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis (the US homicide rate rose 23% between 2014 and 2016, partly because police pulled out of many troubled neighbourhoods6). Markets generally ignored the social unrest back then, and they may do so again over the coming months. However, if recent developments herald the beginning of an extended crime wave, this could have momentous implications for asset markets. The number of people institutionalized in prisons and mental hospitals dropped dramatically during the 1960s. This corresponded with a sharp increase in the homicide rate (Chart 20). As violent crime soared, equity valuations dropped. Inflation also accelerated, hurting bondholders in the process (Chart 21). If a country cannot credibly commit to protecting its citizens, it is reasonable to wonder if it can credibly commit to maintaining price stability. Chart 20Dramatic Drop In Institutionalizations During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Chart 21Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s As we discuss in greater detail below, the implication is that the long-term outlook for stocks and bonds is unlikely to be as rosy as the cyclical (3-to-12 month) outlook. III. Investment Implications For Now, Buy The Dip As anyone who has watched a horror movie knows, that scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always fathom something much more frightening than Hollywood can create. COVID-19 is a deadly disease, much deadlier than the common flu. But, at this point, it is a “known known.” The next few weeks will bring news reports of overflowing emergency rooms in some US states, delayed reopenings, and increased talk of renewed lockdowns. The knee-jerk reaction among investors will be to sell stocks. While that was the right trade in March, it may not be the right trade today, at least not for very long. Chart 22Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President At this point, we know how the movie will end. As was the case during the first wave, the latest outbreak will be brought under control through a combination of increased voluntary social distancing and the cessation of activities that are known to significantly contribute to the spread of the disease (allowing bars and nightclubs to reopen was, as many predicted, a huge mistake). Likewise, while the next few weeks could see plenty of posturing among politicians in Washington, the end result will be a deal to avert most of the fiscal cliff. Investors who run for the hills now will end up making the same mistake as those who jettisoned stocks every time the debt-ceiling issue came to the fore in the past. Panicking about the outcome of November’s US presidential election would also be unwise. Yes, if Joe Biden wins and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 12%. However, the betting markets are already expecting the Democrats to win the White House and Senate (Chart 22). Thus, some of this risk is presumably already priced in. Moreover, it is possible that the Democrats only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, focusing more on closing some of the more egregious loopholes in the tax code. And even if corporate tax rates do rise, spending would likely rise even more, resulting in a net increase in fiscal stimulus. Lastly, a Biden presidency would result in less trade tension with China, which would be a welcome relief for equity investors. Are Stocks Already Pricing In A Benign Scenario? Chart 23Earnings Optimism Driven By Tech And Health Care Bottom-up estimates foresee S&P 500 earnings returning to 2019 levels next year. Does this mean that Wall Street analysts are banking on a V-shaped recovery? Not quite. Outside of the health care and technology sectors, EPS is still expected to be down 9% next year relative to 2019 (Chart 23). Globally, earnings estimates are still fairly downbeat. This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped recovery. Of course, what matters to investors is not so much what analysts expect but what the market is pricing in. Given that the S&P 500 is down only 4% year-to-date, have investors gotten ahead of themselves? Again, it is not clear that they have. The value of the stock market does not simply depend on expected earnings growth. It also depends on the discount rate one uses to calculate the present value of future earnings. In a world of exceptionally low interest rates, the contribution from earnings far out into the future to this present value calculation is almost as important as the path of earnings over the next year or two. Provided that the pandemic does not permanently impair the supply-side of the economy, the impact on earnings should be transitory. In contrast, if long-term bond yields are any guide, the impact on the discount rate may be longer lasting. The 30-year US TIPS yield, a proxy for long-term real rate expectations, has fallen by 76 basis points since the start of the year, representing a significant decline in the risk-free component of the discount rate (Chart 24). If we put together analysts’ expectations of a temporary decline in earnings with the observed decline in real bond yields, what we get is an increase in the fair value of the S&P 500 of about 15% since the start of the year (Chart 25). Chart 24The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate Admittedly, the notion that there could be a temporary decline in corporate earnings but a permanent decline in bond yields sounds contradictory. However, it need not be. Imagine a situation where the pandemic does permanently reduce private demand, but that this is fully counteracted by looser monetary policy and increased fiscal stimulus. The result would be the same level of GDP but a lower interest rate.7 As odd as it sounds, this suggests that the pandemic might have increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 25The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Lots Of Cash On The Sidelines Chart 26Lots Of Savings Slushing Around The combination of surging government transfers and subdued household spending has resulted in a jump in personal saving. Accumulated US personal savings totalled $1.25 trillion in the first five months of the year, up 123% from the same period last year. Much of that money has made its way into savings deposits and money market funds (Chart 26). As a share of stock market capitalization, US cash holdings currently stand at 51%, up nearly 12 percentage points from the start of the year. Looking at it differently, if the ratio of cash holdings-to-stock market capitalization were to return to January 1st levels, stocks would have to rise by about 30%. Retail Bros Versus The Suits Thanks to a steady flow of income from Uncle Sam, plenty of spare time, zero brokerage commissions, and a lack of opportunities for sports betting, the popularity of day trading has surged (Chart 27). It would be easy to dismiss the rise of the “retail bros” as another comical, and ultimately forgettable, chapter in financial history. That is what most have done. Not us. The late 1990s stock market bubble was as much a consequence of the boom in day trading as the cause of it. That boom lasted for more than four years, taking the S&P 500 to one record high after another. The current boom has lasted less than four months. It may have much further to run. Chart 27Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Keep in mind that every time an institutional investor sells what they regard as overpriced shares to a retail trader, the institutional investor is left with excess cash that must be deployed elsewhere in the stock market. Buying begets buying. Then there are the hedge funds. Brokerages like Robinhood make much of their money by selling order flow data to hedge funds, who then trade on this information. This activity probably lifts prices by enhancing liquidity and reinforcing the price momentum generated by retail trades.  One would also be remiss not to point out that the mockery levelled at retail traders has an aura of hypocrisy to it. The average mutual fund underperforms its benchmark, even before fees are included. As we discussed before, this is not because active managers cannot outperform the market.8 It is because most don’t even bother to try. In contrast to retail traders, a large fraction of institutional investors did not participate in the stock market recovery that began in late March. According to the latest BoA Merrill Lynch Survey, fund managers were still more than one sigma underweight stocks and nearly one sigma overweight cash in June. Along the same vein, speculators increased short positions in S&P 500 futures contracts soon after stocks rallied, paring them back only recently (Chart 28). As of last week, bears exceeded bulls by 25 percentage points in the AAII survey (Chart 29). When positioning is underweight equities and sentiment is bearish, as it is today, stocks are more likely to go up than down.   Chart 28Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Chart 29Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks The bottom line is that stocks could fall another 5%-to-10% from current levels to about 2850 on the S&P 500 and 68 on the ACWI ETF but are unlikely to go much lower, as investors start to anticipate a peak in the number of new cases and a deal to maintain adequate levels of fiscal support. Start Of The Dollar Bear Market A weaker dollar should also help global equities (Chart 30). After peaking in March, the broad trade-weighted US dollar has fallen by 4.4%. Unlike last year, the dollar no longer benefits from higher US interest rates. Indeed, US real rates are below those of many partner countries due to the fact that US inflation expectations are generally higher than elsewhere (Chart 31). Chart 30A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities Chart 31The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 32). If global growth recovers over the coming quarters, the dollar should weaken. The negative pressure on the dollar may be amplified by the fact that the second wave of the pandemic seems likely to affect the US more than most other large economies. Chart 32The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Commodities And Commodity Currencies To Benefit Once fears of a second wave abate, the combination of stronger global growth, infrastructure-intense Chinese stimulus, and a weaker dollar will also boost commodity prices (Chart 33). BCA’s commodity strategists remain particularly fond of oil. They expect demand to pick up gradually this year, with supply continuing to be curtailed by shut-ins among US producers and production discipline from OPEC and Russia. Their latest projections foresee WTI and Brent prices rising more than 50% above current market expectations in 2021 (Chart 34). Chart 33Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 34Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Higher oil prices will be particularly beneficial to currencies such as the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Mexican peso, Colombian peso, and Malaysian ringgit. A Weaker Dollar Will Support Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and higher commodity prices will disproportionately help the more cyclical sectors of the stock market (Chart 35). Since cyclical stocks tends to be overrepresented outside the US, non-US equities should outperform their US peers over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar will also reduce the local-currency value of dollar-denominated debt. This will be especially helpful for emerging markets. Despite the recent rally, the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks remains near historic lows (Chart 36). EM equities should fare well over the next 12 months. Chart 35Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Chart 36EM Stocks Are Cheap Chart 37Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Chart 38Expected Earnings Recovery: US Lags Slightly Behind More broadly, non-US stocks look quite attractive in both absolute terms and in relation to bonds compared to their US peers (Chart 37). They are also unloved. In the BofA Merrill Lynch survey mentioned above, equity managers are heavily overweight the US, despite the fact that consensus earnings estimates point to a slightly faster recovery in EPS outside the United States (Chart 38). Thus, earnings trends, valuations, and sentiment all currently favor non-US stocks. Bond Yields To Stay Subdued… For Now It will probably take a couple of years for the unemployment rate in the G7 to fall to pre-pandemic levels. It will likely be another year or two before labor markets tighten to the point where inflation takes off. And, as discussed above, even if inflation does rise, central banks will be slow to raise rates both because they want higher inflation and because governments will pressure them to keep rates low in order to avoid having to redirect tax revenue from social programs to bondholders. All this suggests that short-term rates could remain depressed across much of the world until the middle of the decade. Chart 39Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Yield curves will steepen marginally over the next few years as global growth recovers and long-term bond yields rise in relation to short-term rates. In absolute terms, however, long-term yields will remain low. An initial bout of higher inflation will not be enough to lift long-term yields to a significant degree given the ability of central banks to cap yields via the threat of unlimited bond purchases – something that Japan and Australia are already doing. Yields will only rise substantially when central banks start feeling uneasy about accelerating inflation. As noted above, that point is probably still 3-to-5 years away. But, when it does come, it will be very painful for bondholders and equity holders alike. Not Much Scope For Further Spread Compression Spreads are unlikely to widen much in a low-rate, higher growth environment. Nevertheless, one should acknowledge that spreads are already low and corporate debt levels were quite elevated going into the recession, especially among companies with publicly-traded bonds (Chart 39). As such, while we generally favor a pro-risk stance over the next 12 months, we would recommend only benchmark exposure to high-yield credit. Within that category, we would favor consumer credit or corporate credit. We would especially shy away from credit linked to urban office and brick-and-mortar retail shopping, given the unfavorable structural shifts in those sectors.  Gold Is Still Worth Owning Chart 40Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Lastly, a few words on gold. We upgraded our view on gold in late March. A weaker dollar will boost gold prices over the next 12 months, while higher inflation down the road makes gold an attractive hedge. Yes, the real price of gold is elevated relative to its long-term history (Chart 40). However, gold prices were distorted during most of the 20th century as one country after another abandoned the gold standard. The move to fiat money eliminated the need for central banks to hold large amounts of gold, which reduced underlying demand for the commodity. Had this move not happened, the real price of gold – just like the price of other real assets such as property and art – would have risen substantially. Thus, far from being above their long-term trend, gold prices could still be well below it. Our full suite of tactical, cyclical, and structural market views are depicted in the matrix below. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020. 2  For those unfamiliar with Saturday morning cartoons, Wile E. Coyote is a devious and scheming Looney Tunes cartoon character usually depicted unsuccessfully attempting to catch his prey, the Road Runner. Wile E. Coyote is outwitted each time by the fast-running bird, but fails to learn his lesson and tries anew. One popular gag involves the coyote running off a cliff, stopping mid-air to look down, only to realize that there is no more road beneath him. 3 This is a tricky point to grasp, so it might be helpful to think through an example. Suppose that government debt is 100 and GDP is also 100. Let us assume that the interest rate is 1%, trend growth is 3%, and the government wishes to run a primary budget deficit of 5% of GDP (the primary deficit is the deficit excluding interest payments). It does not matter if the interest rate and growth are expressed in nominal terms or real terms, as long as we consistently use one or the other. Initially, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. The following year, debt increases to 100+5+100*0.01=106, while GDP rises to 103. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumps to 106/103=102.9%. The debt-to-GDP ratio will keep rising until it reaches 250%. At that point, debt-to-GDP will stabilize. To see why, go back to the original example but now assume that debt is 250 while GDP is still 100. The following year, debt increases to 250+5+250*0.01=257.5, while GDP, as in the first example, rises to 103. 257.5 divided by 103 is exactly 250%. 4 The standard equation of debt sustainability, which we derived in Box 1 of the Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?”, says that the ratio of government debt-to-GDP will be stable if the primary budget balance (expressed as a share of GDP), p, is equal to the debt-to-GDP ratio (D/Y) multiplied by the difference between the interest rate and the growth rate of the economy, that is, p=D/Y (r-g). When p>D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will fall. When, p<D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will rise. Note that the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio is at the outset, the more the primary budget surplus would need to increase in response to a rise in interest rates.  5 Please see Ashley Southall and Neil MacFarquhar, “Gun Violence Spikes in N.Y.C., Intensifying Debate Over Policing,” The Wall Street Journal, dated June 23, 2020; “Gun Violence Soars in Minneapolis,” WCCO/CBS Minnesota, dated June 22, 2020;  and Tommy Beer, “18 People Were Murdered In Chicago On May 31, Making It The City’s Single Deadliest Day In 60 Years,” Forbes, dated June 8, 2020. 6 Please see “Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence,” npr.org, dated December 31, 2017. 7 For economics aficionados, one can model this as a permanent inward shift of the IS curve and permanent outward shift of the LM curve which leaves the level of GDP unchanged but results in lower equilibrium interest rate. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” dated November 9, 2018. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Money Supply Drivers: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. Money Supply Impact: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Bank Bonds: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Feature The COVID-19 recession and associated policy response have led to unprecedented moves in a number of economic indicators. In this week’s report we focus on one such move that is particularly difficult to square with the rest of the economic landscape, at least judging by the large volume of client questions we’ve received on the topic. The move in question: Broad money supply growth (M1 & M2) is faster today than at any time since the mid-1940s (Chart 1). This week, we look at what has driven money growth to such heights and consider what it might mean for bond investors. We also update our call to overweight subordinate bank bonds based on last week’s release of the Fed’s bank stress tests. Chart 1Massive Money Growth! Money Supply Drivers The US economy’s broad money supply is more or less the sum total of all the money sitting in bank deposits at any point in time. More specifically, the M1 measure includes currency in circulation, demand deposits and traveler’s checks. The M2 measure includes all of M1 plus savings accounts, time deposits and retail money market funds. Fed asset purchases and bank lending are the two drivers of money supply growth. There are two ways for these broad money supply measures to grow. First, the Fed can purchase securities from the private market. Second, banks can lend money to the private sector. We consider both of these drivers in turn. The Federal Reserve’s Contribution To Money Growth The Fed influences the money supply by changing the amount of reserves in the banking system. To see how this works, Table 1 shows recent balance sheets for both the Fed and the aggregate US banking system. Table 1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The largest line items on the Fed’s balance sheet are the securities it owns (on the asset side) and the reserves it supplies to the banking system (on the liability side). The Treasury Department’s General Account has also become a sizeable liability for the Fed during the past couple of months (see Box). Box 1: The Large Treasury General Account Is Not Stimulus Waiting To Be Deployed The Treasury General Account (TGA), aka the Treasury Department’s cash account at the Fed, has skyrocketed during the past couple of months and now totals $1.6 trillion (Chart 3). This has prompted more than a few client questions, mostly asking whether this large amount of money represents fiscal stimulus that is waiting to be deployed. Chart 3Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer It does not. Any new fiscal stimulus must be authorized by Congress and with most of the funds from the CARES act having already been paid out, any further fiscal stimulus is contingent upon Congress passing a follow-up bill. So why is the TGA balance so large? The Treasury Department’s job is to finance the federal government’s deficit by issuing bonds. To do this, it must make estimates about what tax revenues and government spending will be in the future. To avoid a situation where it has not issued enough bonds to finance the deficit, it will typically err on the side of caution and issue some extra bonds, holding the proceeds in cash in its account at the Fed. Due to the heightened uncertainty of the current macro environment, it recently decided to target a larger-than-usual cash balance of $800 billion. It even overshot that target during the past couple of months, likely because tax revenues came in higher than expected. Going forward, heightened uncertainty about federal deficit projections will ensure that the Treasury continues to hold an elevated cash balance. However, it will probably try to bring the TGA balance down a bit in the second half of the year, closer to its stated $800 billion target. It will accomplish this by simply issuing fewer T-bills in the second half of the year. This will have the result of increasing the broad money supply through the same mechanism as Fed asset purchases. That is, any drawdown in the TGA increases the amount of reserves supplied on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys a Treasury security it removes that security from the private market and replaces it with cash in the form of a bank reserve. Those bank reserves are a liability for the Fed, but appear on the asset side of the banking sector’s aggregate balance sheet. Please note that the amount of reserves supplied on the Fed’s balance sheet in Table 1 doesn’t exactly match the amount of reserves shown on the banking sector’s balance sheet. This is only because the numbers were recorded on different days. Turning to the banking sector’s balance sheet, we see that when the amount of reserves increases there are only a few different things that can occur to keep the balance sheet in balance. Banks can accommodate the increase in reserves by reducing the amount of loans or securities they hold. Alternatively, banks can raise capital, borrow in private debt markets or show an increase in deposits. When banks accommodate the increase in reserves by raising deposits, the money supply rises. Charts 2A and 2B show the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of February. First, we see that banks did not reduce their other asset holdings in response to the sharp increase in reserves. Neither did they raise capital or debt. Rather, deposit growth accommodated the entire increase in bank reserves. Chart 2AChange In Commercial Bank Assets: February 26 To June 17, 2020 Chart 2BChange In Commercial Bank Liabilities & Capital: February 26 To June 17, 2020 In fact, deposits have grown by about $2 trillion since February compared to reserve growth of $1.4 trillion. Roughly, we can say that Fed asset purchases are responsible for 70% of the growth in the money supply since then. The remaining 30% is attributable to the second driver of the money supply: bank lending. Bank Lending’s Contribution To Money Growth Looking again at Table 1, we see that an increase in bank loans must also lead to an increase in deposits, unless the bank raises debt and/or capital instead. Further, Chart 2A shows that increased bank lending since February accounts for about 30% of the growth in deposits. However, we expect bank loan growth to moderate in the coming months, easing some of the upward pressure on the money supply. This year's increase in bank loan growth has been driven entirely by C&I loans. A look at bank loan growth by category shows that this year’s increase has been driven entirely by Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans (Chart 4). Growth in other major loan categories – commercial real estate, residential real estate and consumer – has flagged. Further, the increase in C&I lending has been mostly due to firms drawing on existing credit lines. Chart 4A Spike In C&I Lending The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for the first quarter of 2020 showed a small increase in C&I loan demand. But the survey also asked about potential reasons for the demand uptick (Chart 5). When faced with that question, 95% of respondents reported that “precautionary demand for cash” was a “very important” reason for increased C&I loan demand in Q1. 71% of respondents also pointed to a lack of internally generated funds as a “very important” reason. Importantly, no respondents reported increased C&I loan demand due to investment needs or M&A activity. Chart 5Possible Reasons For Greater C&I Loan Demand In Q1 2020 The distinction is important. Greater investment needs and M&A activity would suggest an improving economic back-drop, and would imply a more sustainable increase in bank lending. In contrast, there is a limit to how much firms can tap existing credit lines for immediate cash needs, and this activity should taper off during the next few months. Bottom Line: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. The Implications Of Rapid Money Growth According to some theory and popular thought, there are three possible channels through which rapid money growth could impact the economy and financial markets: Fast money growth could lead to stronger economic growth in the future. Fast money growth could lead to rising inflationary pressures. A larger money supply could suggest that there are more funds available to deploy in financial markets. As such, it could lead to price appreciation in risky financial assets. We are inclined to downplay the importance of M1 and M2 as indicators in all three of these areas, for reasons discussed below. The Money Supply’s Impact On Economic Growth In the past, measures of the broad money supply (M1 and M2) did a good job of forecasting economic growth and were tracked closely (and at times targeted) by the Federal Reserve. But as the banking and monetary systems evolved, M1 and M2 became less important. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan explained in 1996:1 At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. […] Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Chairman Greenspan’s insight is backed up by the empirical data (Chart 6). Real M2 growth was an excellent leading indicator of economic growth until the early 1990s. The relationship has broken down since then, and in fact, the only reliable trend in Real M2 since the 1990s is that it tends to spike during recessions. Chart 6Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s The Conference Board also noticed this trend and removed Real M2 from its Leading Economic Indicator in 2012. According to the Conference Board, Real M2 ceased to function as a leading economic indicator because (i) the Fed began targeting interest rates instead of monetary aggregates and (ii) the creation of interest-bearing checking accounts and money market funds increased safe haven demand for M2. The latter helps explain why money growth has surged during the last three recessions. All in all, broad money growth is now a poor indicator for GDP. The Money Supply’s Impact On Inflation Another popular theory is that money growth is a leading indicator of inflation. This stems from the following identity, aka the Equation of Exchange: MV = PY Where: M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level and Y = real output The identity holds, but is of little practical value, mainly because there is no good way to measure (or model) velocity (V) without relying on money growth and nominal GDP (P*Y). This means that an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about inflation, because we have no idea how velocity will respond. In fact, many commentators have observed that the stronger empirical correlation is actually between money velocity (PY/M) and core inflation (Chart 7). When nominal GDP growth exceeds money growth, core inflation tends to rise 18 months later. However, this relationship also holds if we remove money supply from the equation entirely (Chart 7, bottom panel). What we’re actually observing is that core inflation tends to lag economic growth by about 18 months. Chart 7Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Since we’ve already seen that money supply does a poor job forecasting economic growth, it’s clear that indicators such as M1 and M2 don’t improve our ability to forecast inflation, and in fact probably only confuse the picture. The Money Supply’s Impact On Financial Markets BCA’s US Bond Strategy definitely subscribes to the notion that the stance of monetary policy is one of the most important drivers of financial market performance. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and signals to the market that rates will stay low for a long time, then we would expect investors to chase greater returns in riskier assets, driving up the prices of corporate bonds and equities. That being said, the appropriate way to measure the stance of monetary policy is with interest rates. Money supply measures like M1 and M2 are not helpful guides for risk asset performance. We have already seen that an increase in the money supply can only arise via (i) greater bank lending or (ii) the Fed’s purchase of securities and injection of reserves into the banking system. Both of these things are likely to occur when interest rates are low and monetary policy is accommodative. Low interest rates boost loan demand, and large-scale Fed asset purchases are more likely to occur when interest rates are already at the zero-lower-bound. We would argue that it is, in fact, low interest rates that influence both money growth and financial asset prices. The drivers of money supply growth – bank lending and Fed asset purchases – don’t offer any new information beyond what the interest rate already tells us. On loan growth, both loan demand and risk asset price appreciation are functions of low interest rates. In fact, financial markets will respond more quickly to changes in interest rates than will bank lending: Stock prices are included in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, while C&I bank lending is included in the Lagging Economic Indicator.2 This means that, practically, any money supply growth that is driven by bank lending is not useful as an indicator for financial asset prices. What about money growth that is driven by Fed asset purchases? Here, we need to distinguish between the signaling impact of Fed asset purchases and any other potential impact that purchases might have on asset prices. In the first half of 2019, financial markets responded to the Fed's dovish interest rate policy, not to its shrinking balance sheet. Though the data are difficult to parse, our reading is that the only meaningful impact of Fed purchases on financial asset prices is through what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the future path of interest rates. To test this theory, we need to search for periods when the Fed’s signaling about its future interest rate policy diverges from its balance sheet policy. That is, we need to find periods when the balance sheet is shrinking and Fed rate guidance is becoming more dovish, or periods when the balance sheet is growing and rate policy is becoming more hawkish. Unfortunately, we can only identify one such period and that is the first half of 2019 when the Fed was simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and signaling to markets that interest rate policy was becoming more dovish (Chart 8A). During that period, financial markets responded to the more dovish interest rate policy and not to the shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet (Chart 8B). Bond yields fell, the dollar weakened and both corporate bonds and equities delivered strong returns. Chart 8ARates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 8BRates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Subordinate Bank Bonds: Still In The Sweet Spot Chart 9Still In The Sweet Spot Two months ago we made the case for owning subordinate bank bonds.3 The premise for this call is that subordinate bank bonds are a high-quality cyclical sector, exactly the sweet spot of the investment grade corporate bond market that we want to own in the current environment. We expect that extraordinary Fed support for the market will cause investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. In that environment we want to focus on cyclical (or “high beta”) bond sectors, ones that outperform the index during periods of spread tightening. However, we also recognize that the Fed’s emergency lending facilities will not prevent a surge in ratings downgrades. Therefore, the sweet spot we want to own is cyclical bonds that are unlikely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated securities, like subordinate bank bonds, fit the bill nicely. Chart 9 shows that the subordinate bank bond index has a duration-times-spread ratio above 1.0.4 This confirms that the sector will trade cyclically relative to the corporate benchmark. We also see that subordinate bank bonds have outperformed both the overall corporate index and other Baa-rated bonds since the start of the year (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, subordinate bank bonds offer a spread pick-up versus the corporate index in both option-adjusted spread terms (Chart 9, panel 3) and 12-month breakeven spread terms (Chart 9, bottom panel).   What Did We Learn From The Stress Tests? Last week the Fed released the results of its 2020 bank stress tests. Results for individual banks were released for a “severely adverse scenario”, the details of which had been publicly available since February. However, because of concern that the “severely adverse scenario” wasn’t dire enough to capture the potential fallout from the pandemic, the Fed also stress tested three COVID-specific scenarios and released results only for the banking system in aggregate. The three scenarios are: A ‘V’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 and Q4 of this year after contracting significantly in the first half. A ‘U’-shaped recovery, where the growth pick-up in the second half of 2020 is much milder. A ‘W’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 but then dips again near the end of the year. Table 2 shows a few key assumptions of the three scenarios along with how the actual economy is tracking. It seems that, absent the re-imposition of lock-down measures, the economy is tracking to be in a slightly better place than in any of the three scenarios. Note that the unemployment rate has already peaked below 15%, lower than assumed by any of the three scenarios. Table 2Three Stress Test Scenarios* Chart 10Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Chart 10 shows the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio for the aggregate banking sector, and the dashed horizontal lines show how far it would fall in the three different COVID scenarios. The results show that the ‘V’-shaped scenario is manageable for the banking system, but a significant number of banks would run into trouble in the ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios.   The good news for bank credit quality is that, based on how the economy is tracking and the prospects for further fiscal stimulus, the worst ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios will probably be avoided. Further, the Fed has already suspended share buybacks and capped dividend payouts. It will also re-run the stress tests later this year. Another round of stress tests this year is credit positive, as it will encourage banks to strengthen their capital buffers during the next few months. Bottom Line: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19961205.htm 2 https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Bottom Line: Odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.

Dear Client, There will be no US Equity Insights from July 1-3 inclusive, as the US Equity team will be on vacation for the week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on Monday July 13, 2020 with our Weekly Report. Happy Independence Day.  Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights Portfolio Strategy Odds are high that stocks will move laterally in Q3, digesting the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. On all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress. Tack on the potential dividend cuts/suspensions and we were compelled to downgrade exposure to neutral. A dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions enticed us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Recent Changes Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral. These two moves also pushed the S&P financials sector weighting to neutral.1 Feature The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel, Chart 1). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, second panel, Chart 1). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Similarly, two Fridays ago we highlighted that the VIX and the S&P 500 were becoming positively correlated.2 The 20-day moving correlation between these two assets is shooting higher, approaching positive territory. Since late-2017 every time this correlation has hit the inflection point near the zero line, stocks has subsequently suffered a sizable setback (Chart 2). Chart 1Short-Term Downdraft Risks Are Rising Chart 2Watch SPX/VIX Correlation Tack on the public’s renewed interest in COVID-19 according to Google trends search results, and the odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer (top panel, Chart 1). Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Turning over to profits on the eve of earnings season, our four-factor macro EPS growth model for the SPX has tentatively troughed at an extremely depressed level (Chart 3). Our SPX EPS estimate for next calendar year remains near $162/share which we consider trend EPS and was last hit both in 2018 and 2019.3 Chart 3Our EPS Growth Model Has Troughed Moreover, drilling beneath the surface, this week Table 1 updates the sector and subgroup EPS growth expectations. First we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 1). The third columns in Table 1 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. Table 1Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The final columns highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Tech, health care and communication services occupy the top ranks with positive EPS growth expectations, while financials, real estate and energy are forecast to contract in the coming 12 months and have fallen at the bottom of the table. Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights Given that the tech sector has the highest profit weight in the SPX roughly 23% projected for next year (Table 2) it has really helped the broad market’s profit growth recovery (Chart 4). As a reminder, we continue to employ a barbell portfolio approach and prefer defensive (software and services) to aggressive tech (hardware and equipment). On the flip side, financials have the third largest profit weight roughly 16% in the S&P 500, trailing tech and health care, and pose a big threat to overall SPX profits next year, especially if there are any hiccups with the reopening of the economy (Table 2). Worrisomely, investors are not voting with their feet and are doubting that financials profits will deliver as the market cap weight relative to the profit weight stands at negative 540bps.  Last Tuesday we downgraded the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation via trimming the S&P banks and S&P investment banks & brokers indexes to neutral and this week we delve into more details on these two early cyclical subgroups. Chart 4Earnings Finding Their Footing Downgrade Banks To Neutral… We were compelled to downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral last Tuesday in advance of the Fed’s stress test results. There are high odds that a number of banks will cut/suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance in the latest round of stress test, especially if profits take a big hit as we expect. As a reminder, dividends are paid out below-the-line. Beyond the Fed’s stress tests and rising political risks,4 yellow flags are waving on all three key bank profit drivers, namely the price of credit, loan growth and credit quality. First, it is disconcerting that bank relative performance has really not taken the yield curve’s steepening cue and has negatively diverged as we showed last week.5 The year-to-date plummeting 10-year yield is weighing heavily on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 5). The transmission mechanism to bank profits of this lower price of credit is via the net interest margin (NIM) avenue (third panel, Chart 5). NIMs will remain under downward pressure as long at the 10-year Treasury yield stays suppressed owing to the Fed’s immense b/s expansion. The rising likelihood of yield curve control could keep interest rates on the long end of the curve depressed for a number of years similar to what happened between 1942 and 1951. Second, on the credit growth front news is equally worrisome. The widening in the junk spread signals loan growth blues in the quarters ahead (second panel, Chart 6). Despite the initial knee jerk reaction, primarily by corporations, of tapping existing C&I credit lines and causing a surge in bank credit growth, bankers are not willing to extend credit according to the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey (third panel, Chart 6). The same survey revealed that banks are reporting lower demand for credit across the board, warning that future loan growth will be anemic at best, especially given the collapse in our economic impulse indicator (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Bank Yellow Flags Waving Chart 6Loan Growth Will Suffer Finally, with regard to credit quality, delinquency and charge-off rates are all but certain to spike in the coming months. The third panel of Chart 7 highlights that historically all these credit quality gauges are lagging. However, the near vertical climb in the unemployment rate recently and persistently high continuing unemployment benefit claims near 20mn signal that non-performing loans (NPLs) are slated to soar in the back half of 2020 (bottom panel, Chart 7). True, the recent $2tn+ fiscal package is acting as a Band-Aid solution by putting money in unemployed consumers’ pockets, but when the money runs out on July 31, the going will get tough especially if Congress does not pass a new fiscal package. In addition, there are “extend and pretend” clauses in the existing relief package especially on the residential mortgage front that aim to help homeowners make ends meet. But, the longer workers stay out of the labor force the higher the chances that their skills atrophy making it difficult for them to return to work. As a result, foreclosure risk is on the rise. While residential real estate loans are no longer the largest category in bank loan books they still comprise a respectable 21% of total loans or $2.3tn, a souring housing market could spell trouble for banks (Chart 8). Chart 7Deteriorating Credit Quality Will Sink Profits Chart 8Housing Arrears Are A Risk Already, residential mortgage delinquencies are rising and in May surged to the highest level since November 2011 according to Bloomberg. 4.3mn residential real estate borrowers are in arrears (this delinquency count includes borrowers with forbearance agreements who missed payments) and “more than 8% of all US mortgages were past due or in foreclosure” according to Black Night Inc., a property information service. Tack on the shattering consumer confidence and the consumer loan category (credit card, auto and student debt) is also under risk of severe credit quality deterioration (fourth panel, Chart 7). The commercial real estate (CRE) side of loan books is also likely to bleed. Anecdotes where landlords are demanding past due rent payment from tenants are mushrooming, at a time when the same landlords refuse to service their loan obligations. According to TREPP, CMBS delinquencies are skyrocketing across different REIT lines of business. Importantly, CRE loans add up to $2.4tn on commercial bank balance sheets or roughly 22% of total loans. Encouragingly, in Q1 banks started to aggressively provision for steep credit losses with commercial bank loan loss reserves now climbing just shy of $180bn according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile (second panel, Chart 7). This figure is almost twice as high as noncurrent loans and represents a healthy reserve coverage ratio. However, our fear is that if history at least rhymes NPLs will sling shot higher (bottom panel, Chart 7) rendering loan loss reserves insufficient. Putting this provisioning number in context, according to the Fed’s most adverse stress test scenarios banks’ losses could spring to $700bn: “In aggregate, loan losses for the 34 banks ranged from $560bn to $700bn”.6 As a result, banks will have to further provision for futures losses and thus take an additional hit to profitability. Our bank earnings growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and warns of a contraction in profit in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 9). Nevertheless, before getting too bearish on banks, there two key offsetting factors. Relative valuations are bombed out, signaling that most of the bad news is likely reflected in prices (bottom panel, Chart 5). Finally, technicals are also extremely oversold. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that relative momentum is as bad as it gets. Netting it all out, on all three key profit fronts – price of credit, loan growth and credit quality – banks are starting to show signs of stress and compel us to downgrade exposure to neutral. Chart 9Dividend Cuts Are Looming …And Move To The Sidelines On Investment Banks & Brokers The S&P investment banks & brokers (IBB) group has a similar investment profile to the S&P banks index. But, given its more cyclical nature it typically oscillates violently around banks’ relative performance. Thus last Tuesday, we were also compelled to move to the sidelines on this higher beta financials subgroup.7 The COVID-19 accelerated recession has not only mothballed potential M&A deals that were in the works, but also a number of previously announced deals have been canceled. In addition, the outlook for M&A is grim, at least until the dust really settles from the coronavirus pandemic (second panel, Chart 10), weighing heavily on the sector’s profit prospects. While “Robinhood” (retail investor) trading stories abound, margin debt remains moribund and continues to contract, despite the V-shaped recovery in all major US stock markets since the March 23 lows (third panel, Chart 10). This coincident indicator speaks volumes in the near term direction of the broad market and any sustained contraction in trading related debt uptake will likely dent IBB profitability. According to the American Association of Individual Investors bullish retail investors have been absent from this quarter’s massive stock market rally and equity mutual fund and exchange traded fund flows corroborate this message (fourth panel, Chart 10). With regard to cyclicality, IBB are extremely quick to prune labor in times of duress and aggressively add to headcount during expansions. Recent trimming of IBB input costs signal that this industry is retrenching as it is trying to adjust cost structures to lower revenue run rates (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Diminishing Activities Are Profit Sapping Related to the cyclical nature of the IBB industry, an accelerating stock-to-bond ratio has been synonymous with relative share outperformance and vice versa. In early June we turned cautious on the broad market’s near-term return prospects primarily on the back of rising (geo)political risks. The implication is that a lateral move in the broad market would push down the S/B ratio and weigh on relative share prices (Chart 11). However, there are some offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on this niche early-cyclical group. First relative valuations are extremely alluring. On a price-to-book basis IBB traded recently at 0.8x in absolute terms and at a steep 68% discount to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Move To The Sidelines On This Highly Cyclical Industry Chart 12Some Positive Offsets Second, volatility has gone haywire since late-February and it remains elevated with a VIX reading still north of 30. This is a fertile environment for IBB trading desks and should translate into higher profits (second panel, Chart 12). Third, equity trading volumes have exploded. True, volumes spike on downdrafts, but they have remained at an historically high level recently underscoring that IBB trading desk should be minting money (third panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, a dearth of M&A deals, a steep fall in margin debt and declining equity flows into mutual funds and exchange traded funds and potential dividend cuts/suspensions compelled us to trim exposure in the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P banks index to neutral for a loss of 32.4% since inception. Trim the S&P investment banks & brokers index to neutral for a loss of 24% since inception. These moves also push the S&P financials sector to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG S5BANKX – JPM, BAC, C, WFC, USB, TFC, PNC, FRC, FITB, MTB, KEY, SIVB, RF, CFG, HBAN, ZION, CMA, PBCT, and BLBG S5INBK – GS, MS, SCHW, ETFC, RJF, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Tales Of The Tape” dated June 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value ” dated April 27, 2020, and BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Debunking Earnings” dated May 19, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5    Ibid. 6    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200625c.htm 7    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Unresponsive” dated June 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps  June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights The highly uncertain backdrop calls for taking less near-term risk: It may be boring, but it’s only prudent for asset allocators to limit risk exposures when the distribution of economic and public health outcomes is so unusually wide. The US reported record daily COVID-19 infections last Wednesday and Thursday: Several southern and western states that led the way in easing social distancing measures are now experiencing record-high infection rates. Some states are pausing their reopening plans, and the recovery may be more drawn out than expected. Bank stocks sold off after the stress tests, but we’re still a fan of the SIFIs: The year-over-year increases in projected losses weren’t that large, and we still think the SIFIs will suffer smaller credit losses than the market expects. Feature Neutral is dull, neither hot nor cold, neither here nor there, and recommending a benchmark equity weighting in a balanced portfolio makes us restless. We see an equity equal weight as no more than a temporary pause while we wait for the balance between risk and reward to shift enough to merit an underweight or an overweight. When conditions are unusually uncertain, however, we recognize that staying within sight of the shore is prudent. Investors should only take risks when they judge that they will be adequately compensated for doing so. The IMF titled last week’s update to its World Economic Outlook, in which it lowered its 2020 global GDP growth forecast to -4.9% from April’s -3%, “A Crisis Like No Other, An Uncertain Recovery.” As the 1918-19 influenza outbreak is the only global public health threat approaching COVID-19 in terms of its seriousness and its reach, investors have to proceed without a ready basis of comparison. Six months after its emergence, there is still a great deal that we don’t know about the virus. It remains uncertain if developed economies have the hospital capacity and resource stockpiles to combat it, though many emerging economies clearly do not. Modeling the economic impact is further complicated by human vagaries. Public officials can make careful plans for the phased relaxation of activity restrictions, but there is no guarantee that the populace will abide by them. Clusters of unmasked patrons enjoying takeout service on the sidewalk outside the lower Manhattan bars that are open suggest that even likely Democratic voters are as tired of social distancing as the attendees packing the seats at the president’s recent rallies. It turns out that there is something that both sides can agree on, after all. The unpredictability of how well citizens will take direction can go the other way, as well. Just as steadily declining infection rates emboldened people to emerge from their cocoons sooner than officials wished, they may be reluctant to quit them even after officials sound the all-clear signal. As our European Investment Strategy colleagues have noted, economic activity in Sweden, which imposed barely any virus restrictions, was just as weak as it was in neighboring countries that sharply limited movement. The takeaway is that government officials may not have all that much say over how citizens change their behavior amidst a pandemic. There is a possibility, then, that even if officials become comfortable with fully reopening the economy, participants may balk at returning to some corners of it. Officials might throw a party, only to find that very few people will come. The bottom line is that economic conditions are still extremely uncertain, and we will remain in our tactically neutral limbo until we get some clarity about the virus’ path or until equity prices move significantly. Ready Or Not, Here We Come US equities stumbled last week as new COVID-19 infections staged a comeback, with the 7-day moving average rising for 13 straight days and counting (Chart 1). Increases in infections are an inevitable consequence of the expiration of temporary stay-at-home orders that stymied transmission by keeping people apart. The locus has begun to shift from a still largely limited New York City to the southern and western states that were among the first to reopen their economies. As infection rates surged beyond Gotham, the US set consecutive daily infection records last Wednesday and Thursday. Chart 1US Daily New Infections We reiterate that rising cases are no surprise. It is a certainty that more people will contract a communicable disease once large swaths of the population are released from quarantine. But the sharp increases in cases may inspire investors to ask some uncomfortable questions. The lockdowns were meant to buy time for officials to design a testing, tracing and isolation framework that other countries have successfully wielded to short-circuit the spread of the virus. Did the United States use that time to build a workable framework? If not, are conditions materially different than they were in March, when stay-at-home orders began to be issued? The testing process continues to be beset by snags. The US is now capable of administering half a million tests a day, according to health officials’ testimony before Congress last week, and they expect capacity to triple by the fall. That capacity is fragmented across several small labs and testing facilities, however, and it can take as much as a week to obtain results, hampering attempts to isolate those who test positive. The absence of a central authority to direct resources where they’re most needed as new nodes emerge undermines the aggregate national capabilities.1 Turnabout Is Fair Play New York City quickly became the global epicenter once the pandemic entered the United States on account of its density, its residents’ reliance on public transportation and its position as an international crossroads. Counties across the entire metropolitan area, stretching into New Jersey and Connecticut, suffered high per-capita infection rates. Nowhere else in the US needed lockdown measures more than New York City, and it only entered the second stage of a four-stage phased re-opening last week. Other states, observing how the virus besieged New York in March and April, imposed restrictions on New York residents traveling to their states, fearing that they could potentially spread the virus far and wide. The rise in infection rates isn't surprising, but its steepness might cause investors to revisit their virus assumptions. The shoe is now on the other foot. New York has steadily reduced its new infection rate for two months and its 7-day moving average of new infections is just one-fifteenth of its early April peak (Chart 2, top panel). It is now nervously eyeing states suffering new outbreaks, and it announced 14-day quarantine measures for visitors from nine states – Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington – last week. The visitor quarantines are a voluntary measure, and thus likely to have little practical effect, but they highlight the way that several states that have reopened are seeing sharply rising per-capita infection rates relative to the entire country. Alabama’s stay-at-home order ended on April 30th. Its relative per-capita infection rate began to rise immediately (Chart 3, bottom panel). Its 7-day moving average of new infections has since experienced three surges, with the last and most potent causing it to more than double across nine days from June 8th to June 16th (Chart 3, top panel). That span included four consecutive days of record infections. Chart 2New York Daily New Infections Chart 3Alabama Daily New Infections Arizona’s outbreak has been remarkably swift. Its stay-at-home order expired on May 15th, and both its 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 4, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 4, bottom panel) inflected sharply higher fourteen days later. The former series has risen sixfold since residents regained their ability to circulate freely outside of their homes. Arkansas did not have a statewide stay-at-home order, but several measures to slow the virus’ spread were imposed. Restaurants re-opened with capacity limits on May 11th, and by month’s end Arkansas’ 7-day moving average of new infections (Chart 5, top panel) and its relative per-capita infection rate (Chart 5, bottom panel) had begun to inflect sharply higher. Chart 4Arizona Daily New Infections Chart 5Arkansas Daily New Infections The story is similar across the rest of the states subject to New York’s quarantine. Stay-at-home orders end, stores, bars and restaurants reopen, and infection rates surge with a lag of about two weeks. Florida and Texas, the two most populous states on New York’s list, fit the general pattern, though the rate at which their infections has grown has been striking. Last Wednesday, Florida topped its previous single-day new infection record by 36%2 (Chart 6, top panel), while Texas surpassed its daily high by 30% (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6Florida Daily New Infections Chart 7Texas Daily New Infections What’s That Have To Do With The Price Of Stocks In New York? Some of the increase in infection rates is surely a function of more widely available testing. An assessment of what increased state infection rates mean for the course of the virus in any individual state or the entire country is beyond the scope of this report, not to mention our qualifications. Our intention is simply to assess whether US equities are vulnerable to the rising state case counts. We think they could be. Combined daily new infections in Florida and Texas now exceed New York's worst levels in the first half of April. We have previously written that the political will for social distancing measures has dissipated. For many state and local leaders, a return to lockdowns is not an option, and both Missouri’s and Texas’ governors have said as much, in no uncertain terms. There must be an infection level, however, that would force their hands, no matter the depth of their personal opposition. On Thursday, Texas’ governor halted any further easing of restrictions and signed an order suspending elective procedures at hospitals in the counties encompassing Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, all the while reiterating that rolling back reopening measures was a last resort.3 A resurgence in infection rates isn’t an investment concern per se, but it could become one if it encourages state and/or municipal authorities to reinstitute strict social distancing measures or freeze steps toward reopening local economies. There is also a potential threat to consumer confidence, which could be much harder to combat. Reopening an economy too soon could produce a more persistent drag than locking it down for too long. Premature easing that leads to a widely observed surge in infections may make individuals wary of leaving their homes lest they encounter the virus. Hasty measures meant to unshackle economic activity could backfire by sapping confidence that takes a long time to restore. The bottom line is that the combination of virus risks and an elevated forward earnings multiple keeps us from changing our neutral tactical stance to overweight. We are not inclined to underweight stocks, however, unless the S&P 500 approaches its all-time high around 3,400, given the potential for a positive virus surprise and individual and institutional investors’ ample cash holdings. Over a one-year horizon, we remain overweight equities as we do not see the pandemic exerting a permanently negative impact on corporate earnings. SIFI Bank Update The Fed released the results of its annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests (DFAST) after the close last Thursday. The verdict was decidedly mixed. Investors and the financial media were keenly focused on the fate of bank dividends, and while the Fed did not forbid dividend payments, it capped third-quarter distributions at the lesser of a bank’s second-quarter dividend payment or the average of its trailing four-quarter earnings. It also said it would not allow any share repurchases in the third quarter, extending the largest banks' voluntary buyback pause. Among the SIFIs, Wells Fargo (WFC) is most likely to be constrained by the dividend cap, but its stock, lagging the rest of its peers’, already discounted that possibility. Our thesis that the SIFI banks will not incur credit losses as large as the market expects is still intact, provided Congress doesn’t abandon pandemic-stricken businesses, state and local governments or the unemployed in its follow-up to the CARES Act. The Fed's stress tests highlighted the many risks the banking system still faces, but we stand behind our call to overweight the SIFIs. If Congress plays its part, reserve builds roughly equivalent to half of the credit losses projected under the severely adverse scenario should prove to be more than sufficient. Table 1 updates the table we created after first quarter earnings releases to assess the adequacy of each bank’s loan-loss reserves. It shows that the total projected stress-test losses for the SIFIs are just 8.6% larger than they were in 2019, with only JP Morgan (JPM) facing a material increase in its loan-loss rate. A modest increase in maximum projected losses suggests only a modest increase in future provisions, and we still believe that another two quarters of provisions equivalent to the first quarter’s will be enough for each bank ex-WFC, which continues to look under-provisioned alongside its peers. Table 1Loan-Loss Reserves Vs. Updated Stress Test Projections Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kliff, Sarah, “Arizona ‘Overwhelmed’ With Demand for Tests as U.S. System Shows Strain,” New York Times, June 25, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/virus-testing-shortfall-arizona.html 2 As we went to press Friday afternoon, Florida announced over 8,900 new cases, 60% above Wednesday's high. 3 As we went to press Friday afternoon, the governor had just issued an order closing all Texas bars.

Special Report

Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, we are publishing a Special Report on the geopolitical implications of COVID-19 from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt discusses the rise of nationalism with each successive global crisis and the negative implications for globalization. I hope you find his report insightful. Next week, we will publish our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.