Valuations

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Executive Summary The Euro And Relative Growth The Euro And Relative Growth The Euro And Relative Growth The euro is likely to appreciate over the course of 2022. But the path will be volatile, with a retest of recent EUR/USD lows within the central band of possible outcomes. Our 2022 target for the euro is 1.20. This partly hinges on cheap valuations. Beyond 2022, a bold estimate could see the euro gravitate towards 1.40. The pricing of interest rate hikes by the ECB this year are too aggressive. But this is also the case for the Federal Reserve, especially if inflation proves transitory. Our bias is that appreciation in the euro will be more driven by improving relative economic fundamentals as the 2022 cycle unfolds. A bottom in Chinese growth could be the ultimate arbiter of which mega economy outperforms. Sentiment on the euro is only neutral. This suggests that an escalation in Russo-Ukrainian tensions, as well as a more dovish ECB, are key risks in the short term. A short EUR/JPY position is a good hedge for this risk. In our FX portfolio, we are long EUR/CHF and long EUR/GBP as equally playable themes. We would buy the EUR/USD at current levels but suspect a better entry point awaits us. Recommendations Inception Level Inception Date Return Long EUR/CHF 1.05 2021-11-19 0.62% Long EUR/GBP 0.846 2021-10-15 -.71%   Bottom Line: A positive surprise in Chinese growth, which will boost the euro area trade balance, will be a catalyst for eurozone growth. So will a decline in Russo-Ukrainian tensions and lower energy inflation. Feature The most persistent question we have received in recent weeks is the outlook for the euro. As the premier anti-dollar asset, most clients have been surprised by recent strength in the European currency, betting that a hawkish Fed and US exceptionalism will push the greenback to new highs. A domestic energy crisis interlinked with a brewing war in their backyard has created perfect conditions for selling the euro. With US inflation surprising to the upside, the case for maintaining a dollar-bullish stance remains in place. Yet, the dollar is well below its previous highs. Our suspicion is that the market faces a conundrum. Transitory inflation will nudge the Fed to underwhelm market expectations of aggressive rate hikes. Meanwhile, sticky inflation means that other central banks will eventually catch up to the Federal Reserve in tightening monetary policy. This tug of war has been a defining theme of our strategy for currencies in 2022.1 Specific to the euro area, there is a lot of bad economic news that is now well priced in, while good news is underappreciated by markets. This is becoming evident in the interest rate market, where real Bund yields are creeping noticeably higher. The spread of Omicron in the euro area is receding in lockstep with the deceleration in the US (Chart 1). As a result, the potential growth profile of the euro area is improving tremendously (Chart 2). Should this prove durable, it will put a solid floor under the euro. Chart 1The Pandemic Is Receding The Pandemic Is Receding The Pandemic Is Receding Chart 2The Euro And Relative Growth The Euro And Relative Growth The Euro And Relative Growth The Case For European Growth Growth is moderating around the world. That said, the German manufacturing PMI has been sharply outpacing that of the US. What is also true is that most measures of euro area growth that we monitor are rising fast relative to the US. The results are preliminary, but the possibility of a growth rotation from the US to other economies, including the eurozone, is very much underappreciated by markets. The economic surprise index in the euro area is strong relative to the US, pointing to a stronger euro (Chart 3). Bloomberg economic forecasts suggest that euro area growth will outpace growth in the US this year. According to the consensus, the euro area will grow by 4.2% in 2022, compared to the US at 3.9%. Remarkably, eurozone growth has typically lagged growth in the US by a significant margin. If past is prologue, it suggests the euro is not priced for this paradigm change (Chart 4). Chart 3Economic Surprises And ##br##The Euro Economic Surprises And The Euro Economic Surprises And The Euro Chart 4Bloomberg Forecasters Expect A Pickup In Eurozone Growth Bloomberg Forecasters Expect A Pickup In Eurozone Growth Bloomberg Forecasters Expect A Pickup In Eurozone Growth Other economic forecasts corroborate this view. The IMF expects eurozone growth to moderate from 5.2%, to 3.9% in 2022. This is an advantage over the US, where growth is expected to moderate from 5.6% in 2021, to 4% in 2022. The Atlanta Fed GDP growth tracker suggests US growth will slow to a crawl in Q1. The ZEW survey points to a meaningful rebound in the German (and euro area) PMI in the coming months (Chart 5). This will further widen the gap between European and US growth. The key denominator for all these forecasts is a bottoming in Chinese growth. The euro area needs the manufacturing and external sector to keep humming, with China as a critical import partner. Industrial production in the euro area, relative to the US, tends to track the Chinese credit impulse closely (Chart 6). Our bias is that the Chinese credit impulse has bottomed. This will be a catalyst for more Chinese demand for European goods. Chart 5The ZEW Survey Points To An Improving German PMI The ZEW Survey Points To An Improving German PMI The ZEW Survey Points To An Improving German PMI Chart 6Europe Is Partly Dependent On China Europe Is Partly Dependent On China Europe Is Partly Dependent On China The ECB And Interest Rates Chart 7The Gap Between Expected US-EUR Interest Rates Is Wide The Gap Between Expected US-EUR Interest Rates Is Wide The Gap Between Expected US-EUR Interest Rates Is Wide The markets have begun to reprice higher interest rates in the eurozone. Admittedly, this has been partly due to higher expected inflation. In our view, the repricing by markets is warranted due to the gaping wedge between US versus European interest rate expectations. According to December 2022 contracts, markets expect the Fed to hike interest rates by significantly more than the ECB (Chart 7). It is true that structurally, inflation in the eurozone has been lower than in the US. In fact, our European Investment Strategy colleagues highlight that by stripping out energy, and the impact of VAT tax increases, European inflation is even lower. When CPI baskets are adjusted item for item, eurozone inflation today is indeed lower compared to the US, but not by much (Chart 8). For example, energy and transportation are only 14% of the eurozone CPI basket versus 26% in the US (Table 1). Meanwhile, the ECB targets HICP inflation (not core) that sits at 5.1%, versus a target of 2%.  Chart 8Item-For-Item Inflation: US Versus Eurozone Item-For-Item Inflation: US Versus Eurozone Item-For-Item Inflation: US Versus Eurozone Table 1Differences In The US And Eurozone CPI Basket The Unsung Case For The Euro The Unsung Case For The Euro In the coming months, inflation is likely to subside in the eurozone, but probably by less than markets expect. The key driver of inflation expectations in the eurozone (and in the US) are long-dated commodity prices (Chart 9). This has become even more evident, given the surge in electricity prices across many European countries. Robert Ryan, our Chief Commodity Strategist, expects long-dated crude prices to be revised upward, as the oil curve remains persistently backwardated. This puts a floor on how low inflation expectations can relapse in the euro area and will keep the ECB on edge. Meanwhile, the employment picture in the eurozone is also improving. Adjusting for the higher rate of structural unemployment, euro area joblessness compares favorably with the US (Chart 10). It is true that wage growth remains anemic, but it is also the case that the behavior of wages can exhibit a structural shift at very low levels of employment.  Chart 9What Drives Eurozone Inflation Expectations? What Drives Eurozone Inflation Expectations? What Drives Eurozone Inflation Expectations? Chart 10US Versus Eurozone Labor Markets US Versus Eurozone Labor Markets US Versus Eurozone Labor Markets Finally, the euro zone has a lot of pent-up demand. This could help bolster growth in the coming quarters and even beyond. While not a subject of this report, we suspect that the cascading crises in the eurozone could have sown the seeds for a productivity boom in the coming years. For a 12-18-month outlook, high savings and easy fiscal policy will allow European growth to recover in the coming quarters. EUR/USD Valuation And Future Returns Making a structural case for the euro is easy when it comes to valuation. According to our in-house PPP models, an investor who buys the euro today can expect to make 4%-5% a year over the next decade, should the euro stay at current levels of undervaluation versus the US. This will occur if Eurozone inflation keeps lagging that in the US.  (Chart 11). That said, this is the Goldilocks case. A simple return to PPP fair value will suggest the euro will rise by a robust 20%. For 2022, our forecast for the euro is more in the 1.20-1.23 range, 8% above current levels. Our stance is measured because investors are only neutral the euro (Chart 12). Usually, this means that the macroeconomic environment becomes the dominant driver, rather than sentiment. With a Russo-Ukrainian crisis still in the backyard and the potential for more market volatility, an undershoot in the euro cannot be ruled out.  Chart 11The Goldilocks Case For The Euro The Goldilocks Case For The Euro The Goldilocks Case For The Euro Chart 12Sentiment On The Euro Is Only Neutral Sentiment On The Euro Is Only Neutral Sentiment On The Euro Is Only Neutral That said, interest rate differentials are now moving in favor of the euro. Italian BTPs now yield 1.9%, like US Treasurys. The US Treasury-Bund spread has also narrowed. This removes a lot of the incentive for Europeans to flood the US Treasury or TIPs market, should market volatility subside. Given this confluence of factors, we have chosen to play euro strength via two channels: Long EUR/CHF: This trade will benefit from positive interest rate differentials. Also, the Swiss franc has been bid up relative to the euro on safe-haven demand. This has outpaced the traditional demand for safety, using the DXY index as a proxy (Chart 13). Long EUR/GBP: This is a bet on improving economic fundamentals between the eurozone and the UK (Chart 14), as well as a bet on policy convergence between the two economies. Chart 13Stay Long EUR/CHF Stay Long EUR/CHF Stay Long EUR/CHF Chart 14Stay Long EUR/GBP Stay Long EUR/GBP Stay Long EUR/GBP   Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, “The Biggest Macro Question By FX Investors Could Potentially Be The Least Relevant”, dated January 14, 2022.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Brazil: Are Political & Macro Risks Priced-In? Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Presidential elections are due in Brazil on October 2, 2022. While the left-of-center former President Lula da Silva will likely win, the road to his victory will not be as smooth as markets expect. Incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro will make every effort to cling to power, including fiscal populism and attacks on Brazil’s institutions. These moves may roil Brazil’s equity markets as they may provide a fillip to Bolsonaro’s popularity. Bolsonaro’s institutional attacks have triggered down moves in the market before and any fiscal expansion may worry investors as it could prove to be sticky. We urge investors to take-on only selective tactical exposure in Brazil. Equities appear cheap but political and macro risks abound. To play the rally yet stave-off political risk in Brazil, we suggest a tactical pair trade: Long Brazil Financials / Short India. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Long Brazil Financials / Short India 2022-02-10   Bottom Line: On a tactical timeframe we suggest only selective exposure to Brazil given the latent political and macro risks. On a strategic timeframe, we are neutral on Brazil given that its growth potential coexists with high debt and low proclivity to structural reform. Feature Chart 1Brazil Underperformed Through 2020-21, Is Cheap Today Brazil Underperformed Through 2020-21, Is Cheap Today Brazil Underperformed Through 2020-21, Is Cheap Today Brazil’s equity markets underperformed relative to emerging markets (EMs) for a second consecutive year in 2021 (Chart 1). But thanks to this correction, Brazilian equities now appear cheap (Chart 1). With Brazil looking cheap, China easing policy, and Lula’s return likely, is now a good time to buy into Brazil? We recommend taking on only selective exposure to Brazil on a tactical horizon for now. Brazil in our view may present a near-term value trap as markets are under-pricing political and economic risks. Lula Set For Phoenix-Like Return Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (or popularly Lula) of the Worker’s Party (PT) appears all set to reclaim the country’s presidency in the fall of 2022. The main risk that Lula’s presidency may bring is a degree of fiscal expansion. Despite this markets may ultimately welcome his victory at the presidential elections as Lula is in alignment with the median voter, is expected to be better for Brazil’s institutions, will institute a superior pandemic-control strategy, and may also undertake badly needed structural reforms in the early part of his tenure. Despite these points we urge investors to limit exposure to Brazil for now and turn bullish only once the market corrects further. Whilst far-right President Jair Bolsonaro managed to join a political party (i.e., the center-right Liberal Party) late last year, he is yet to secure something more central to winning elections i.e., a high degree of popularity. To boost his low popularity ratings (Chart 2), we expect Bolsonaro to leverage two planks: populism and authoritarianism. These measures will bump up Bolsonaro’s popularity enough to shake up Brazil’s markets with renewed uncertainty, but not enough to win him the presidency. Chart 2Lula Is Ahead But His Lead Has Narrowed Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Lula is a clear favorite to win. After spending more than a year in jail on corruption charges, Lula is back in the fray and has maintained a lead on Bolsonaro for the first round of polling (Chart 2). Even if a second-round run-off election were to take place, Lula would prevail over Bolsonaro or other key candidates (Chart 3). By contrast, Bolsonaro’s lower popularity means that in a run-off situation he stands a chance only if pitted against center-right candidates like Sergio Moro (his former justice minister) or João Doria (i.e., the center-right Governor of São Paulo) (Chart 4). Chart 3Lula Leads Run-Off Vote Against All Potential Candidates Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 4In A Run-Off, Bolso Stands Best Chance Of Winning If Pitted Against Moro Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ What has driven the swing to the left in Brazil? After the pandemic and some stagflation, Brazil’s median voter’s priorities have changed. In specific: Brazil’s median voter’s top concerns in 2018 were centered around improving law and order (Chart 5). A right-of-center candidate with concrete law-and-order credentials like Bolsonaro was well placed to tap into this public demand. Chart 5In 2018-19, Law And Order Issues Dominated Voters’ Concerns Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Now, however, Brazil’s voters’ top concerns are focused around improving the economy and controlling the pandemic, where Bolsonaro’s record is dismal (Chart 6). Given this change of priorities, a left-of-center candidate with a solid economic record like Lula is best placed to address voters’ concerns. Lula had the fortune to preside over a global commodity bull market and Brazilian economic boom in the early 2000s (Chart 7). Regarding pandemic control, almost any challenger would be better positioned than Bolsonaro, who initially dismissed Covid-19 as “a little flu” and lacked the will or ability to set up a stable public health policy. Chart 6In 2022, Median Voter Cares Most About Economic Issues, Pandemic-Control Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 7Lula’s Presidency Overlapped With An Economic Boom Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ A left-of-center candidate like Lula, or even Ciro Gomes (Chart 8), is more in step with the median voter today for two key reasons: Inflation Surge, Few Jobs: Inflation has surged, and the increase is higher than that seen under the previous President Michael Temer (Chart 7). Transportation, food, and housing costs have all taken a toll on voter’s pocketbooks (Chart 9). The cost of electricity has also shot up. For 46% of Brazilian families, expenditure on power and natural gas is eating into more than half of their monthly income, according to Ipec. Chart 8Left-Of-Center Candidates Stand A Better Chance In Brazil In 2022 Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 9Under Bolso Inflation Has Surged Across Key Categories Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​ Distinct from inflation, unemployment too has been high under Bolsonaro (Chart 10). Chart 10Unemployment Too Has Surged Under Bolsonaro Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 11Brazil’s Per Capita Income Growth Has Lagged That Of Peers Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 12Since 2018, Brazil's Economic Miseries Have Grown More Than Those Of Peers Since 2018, Brazil's Economic Miseries Have Grown More Than Those Of Peers Since 2018, Brazil's Economic Miseries Have Grown More Than Those Of Peers Stagnant Incomes: Despite a strong post-pandemic fiscal stimulus, GDP growth in Brazil has been low (Chart 7). In a country that is structurally plagued with high inequalities, the slow growth in Brazil’s per capita income (Chart 11) under a right-wing administration is bound to trigger a leftward shift. It is against this backdrop of rising economic miseries (Chart 12) that Latin America’s largest economy is seeing its ideological pendulum swing leftwards. This phenomenon has played out before too - most notably when Lula first assumed power as the president of Brazil in 2002. Brazil’s GDP growth was low, inflation was high and per capita incomes had almost halved under the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (or popularly FHC) over 1995-2002. This economic backdrop played a key role in Lula’s landslide win in 2002. Brazil’s political differences are rooted in regional as well as socioeconomic disparities. In the 2018 presidential elections, left-of-center candidates like Fernando Haddad generated greatest traction in the economically backward northeastern region of Brazil. On the other hand, Bolsonaro enjoyed higher traction in the relatively well-off regions in southern and northern Brazil (Maps 1 & 2). Now Bolsonaro has faltered under the pandemic and Lula can reunite the dissatisfied parts of the electorate with his northeastern base. Map 1Brazil’s South, Mid-West And North Supported Bolso In 2018 Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Map 2Left-Of-Center 2018 Presidential Candidate Haddad Had Greatest Traction In Regions With Low Incomes Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Bottom Line: The stage appears set for Lula’s return to Brazil’s presidency. But will the road be smooth? We think not. Investors should gird for downside risks that Brazilian markets must contend with as President Bolsonaro fights back. Brace For Bolso’s Fightback The road to Bolsonaro’s likely loss will be paved with market volatility and potentially a correction. Interest rates have surged in Brazil as its central bank combats inflation (Chart 13). Even as BCB’s actions will lend some stability to the Brazilian Real (Chart 13), political events over the course of 2022 will spook foreign investors. Bolsonaro will leverage two planks in a desperate attempt to retain control: Plank #1: Populism Brazil’s financial markets experienced a major correction in the second half of 2021. This was partially driven by the fact that Brazilian legislators approved a rule that allows the government to breach its federal spending cap. Given Bolsonaro’s low popularity ratings today and given that his fiscal stance has been restrained off late, Bolsonaro could well drive another bout of fiscal expansion in the run up to October 2022. Such a move will bump up his popularity but at the same time worry markets given Brazil’s elevated debt levels (Chart 14). Bolsonaro can technically pass these changes in the Brazilian national assembly given that in both houses the government along with the confidence and supply parties has more than 50% of seats. Chart 13Brazil’s Central Bank Has Hiked Rates Aggressively Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Chart 14Brazil Is One Of The Most Indebted Emerging Markets Today Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​​ Plank #2: Institutional Attacks To rally his supporters, the former army captain could also sow seeds of doubt in Brazil’s judiciary and electoral process. Given the strong support that Bolsonaro enjoys amongst conservatives, he may even mobilize supporters to stage acts of political violence in the run up to the elections. Bolsonaro could make more dramatic attempts to stay in power than former US President Trump, whose rebellion on Capitol Hill did not go as far as it could have gone to attempt to seize power for the outgoing president. Last but not the least, there is a possibility that the Brazilian judiciary presents an unexpected roadblock to Lula’s candidacy. Given the unpredictable path of Brazil’s judicial decisions, investors should be prepared for at least some kind of official impediments to Lula’s rise. Even if Lula is ultimately allowed to run, any ruling that casts doubt on his candidacy or corruption-related track record will upset financial markets. Global financial markets rallied through the Trump rebellion on January 6 last year. But US institutions, however flawed, are more stable than Brazil’s. Brazil only emerged from military dictatorship in 1985. Bolsonaro has fired up elements of the populace that are nostalgic for that period, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: Brazil’s equities look cheap today, but political risks have not fully run their course. President Bolsonaro may launch his fightback soon, which could drive another down-leg in Brazil’s markets. His institutional attacks have triggered down moves before and any potential fiscal expansion that Bolsonaro pursues may worry investors, as this expansion could stick under the subsequent administration. In addition, there is a chance that civil-military relations undergo high strain in the run-up to or immediately after Brazil’s elections. Is A Self-Coup By Bolso Possible? “One uncomfortable fact of the dictatorship is that its most brutal period of repression overlapped with what Milton Friedman called an economic miracle.… Brazil’s economy, nineteenth largest in the world before the coup, grew into the eighth largest. Jobs abounded and the regime then was actually popular.” – Alex Cuadros, Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country (Spiegel & Grau, 2016) It is extremely difficult for President Bolsonaro to win the support of a majority of the electorate. But given his open admiration for Brazil’s dictatorship, is a self-coup possible in 2022? The next nine months will be tumultuous. A coup attempt could occur. However, we allocate a low probability to a successful self-coup because: Bolsonaro’s Popularity Is Too Low: Even dictators need to have some popular appeal. Bolsonaro has lost too much support (Chart 15), he never had full control of any major institutions (including the military), and few institutional players will risk their credibility for his sake. If he somehow clung to power, his subsequent administration would face overwhelming popular resistance. Chart 15Bolsonaro’s Low Approval Ratings - A Liability Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Bolsonaro’s Economy Is Too Weak: The dictatorship in Brazil managed to hold power for more than two decades partially because this period of authoritarianism was accompanied by a degree of economic well-being. Currently the public is shifting to the left because low growth and high inflation have dented the median voter’s purchasing power. The weak economy would make an authoritarian government unsustainable from the start. Lack Of American Support: Some military personnel may be supportive of a coup and several retired military officers are occupying civilian positions in the Brazilian federal government, thanks to Bolsonaro. So why can’t Brazil slip right back into a military dictatorship led by Bolsonaro, say if the election results are narrow and hotly contested? The coup d'état in Brazil in 1964 was a success to a large extent because this regime-change was supported by America. Back then communism was a threat to the US and Washington was keen to displace left-leaning heads of states in Latin America, such as Brazilian President João Goulart. But America’s strategic concerns have now changed. America today is attempting to coalesce an axis of democracies and the Biden administration has no incentive whatsoever to muddy its credentials by supporting dictatorship in Latin America’s largest country. Even aside from ideology, any such action would encourage fearful governments in the region to seek support from America’s foreign rivals, thus inviting the kind of foreign intervention that the US most wants to prevent in Latin America. The Brazilian Military Has Not Been Suppressed Or Sidelined: History suggests that coups are often triggered by a drop in the military’s importance in a country. However, the military’s power in Brazil has remained meaningful through the twenty-first century. Brazil has maintained steady military spends at around 1.5% of GDP over the last two decades. Thus, top leaders of Brazil’s military have no reason to feel aggrieved or disempowered. Having said that, it is not impossible that an extreme faction of junior officers might try to pull off a fantastical plot, even if they have little hope of succeeding, which is why we highlight that markets can be rudely awakened by the road to Brazil’s election this year. In Turkey in July 2016, an unsuccessful coup attempt caused Turkish equities to decline by 9% over a four-day period. Bottom Line: Investors must gird for the very real possibility of civil-military relations undergoing high degrees of strain in Brazil, particularly if a contested election occurs. While Bolsonaro’s supporters and disaffected elements of the Brazilian military could resist a smooth transition of power away from Bolsonaro, the transition will eventually take place because two powerful constituencies – Brazil’s median voter and America – will not support a coup in Brazil. Will Lula Be Good For Brazil’s Markets? Looking over Bolsonaro’s presidency, from a market-perspective, some policy measures were good, some were bad, and some were downright ugly. In specific: The Good: Pension Reforms And Independent Monetary Policy In Bolsonaro’s first year in power, he delivered pension sector reforms. The law increased the minimum retirement age and also increased workers’ pension contributions thereby resulting in meaningful fiscal savings. Bolsonaro passed a law to formalise the BCB’s autonomy and the BCB has been able to pursue a relatively independent monetary policy. BCB has now lifted the benchmark Selic rate by 725bps over 2021 thereby making it one of the most hawkish central banks amongst EMs (Chart 13). This is in sharp contrast to the situation in EMs like Turkey where the central bank cut rates owing to the influence of a populist head of state. The Bad: Poor Free Market Credentials And Fiscal Expansion In early 2021, President Bolsonaro fired the head of Petrobras (the state-owned energy champion) reportedly for raising fuel prices. Bolsonaro then picked a former army general (with no relevant work experience) to head the company. Although Bolsonaro positioned himself as a supporter of privatization in the run up to his presidency, he failed to follow through. Another area where the far-right leader has disappointed markets is with respect to Brazil’s debt levels. Under his presidency, a constitutional amendment to raise a key government spending cap was passed. Shortly afterwards came the creation of the massive welfare program Auxílio Brasil. Bolsonaro embraced fiscal populism to try to save his presidency after the pandemic. Consequently Brazil’s public debt to GDP ratio ballooned from 86% in 2018 to a peak of 99% in 2020. The Ugly: Poor Pandemic Response And Institutional Attacks The darkest hour of Bolsonaro’s presidency came on September 7, 2021, i.e., Brazil’s Independence Day. During rallies with his supporters, Bolsonaro levelled attacks on the Brazilian judiciary and sowed seeds of doubt in Brazil’s electoral process. More concretely, the greatest failing of the Bolsonaro administration has been its lax response to the pandemic. Bolsonaro delayed preventive measures, and this has meant that Brazil was one of the worst hit major economies of the world. The pandemic has claimed more than 630,000 lives in Brazil i.e., the second highest in the world. In relative terms too, Brazil has experienced a high death rate of about 2,960 per million which is even higher than the US rate of 2,720 per million. President Bolsonaro’s poor handling of the pandemic will cost the President in terms of votes in 2022 as the highest Covid-19-related death rates were seen in Southern Brazil (Map 3) i.e., a region that had voted in large numbers for Bolsonaro in 2018 (see Map 1 above). Map 3The Pandemic Has Had A Devastating Impact In Brazil’s South, Mid-West And North Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Given this backdrop, a Lula presidency will be welcomed by global financial markets, potentially for three reasons: Superior Pandemic-Control: An administration headed by Lula will bring in a more scientific and cohesive pandemic-control strategy thereby saving lives and benefiting the economy. Alignment With Institutions: Lula will act in alignment with Brazil’s institutions. He stands to benefit from the existing electoral system, the civil bureaucracy, academia, and the media. He may have rougher relations with the judiciary and parts of the military, but he is a known quantity and not likely to attempt to be a Hugo Chavez. Possibility Of Some Structural Reform: Given Brazil’s unstable debt dynamics, and the “lost decade” of economic malaise in the 2010s, there is a chance that Lula could pursue some structural reforms. Lula is more popular than his Worker’s Party, which is still tainted by corruption, so his strength in Congress will not be known until after the election. But Brazilian parties tend to coalesce around the president and Lula has experience in managing the legislative process. The probability of Lula pushing through some bit of structural reform will be the greatest in 2021. Back in 2019, it is worth recounting that only 4% of the Brazilian public supported pension reforms. Despite this Bolsonaro managed the passage of painful pension reforms in 2019 because market pressure forced the parties to cooperate. Faced with inflation and low growth, Lula may be forced to push through some piecemeal structural financial sector and economic reforms. However, if commodity prices and financial markets are cheering his election, he may spend his initial political capital on policies closer to his base of support, which means that a market riot may be necessary to force action on structural reforms. This dynamic will have to be monitored in the aftermath of the election. Assuming Lula does pursue some structural reforms while he has the political capital, and therefore that his first year is positive for financial markets, there is a reason to be positive on Brazil selectively on a tactical basis. However, electoral compulsions could cause Lula to pursue left-wing populism, fiscal expansion, and to resist privatization over the remaining three years of his presidency. Given Brazil’s already elevated debt levels (Chart 14), such a policy tilt would be market negative. It is against this backdrop that we expect a pro-Lula market rally to falter after the initial excitement. Bottom Line: Once the power transition is complete, a relief rally may follow as markets factor in the prospects of institutional stability and possibly a dash of structural reform in the first year of Lula’s presidency. But given Brazil’s elevated inequalities, even a pro-Lula rally will eventually fade as the administration will be constrained to switch back to the old ways and pursue an expansionary fiscal policy when elections loom. Investment Conclusions Brazil Presents A Value Trap, Fraught with Politico-Economic Risks From a strategic perspective, we are neutral on Brazil. A decade of bad news has been priced in but there is not yet a clear and sustainable trajectory to improve the country’s productivity. History suggests that both left-wing and right-wing presidents are often forced to backtrack on structural reforms and resort to cash-handouts in the run up to elections. This tends to add to Brazil’s high debt levels, prevents the domestic growth engine from revving up, and adds to inflation. Low growth and high inflation then set the wheels rolling for another bout of fiscal expansion (Chart 16). Chart 16The Vicious Politico-Economic Cycle That Brazil Is Trapped In Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Exceptions to this politico-economic cycle occur when a commodity boom is underway or if China, which is Brazil’s key client state, is booming. China today buys a third of Brazil’s exports (Chart 17) and is Brazil’s largest export market. The other reason we remain circumspect about Brazil’s strategic prospects is because of the secular slowdown underway in China. China is not in a position today to recreate the commodity and trade boom that buoyed Lula during his first presidency. China’s policy easing is a tactical boon at best, which can coincide with a Lula relief rally, but afterwards investors will be left with Chinese deleveraging and Brazilian populism. Political Risks Are High, Selective Tactical Exposure Brazil Will Be Optimal We urge investors to buy into Brazilian assets only selectively, even as Brazilian equities appear cheap (Chart 18). Political risks and economic risks such as low growth in GDP and earnings (Chart 19) could contribute to another correction and/or volatility in Brazilian equities. Chart 17China Buys A Third Of Brazil’s Exports Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions ​​​​​ ​​​​​Chart 18Brazil: Are Political & Macro Risks Priced-In? Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Brazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Chart 19Brazil's EPS Growth Tracks China's Total Social Financing Growth With A Lag Brazil's EPS Growth Tracks China's Total Social Financing Growth With A Lag Brazil's EPS Growth Tracks China's Total Social Financing Growth With A Lag China’s policy easing is an important macro factor playing to Brazil’s benefit. As we highlighted in our “China Geopolitical Outlook 2022,” Beijing is focused on ensuring stability over the next 12 months. But history suggests that Brazil’s corporate earnings respond to a pick-up in China’s total social financing with a lag of more than six months (Chart 19). Thus, even from a purely macro perspective it may make sense to turn bullish on Brazil after the election turmoil concludes. Given that politically sensitive sectors account for an unusually high proportion of Brazil’s market capitalization (Chart 18), and given the political risks in the offing for Brazil, we suggest taking-on selective exposure in Brazil. To play the rally yet mitigate political risks (that can be higher for capital-heavy sectors), we suggest a pair trade: Long Brazil Financials / Short India. We remain positive on India on a strategic horizon. However, in view of India approaching the business-end of its five-year election cycle, when policy risks tend to become elevated, we reiterate our tactical sell on India. India currently trades at a 81% premium to MSCI EM on a forward P-E ratio basis versus its two year average of 56%. A Quick Note On The Nascent EM Rally Investors should gradually look more favorably on emerging markets, but tactical caution is warranted. MSCI EM and MSCI World are down YTD 1.1% and 4.6% respectively. Despite the dip, we are not yet turning bullish on EM as a whole, owing to both geopolitical and macroeconomic factors. Global geopolitical risks in the new year are high. We recently upgraded the odds of Russia re-invading Ukraine from 50% to 75%. Besides EM Europe, we also see high and underrated geopolitical risks in the Middle East in the short run. Both the Russia and Iran conflicts raise a non-negligible risk of energy shocks that undermine global growth. Once these hurdles are cleared, we will turn more positive toward risky assets. Macroeconomically, the current EM rally can be sustained only if China delivers a substantial stimulus, and the US dollar continues to weaken. The former is likely, as we have argued, but the dollar looks to be resilient and it will take several months before China’s credit impulse rebounds. Hence conditions for a sustainable EM rally do not yet exist. Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The Software and Services Industry is undergoing a fundamental transformation in its business model catalyzed by a momentous migration of software applications to the cloud and broad-based digitization of the economy. This shift is accompanied by displacement of the traditional on-prem license and support model with a more lucrative cloud-based subscription model.  While on-prem software sales are contracting, cloud revenue is growing in double digits. As a result, the industry enjoys spectacular margins and earnings growth. Its earnings have also proven to be resilient across the business cycle because software and IT services increase companies’ productivity in good times and bad. Rising rates are a headwind, but a temporary one. Margins Will Continue To Expand Margins Are To Continue Expanding Margins Are To Continue Expanding Bottom Line: The Software and Services industry group is an all-weather industry with resilient earnings and strong growth throughout the business cycle. It is also in the epicenter of technological innovation: Migration to the cloud and digital transformation enhance the industry’s growth and profitability.  We continue recommending both a tactical and a structural overweight. Feature Performance Technology stocks found themselves in the eye of this month’s market rout. After falling 19% from its peak, the NASDAQ is now firmly in correction territory. The Technology sector is down 11%, while the Software and Services industry group is down 10% (Chart 1). In the “Are We There Yet?” report published last week, we posited that it is not yet the right time to bottom fish: While the Technology sector appears oversold, macroeconomic headwinds from the imminent monetary tightening and a slowdown in demand for technology goods and services may prolong the pain. The interplay of valuations and fundamentals for the sector is not yet favorable. While we are underweight the Technology sector, thanks to our underweight positions in Semiconductors and Hardware and Equipment, we remain overweight Software and Services (S&S). In this report, we will conduct a “deep dive” into S&S and reevaluate our positioning (Table 1). Although S&S is down more than 10% from the peak,  it has outperformed the S&P 500 by 88% since 2011 (Chart 2). The million-dollar question we will try to answer is whether this outperformance continues over the tactical and structural time horizons. Chart 1Software And Services Outperformed Other Tech Industries Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Chart 2S&S Outperformed The S&P 500 By 88% Over The Past 10 Years S&S Outperformed The S&P 500 By 88% Over The Past 10 Years S&S Outperformed The S&P 500 By 88% Over The Past 10 Years Table 1Performance Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Sneak Preview: We maintain our overweight of the Software and Services sector thanks to positive market trends, the all-weather nature of the industry, and resilient earnings. Industry Group Composition The Software And Services Industry Group Is Top Heavy The S&P 500 Software and Services industry group is the largest in the Technology sector and is 48% of the sector market cap. The industry group is split between Software, which is about two-thirds of its market cap, and IT Services, which is one-third (Chart 3). Just like other technology industries, it is dominated by one of the FAANGs+M, Microsoft in this case, which makes up 42% of the industry group index weight. The top 10 constituents out of 36 comprise 80% of the industry’s weight (Table 2). During the current pullback, the S&S industry group has fallen by more than 10%, cushioned by the performance of its larger players. But this masks the pain of the smaller and less profitable constituents, which have fallen by more than 30% (Chart 4). Chart 3Software Dwarfs IT Services Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Chart 4Some Smaller Constituents Have Fallen More Than 15% YTD Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Table 2S&S Industry Is Dominated By A Handful Of Successful Companies Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud However, market dominance runs much deeper than just market capitalization: Microsoft, Adobe, Salesforce, and Oracle account for 87% of the Software Industry revenue, while Visa, Mastercard, Accenture, and PayPal generate 42% of the IT Services industry revenue. Larger industry players are also more profitable thanks to the high operating leverage the industry enjoys. Clearly, just a few companies drive sales and earnings growth, valuations, and performance. On the bright side, these are some of the most successful US technology companies, and their size is their competitive moat. We believe that the industry group is in “good hands.” Key Trends Cloud Migration Following the success of offshoring the US manufacturing base to China that allowed corporations to reduce labor costs, companies are now experimenting with outsourcing other key infrastructure elements. This time, however, the migration is happening to digital cloud platforms. Instead of investing in pricey servers and other hardware assets, corporations have the choice of going with Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), or Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) solutions offered by the tech titans. Not only are cloud solutions more cost-effective, but they also offer the convenience and flexibility to scale corporate hardware infrastructure by simply purchasing more or less computational power. COVID-19 lockdowns and the migration of the white-collar workforce towards remote work have motivated companies to transition their technology and operations to the cloud, and have acted as a catalyst for “digital offshoring.” Digital Transformation Digital transformation is in many ways similar to cloud migration. Essentially, it represents broader software penetration into the US economy. Whether it is a manufacturing production or customer relationship management process, wider adoption of software allows for a more efficient business solution via automation and process optimization. Airbnb and Uber are the poster children of digital transformation. While some industries have already undergone digital transformation, there are notable areas which lag behind. For instance, banks’ failure to modernize their digital infrastructure to speed up transactions and to increase overall user convenience has arguably led to the development of the crypto space as an alternative to the slow-evolving traditional financial institutions. The broader implication is that there are still major sectors in the economy that are yet to ramp up automation and increase efficiencies via digital transformation, meaning that there is a healthy demand pipeline for the tech companies. Types Of Software And Services Companies Software: Migration To The Cloud Is A Key Driver Of Growth In the past, classifying software companies was a relatively straightforward exercise: They were divided into system software vs. application software. System software included such categories as operating systems for PCs, and other hardware and database software. Application software covered Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Communications and Collaborations, etc. However, over time, the industry landscape has changed, first by the mergers that blurred the distinction across these lines, and lately, thanks to ubiquitous migration to the cloud model and digitization of the economy. Therefore, it is most practical to classify software companies by their type of business model, i.e., legacy license and support model, or cloud-based, or hybrid.  Pure cloud-first: These companies derive 100% of their sales from the cloud model – Salesforce.com (CRM), ServiceNow (Now), and Twilio (TWLO) are among the biggest winners. Cloud/license hybrid: These are companies that derive 50%+ of their sales from the cloud, such as Microsoft (MSFT), Atlassian (TEAM), Autodesk (ADSK), and Adobe (ADBE). Legacy license and support model (aka On-Premises): Constellation Software (CSU), Citrix Systems (CTSX) – these companies are likely to struggle to grow organically. Types Of Cloud Application Services The cloud-based business model in turn can be classified under three different types of service: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS). Software-as-a-Service: Customers configure and access a web-based application operated by a SaaS provider over the internet. Salesforce.com, Workday (DAY), ServiceNow, and Oracle are some of the most established players. Infrastructure-as-a-Service: This service gives customers access to virtual storage and servers over the internet, enabling them to develop and run any application just as if it were running in their own data center. Amazon’s AWS, Microsoft’s Azure, and IBM are the key competitors in this space. Platform-as-a-Service: This service occupies a middle ground between SaaS and IaaS, i.e. between a full-fledged app that can be used “out-of-the-box” and a “raw server and storage” instance, making the customer responsible for installing and configuring its own “full stack.” PaaS offerings tend to be less standardized. Salesforce.com, Microsoft, and Oracle are the leaders. IDC projects the continued strength of this segment and expects it to grow at an annualized rate of 29.7% over the next five years. The following table from Microsoft presents a perfect explanation of the different software service models (Table 3). Table 3Differences In Cloud Computing Service Models Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud License And Support Vs. Cloud Subscription Model Growth Rates Broad-based migration to the cloud is shifting the industry’s revenue composition, with accelerating bifurcation between cloud and on-prem models: Cloud subscription revenue is replacing the traditional license and support model. As a result, legacy on-prem revenue has recently been contracting, and once the last of the legacy enterprise applications are retired, it will be fully replaced by cloud revenue. According to estimates by CFRA,1  the software industry grew by 4% in 2021, with a 22% year-on-year increase in cloud subscription revenue, which now constitutes 37% of total industry revenue, and a 3% decline in traditional software revenue. The surge in cloud growth is likely to continue, thanks to the accelerating pace of digital transformation. This trend is also promulgated by some of the largest players, such as Microsoft, whose cloud subscription revenue now constitutes more than half of the overall revenue and is an engine of growth in the software space. Strong cloud revenue growth is not just a function of recruiting new users but is also supported by the proliferation of new cloud apps and upgrades to the existing ones.  Importantly, the cloud subscription model is also more profitable than the license model, whose EBITDA margins rarely exceed 40%. Cloud-based services take longer to become profitable but have much higher operating leverage: Once profitable, cloud and hybrid companies often have operating margins around 50-60%.  Software is one of the most resilient technology industries, performing equally well in a growing economy and during downturns: Subscription pricing is sticky, and switching costs are high. As a result, companies, which derive a large share of their revenue from the cloud, have stable and predictable sales. Once clients are onboarded, cloud providers may also be able to exercise their pricing power. IT Services IT services is a smaller segment of the Software and Services industry group and is a hodge-podge of different companies that provide a wide range of services from IT consulting to FinTech. The following is a brief description of the key categories: IT Consulting: The S&P 500 IT Consulting companies are Accenture, Gartner, and Cognizant.  Companies offer Professional advice in IT, management, HR, logistics, and many others. Since the pandemic, these companies’ key focus is on assisting their clients with digital transformation and improving companies’ operations. This industry is one of the key beneficiaries of accelerated migration to the cloud and has enjoyed exponential growth over the past decade. Its revenue stream is highly resilient, as even during economic downturns, clients are seeking advice on the best ways to navigate an uncertain market environment. Outsourcing: Companies such as ADP and Paychex provide HR and business services solutions for mid-sized and small companies. Their services cover payroll, benefits, retirement, and insurance services.   This industry has been growing its sales and profits at a healthy clip over the past few years. Now it is focused on modernizing itself by moving its own operations to the cloud and deploying Artificial Intelligence to improve operations. These companies are also undergoing digital transformation and are moving towards the SaaS model. Financial Transaction Services: This is a FinTech industry that includes card and payment processors, such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal, and each of these players operates their own proprietary payment networks.  Digital payments and the wide acceptance of e-commerce drive this space. Lately, these companies have been at the forefront of the adoption of digital currencies as viable payment options. Payment companies are among the earliest adopters of the cloud, and their business model is best described as Transaction-processing-as-a-service. These are highly profitable companies that consistently generate an operating margin above 60%. Key Industry Drivers Software Enhances Productivity And Improves Profitability Broadly speaking, the Software and Services industry group is considered a defensive holding owing to the resiliency of its earnings (Chart 5). Software enhances productivity: During economic downturns, it helps reduce costs, and during expansions, it helps overcome capacity constraints and labor shortages. While pandemic labor shortages and lockdowns produced a spike in productivity, more recently it has been falling, which has warranted a year-over-year increase in software investment (Chart 6). Chart 5S&S Earnings Are Resilient Across The Business Cycle S&S Earnings Are Resilient Across The Business Cycle S&S Earnings Are Resilient Across The Business Cycle Chart 6Investing In Software Improves Productivity Investing In Software Improves Productivity Investing In Software Improves Productivity Further, both labor shortages and rising wages are prompting companies to redesign their operations to contain costs and preserve margins. To do so, many are accelerating investments in Capex and automation, much of which is achieved through investment in software and IT services, replacing both labor and capital.  According to CFRA, “software is no longer used to manage a means of production, but rather IS means of production .” Software-related Capex is not only garnering a larger slice of tech spending budgets but also of the overall Capex pie (Chart 7). Chart 7Share Of Software In Overall Capex Has Been Rising Steadily Share Of Software In Overall Capex Has Been Rising Steadily Share Of Software In Overall Capex Has Been Rising Steadily Macroeconomic Backdrop Imminent Rate Hikes Tighter monetary policy and runaway inflation are at the fore of investors’ minds and, arguably, a cause of the current market rout.  Software stocks have outperformed the other long-duration technology stocks. To gauge the reaction of S&S to the upcoming rate hike, we have repeated an exercise we conducted for the Technology sector last week – historical performance of the industry six months before and after the first rate hike (Chart 8).   Clearly, industry returns fall two to three months before the first rate hike, but eventually recover once a new monetary regime is priced in. The year-to-date correction of the software stocks is textbook behavior. Chart 8S&S Underperforms Before The First Rate Hike Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services Is A Global Industry – Beware Of A Strong Dollar The Technology sector is one of the most global sectors in the S&P 500 and derives 40% of sales from abroad; similarly, Software and Services has a broad international footprint. As US rates trend higher, and the interest rate differential favors the US vs. other countries, the USD is likely to appreciate further. With a stronger dollar, products of US software firms are more expensive to foreigners, which may have a dampening effect on demand. The US firms’ profitability has also been hit by an unfavorable translation from foreign currency back to the USD. Historically, the path of the dollar and the returns of S&S were inversely correlated (Chart 9). Chart 9Historically, Stronger Dollar Has Been A Headwind For The Industry Historically, Stronger Dollar Has Been A Headwind For The Industry Historically, Stronger Dollar Has Been A Headwind For The Industry The redeeming grace is that, as we mentioned before, software subscription revenue is sticky, and switching costs for customers are high. As such, we expect the adverse effect on demand to be minor. Fundamentals Sales Growth According to Grandview Research , the business software and services market is expected to grow at a compound annualized rate of 11.3% from 2021 to 2028. This strong growth is underpinned by the robust pace of enterprise application cloud migration and digital transformation, which see no end in sight. The street expects the Software and Services industry to grow on par with the Technology sector at just under 20% over the next 12 months, and growth is slowing off high levels.  The pandemic has shifted forward some of the spending on software, as companies rushed to adjust to remote work.  However, the industry continues to grow at a healthy clip (Chart 10). Chart 10Sales Growth Is Slowing Sales Growth Is Slowing Sales Growth Is Slowing Labor Costs Are Contained For Now The S&S companies first and foremost rely on the talent and ingenuity of their workforce to deliver cutting-edge technological solutions. Wages are one of the largest expenses in the industry. Recent increases in salaries accompanied by labor shortages and “the great resignation” are bound to cut into the margins of these companies. So far, software and services companies have been able to counter the trend (Chart 11) by deploying creative solutions, offering their employees a wide range of perks, and throwing their net wide in search of talent by offering remote work.   Chart 11Industry Labor Costs Have Been Contained Industry Labor Costs Have Been Contained Industry Labor Costs Have Been Contained Resilient Earnings Growth For the reasons discussed above, S&S earnings growth is remarkably resilient and stable throughout the business cycle (Chart 12). Currently, earnings expectations of S&S over the next 12 months exceed growth expectations for both the Technology sector and the S&P 500. Over the next 12 months, S&S earnings are expected to grow at 14% compared to 8.6% for the S&P 500 (Table 4). Chart 12S&S EPS Growth Bests The Tech Sector And The S&P 500 S&S EPS Growth Bests The Tech Sector And The S&P 500 S&S EPS Growth Bests The Tech Sector And The S&P 500 Table 4Earnings Growth Vs. Valuations Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Despite the slowdown in sales growth and the pick-up in labor costs, EBITDA margins have exceeded the previous peak, and are projected to trend higher towards 40% over the course of the year (Chart 13). Expecting a growth slowdown, analysts have been revising earnings expectations down for S&S companies, but by now the downgrading process has run its course, and the bar is set low (Chart 14). Chart 13Margins Will Continue To Expand Margins Will Continue To Expand Margins Will Continue To Expand Chart 14Downgrades Are Bottoming Downgrades Are Bottoming Downgrades Are Bottoming   Valuations Since the S&S industry group’s earnings are expected to grow faster than the earnings of the Tech sector and the S&P 500, it is not surprising that it trades with a 44% premium to the S&P 500 on a forward earnings basis – a steep mark-up. The current correction has taken some froth off the industry’s valuations , with multiples contracting by 3.9 points. Even after the correction, the sector appears overvalued (Chart 15). Adjusting for expected 12-month EPS growth, S&S appears more attractively valued and trades with a discount both to tech and the broad market (Table 4). It is also important to note that the industry group is home to a plethora of quite a few smaller companies, which tend to be more expensive and more volatile: Chart 16 plots companies’ forward earnings multiples against their weight in the industry group.   Chart 15Valuations Are Still Dear... Valuations Are Still Dear... Valuations Are Still Dear... Chart 16Significant Valuation Dispersion Among The Constituents Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Technicals Recently, the BCA Technical Indicator has moved into the oversold territory, indicating investor capitulation. This means that this bar is cleared, and from a technical standpoint alone, Software and Services is a buy (Chart 17). Chart 17... But Technicals Indicate That S&S Is Oversold ... But Technicals Indicate That S&S Is Oversold ... But Technicals Indicate That S&S Is Oversold Investment Implications We are both tactically and structurally bullish on the Software and Services industry group. Tactically Bullish The Software and Services industry group is an all-weather industry with an unprecedented combination of both earnings resiliency and strong growth throughout the business cycle. It is also undergoing a fundamental transformation in its business model catalyzed by a ubiquitous shift in software applications to the cloud, accompanied by displacement of the traditional on-prem license and support model with a more lucrative subscription model. The industry is expected to grow earnings in double digits and expand margins, unhindered by rising labor costs. Rising rates are certainly a headwind, but hopefully a temporary one. Froth has come off valuations, and a new monetary regime is gradually getting priced in. According to the technical indicator, the sector is oversold. On balance, we have a positive outlook on the industry group (Table 5) and maintain our overweight position. Table 5Software And Services Scorecard Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Software And Services: On The Seventh Cloud Structurally Bullish Our long-held belief is that the broader push to the cloud, augmented reality, AI, cybersecurity, and autonomous driving, which are all software dependent, are not fads but are here to stay. Software and Services are at the epicenter of technological innovation and are home to some of the best American companies.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     CFRA, Industry Surveys, Software, July 2021 Recommended Allocation

Dear client, In lieu of our weekly bulletin next week, I will be hosting a webcast on Friday, January 28 at 11:00 am EST, to discuss recent dollar trends. I hope you all tune in. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor Highlights While not often discussed, it is well known that the dollar is expensive. It is true that valuations tend to matter less until they trigger a tipping point. Such inflections usually coincide with huge external imbalances, especially generated by an overvalued exchange rate. The US dollar could be stepping into such a paradigm - the DXY is 1.5 standard deviations above fair value, at the same time as the goods trade deficit is hitting record lows, and real interest rates are deeply negative. More importantly, there has been limited precedence to such a dollar configuration. Historically, it has required much higher real interest rates, or an improving balance of payments backdrop, to justify such lofty valuations. Our trading model shows that selling a currency when it is expensive and buying it when it is cheap generates excess returns over time. Within our valuation ranking, the cheapest currencies are JPY, SEK and NOK. On a terms-of-trade basis, the AUD stands out as a winner. Feature Chart 1High Dollar Valuation And Ultra-Low Real Rates Is Unprecedented High Dollar Valuation And Ultra-Low Real Rates Is Unprecedented High Dollar Valuation And Ultra-Low Real Rates Is Unprecedented Valuations usually get little respect when it comes to medium-term currency movements. This has been especially the case over the last few years, where the macroeconomic environment has been by far the biggest driver of the US dollar. The bull market in the dollar from 2011 to 2020 coincided with higher real interest rates in the US, relative to the rest of the developed world. In fact, since 2008, no developed market central bank has been able to hike rates by more than 200bps, except for the US Federal Reserve. Our report last week focused on why aggressive interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve could be bullish for the US dollar in the short term, but eventually set the stage for depreciation. In this report, we argue that valuations will also become a more important factor for currency strategy over the next 1-2 years (Chart 1). The Dollar And The External Balance The framework to understand currencies and the external balance is straightforward - a rising trade deficit (imports > exports) requires a lower exchange rate to boost competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, or less spending to reduce the trade deficit. Reduced domestic spending is unlikely in most developed economies, given ample pent-up demand and loose fiscal policy. Therefore, the natural adjustment mechanism for countries running wide trade deficits will have to be the exchange rate. Within a broad spectrum of developed and emerging market currencies, the US dollar stands out as overvalued on a real effective exchange rate basis (Chart 2A and 2B). It is true that valuations tend to matter less until they trigger a tipping point. Such inflections usually occur with a shift in animal spirits, coinciding with huge external imbalances. Chart 2 Chart 2 In the US, these imbalances are already starting to trigger a shift. The US trade deficit is deteriorating, with the goods deficit hitting a record low of -$98bn in November. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to fund this widening trade deficit via foreign purchases of US Treasuries (Chart 3). Meanwhile, as we highlighted last week, substantial equity inflows over the last few years have started to roll over. In a nutshell, the basic balance in the US (the sum of the current account and foreign direct investment) is deteriorating at an accelerated pace (Chart 4). The US current account deficit for Q3 came in at -$214.8 billion, the widest in over a decade. This has reversed a lot of the improvement in the basic balance since the Global Financial Crisis. The dollar tends to decline on a multi-year basis when the basic balance peaks and starts deteriorating. Chart 4Deteriorating Balance Of Payments Dynamics US Balance Of Payments Deteriorating Balance Of Payments Dynamics US Balance Of Payments Deteriorating Balance Of Payments Dynamics US Balance Of Payments Chart 3It Is Becoming Increasingly Difficult To Fund The Widening Deficit It Is Becoming Increasingly Difficult To Fund The Widening Deficit It Is Becoming Increasingly Difficult To Fund The Widening Deficit Fiscal policy is likely to become tighter in the next couple of years, easing the domestic spending constraint for the exchange rate. That said, fiscal policy will remain loose compared to pre-pandemic levels and relative to underlying employment conditions. This has historically led to a deterioration in the external balance and pulled the real effective exchange rate of the dollar down (Chart 5). Chart 5The Dollar And The Budget Deficit The Dollar And The Budget Deficit The Dollar And The Budget Deficit Real Interest Rates And The Dollar It is remarkable that at a time when real rates are the most negative in the US, the dollar is as overvalued as it has been in decades on a simple PPP model. This is a perfect mirror image of the dollar configuration at the start of the bull market in 2010, where the dollar was cheap and real rates were more supportive (Chart 1). According to economic theory, a currency should adjust to equalize returns across countries. This is a no-arbitrage condition. In the early 80s, an overvalued dollar was supported by very positive real rates. The subsequent dollar declines thereafter also coincided with falling real interest rates. In fact, over the last decade, it has been an anomaly that the dollar is so strong despite relative real interest rates being so negative (Chart 6). Our view remains that the terminal interest rate for the US should be higher than what is currently discounted in the 10-year Treasury yield. According to the overnight index swap curve, the Fed will not hike interest rates past 1.75%. This is much lower than past cycles and will keep real interest rates low. This does not justify an expensive greenback. Our shorter-term interest rate model also shows the DXY as slightly expensive, even though short-term interest rates have moved in favor of the dollar over the past year (Chart 7). Chart 6The Level Of Relative Real Yields Also Matters The Level Of Relative Real Yields Also Matters The Level Of Relative Real Yields Also Matters Chart 7Our Timing Model Suggests ##br##A Pullback Our Timing Model Suggests A Pullback Our Timing Model Suggests A Pullback Other Considerations While real effective exchange rates and purchasing power parity models are among our favorite valuation gauges, they are not foolproof. Countries with structurally higher inflation (and so a higher real effective exchange rate), could also have higher productivity. According to the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis, competitiveness in the tradeable goods sector will boost wages across all sectors of the economy, leading to higher prices. This argument particularly resonates with proponents that suggest the US is a fast-growing economy, and so will tend to run a current account deficit, like Australia during the commodity boom of the early 2000s. Meanwhile, the US earns more on its overseas assets than it spends on its liabilities, suggesting that the funding gap will eventually close. Unfortunately, the overvaluation of the dollar has not been due to higher relative productivity in the US, especially when compared to other economies. Across a broad spectrum of developed and emerging market economies, the dollar is expensive according to our productivity models. The Chinese RMB (which is much overvalued on a PPP basis) is closer to fair value when productivity is taken into consideration (Chart 8). Chart 8 Meanwhile, the sizeable US deficit is not completely offset by its positive investment balance (Chart 9). This is occurring at a time when many faster growing countries (such as China for example) are generating current account surpluses (Chart 10A and 10B). In a nutshell, whether one looks at relative price levels, relative productivity trends, or relative real returns on government assets, the dollar is expensive. Chart 9The Positive Income Balance Has Not Helped The Us Investment Position The Positive Income Balance Has Not Helped The Us Investment Position The Positive Income Balance Has Not Helped The Us Investment Position Chart 10 Chart 10 Conclusion Last summer, we introduced a trading model for FX valuation enthusiasts. We used both our in-house purchasing power parity models (PPP) and our intermediate-term timing models as valuation tools. Since the 2000s, both valuation models have outperformed a buy-and-hold currency strategy with much lower volatility (Chart 11). Currency valuation tends to matter over the longer term, while the macro environment tends to dominate short-term currency trading. Given that the dollar has been overvalued for the last three to five years, the above analysis suggests we might be entering this “longer-term” tipping point where valuations will start to matter more going forward. Within our valuation ranking, the cheapest currencies are JPY, SEK and NOK. On a terms-of-trade and productivity basis, the AUD stands out as a winner. This is being reflected in a record-high basic balance surplus (Chart 12). In our trade tables, we went long AUD at 70 cents, and will upgrade this to a high conviction bet on signs that currency volatility is ebbing. Chart 11A Trading Rule Solely Based On Valuation A Trading Rule Solely Based On Valuation A Trading Rule Solely Based On Valuation Chart 12AUD And Balance Of Payments AUD And Balance Of Payments AUD And Balance Of Payments Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Forecast Summary

Highlights Global equities are poised to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Non-US markets are likely to outperform. We examine the four pillars that have historically underpinned stock market performance. Pillar 1: Technically, the outlook for equities is modestly bullish, as investor sentiment is nowhere near as optimistic as it usually gets near market tops. Pillar 2: The outlook for economic growth and corporate earnings is modestly bullish as well. While global growth is slowing, it will remain solidly above trend in 2022. Pillar 3: Monetary and financial conditions are neutral. The Fed and a number of other central banks are set to raise rates and begin unwinding asset purchases this year. However, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative well into 2023. Pillar 4: Valuations are bearish in the US and neutral elsewhere. Investors should avoid tech stocks in 2022, focusing instead on banks and deep cyclicals, which are more attractively priced. The Bedrock For Equities In assessing the outlook for the stock market, our research has focused on four pillars: 1) Sentiment and other technical factors, which are most pertinent for stocks over short-term horizons of about three months; 2) cyclical fluctuations in economic growth and corporate earnings, which tend to dictate the path for stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months; 3) monetary and financial conditions, which are also most relevant over medium-term horizons; and finally 4) valuations, which tend to drive stocks over the long run. In this report, we examine all four pillars, concluding that global equities are likely to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Pillar 1: Sentiment And Other Technical Factors (Modestly Bullish)   Chart 1US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern Scaling The Wall Of Worry Stocks started the year on a high note, before tumbling on Wednesday following the release of the Fed minutes. Market breadth going into the year was quite poor. Even as the S&P 500 hit a record high on Tuesday, only 57% of NYSE stocks and 38% of NASDAQ stocks were trading above their 200-day moving averages compared to over 90% at the start of 2021 (Chart 1). The US stock market had become increasingly supported by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks, a potentially dangerous situation in an environment where bond yields are rising and stay-at-home restrictions are apt to ease (more on this later). That said, market tops often occur when sentiment reaches euphoric levels. That was not the case going into 2022 and it is certainly not the case after this week's sell-off. The number of bears exceeded the number of bulls in the AAII survey this week and in six of the past seven weeks (Chart 2). The share of financial advisors registering a bullish bias declined by 25 percentage points over the course of 2021 in the Investors Intelligence poll. Option pricing is far from complacent. The VIX stands at 19.6, above its post-GFC median of 16.7.  According to the Minneapolis Fed’s market-based probabilities model, the market was discounting a slightly negative 12-month return for the S&P 500 as of end-2021, with a 3.6 percentage-point larger chance of a 20% decline in the index than a 20% increase (Chart 3). Chart 3Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Chart 2Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Equities do best when sentiment is bearish but improving (Chart 4). With bulls in short supply, stocks can continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry.   Whither The January Effect? Historically, stocks have fared better between October and April than between May and September (Chart 5). One caveat is that the January effect, which often saw stocks rally at the start of the year, has disappeared. In fact, the S&P 500 has fallen in January by an average annualized rate of 5.2% since 2000 (Table 1). Other less well-known calendar effects – such as the tendency for stocks to underperform on Mondays but outperform on the first trading day of each month – have persisted, however. Chart 4 Chart 5 Table 1Calendar Effects The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Bottom Line: January trading may be choppy, but stocks should rise over the next few months as more bears join the bullish camp. Last year’s losers are likely to outperform last year’s winners. Pillar 2: Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings (Modestly Bullish)   Economic Growth And Earnings: Joined At The Hip The business cycle is the most important driver of stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months. The reason is evident in Chart 6: Corporate earnings tend to track key business cycle indicators such as the ISM manufacturing index, industrial production, business sales, and global trade. Chart 6The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons Chart 7PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth Global growth peaked in 2021 but should stay solidly above trend in 2022. Both the service and manufacturing PMIs remain in expansionary territory (Chart 7). The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM exceeded 60 for the second straight month in December. The Bloomberg consensus is for real GDP to rise by 3.9% in the G7 in 2022, well above the OECD’s estimate of trend G7 growth of 1.4% (Chart 8). Global earnings are expected to increase by 7.1%, rising 7.5% in the US and 6.7% abroad (Chart 9). Our sense is that both economic growth and earnings will surprise to the upside in 2022. Chart 9Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Chart 8 Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand For Both Consumer And Capital Goods US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings (Chart 10). Around half of these savings will be spent over the next few years, helping to drive demand. Households in the other major advanced economies have also buttressed their balance sheets. Chart 10Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand After two decades of subdued corporate investment, capital goods orders have soared. This bodes well for capex in 2022. Inventories remain at rock-bottom levels, which implies that output will need to exceed spending for the foreseeable future (Chart 11). On the residential housing side, both the US homeowner vacancy rate and the inventory of homes for sale are near multi-decade lows. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Chart 11Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Chart 12Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Chart 13China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed Chinese Growth To Rebound, Europe To Benefit From Lower Natural Gas Prices Chinese credit growth decelerated last year. However, the 6-month credit impulse has bottomed, and the 12-month impulse is sure to follow (Chart 13). Chinese coal prices have collapsed following the government’s decision to instruct 170 mines to expand capacity (Chart 14). China generates 63% of its electricity from coal. Lower energy prices and increased stimulus should support Chinese industrial activity in 2022. Like China, Europe will benefit from lower energy costs. Natural gas prices have fallen by nearly 50% from their peak on December 21st. A shrinking energy bill will support the euro (Chart 15). Chart 14Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Chart 15A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro Chart 16 Omicron Or Omicold? While the Omicron wave has led to an unprecedented spike in new cases across many countries, the economic fallout will be limited. The new variant is more contagious but significantly less lethal than previous ones. In South Africa, it blew through the population without triggering a major increase in mortality (Chart 16). Preliminary data suggest that exposure to Omicron confers at least partial immunity against Delta. The general tendency is for viral strains to become less lethal over time. After all, a virus that kills its host also kills itself. Given that Omicron is crowding out more dangerous strains such as Delta, any future variant is likely to emanate from Omicron; and odds are this new variant will be even milder than Omicron. Meanwhile, new antiviral drugs are starting to hit the market. Pfizer claims that its new drug, Paxlovid, cuts the risk of hospitalization by almost 90% if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Bottom Line: While global growth has peaked and the pandemic remains a risk, growth should stay well above trend in the major economies in 2022, fueling further gains in corporate earnings and equity prices.   Pillar 3: Monetary And Financial Factors (Neutral)   Chart 17The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months Tighter But Not Tight Monetary and financial factors help govern the direction of equity prices both because they influence economic growth and also because they affect the earnings multiple at which stocks trade. There is little doubt that a number of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are looking to dial back monetary stimulus. However, there is a big difference between tighter monetary policy and tight policy. Even if the FOMC were to raise rates three times in 2022, as the market is currently discounting, the fed funds rate would still be half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 17). Likewise, even if the Fed were to allow maturing assets to run off in the middle of this year, as the minutes of the December FOMC meeting suggest is likely, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will probably not return to pre-pandemic levels until the second half of this decade.   A Higher Neutral Rate We have argued in the past that the neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than widely believed. This implies that the overall stance of monetary policy remains exceptionally stimulative. Historically, stocks have shrugged off rising bond yields, as long as yields did not increase to prohibitively high levels (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market If the neutral rate ends up being higher than the Fed supposes, the danger is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long. The question is one of timing. The good news is that inflation should recede in the US in 2022, as supply-chain bottlenecks ease and spending shifts back from goods to services. The bad news is that the respite from inflation will not last. As discussed in Section II of our recently-published 2022 Strategy Outlook, inflation will resume its upward trajectory in mid-2023 on the back of a tightening labor market and a budding price-wage spiral. This second inflationary wave could force the Fed to turn much more aggressive, spelling the end of the equity bull market. Bottom Line: While the Fed is gearing up to raise rates and trim the size of its balance sheet, monetary policy in the US and in other major economies will remain highly accommodative in 2022. US policy could turn more restrictive in 2023 as a second wave of inflation forces a more aggressive response from the Fed.   Pillar 4: Valuations (Bearish In The US; Neutral Elsewhere)   US Stocks Are Looking Pricey… While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short run, they are an excellent forecaster of stock prices in the long run. Chart 18 shows that the Shiller PE ratio has reliably predicted the 10-year return on equities. Today, the Shiller PE is consistent with total real returns of close to zero over the next decade. Chart 18 Investors’ allocation to stocks has also predicted the direction of equity prices (Chart 19). According to the Federal Reserve, US households held a record high 41% of their financial assets in equities as of the third quarter of 2021. If history is any guide, this would also correspond to near-zero long-term returns on stocks. Chart 19Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II)   … But There Is More Value Abroad Valuations outside the US are more reasonable. Whereas US stocks trade at a Shiller PE ratio of 37, non-US stocks trade at 20-times their 10-year average earnings. Other valuation measures such as price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yield tell a similar story (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) Cyclicals And Banks Overrepresented Abroad Our preferred sector skew for 2022 favors non-US equities. Increased capital spending in developed economies and incremental Chinese stimulus should boost industrial stocks and other deep cyclicals, which are overrepresented outside the US (Table 3). Banks are also heavily weighted in overseas markets; they should also do well in response to faster-than-expected growth and rising bond yields (Chart 21). Table 3Deep Cyclicals And Financials Are Overrepresented Outside The US The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Chart 21Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Bottom Line: Valuations are more appealing outside the US, and with deep cyclicals and banks set to outperform tech over the coming months, overseas markets are the place to be in 2022. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Image Special Trade Recommendations Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores Image

Highlights December’s PMI and our market-based China growth indicator improved slightly, but the underlying data send a mixed signal about the country’s business cycle and do not give a green light for cyclically overweighting Chinese stocks. Our research suggests that the odds of an earnings contraction for Chinese investable stocks over the coming year are high. In previous cycles, stocks only bottomed when the earnings adjustment process was well underway. In the next one to three months, investors may bid up Chinese stocks for their relatively cheap valuations and in expectation of further policy easing. A tactical rebound in Chinese stocks (in both the domestic and investable markets) in absolute terms is likely. However, we think it is premature to switch to an outright overweight stance on Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese Stocks Underperformed Global Markets In 2021 Chinese stocks underperformed global equities last year. In particular, Chinese investable stocks were among the worst performing major equity indices last year, ending 2021 with a 23% loss (Chart 1). Lately China’s macro policies have begun to refocus on supporting the economy, and investors have been asking whether cheaper valuations in Chinese equities warrant an overweight stance versus global stocks. We think a tactical rally in Chinese stocks is likely, as investors may bid up the market in expectation of more stimulus. The Chinese offshore market remains deeply oversold in relative terms, and further easing in policy in the coming few weeks may significantly improve global investor sentiment towards the country’s bourse. However, we maintain our view that a legitimate improvement in domestic fundamentals is needed before we recommend investors to upgrade their cyclical equity allocation to China. Mixed Signals Over the past several weeks, we focused heavily on China’s cyclical economic conditions, and whether any “green shoots” are evident from the key indicators that we track. The official PMIs and our high-frequency, market-based growth indicator both improved slightly in December, but their underlying components point to continued weakness in the old economy sectors. Hence, for now, we regard the marginal improvement in these indicators as a mixed signal rather than a green light for upgrading Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis. The official PMI manufacturing index inched up to 50.3 in December from 50.1 in November. While the proxy for domestic demand – measured by the new orders component subtracting the new export orders – ticked up slightly last month, the overall new orders subindex remains below the 50 threshold (Chart 2). In addition, both new orders and business activity in the construction PMI subindex fell sharply in December, due to sluggish infrastructure activity as well as a significant drag from the housing sector (Chart 3). Chart 2Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Manufacturing New Orders Remain In Contraction Chart 3Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Construction PMI Fell Sharply In December Chart 4Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Largely Driven By Commodity-Related Components Our market-based China growth indicator also rose slightly in December, although it remains in contraction. Chart 4 presents this growth indicator, its four asset class subcomponents, and the range between the strongest and weakest components. The chart shows that the recent rise in the indicator is not uniform. While most of the individual components have improved over the past month, a rise in metal prices and commodity-related equity and currency prices have accounted for most of the gains. As highlighted in China’s November and December PMIs, we think the improvement in the commodity component of the growth indicator reflects an easing in production-side constraints, rather than a sustained rebound in demand. Bottom Line: Data released recently point to a mixed picture regarding China’s economic fundamentals. It is premature to conclude that the current policy easing measures will suffice in reviving China’s slowing economy. The Negative Factors Impacting Cyclical Outlook There are two negative factors impacting our outlook for Chinese stocks. One is the effect of a slowing domestic economy on earnings; our model suggests that the odds of an earnings contraction over the coming year are high. The other negative factor is the ongoing regulatory and secular geopolitical risks on Chinese offshore-market stocks. Chart 5 presents the odds of a serious earnings contraction over the coming 12 months (defined as earnings growth falling below -5%). The chart shows that the model successfully warned of the three major earnings contractions over the past decade. Crucially, the odds of a major contraction did not rise above the 50% mark in 2012, when investable earnings growth decelerated significantly and fell briefly into negative territory. The current message from the model is clear: the odds of a significant earnings contraction over the coming 12 months are as high as 70%, implying that the deceleration in 12-month trailing earnings growth shown in the bottom panel of Chart 5 is likely to continue. In addition to the elevated risks of an earnings contraction, regulatory and geopolitical risks remain a major challenge for Chinese companies listed in the offshore equity markets (Chart 6). Big tech names like Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan still face regulatory pressures from authorities. Last week, Beijing further tightened scrutiny of overseas equity sales by unveiling regulations that bar Chinese companies in sensitive industries from receiving foreign investment.  Chart 5Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Our Model Implies High Odds Of An Earnings Contraction Chart 6Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Chinese Investable Stocks Continue Facing Regulatory And Geopolitical Risks Pressures from both Chinese and US regulators will continue to push Chinese firms to depart from US stock exchanges. The disputes between the US and China, which in our US Geopolitical Strategy's view are deep and structural, will likely culminate in the months leading up to the 20th National Party Congress in China and the mid-term election in the US in the fall of 2022. It is true that the delisted Chinese firms will likely migrate to Hong Kong, and in theory should offer global investors the same returns. However, we argue that as the delisted companies fail to comply with transnational disclosure standards and financial audit regulations mandated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), global investors will demand higher risk premiums (and hence lower valuations) to own Chinese investable stocks. In the next two to three months, it is possible that investors may bid up Chinese stocks in expectation of further policy loosening. Since data on the real economic activity in the first two months of the year will not be released until March, investors will likely focus on credit, monetary, and trade data. However, we caution against moving to an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks for investors with time horizon of 6 to 12 months. While easier macro policies are certainly welcome, we remain skeptical that: a) the existing policy support is enough to revive China’s economy; and b) Chinese policymakers will provide aggressive stimulus and allow a major acceleration in credit growth for the entire year of 2022.  Bottom Line: While in the near term, investors may find Chinese stocks attractive due to cheap valuations and expectations of further stimulus, Chinese stocks face challenges both from the impact of a slowing economy on earnings growth and ongoing regulatory and geopolitical risks.  Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks in both the onshore and offshore markets have cheapened relative to global equities. However, in absolute terms Chinese stocks are not unduly cheap and their valuations are higher than in both 2015/16 and 2018/19 (Chart 7). In previous cycles, Chinese stock prices bottomed when the earnings adjustment process was well underway or near the end of the process. Chart 8 presents some perspective on when investors are likely to anticipate an eventual bottom in stock prices, if an earnings contraction does indeed occur. The chart shows the level of 12-month forward earnings for investable and domestic stocks, and circles at what point share prices bottomed during the previous cycles. Chart 8The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started The Forward Earnings Adjustment Process Has Just Started Chart 7Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Cheap In Absolute Terms   The chart shows that onshore equities bottomed roughly halfway through the earnings adjustment process, whereas the investable market bottomed almost at the end of the process. The chart also shows that this adjustment process has barely begun in the current cycle, which argues against a cyclically overweight stance towards Chinese stocks.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Equity Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration: Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Own Treasury Curve Steepeners: The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. Sell Short-Maturity TIPS: Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. We also recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, as short-maturity real yields have a lot of upside in 2022. Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now: We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates: EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and a weakening US dollar will help boost returns in 2022. A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. Underweight Agency MBS: Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. Feature BCA published its 2022 Outlook on December 1st. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer seven key US fixed income views for 2022. This report is limited to the seven key investment views, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2022” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2022 Outlook.1   On Economic Growth: The COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance in 2022 allowing US economic growth to remain above trend. Sizeable household savings and wealth will support consumer spending, the composition of which will shift away from goods and towards services. Corporate capital expenditures also look set to surge. On Inflation: A transition in consumer spending from goods to services and an increase in labor supply will cause US inflation to fall in 2022, though it will remain above the Fed’s target. On Fed Policy: The first Fed rate hike will occur between June and December 2022, depending on the paths of inflation and inflation expectations during the next few months. Fed tightening will continue into 2023. On China and Emerging Markets: Further policy easing in H1 2022 will lead to a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of the year. The BCA house view is negative on EM equities for now but will turn more bullish when clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Risks To The Outlook: The greatest risk to the outlook is that the spread of the Omicron variant leads to the re-imposition of public health measures that will weigh on economic activity. The effect of the Omicron variant remains uncertain, but increasingly widespread vaccination and the advent of anti-viral treatments should help mitigate any negative economic impacts. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022, favoring the 2-year maturity over the 10-year. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Our recommendation to keep portfolio duration low in 2022 stems directly from our assessment of Federal Reserve policy. Without going into too much detail – we will do that in next week’s “Fed In 2022” report – the Fed appears to have adopted a more hawkish reaction function during the past month. The Fed’s official forward guidance says that it will not lift rates until the labor market reaches “maximum employment”. However, Fed Chair Jay Powell weakened that commitment in recent Senate testimony. Powell said that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery and implied that to reach its maximum employment goal the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. To us, this means that the Fed’s “maximum employment” condition for lifting rates is no longer binding. The Fed will accelerate the pace of tapering when it meets this week and will start lifting rates between June and December of next year, depending on the interim trends in inflation and inflation expectations. After liftoff, Fed rate hikes will proceed at a predictable pace of 75-100 bps per year until economic growth slows significantly. We expect the fed funds rate to reach at least 2% before that occurs, consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Let’s compare our estimate of the future fed funds rate path with what is currently priced in the bond market (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations Liftoff The overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for Fed liftoff in May 2022. This is a tad early compared to our projections, but not by much. Pace After liftoff, the OIS curve is priced for the fed funds rate to rise 79 bps during the subsequent 12 months. Again, this is roughly consistent with our own expectations that the Fed will deliver three or four 25 basis point rate hikes per year. Terminal Rate It is the market’s pricing of the endpoint of the next tightening cycle – the terminal fed funds rate – that disagrees significantly with our forecast. The OIS curve is priced for the funds rate to reach 1.5% in 2024 and then stabilize. This is too low. It is too low compared to the last tightening cycle when the fed funds rate reached 2.45% in 2019. It is also too low compared to survey estimates from market participants and primary dealers. The median respondent to the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates that the long-run neutral fed funds rate is 2%. The median response to the same question from the Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median FOMC participant pegs the long-run neutral rate at 2.5%. Meanwhile, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a rough proxy for the long-run neutral interest rate that’s priced in the Treasury market – sits at only 1.73%. Historically, the 5-year/5-year forward yield converges with survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate as the Fed moves toward tightening (Chart 2). This means the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has at least 27-52 bps of upside in 2022. Chart 25y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3 shows the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Treasury yields along with the expected paths that are discounted in the forward curve for the next 12 months. The shaded regions in each panel represent our fair value estimates of where those yields will trade if the market moves to price-in our expected future path for the fed funds rate. The upper bound of the fair value range represents the most hawkish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in June, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 100 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-off at a terminal rate of 2.08% (8 bps above the lower-end of a 2%-2.25% target range). The lower bound of the fair value range represents the most dovish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in December 2022, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 75 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-of at a terminal rate of 2.08%. Chart 3 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield is well below even the lower-end of our fair value range. The 5-year Treasury yield is a bit too low compared to our target range and the 2-year yield is consistent with our fair value range, though at the very upper-end. The investment conclusions are obvious. Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. They should avoid the 10-year maturity and allocate most funds to shorter maturities like the 2-year. It should be noted that we used a conservative 2.08% terminal rate estimate in the scenarios presented in Chart 3. This is at the low-end of most survey estimates. What’s more, the BCA Outlook makes a strong case that those survey estimates will be revised higher once it becomes apparent that interest rates will have to rise to well above 2% to contain inflation. We agree that survey estimates of the long-run fed funds rate are probably too low, but we don’t expect them to be revised higher in 2022. Upward terminal rate revisions are probably a story for 2023 or 2024, sometime after the Fed has delivered a few rate hikes and it becomes apparent that more will be needed to slow an overheating economy. Appendix A at the end of this report translates different fed funds rate scenarios into 12-month expected returns for every Treasury maturity. We show scenarios where the liftoff date varies between June 2022 and December 2022, where the pace of rate hikes varies between 75 bps and 100 bps per year and where the terminal fed funds rate varies between 2.08% and 2.58%. The 10-year Treasury note is projected to deliver negative returns in every scenario we tested. Meanwhile, the 2-year Treasury note is projected to deliver a small positive return in every single scenario. These results support our conclusion from Chart 3. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and favor short maturities over long maturities. Risks To The View The first risk to our bearish view on US Treasuries is a resurgence of the pandemic. The 10-year Treasury yield continues to track the “pandemic trade” in the stock market. That is, the 10-year yield rises when a basket of equities that benefit from economic re-opening outperforms a basket of equities that benefit from lockdowns, and vice-versa (Chart 4). So far, the news about the virulence of the Omicron COVID variant has been encouraging, and our base case scenario assumes a further easing of pandemic concerns over the course of 2022. The second risk to our view is that the Fed moves too aggressively toward rate hikes causing an abrupt tightening of financial conditions that weighs on economic growth and sends long-dated bond yields lower. The shaded region in Chart 5 shows that this exact dynamic played out in 2018. Fed rate hikes started to pressure the dollar higher and weigh on equities. This led to tighter financial conditions and slower economic growth. The impact of tighter financial conditions was not immediately evident in the bond market, but slower growth eventually caused the Fed to back away from rate hikes leading to a late-2018 peak in the 10-year yield. Chart 410yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" Chart 5Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Compared to the 2018 scenario, we see less risk of Fed over-tightening in 2022 mainly because the fed funds rate is starting out at a much lower level. However, it will be important to track financial conditions as the Fed moves toward liftoff. Undue tightening would cause us to reverse our positioning. Key View #2: Own Treasury Curve Steepeners The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also recommend buying the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond as an attractive duration-neutral carry trade. The scenarios presented in the prior section show that the 2-year Treasury yield is priced within the bounds of our estimated fair value range while the 10-year Treasury yield looks too low. Logically, it makes sense to position for a steepening of the 2/10 Treasury curve to profit from this divergence. Chart 6 illustrates the implications of the prior section’s fair value estimates for different Treasury slopes. Our fair value range projects that the 2/10 Treasury slope will be between 38 bps and 89 bps in 12 months, above the 37 bps that is currently priced into the forward curve. The forward curve is also priced for too much flattening in the 2/5 Treasury slope, while the 5/10 slope is consistent with the lower end of our fair value range.   The conclusion is that investors should implement 2/10 Treasury curve steepeners in 2022 on the expectation that the 2/10 slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve. A comparison of the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield with a target range based on survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate also supports the case for 2/10 steepeners. Historically, an increase in the 5-year/5-year forward yield towards its target range corresponds with a steepening of the 2/10 slope (Chart 7). Bear-flattening moves in the 2/10 slope only occur when the 5-year/5-year forward is within its target band, as was the case in 2017/18. Given that the 5-year/5-year forward yield is currently well below its survey-derived target range, there is room for some 2/10 steepening as yields rise. Chart 6Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Chart 7A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve One way to position for a steeper 2/10 curve is to go long the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Presently, this trade looks very attractive. The 2/5/10 butterfly spread shows a significant yield advantage in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell, both in absolute terms and relative to our fair value model (Chart 8). While we view this as a good trade, we don’t think it’s the best way to position for 2/10 steepening. We prefer a position long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. This trade gives you long exposure at the 2-year maturity instead of the 5-year maturity which will boost returns if the 2/5 slope steepens, as we anticipate it will (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 8Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap In addition to our recommended 2/10 steepener, we advise clients to favor the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. While we’d expect some flattening of the 10/30 slope in 2022, this trade should still perform well because of its huge carry advantage. The tables in Appendix A show that the 20-year bond earns a massive 12-month carry (income plus rolldown return) of 3.05% compared to 1.85% for the 10-year note and 1.80% for the 30-year bond. Key View #3: Sell Short-Maturity TIPS Chart 9TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Other attractive positions include: an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, an inflation curve steepener (short 2yr TIPS/long 2yr nominal/long 10yr TIPS/short 10yr nominal), and a TIPS curve flattener (short 2yr TIPS/long 10yr TIPS). As noted at the beginning of this report, we see inflation trending down in 2022. Inflation will remain high enough for the Fed to feel comfortable lifting rates, but it won’t match the elevated readings that are currently discounted in TIPS. Interestingly, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are roughly consistent with the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 9). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a bit too low, at 2.13%, and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.47%. With long-dated TIPS breakevens so close to the Fed’s target, we recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus long-maturity nominal Treasuries heading into 2022. In our view, the mispricing in TIPS lies at the front-end of the curve. The 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 3.23%, well above the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range. This year’s surge in short-maturity TIPS breakevens has also resulted in a deeply inverted inflation slope (Chart 9, bottom panel). Table 1Regression of Monthly Changes In CPI Swap Rate Versus Monthly Changes In 12-Month Headline CPI Inflation (2010 - Present) 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Short-maturity inflation expectations are highly sensitive to changes in CPI inflation, much more so than long-maturity expectations. In fact, monthly changes in the 2-year CPI swap rate are more than twice as sensitive to headline inflation than are monthly changes in the 10-year CPI swap rate (Table 1). This means that the cost of short-maturity inflation compensation will decline as inflation moderates in 2022. We recommend an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus short-maturity nominal Treasuries. We also think an outright short position in 2-year TIPS will be highly profitable in 2022. If we assume that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate falls to the middle of the Fed’s target range during the next 12 months, and additionally that the 2-year nominal Treasury yield converges with our fair value estimate using the scenario of a September Fed liftoff, 100 bps per year hike pace and 2.08% terminal rate, then we calculate that the 2-year TIPS yield will rise from its current -2.56% to -0.98% during the next 12 months (Chart 10). Chart 10A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS Chart 10 also shows that the anticipated rise in the 2-year TIPS yield greatly outpaces the modest expected increase in the 10-year TIPS yield. This means that a position in 2/10 TIPS curve flatteners will turn a profit in 2022 (Chart 10, bottom panel). Key View #4: Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. A key pillar of our corporate bond investment process is to split the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11). Phase 1 of the cycle is defined as the period from the end of the last recession until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle spans the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 lasts from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Chart 11The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle Our historical analysis shows that excess corporate bond returns versus duration-matched Treasuries tend to be strongest in Phase 1. They are usually positive, but much lower, in Phase 2 and are often negative in Phase 3 (Table 2). Table 2Corporate Bond Returns Across The Three Phases Of The Cycle 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income We have been firmly in Phase 1 since April 2020 and, as we would expect, excess corporate bond returns have been strong. However, we will not remain in Phase 1 much longer. The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 50 bps, right on the precipice between Phase 1 and Phase 2. We recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries for now, but we will adopt a more defensive posture toward corporates once we transition into Phase 2. We expect this will happen sometime in the first half of 2022. Why Are We Not In Phase 2 Already? Chart 12Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is hovering right around 50 bps. However, as is noted earlier in this report, we think that recent yield curve flattening is overdone and expect it to reverse somewhat in the coming months. Chart 12 shows the 3-year/10-year slope along with an expected fair value range. This range is based on a 100 bps Fed rate hike pace, a 2.08% terminal rate and varying the liftoff date between June 2022 and December 2022. This fair value range only breaks below 50 bps between March and September of next year. Given our yield curve view, we are positioned for one last period of strong corporate bond outperformance during the next few months. But we will turn more defensive once we judge that we have sustainably transitioned into a Phase 2 environment. Why Turn More Defensive In Phase 2? Chart 13IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations It’s correct to point out that excess corporate bond returns are still generally positive in Phase 2 environments, so ideally, we would remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries throughout Phase 2. This makes sense theoretically, but strategically we think it will be wise to adopt a different approach this cycle. The main reason to err on the side of caution is that corporate bond valuations are extremely stretched. The 12-month breakeven spread for the investment grade corporate bond index is at its 6th percentile since 1995. This means that the investment grade corporate bond index has only been more expensive than today 6% of the time since 1995 (Chart 13). Tight spreads mean that expected returns will be modest, even in a favorable cyclical environment. In other words, we are not sacrificing much expected return by reducing exposure early in the cycle. Given that we can’t predict the start of the next Phase 3 period with exact precision, we think it makes sense to be more defensive this cycle. We will sacrifice some modest expected returns to ensure that we are well positioned for the next period of significant spread widening. Our corporate bond strategy is supported by an empirical study of historical returns. Table 3A shows average 12-month excess returns for the investment grade corporate bond index after certain combinations of the 3/10 Treasury slope and average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) are observed. Table 3B shows 90% confidence intervals for the averages presented in Table 3A. Chart Chart The tables show that a strategy of remaining overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries after the yield curve transitions into Phase 2 only works when the corporate index OAS is above 100 bps. A transition into Phase 2 portends negative excess corporate bond returns when the OAS is below 100 bps, as it is today. Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Chart 14HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations While investment grade corporate bonds look extremely expensive compared to history, high-yield corporate bonds look somewhat expensive, but much less so. The average High-Yield index OAS is 1 bp below its pre-COVID low, but investors still get a nice spread pickup for moving out of the Baa-rated credit tier and into the Ba-rated tier (Chart 14). Our prior research has shown that high-yield corporates tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries when the excess index spread after accounting for default losses is above 100 bps.2 If we assume a minimum required excess spread of 100 bps and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, we can calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 3.4% during the next 12 months (Chart 14, bottom panel). All available evidence suggests that the default rate will come in below 3.4% during the next 12 months, leading to positive excess returns for high-yield corporate bonds. The default rate came in at 1.8% for the 12-month period ending in November and it has been dropping like a stone, consistent with the reading from our Default Rate Model (Chart 15). We also recently wrote about the exceptionally good health of corporate balance sheets.3 We expect the default rate will be in the mid-2% range in 2022, below what is priced into the junk index. Chart 15Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Junk’s valuation advantage leads us to recommend that investors maintain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. We will turn more defensive on both investment grade and high-yield corporates once we transition into a Phase 2 environment, but we may still retain our preference for high-yield over investment grade at that time, as long as junk stays relatively cheap. Key View #5: Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates Investment grade USD-denominated Emerging Market bonds (both sovereigns and corporates) will outperform US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration in 2022. EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and 2022 returns will be boosted by a weakening US dollar. We see an opportunity in Emerging Market (EM) bonds for US investors in 2022. Note that we are only referring to investment grade EM bonds denominated in US dollars. We consider both investment grade USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds and investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate & quasi-sovereign bonds. EM Sovereigns Chart 16EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM sovereigns have modestly outperformed Treasuries so far this year (see Appendix B for a complete breakdown of year-to-date performance for different corporate bond sectors), and yet the sector remains attractively valued in the sense that the average index OAS has still not recovered its pre-COVID low (Chart 16). A look at recent performance trends shows that EM sovereigns outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in H2 2020 when the sector benefited from a huge yield advantage and a rapidly depreciating US dollar.4 This year, EM sovereigns lagged US corporates as the dollar strengthened. Looking ahead to 2022, we think that the recent bout of dollar strength is close to its end as the bond market has already moved to price-in an extremely hawkish Fed outlook at the front-end of the curve. A flat or depreciating dollar will benefit EM bonds in 2022, as will the yield advantage in EM sovereigns versus credit rating and duration-matched US corporates (Chart 16, panel 4). This yield advantage will only look more attractive as the Treasury curve flattens and the outlook for US corporate spreads deteriorates. At the country level, we see the best EM sovereign opportunities in Mexico, Russia, Chile, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The bonds of all these countries outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporate bonds during the past 12 months, and they continue to offer a sizeable spread advantage (Chart 17). Chart 17 EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns The investment grade USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index shows a similar relative return pattern to the EM Sovereign index, though overall performance has been better (Chart 18). We see that the index outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates dramatically in H2 2020 when the dollar was under pressure. Relative returns have been more stable this year as the dollar has strengthened. Chart 18EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM corporates & quasi-sovereigns should continue to outperform credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in 2022. A weaker dollar will certainly help, but the main driver of outperformance will be the very attractive yield advantage (Chart 18, panel 4). Key View #6: A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. US bond investors should favor tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to both Treasuries and equivalently-rated corporate bonds. Long-maturity tax-exempt municipal bonds continue to be one the most attractively priced assets in the US fixed income space. As we discussed in a recent report, one big reason for the attractive valuation is that municipal bonds tend to pay premium coupon rates.5 This significantly reduces the duration risk in long-dated munis. The first two columns of Table 4 show the yield ratios and breakeven tax rates between different municipal bond sectors and duration-matched Treasury securities. We see that the breakeven tax rate – the tax rate that equalizes after-tax yields between the two sectors – is a mere 11% for 12-17 year general obligation munis. The breakeven tax rate between 12-17 year revenue munis and duration-matched Treasuries is only 3%, and the longest-maturity munis actually offer a before-tax yield advantage versus Treasuries! Table 4Muni/Treasury And Muni/Credit Yield Ratios 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Table 4 shows that munis also offer excellent value compared to corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration, especially at the long-end of the curve. Breakeven tax rates between munis and corporate credit range from 3% to 21% for maturities longer than 12 years. What’s even more impressive about municipal bonds is that their attractive valuations are buttressed by extremely high credit quality. State & local government balance sheets have received a huge boost from federal stimulus during the past two years, and this has sent net state & local government savings (revenues minus expenditures) surging into positive territory (Chart 19). But it’s not just federal stimulus that has aided state & local governments. Even if we exclude transfer payments altogether, we find that the difference between tax receipts and consumption expenditures is rising sharply relative to interest expense (Chart 19, panel 2). Ratings agencies have noticed the improvement in state & local government budgets and ratings upgrades have far outpaced downgrades during the past year (Chart 19, bottom panel). Chart 19State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape Key View #7: Underweight Agency MBS Chart 20Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. We noted in a recent report that Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities have performed poorly in 2021.6 The main reason for the poor performance is that the compensation for prepayment risk embedded in MBS spreads (aka option cost) started the year at a very low level, but mortgage refinancing activity has been much higher than expected (Chart 20). The conventional 30-year MBS option cost has been rising, but it is still only back to where it was in 2019 (Chart 20, panel 2). This is not sufficiently attractive for us to advocate buying MBS. While rising bond yields will be a tailwind for refi activity in 2022, we still expect the pace of refinancings to be relatively strong because the rapid run-up in home prices has made it extremely enticing for households to tap the equity in their homes through cash-out refis. Within a recommended underweight allocation to MBS, we recommend that investors favor higher coupon securities over lower coupon ones. Higher-coupon MBS carry less duration than lower-coupon MBS and also wider OAS and greater convexity. This means that high-coupon MBS will outperform low-coupon MBS if bond yields rise in 2022, as we expect they will. Appendix A: Treasury Return Forecasts Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image   Appendix B: US Bond Sector Year-To-Date Performance Image Image Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?”, dated December 1, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 4 A weaker dollar tends to benefit USD-denominated EM bonds because it makes it easier for foreign issuers to service their dollar denominated debts. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Chart 3   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Mythbusting The Value Factor Mythbusting The Value Factor Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Chart 5 Chart 5 Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Value Likes Rising Yields... Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... ...Even When Excluding Financials... ...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much ...But Yields Don't Explain Much ...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Mythbusting The Value Factor Mythbusting The Value Factor Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks Chart 11 It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Chart 13 Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Chart 16 Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).