Disasters/Disease

Special Report

Highlights Even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, likely within 18 months, many behavioral changes that were forced on society by social distancing will remain. Individuals who have gotten used to working from home, shopping online, and using the internet for socializing and entertainment will continue to do so. Amid any large structural shift, it is easier to spot losers than winners. The biggest losers are likely to be: (1) Parts of the real estate industry, as companies shed expensive city-center office space and office workers move away from big cities; and (2) the travel industry, since business travel will decline. The winners will include: Health care (as governments spend to strengthen medical services); capital-goods producers (with US manufacturers increasingly reshoring production but automating more); and the broadly-defined IT sector which, while expensively valued, is nowhere near its 2000 level and has several years of strong growth ahead.   “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” –  Bill Gates “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” –  Lenin Introduction The world has been turned upside down since February by the coronavirus pandemic. Households all around the globe have been forced to stay indoors; companies have been forced to drastically change working practices; some industries, such as online shopping or videoconferencing software, have seen a surge in demand. But once the pandemic is over, how many of these changes will stick? What will be the long-term impact on society, the workplace, consumer attitudes, and companies’ strategic planning? How should investors position themselves to take advantage of secular changes in the sectors that will be most affected, ranging from health care and technology, to real estate, retailing, and travel? In this Special Report (which should be read in conjunction with two other recent BCA Research Special Reports on the macro-economic and geopolitical consequences, respectively, of COVID-191), we look at the social and industry implications of the coronavirus pandemic. We assume that, within the next 12-to-18 months, the pandemic will be a thing of the past, either because a vaccine has been developed, or because enough people have caught it for herd immunity to develop. This does not mean that people will be unconcerned about a reoccurrence, or about a new virus triggering another epidemic. Pandemics are not rare, even in modern history (Table 1). And COVID-19 may return as an annual mild seasonal flu (as the 1968 Asian flu did), but which is not serious enough to alter behavior. But the assumption in this report is that, within a couple of years, people will feel comfortable again about being in crowded spaces and traveling, without a need for social distancing or periodic lockdowns. Table 1Estimated Mortality And Infection Rates Of Pandemics During The Past Century But that doesn’t mean that everything will return to the status quo ante. At least some individuals who have gotten used to working from home, video conferencing, and shopping online will continue these practices. Companies will, therefore, need to rethink their employment policies, as well as how they manage their office space, global supply chains, and just-in-time inventories. Government policies towards health care and education will need to be rethought. None of these changes are new. Indeed, the result of an exogenous shock is often simply to accelerate trends that were already in place. E-commerce, telecommuting, and “reshoring” have already been growing steadily for years. COVID-19 is, however, likely to accelerate these shifts. Not every individual or company will change their behavior, but even small changes at the margin can have a significant impact. Ultimately, what these changes amount to is a liberalization of space and time. Employees do not need to be in the same physical space to work together. Students can choose when to listen to a lecture. Music lovers based in a small city can have the same access to a live (streamed) concert as those in London or New York. This Special Report is divided into two sections. In the first section, we examine the meta-changes in consumer and corporate behavior that could result from the pandemic. How widely will the shift from office-based work to “working from home” stick? How much will shopping, entertainment, and education stay online? Will companies really bring back a large chunk of manufacturing from overseas? In the second section, we analyze the impact on specific industries, such as real estate, health care, technology, and retailing, and make some suggestions as to how investors should tilt their portfolios over the longer term to take advantage of these trends. In summary, we identify the winners as health care, technology, and capital-goods producers. The clear losers are in real estate and travel. Retailing and consumer goods will see a significant shakeout, with both winners and losers, but the overall impact on these industries will be neutral. Social Impacts Working From Home Teleworking, or working from home, is hardly new. Craftsmen before the industrial revolution did so as a matter of course. But the development of computers and telecommunications in the 1980s made it feasible for white-collar workers to work from home too. As Peter Drucker wrote as long ago as 1993: "...commuting to office work is obsolete. It is now infinitely easier, cheaper and faster to do what the nineteenth century could not do: move information, and with it office work, to where the people are."2  Until now, however, teleworking has been rare. But the requirements imposed by the pandemic could cause that to change. Technically, it is possible for workers in many job categories to telework effectively. A recent study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman3 estimated, based on job characteristics, that it is feasible for 37% of all jobs in the US to be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). The vast majority of jobs in sectors such as education, professional services, and company management could be done from home (Table 2). Extending the analysis to other countries, they find that more than 35% of jobs in most developing countries can be done from home, but less than 25% in manufacturing-heavy emerging economies such as Turkey and Mexico (Chart 1). Table 2Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Industry Chart 1Share Of Jobs That Can Be Done At Home, By Country But, in practice, before the coronavirus pandemic, many fewer people than this worked from home. Partly this was simply because many companies did not allow it. A survey by OWL Labs in 2018 found that 44% of companies around the world required employees to work from an office, with no option to work remotely.4 The percentage was even higher, 53%, in both Asia and Latin America. By contrast, OWL did find that 52% of employees globally worked from home at least occasionally, and that as many as 18% of respondents reported working from home always. The pandemic forced many white-collar workers to telework for the first time. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of US adults – and as many as 62% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree – worked from home during the crisis.5  How white-collar workers found the experience, and whether they plan to continue to work from home some of the time even if not required to do so, vary widely. Employers are generally positive about the idea. A survey of hiring managers by Upwork found that 56% believed that remote working functioned better than expected during the crisis (Chart 2). They cited reduced meetings, fewer distractions, increased productivity, and greater autonomy as reasons for this. The major drawbacks were technological issues, reduced team cohesion, and communication difficulties. Another survey, by realtor Redfin, found that 76% of US office workers had worked from home during the crisis (compared to only 36% who worked from home at least some of the time beforehand) and that 33% of respondents who had not worked remotely pre-shutdown expect to work remotely after shutdowns end (with another 39% unsure) (Chart 3). Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well Chart 3Many Employees Expect To Continue Working Remotely After The Pandemic Ends But there are problems too. Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that, while teleworking has some clear advantages, such as improved work-family interface, greater job satisfaction, and enhanced autonomy, it also has drawbacks. Most notably, if workers aren’t in the office at least half the week, relationships with fellow workers suffer, as does collaboration.6 There are also developed countries where backward technology has made the experience of working from home difficult. This is particularly the case in Japan. A survey by the Japan Productivity Center found that 66% of office workers said their productivity fell when working from home; 43% were dissatisfied with the experience. The reasons cited for the dissatisfaction were “lack of access to documents when not in the office” (49%), “a poor telecommunications environment” (44%), and a difficult working environment, such as lack of desk space (44%). Japanese companies remain rather paper-based, and household living space tends to be small. Research carried out on employees at Chinese online travel company Ctrip before the pandemic concluded that home working led to a 13% performance increase but, crucially, there were four requirements for working from home to succeed: Children must be in school or daycare; employees must have a home office that is not a bedroom; complete privacy in that room is essential; and employees must have a choice of whether to work from home.7  After the pandemic, a significant shift in the pattern of office work is likely. Many workers will work remotely part or most of the time. But they will also benefit from coming to an office a certain number of days a month to work together, bond with co-workers, exchange ideas, etc. Online Shopping E-commerce has been growing steadily for years. In the US, it increased by 15% year-on-year in 2019, to reach $602 bn, or 16% of total retail sales (Charts 4 and 5). The share is even higher in some other countries: For example, 25% in China and 22% in the UK. The pandemic caused a big acceleration in e-commerce the first few months of this year, as consumers in most countries around the world were either not allowed to go outside, or felt unsafe doing so. Chart 4The Share Of E-commerce Has Been Steadily Expanding For Years… Data from Mastercard show that, in the worst period of lockdowns in April, e-commerce grew by 63% in the US, and 64% in the UK year-on-year, compared to a decline of 15% and 8%, respectively, in overall retail sales (Chart 6). The growth was particularly apparent in products such as home improvement, footwear, and apparel (Chart 7). Chart 5…With Growth Of Around 15% A Year Chart 6In April, Online Sales Soared…   Chart 7…Especially In Certain Categories Moreover, many consumers in advanced economies bought goods such as clothing, medicine, and books online for the first time, and used services such as online grocery delivery, and apps to order food from restaurants (Chart 8). Note, however, that few consumers bought financial services, magazines, music, and videos online for the first time. Presumably these are products that the vast majority of households had already been consuming online. Chart 8Consumers Shifted Purchases Of Many Items Online It is hard to know how sticky these trends will be. Once shops permanently reopen without restrictions, will consumers simply return to their old habits of going to supermarkets, restaurants, and clothing stores? Perhaps many enjoy the experience of browsing. It seems likely, however, that the newly acquired habit of shopping online will at least accelerate the trend towards e-commerce. Many of those who ordered, for example, supermarket deliveries online for the first time will continue to do so at least occasionally in the future. Other changes are likely too: Many smaller retailers were forced to close their physical stores during the pandemic and so had no choice but to set up an online delivery service. Some struggled with this, but others were aided by companies such as Shopify, which simplify the process of setting up a website, processing payments, and arranging delivery. Shopify now works with over a million merchants. These smaller retailers are now better able to compete with giants such as Amazon. During the lockdown, US consumers notably diversified their online product searches away from Amazon and Google to smaller retailers (Chart 9). Chart 9Search Diversified Away From Amazon And Google We might see a trend towards smaller-scale, local shops benefiting as consumers stick to shopping in smaller stores closer to their homes. Many stores during the pandemic refused to accept cash; this might accelerate the shift towards contactless payments. Consumers may be less focused in future on conspicuous consumption. The trend towards wellness, home-cooking, gardening, crafts, and self-investment might continue. Other Uses Of Technology It is not only work and shopping habits that changed during lockdowns. Individuals also got used to a range of technologies for socializing, entertainment, education, and medical consultation. Consumer surveys by the Pew Research Center show that a third of American adults have socialized online using services such as Zoom, and a quarter have used online systems for work or conferences (Chart 10). But these percentages are much higher for certain demographics. For example, 48% of 18-to-29 year-olds have socialized online, and 30% of this age group have taken online fitness classes. The percentage using video systems for work is as high as 48% for people with a college degree. And, unsurprisingly, with many university courses moving online since the spring, 38% of 18-to-29 year-olds say they have taken an online class. Chart 10Individuals Have Been Socializing And Communicating More Online How sticky these trends will be once the pandemic is over is not easy to forecast. But further research by Pew showed that 27% of US adults believed that online and telephone contacts are “just as good as in-person contact,” and only 8% thought of them as not much help at all, although a rather larger 64% answered that online socializing is “useful but will not be a replacement for in-person contact.” The responses differed little between gender, race, and political views, although fewer people under the age of 30 thought online contacts were as good as in-person ones (Table 3). Table 3How Do Online Interactions Compare To In-Person Ones? Another survey in Japan by Ipsos suggests that people’s values have changed as a result of the pandemic and quarantines, with a greater focus on wellbeing, home-based activities such as cooking, and self-improvement. When questioned, a large percentage of people believe they will persist with these habits even when lockdowns end. For example, 51% of Japanese respondents believe they will continue to enjoy themselves as much as possible at home in their spare time, compared to only 20% who favored entertainment at home before the pandemic (Chart 11).  Chart 11Pandemic Brought A Greater Focus On Wellbeing And Home-Based Activities Other areas that have moved online en masse include education, health care, the judiciary, concerts, and sports (e-sports, and popular sports such as soccer and baseball that are now being played in empty venues). Education at the tertiary level in advanced economies was already partly online before the pandemic. In the US, out of 19.7 million tertiary students in 2017, 2.2 million (13.3%) were enrolled in exclusively online/distance learning courses, and another 3.2 million (19.5%) took at least one course online.8 Of course, everything changed during the pandemic, with 98% of US institutions moving the majority of in-person courses online, and many planning to continue this through the Fall 2020 semester. At the elementary and secondary school level, online education was much more limited pre-pandemic. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 21% of US schools offered some courses entirely online in 2016 but, of this 21%, only 6% offered all their courses online and only another 6% the majority of courses. Many of these schools were forced to shift entirely online during lockdowns: According to UNESCO data, at the peak of the pandemic 1.6 billion children (90% of the total in school) in 191 countries attended schools that had closed physically. It seems likely that, while in-person teaching will remain the central method of education, distance and online learning solutions, even at the high school level, will become more prevalent in the future. The health care sector has lagged in technology, in terms of using AI for diagnosis, digitalizing patient records, and offering online doctor-patient consultation. But the use of digital tools had started to increase in recent years, particularly in the number of practices using telemedicine and virtual visits (Chart 12). At the peak of the pandemic in April, the number of telehealth visits in the US rose by 14% year-on-year, compared to a 69% decline in in-person visits to a doctor.9 It seems likely that this trend will continue, as medical practitioners find viritual consultations more efficient and effective for many simple initial diagnoses, and as sick or elderly patients prefer to avoid a physical visit to a surgery.10 Chart 12The Transition To A Digital-Driven Health Care Model Travel Travelers have been very reluctant to get back on airplanes and stay in hotels again, even in countries and regions where the pandemic has eased over the past couple of months (Chart 13). Based on our assumption that the pandemic will be completely over within 18 months, it seems likely that people will eventually resume travelling, at least for leisure and to see family and friends. After previous disruptions to global travel, such as 9/11 and SARS, it took only two-to-three years for air travel to resumed its pre-crisis trend (Chart 14). Chart 13Travelers Remained Reluctant Even When Pandemic Eased Business travel might be very different, however. Salespeople who have become used to making sales calls over Zoom may not feel the need to travel to see clients so much. Conferences, exhibitions, and other events will be increasingly (at least partly) online. Travel budgets are a large expense for many companies. According to estimates by Certify, a travel software provider, spending on business trips in 2019 totalled $1.5 trillion (including $315 billion by US businesses). The availability of a technological alternative to at least some business trips will provide a good excuse for many companies to meaningfully reduce the number of trips and their travel budget. In the future, business travel may become more of a privilege than a necessity. It is easy to imagine a significant decline in overall business travel. Manufacturing Supply Chains Corporate behavior could also change as a result of the disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Companies in the US and Europe realized how vulnerable their complex supply chains are. Popular and political pressure is pushing firms to reshore at least some of their overseas production. Firms will need to build in more “operational resilience,” with higher levels of inventory, less debt, and greater redundancy in their systems. Developed economies such as the US have been deindustrializing for 40 years – since reforms in China in the late 1970s, followed by Mexico and central Europe in the 1990s,  made these countries appealing locations for cheap manufacturing. US manufacturing employment has almost halved since 1980, falling to only 27% of the workforce (Chart 15). Manufacturing output, especially outside of the computer sector, has substantially lagged that of the overall private sector (Chart 16). The US has also fallen behind in automation, with a much lower number of robots per manufacturing worker than in countries such as Germany and Japan (Chart 17). Chart 15US Manufacturing Employment Has Halved Since 1980   Chart 16Manufacturing Output Outside The Computer Sector Has Lagged Chart 17The US Has Relatively Few Robots The pandemic highlighted how vulnerable widely distributed supply chains are. This was clearest in the health care sector. The US is far away the biggest spender on health care research and development (Chart 18). And yet it was unable to provide critical medical equipment such as face masks, testing kits, and ventilators to its population at an adequate rate, mainly because almost 70% of the facilities which manufacture essential medicines are based abroad (Chart 19). During the pandemic, countries such as China and India prioritized their own citizens, forcing the US government to strike emergency deals to avoid drug shortages. Chart 18The US Spends A Lot On R&D In Health Care… Chart 19…But Drug Production Is Mostly Done Overseas Once the crisis subsides, CEOs of American companies (as well as the US government) will have to decide if they are comfortable with the fact that, while they possess a vast store of intellectual capital, the manufacturing of their products happens halfway around the world. What happens if there is another pandemic? What about a global disaster caused by climate change? Finally, and perhaps more worryingly, what happens if tensions between the US and China escalate seriously? This shift will not happen overnight: China still has much cheaper labor, an enormous manufacturing base of factories and parts suppliers, and formidable transportation infrastructure. Many aspects of supply chains are too deep-rooted and the economics too compelling for them to be unwound quickly. Some production will shift from China to other emerging economies. A Biden administration might be less confrontational with China, and could lower some of the Trump tariffs. But, at the margin, companies will choose to build new factories in the US (and in western Europe and Japan), with highly automated systems. Government policy (via both subsidies and tariffs) will encourage these trends. Manufacturers which have lived “on the edge” in recent years, with dispersed supply chains, just-in-time processes, minimal inventories, the fewest possible workers, and the maximum amount of debt compatible with their targeted credit rating (often BBB) now understand the need to build redundancy into their systems. Corporate debt levels are high by historical standards in many countries (Chart 20). Companies may want to build up a buffer of net cash in the future, as Japanese companies did for decades after the bubble there burst in 1990. Inventories have risen a little relative to sales since the Global Financial Crisis but will probably rise further (Chart 21). These trends are likely to be negative for profit margins. Chart 20In The Future, Will Companies Be Happy With This Much Debt... Chart 21...And Such Low Level Of Inventories? Implications For Industries In light of the social changes described above, how will various industries be reshaped over the coming years? Which sectors should investors tilt towards because they are likely to emerge as winners from post-COVID structural shifts? And which are the sectors that investors should avoid since they will suffer from the creative destruction? In the midst of major social and technological change, it is often easier to spot losers than winners. Think of the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. How many investors would have correctly picked Google, Amazon, Apple, and only a handful of others as the winners? It would have been easier to correctly identify industries that were likely to lose out to disruption, such as book retailers, travel agents, newspaper publishers, and TV broadcasters. We start, therefore, with the industries likely to lose out from post-COVID changes. The Losers Real Estate Over the next few years, prime real estate seems the most likely loser. It is not clear how many white-collar workers will choose to work from home in the future, or how many days a month they will want to come into an office to meet with fellow workers. But it seems likely there will be a strong continued trend in the direction of remote working. As a result, demand for prime central-business-district property will fall, given that it is very expensive. In Manhattan, for example, the average workspace for each of the 1.5 million office workers is around 310 square feet. At pre-COVID rental costs, that amounts to an average of $20,000 per employee – and more than $30,000 for A+ grade buildings. And rent is only part of what a company pays: There are also costs for cleaning, utilities, technology, security, coffee machines, and cafeterias on top of that. Employees working at home pay for their own space, utilities, food (and often even computer equipment). The size, location, and layout of offices will need to be rethought. Maybe companies will choose to build a campus in the suburbs, with a range of different working spaces (for meetings, quiet work, or collaboration). They may prefer to rent shared co-working spaces by the day or week. Some real estate developers and builders would be beneficiaries of this. Companies would save money in real estate costs. But they may need to pay a stipend to employees who work at home to cover the extra space they will require, and to upgrade their technology (computer equipment, internet speed, and so on). On the other hand, companies may pay lower salaries for workers who move out of high-cost locations such as Manhattan or London to places where it is cheaper to live. Many office spaces are leased on a long-term basis, so some companies will not be able to move out of big cities immediately. But residential property is more liquid. The trends in work practices might accelerate a shift to the suburbs which has already been emerging over the past few years (Chart 22). Workers will not need to live so close to the company’s office if they will visit it for only a few days a month. Small towns with a lively community and pleasant environment (and decent transportation links to a big city) could grow in popularity. This would be bad news for developers which are specialized in developing residential property in cities such as London, Sydney, Toronto, and Vancouver, and for the owners of those properties. But it might be positive for builders who will develop the new houses and out-of-town office campuses. Chart 22The Shift To The Suburbs Was Already Taking Place This does not mean that cities will wither away. After previous epidemics and crises in history (think the Great Plague of London in the 17th century, or 9/11), they have always bounced back. “Casual collisions” – chance meetings with interesting people which lead to collaborative relationships – are crucial in creative industries, and happen online only with difficulty. Buildings will be repurposed: Retail space will be turned into warehouses or apartments, for example. A fall in rents would allow cities to “degentrify” and attract back young people, making the city more dynamic again. But the period of transition could be painful for some segments of the real estate industry. Travel A permanent decline in business travel would be a significant blow to airlines and hotel chains. Business travelers account for only about 12% of the number of air tickets purchased, but they generate 70%-75% of airlines’ profits. Even discount leisure airlines such as Southwest have in recent years started to target business travelers. And it will not just be airlines that are affected. Data from the US Travel Association show that 26% of the $2.5 trillion in travel-related revenues in the US in 2018 came from business travelers. Of that, 17% goes to air travel, 13% to accommodation, and 5% to car rental. An even larger portion goes to food (21%). Around 40% of hotel rooms are occupied by business travelers. Conference organizers and venues could also suffer: 62% of US business trips are to attend conferences. “Sharing economy” companies would be affected too. In 2018, 700,000 business travelers booked accommodation through AirBnB, and 78% of business travelers use Uber and other ride-sharing services. Furthermore, a slowdown in business travel would have knock-on effects on the leisure travel sector. Surveys suggest that almost 40% of business trips in the US are extended to include leisure activities (“bleisure” in the travel industry parlance). The Winners Health Care A recent report by BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service argued in detail that the macro environment for global health care equities will remain very positive in the coming years.11 An aging population in the world, and a growing middle class in emerging countries will steadily raise demand for health care services (Charts 23 and 24). China, in particular, has underinvested in health care: It spends only 5% of GDP, barely higher than it did 20 years ago, and well behind other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa (Chart 25). Chart 23Positives For Health Care Include An Aging Population… Chart 24…And A Growing Emerging Market Middle Class As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments everywhere will need to spend more money on health care (or, in the case of the US, perhaps spend it more effectively). In the US, before the pandemic, intensive-care beds were sufficient to cope only with the peak of a normal seasonal influenza breakout. The World Health Organization warns that, while pandemics are rare, highly disruptive regional and local outbreaks of infectious diseases are becoming more common (Chart 26). More money will need to be spent, in particular, on developing health care technology (online consultations, digitalized patient records, track-and-trace systems), on improving senior care homes (80% of COVID-19 deaths in the Canadian province of Quebec were in such facilities), and on biotech (such as gene-related therapies). Chart 25Expenditures On Health Care Will Have To Grow Chart 26Number Of Countries Experiencing Serious Outbreak Of Infectious Disease   The health care equity sector is not expensive, trading in line with its long-run average valuation (Chart 27). Within the sector, biotech and health care technology look more attractive than pharmaceuticals, which are expensive and vulnerable to the price caps proposed by Joe Biden if he is elected US president this November. Chart 27Health Care Stocks Are Not Expensive Technology In a plethora of ways, the pandemic has propelled the use of technology: For working at home, communication, online shopping, entertainment, etc. Companies such as Zoom have moved from niche players to mainstream business providers: Zoom’s peak daily users rose from 10 million in December 2019 to 300 million in April. Chart 28Tech Stocks Are Nowhere Close To Previous Peaks Assuming that at least some of these developments remain in place once the pandemic is over, it is easy to see how technology stocks (broadly defined to include any company that uses information technology as a central part of its business) will continue to prosper. These stocks will not be just in the IT sector, but also in communications and consumer discretionary. Picking the individual winners will be hard: Will Microsoft overtake Amazon in cloud computing? Will Zoom’s much-discussed privacy issues undermine it? Will competitors emerge to Shopify in merchant services? Can Spotify compete with Apple in online music streaming? But the broadly-defined sector seems likely to have improving fundamentals for some years to come. The only question is whether the good news is already priced in, after the huge run-up in stock prices over the past few years. We do not believe it is fully. The valuations of these sectors are still nowhere close to the level they reached at the peak of the TMT Bubble in 1999-2000 (Chart 28), they have strong balance-sheets, and considerable earnings power. For their outperformance to end, it will take one of two things. The first trigger could be a significant shift down in growth. Over the past three years, Amazon has grown EPS at a compound rate of 47%, and Netflix at 76% (Chart 29). Over the next three years (2020-2023), analysts forecast compound EPS growth of 32% for Netflix, 30% for Amazon, 15% for Facebook (compared to 24% in 2016-2019), and 12% for Microsoft (compared to 16%). Those are still impressive growth numbers, and should be achievable as long as these companies can continue to grow market share. Chart 29Can The Big Tech Stocks Keep Growing Earnings At This Rate? The second set of risks would be regulatory: A move to break up companies such as Google and Amazon, the US introducing data privacy legislation similar to that in the European Union, or a move to a digital tax or minimum global taxation. None of these seems likely in the immediate future. Automation/Robotics/Capital Goods The return, at the margin, of some manufacturing to the United States (and other developed economies) will bring about economic changes. Unable to tap into the pool of cheap international labor as easily as before, companies will have to invest significantly in this sector. This will result in the following: A resurgence of manufacturing productivity, thanks to increased investment. An intensification of automation. The US will need to boost the number of robots per capita to compete with Korea, Germany, and Japan. This will further improve productivity. The development of a high-tech manufacturing sector. Analogous to the FAANG stocks during the 2010s, a new group of innovative manufacturing companies could emerge. New infrastructure, roads, factories, and machinery will be needed to replace what is now an outdated capital stock in the US (Chart 30). These trends should all be positive for the capital-goods sector. Such a project would also need large amounts of raw materials. This might push up the prices of commodities such as industrial metals, and benefit materials producers. As mentioned above, it could boost the price of real estate outside of the major cities, where the new manufacturers would be likely to set up. Chart 30The US Capital Stock Is Becoming Outdated Mixed Retailing / Consumer Goods Retailing is likely to see a significant shakeout over the next few years. The cracks have been apparent for some years: Decreasing footfall, and empty units on many high streets and shopping malls, amid the shift to online shopping. A shift to the suburbs and further growth in online shopping will change retailing further. Rents in the highest end Manhattan shopping districts have already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, especially Lower Fifth Avenue (between 42nd and 49th Streets) which is dominated by large chain stores (Chart 31). Shopping malls, particularly undistinguished ones in poorer areas, will continue to suffer. Overall, the US in particular has an excess of retailing space, almost five times as much per capita as the major European economies (Chart 32). Chart 31Manhattan Retail Store Rents Already Falling Sharply Chart 32The US Has Far Too Much Retail Space But it is hard to predict the winners from this shake-out. Overall spending by consumers is unlikely to be significantly affected, so it is a matter of forecasting which companies and formats will emerge victorious. Will Walmart and Target and other large retail chains improve their online offering to fight back against Amazon? Facebook, Shopify, and others have set up new services to compete with Amazon on price – will they be successful? Will small stores start to win back market share? Will supermarkets figure out how to make profits from their order-online-and-deliver services (which are now very costly because most often a human has to run around the store picking out the items ordered), or will new, fully automated competitors emerge? Will new technologies materialize to make it easier to buy clothes online (for example, digitized body measuring systems)? These changes will also affect producers of consumer products. They will have to understand the new channels, and adapt their offerings and positioning strategies accordingly. These changes will make the sector a tricky one. A skilled fund manager might be able to predict which companies’ strategies will be successful. But it could be a problematic area for investors owning individual stocks within the sector who do not have detailed expertise. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beyond The Virus," dated May 22, 2020 and Geopolitical Strategy, "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," dated June 26, 2020. 2 Peter E. Drucker, "The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition," 1993, p.340. 3 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020. 4 OWL Labs, “The State of Remote Work Report,” available at www.owllabs.com. 5 Pew Research Center survey conducted March 19-24 2020. Please see https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/03/30/most-americans-say-coronavirus-outbreak-has-impacted-their-lives/psdt_03-30-20_covid-impact-00-4/ 6 Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A., “The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown about Telecommuting”,  Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6), 2007. 7 Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015), 165-218. 8 Please see educationdata.org. 9 Ateev Mehrotra, Michael Chernew, David Linetsky, Hilary Hatch, and David Cutler, "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, dated May 19, 2020.  10For more on the long-term outlook for the health care sector, Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight," dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "The Healthcare Revolution: The Case For Staying Overweight,"dated July 24, 2020, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

  Markets have shrugged off the rise in COVID-19 cases in the US and new clusters in other places such as Spain, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Tokyo (Chart 1). The MSCI All-Country World Index is now only 4% off its all-time high in February. We don’t see the markets ignoring reality for much longer. Economic activity remains very subdued (Chart 2), which will eventually cause a significant rise in bankruptcies and problems for banks. Nevertheless, the unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus will be increased further in coming weeks, which should prevent a big shift towards pessimism for a while. The crunch time will come in the northern-hemisphere winter, when COVID cases in North America and Europe are likely to rise sharply again. Risk assets at their current levels are not pricing in those risks. Recommended Allocation   Chart 1COVID Cases Are Still On The Rise Chart 2Activity Remains Subdued Markets are driven by the second derivative of growth. It is not surprising, then, that equities began to rally in March, exactly when economic data stopped deteriorating, even though it remained atrocious (Chart 3). Real interest rates have also continued to fall, even as risk assets rallied; this further fueled the rally, since the theoretical value of equities rises as the rate at which they are discounted falls (Chart 4). Chart 3Data Stopped Deteriorating In March Chart 4Real Interest Rates Have Continued To Fall But the question now is: Can the data continue to improve? PMIs will fall back towards 50, and economic releases are unlikely to surprise so strongly on the upside. In the US, as a result of the rise in COVID-19 cases and renewed (albeit mostly moderate) government restrictions on activity, consumer confidence has started to weaken again and initial unemployment claims to pick up (Charts 5 and 6). Even though the Fed will remain ultra-dovish, real rates will not fall much further from their current level, which is the lowest since TIPS started trading in the late 1990s. Chart 5Consumer Confidence Is Weakening Again Chart 6The Jobs Market Has Stopped Improving Chart 7Will Money Supply Growth Peak? Money supply growth has grown rapidly, as a result of the increase in central-bank balance-sheets and the rush of companies to borrow to shore up their cash positions (Chart 7). The increase in excess liquidity has also been a force behind the rise in risk assets. But money supply growth is likely to slow from now. At least partly offsetting these risks will be further fiscal stimulus. BCA Research’s Geopolitical strategists see Congress approving a big new package of around $2.5 trillion, mainly because of widespread popular support for an extension of more generous unemployment benefits (Table 1). Agreement should come before the scheduled recess on August 10 (if it doesn’t, this would trigger a market selloff). The recent agreement between European Union leaders on a EUR750 billion fiscal package was a major breakthrough, since it represented joint borrowing backed by the rich northern European countries to provide transfers to the poorer periphery. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Further upside may come as the many investors who have missed the rally since March capitulate and buy risk assets. Investor sentiment is currently unusually polarized. Speculative individuals and hedge funds are very bullish (Chart 8). But more conservative pension funds, wealth managers, and individual investors, mostly remain cautious, as evidenced by the AAII weekly survey, in which many more investors say they expect the stock market to fall over the next six months than to rise (Chart 9). Cash levels remain high by historical standards (Chart 10). Although only a minority of investors turned positive in March, a recent academic study demonstrated how hedge funds and small active institutions have a disproportionate influence on price movements (Chart 11). A downside risk, then, would be if these investors decided to take profits or turned more bearish. Chart 8Hedge Funds Are Bullish... Chart 9...But Retail Investors Very Cautious Chart 10Cash Holdings Remain Elevated Chart 11Some Smaller Investors Have A Big Impact We have argued, since the pandemic began, that investors should not take high-conviction bets in such an uncertain environment. They should, rather, design portfolios which are robust under various scenarios. After the 43% rise in global equities since March, we cannot recommend an above-benchmark weighting, since downside risks are not priced in. We remain neutral on global equities. However, fixed-income instruments look even more unattractive at the current low level of rates; we remain underweight. We recommend hedging via a large overweight in cash, which leaves dry powder for when a better buying opportunity arises. Currencies: A key (as always) to the macro view is what happens to the US dollar. Many of the drivers of the dollar – interest-rate differentials, valuation, momentum, and relative money-supply growth – point to it weakening further (Chart 12). The trade-weighted dollar is already off 9% from its March peak. We turned bearish on the USD in our Quarterly published at the beginning of July. It is too early, however, to declare that the dollar bull market, which began in 2012, is definitely over. Chart 12Dollar Indicators Are Bearish... Chart 13…But Short USD Is Now A Consensus A new downturn in the global economy would push the dollar back up again, since it is a safe-haven currency. Shorting the dollar, especially against the euro, is now a consensus position, and so a near-term reversal is quite likely (Chart 13). But, over the next 12-18 months, a move above 1.22 for the euro and towards 100 for the yen is possible. We will continue to analyze whether the dollar could be entering a bear market, since this would necessarily make us more structurally positive on commodities and emerging markets. Equities: A pickup in global growth and a weakening US dollar might prove positive for cyclicals and value stocks in the long run, which would cause European and EM equities to outperform. Given the current uncertainty, however, we cannot recommend that stance and therefore continue to prefer “growth defensives” such as Health Care and Technology, which implies an overweight on the overall US market. Valuations in the Health Care sector remain attractive (Chart 14). Companies in the (broadly defined) Tech sector are beneficiaries of the pandemic, generally have robust balance-sheets, and should continue to see strong earnings growth for some years. And, while Technology is clearly expensive, valuations are still nowhere as excessive as in 2000 (Chart 15). For Tech to crash would require either that it go ex-growth, or that there is significant regulatory action. Chart 14Health Care Still Attractively Valued Chart 15Tech Still Way Below Bubble Levels Chart 16Europe No Longer So Dominated By Financials Neither of these seems likely for now. Euro zone equities are less dominated than they were by Financials, but remain more cyclical than the US, with very few internet-related names (Chart 16).   Fixed Income: Central banks will remain very dovish and, as Fed chair Jerome Powell has emphasized, are not even thinking about thinking about tightening policy. This suggests that nominal rates will rise only moderately, even if growth continues to pick up. The Fed still has plenty of room to ease further if needed, since the programs it rolled out in March have barely been taken up yet (Table 2). We thus recommend a neutral position on duration. We find TIPS attractive as a hedge against an eventual spike in inflation. The 10-year breakeven inflation rate implied in TIPS remains around 100 basis points below being compatible with the Fed achieving its 2% PCE inflation target in the long run (Chart 17). The announcement in September of the results of the Fed’s 18-month review of its policy framework, which is likely to intensify its efforts to achieve the inflation target, could push breakevens up a bit further. In credit, we continue to recommend buying whatever central banks are buying, mostly investment-grade corporate bonds and the top end of the US junk bond market. Though spreads have fallen a long way, they are still well above end-2019 levels, and look attractive in a world of such low government bond yields (Chart 18). Table 2Usage Of The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities Chart 17TIPS Still Pricing Low Inflation For A Decade Chart 18Credit Spreads Could Fall Further Commodities: The weakening US dollar and continued expansion of Chinese stimulus (Chart 19) should be positive for industrial metals prices over the next six to nine months. Oil prices also have some further upside, since the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restrict supply is being adhered to, and demand will gradually pick up (although air travel will remain depressed, more commuters are using their cars as they avoid public transport). BCA Research’s Energy Service forecasts Brent crude to average $44 in the second half of this year, and $65 in 2021 (up from the current $43). Gold has already run up a lot and is now close to a record high price in real terms, with sentiment very optimistic (Chart 20). Chart 19China Stimulus Positive For Metals Nonetheless, in an environment of very low real rates, it represents a good hedge against extreme tail risks, and therefore we continue to recommend a moderate position as an insurance. Chart 20Gold Looking Rather Toppish Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation  

Special Report

Highlights The housing market is tight, but not undersupplied, as the construction of new homes has kept up with the pace of household formation. Demand for homes should remain well supported as household formation has room to increase and the economy recovers from the pandemic-induced crisis. But existing barriers to new home construction persist and the economic recovery will help hold down residential mortgage defaults and prevent a wave of listings by desperate sellers. As such, home prices have scope to remain well-bid. Feature US home prices keep grinding higher despite the most severe recession since the Great Depression. In a May Special Report1 entitled “Housing In The Time Of COVID-19”, we highlighted that the initial uptick in home prices was spurred by housing supply falling faster than housing demand. Lockdowns and strict social distancing measures halted the construction of new homes and prompted sellers of existing homes to de-list their properties, thus immediately curbing the supply of homes for sale. Meanwhile, the mortgage forbearance allowed under the CARES Act prevented a wave of defaults and mass property listings by desperate sellers and low interest rates and generous fiscal transfers supported demand. Since then, economic activity has been recovering at a faster pace than widely anticipated and mortgage applications have eclipsed pre-pandemic highs. Yet, building permits and housing starts still have ample room to catch up. Are we heading towards a dearth of housing supply? Tight Or Undersupplied? Most real estate agents would claim that the biggest challenge they have had to face in the past few years was developing a new listing pipeline given low levels of new construction relative to history. The economic data confirms this observation: the inventory of homes for sale, as well as the share of homes currently sitting vacant, both stand at record lows (Chart 1). A rising pool of potential buyers and record-low interest rates make for lost commission opportunity amid this weak supply backdrop. Chart 1A Tight Housing Market All that one can infer from these observations, however, is that the housing market is currently a sellers’ market. Only the assessment of the underlying driver of long-term housing demand – household formations – can determine whether the overall housing market is over or undersupplied. Chart 2The Pre-GFC Extended Period Of Construction Excesses Was An Exception Rather Than The Norm There have been four2 extended phases of gains in new home prices since the 1970s (Chart 2). The longest one extended for 14 years from 1992 to 2006 but was also the slowest on a compound annual growth rate basis (CAGR). Nine million building permits were issued over the 103-month span of the most recent phase, a permit-per-month pace that was just two-thirds of the average pace of the preceding three phases (Table 1). Although a declining number of permits issued confirms the on-the-ground observations detailed above, the rate of household formation in the past decade was much slower than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Table 1The Last Four Phases Of New Home Prices Gains Put In Perspective The number of permits adjusted for household formation shows that the housing cycle that culminated in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was marked by excessive construction. During that time, 1.4 building permits were issued for every new household formed. Conversely, in the other three new home price appreciation phases over the last 50 years, that ratio nears one-to-one. An alternative analysis using the number of housing starts instead of housing permits would yield similar results. Therefore, construction has been in line with the growth of new households formed in the latest cycle. As such, the market is not undersupplied. Drivers Of Household Formation Household formation is largely demographic-driven over the long term as today’s population growth trends will only be reflected in household growth a couple of decades down the line, when the newborn population reaches adulthood. Over a shorter horizon, household formation is mostly driven by the economic health of population cohorts in their 20s and 30s. Ample research has shown that today's younger generations have pushed marriage and homeownership to their 30s. Widely accepted reasons include lifestyle changes as well as a relatively more precarious financial situation, which is leading younger individuals to require several more years of income and savings to achieve preceding generations’ level of wealth. The positive takeaway for household formation and housing demand is that today’s 20-something cohorts will likely strike out on their own in the coming years as their financial situations improve. They are not a lost generation of household heads and homeowners, just a delayed one. The pool of young individuals still living at home and the economic recovery constitute a pocket of future household formation, which is the underlying driver of housing demand. We have shown in previous research that 25-34 year olds' financial situation has been improving. They have driven the bulk of the uptick in the homeownership rate and in mortgage applications. As a result, growth in the share of young adults living at home has started to decrease (Chart 3). The economic recovery should sustain this trend. Moreover, a growing pool of individuals aged 20-25 constitutes a pocket of future household formation (Chart 4). Overall, the number of households has room to increase at a healthy rate. Chart 3Improving Financial Situation Among Younger Individuals To Support Household Formation Chart 4A Growing Pocket Of Future Near-Term Housing Demand Decreasing Supply Elasticity Conversely, some obstacles are now standing in the way of additional new-home supply. After the decade of over-construction that preceded the 2008 housing crisis, evidence shows that homebuilders have been operating with caution and restraint ever since. Chart 5Banks Are Shifting Away From Relatively Riskier Construction Loans Researchers at the Bank of England, Norges Bank and Oslo Metropolitan University3 have examined how various degrees of supply elasticity explain the dispersion in home prices across the United States. Supply elasticity measures the extent to which changes in home prices drive new construction. The research paper sheds light on a generalized nationwide trend towards declining supply elasticity. Constrained access to credit partly explains homebuilders’ restraint. Bank lending practices have been relatively muted since the GFC. Lending over the past expansion grew at a markedly slower pace than it did in any other postwar expansion.4 The composition of banks’ balance sheets also reflects more conservative lending behaviors. Their loan books have increasingly shifted away from construction5 loans towards relatively safer multi-family mortgages (Chart 5). Rising construction costs are also likely reducing the number of viable construction projects. In March 2018, the Trump administration announced tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum. The construction sector accounts for half of the global demand for steel and the US is the largest net importer. The price of lumber has increased 125% since March. A crackdown on immigration under the current administration is also contributing to rising labor costs, in an environment where homebuilders have reported that skilled labor availability issues persist. Supply has been constrained over the latest cycle…and we do not expect these supply headwinds to abate any time soon. Our colleagues at BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remark that by highlighting the risks of globalization and border insecurity, the COVID-19 crisis is reinforcing two of Trump’s major policy themes: tighter borders and a renaissance in domestic manufacturing activity. They also note that immigration policy first started tightening under the Obama administration (Chart 6). Although a potential Biden administration might view immigration more favorably, the highly polarized US political climate and the need to address populist grievances will limit immigration even if the Democrats gain control of both the Senate and the White House. Chart 6US Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another Chart 7Increasing Market Share Amongst The Largest Homebuilders An increase in land use regulation may also be stifling homebuilders. A recent NBER research paper6 reports that the level of regulation has generally increased between 2006 and 2018. Moreover, the concentration of big players within the homebuilding sector has increased. The share of total single-family completion by the 50 largest US homebuilders has grown from 24% to 35% between 2000 and 2019 (Chart 7). A higher concentration allows homebuilders to better navigate an increasingly regulated housing market, but it also decreases competition. Empirical evidence shows that firms with high market power may be incentivized to reduce output if doing so contributes to product scarcity, high sale prices and increased profits. On the demand side, so called NIMBYism (Not-In-My-BackYard) may also represent a headwind to additional new construction. The Bank of England, Norges Bank and Oslo Metropolitan University research paper notes that supply elasticity has decreased by a wider margin in states where home prices suffered most in the housing crisis. There is sound basis to hypothesize that since 2008, homeowners have become increasingly focused on maintaining the value of their properties by opposing new development projects. Towards A Supply Squeeze? Chart 8Current And Prospective Homeowners Taking Advantage Of Record-Low Mortgage Rates We do not expect the major supply headwinds to abate any time soon. Bank lending standards may ease at the margin as the economy recovers and some of the uncertainty about the credit outlook abates, but stricter bank regulation and more conservative lending standards should prevent a repeat of the subprime era’s construction excesses. Our geopolitical strategists have noted that a Democratic White House and Senate will likely maintain the pressure on China. As such, there is no assurance that tariffs on imported commodities would be reversed in the event of a Democratic sweep. We expect that the apex of globalization and pockets of inflationary pressure from COVID-19 supply disruptions will keep homebuilders’ input costs elevated. Demand has upside, though. It is already holding up well amid the current recession thanks to record-low mortgage rates and fiscal and monetary policy makers’ emergency efforts. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell below 3% for the first time in July. Mortgage lenders have reported increased backlogs due to the surging number of mortgage and refinancing applications (Chart 8), and mortgage rates may be headed lower once lenders are convinced that increased demand is sustainable. The extension of the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending facilities through the end of the year, announced last week, should help the economy at the margin. As long as Congress extends fiscal aid, policy makers’ efforts will help sustain the demand for homes and fears of a wave of mortgage defaults and distressed home sales one would expect in a severe recession will not materialize. Putting It All Together If demand remains well supported while the supply of new and existing homes remains muted, home prices do not have much room to decline. In our housing Special Report from May, we had hypothesized that the technical feasibility and increased acceptance of working remotely might lift suburban and satellite city home demand. There is early evidence of this phenomenon taking place in cramped and richly priced housing markets like San Francisco and New York. Moreover, the NAHB not only reported a stellar recovery to pre-pandemic levels in homebuilder sentiment in June and July but also an “increasing demand for families seeking single-family homes in inner and outer suburbs that feature lower density neighborhoods.” It saw improving new home demand “in lower density markets, including small metro areas, rural markets and large metro exurbs, as people seek out larger homes and anticipate more flexibility for telework in the years ahead”. Whether the pandemic will result in a material exodus from large cities is still up in the air. It remains to be seen whether remote working flexibility will recede as the pandemic weakens. Both employers and employees may favor part-time remote working arrangements, as suggested by many surveys, which would still warrant having a pied à terre within commuting distance from one’s workplace. Large metropolitan cities also remain attractive for reasons outside of one’s occupation, such as tourism or access to entertainment and leisure. Downward pressure on rents in large metropolitan areas might be more likely than an outright exodus from the city. Current renters and prospective first-time homeowners might want to take advantage of low mortgage rates and the ability to move further out from one’s workplace (though still within commuting distance) thanks to part-time work-from-home arrangements.   Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Investment Strategy Special Report, "Housing In The Time Of COVID-19", dated May 18, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The real new home median sale price series goes back to 1963. We have identified four new home prices expansions starting from the first apparent bottom reached in December 1970 (Chart 2, first panel). 3 "The declining elasticity of US housing supply", Knut Aastveit, Bruno Albuquerque, Andre Kallak Anundsen, published 25 February 2020. 4 Please see BCA Research US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated", dated April 6, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Construction loans are typically the most volatile and risky category of commercial real estate loans. Risks stem from frequent delays and sometimes the cancellation of construction projects. Loan delinquencies and defaults are common due to the cycle of booms and busts inherent to the construction industry. 6 Gyourko, J., Hartley, J., & Krimmel, J. (2019). The Local Residential Land Use Regulatory Environment Across U.S. Housing Markets: Evidence from a New Wharton Index. (No. w26573). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report from my colleague Garry Evans, Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist. Garry will be discussing the social and industrial changes that will remain in place even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, and how investors should tilt their portfolios to take advantage of them. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The number of coronavirus cases in the US appears to have peaked. Negotiations to avert a fiscal cliff continue in Washington. While we expect a deal to be reached, markets could tread nervously until this happens. The US dollar will weaken further over the next 12 months. Narrowing interest rate differentials, a revival in global growth, deteriorating momentum, and pricey valuations all bode poorly for the greenback. Global equities in general, and non-US stocks in particular, tend to fare well in a weak dollar environment. Small cap and value stocks usually outperform when the dollar weakens. Bank shares should start to do better as yield curves steepen and faster economic growth reduces concerns over non-performing loans. US Virus Wave Cresting, But Fiscal Risks Intensifying Chart 1US: Number Of New Cases Seems To Be Peaking Last week, we argued that the two biggest near-term threats to stocks and other risky assets were the rising number of coronavirus cases in parts of the US and the looming fiscal cliff.1 Since then, the news on the virus has been broadly positive, while developments on the fiscal front have been mixed. Chart 1 shows that the number of new cases seems to have peaked in the US. In Texas, Florida, California, and Arizona, the share of doctor visits linked to suspected Covid infections is trending lower. This metric leads diagnoses by about one-to-two weeks (Chart 2).   Chart 2Doctor Visits, Which Lead Diagnoses, Are Trending Lower Over half the US population lives in states that have either suspended or reversed reopening plans (Chart 3). Assuming the number of infections keeps falling and fiscal policy is not unduly tightened, household spending and employment growth – which appear to have stalled out in the second half of July – should begin to pick up. Chart 3Not So Fast Unfortunately, the assumption that fiscal policy will remain stimulative looks somewhat shaky. Expanded unemployment benefits for 30 million Americans, consisting mainly of an additional $600 per week for unemployed workers, are set to expire at the end of July. Congressional Republicans have suggested trimming benefits to $200 per week. However, even that would represent a fiscal tightening of nearly 3% of GDP. A Question Of Incentives The Republican position is understandable, given that two-thirds of unemployed workers are currently receiving more in unemployment benefits than they earned while working. Thus, some scaling back of benefits is not only inevitable, but desirable. The question is one of timing. While job openings have risen from their lows, they are still 23% below where they were at the start of the year. According to the NFIB survey, the share of small businesses reporting difficulty in finding qualified workers has also fallen from year-ago levels. When the binding constraint on employment is a shortage of jobs rather than a shortage of workers, higher unemployment benefits will likely boost hiring. This is because increased benefits will increase spending on goods and services across the economy, thus augmenting the demand for labor. Debt, Gold, And The Dollar Chart 4Gold Prices Have Risen On The Back Of Falling Real Yields Does the inevitable increase in government debt due to ongoing fiscal stimulus portend disaster down the road? According to many commentators, the recent drop in the dollar and the surge in gold prices is surely telling us that it does. While it is a compelling story, it is mainly false. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond currently stands at 1.20%, down from 1.5% in mid-June and 2.33% at the start of the year. Bondholders may be many things, but masochistic is not one of them. If they really thought a fiscal crisis was around the corner, yields would be a lot higher. So why is the dollar falling and gold rallying? The answer is inflation expectations have risen off very low levels, which has pushed down real yields. Gold prices are almost perfectly correlated with real interest rates (Chart 4). The Real Reason The Dollar Has Fallen Going into this year, US real yields had a lot more room to decline than rates abroad. For example, at the start of 2019, US real 2-year yields were 221 bps above comparable euro area yields. Today, US real rates are 35 bps lower – a swing of 256 bps. Yield differentials have narrowed against other economies as well, which has pushed down the value of the dollar (Chart 5). In addition, relative growth dynamics have hurt the greenback. The US economy tends to be less cyclical than most of its trading partners. While the US benefits from faster global growth, the rest of the world benefits even more. This causes capital to flow from the US to other countries, leading to a weaker dollar (Chart 6). Chart 5The Greenback Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support Chart 6The Dollar Usually Weakens When Global Growth Accelerates   Chart 7The Dollar And Cycles BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategist, Chester Ntonifor, has stressed that the dollar typically fares worst in the initial stages of business cycle recoveries (Chart 7). That is the stage we are in today. Indeed, the gap in growth between the US and the rest of the world is likely to be larger than usual over the next few quarters because the pandemic has hit the US harder than most other developed economies. Momentum is also working against the dollar. Being a contrarian is usually a smart investment strategy. That is not the case when it comes to trading the dollar. With the dollar, you want to follow the herd.  This is because the dollar is a high momentum currency (Chart 8). A simple trading rule that buys the dollar when it is trading above its 50-day or 200-day moving average, and sells the dollar when it is trading below its respective moving averages, has historically made a lot of money. Likewise, the dollar performs best prospectively when sentiment is bullish and improving (Chart 9). Currently, the dollar is trading below its various moving averages. Sentiment is also poor and deteriorating (Chart 10).   Chart 8USD Is A High Momentum Currency Chart 9Trading The Dollar: The Trend Is Your Friend Chart 10The Dollar Has Started Breaking Down   Chart 11The Dollar Is Still Fairly Expensive If the dollar were cheap, all the factors discussed above could be overlooked. But the dollar is not cheap. It is still pricey based on purchasing power parity measures which compare the common-currency cost of identical consumption bundles from one country to the next (Chart 11). A Weaker Dollar is Bullish For Stocks, Especially Non-US Stocks Global equities in general, and non-US stocks in particular, tend to perform well when the dollar is weakening (Chart 12). Chart 12A Weaker Dollar Should Help Global Equities   Chart 13Cyclicals Tend To Outperform Defensives In A Falling Dollar Environment Cyclical sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials normally outperform defensives in a weak dollar environment (Chart 13). Relative profit growth in these sectors tends to rise when the dollar depreciates (Chart 14). To the extent that cyclicals are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this gives non-US equities a leg up. Chart 14Relative Profit Growth In Cyclical Sectors Tend To Rise When The USD Depreciates EM Is The Big Winner From Dollar Weakness A weaker dollar is particularly beneficial to emerging markets. Commodity prices usually rise when the dollar drops (Chart 15). Rising resource prices are good news for many emerging markets. EM debt dynamics also tend to improve when the dollar weakens. EM external debt has grown in recent years (Chart 16). About 80% of EM foreign currency denominated debt is in dollars. A falling dollar reduces the local-currency value of US dollar-denominated liabilities, thus strengthening the balance sheets of many EM companies and governments. Emerging markets with large current account deficits and significant dollar liabilities such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and Mexico will outperform EMs that generally run current account surpluses and have little in the way of foreign-currency debt. Chart 15Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Falls Chart 16EM External Debt Has Grown In Recent Years The Federal Reserve today is trying to engineer an easing in US financial conditions. A weaker dollar is facilitating that goal. Historically, EM stocks have been almost perfectly inversely correlated with US financial conditions (Chart 17). Chart 17EM Equities Benefit From Easier US Financial Conditions What About DM? The impact of a weaker dollar on the stock markets of developed economies is more nuanced. Consider the euro area, for example. On the one hand, a stronger euro hurts the euro area economy, which can ultimately push down domestic profits. A stronger EUR/USD also reduces the profits of European companies with operations in the US when those profits are converted back into euros. That can also hurt European stocks. On the other hand, the overall reflationary effect of a weaker dollar on global growth tends to push up profits. In practice, the latter effect usually dominates the former. Thus, euro area stocks, just like stocks in most other markets, generally outperform the US when the dollar is weakening (Chart 18). Chart 18ANon-US Stock Markets Do Well Vis-À-Vis The US When The Dollar Is Weakening Chart 18BNon-US Stock Markets Do Well Vis-À-Vis The US When The Dollar Is Weakening Small Caps And Value Stocks Tend To Outperform When The Dollar Weakens Even though companies in the small cap Russell 2000 index generate less of their sales from abroad than those in the S&P 500, small caps still tend to outperform large caps in weak dollar environments (Chart 19). This is partly because smaller companies are more cyclical in nature. It is also because the US dollar performs best in a risk-off setting when investors are pouring money into the safe-haven Treasury markets. In contrast, small caps excel in a risk-on environment. Value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks in a weaker dollar environment (Chart 20). Like small caps, cyclical equity sectors are overrepresented in value indices. Financials also tend to punch above their weight in value indices. Chart 19Small Caps Tend To Outperform Large Caps During Weak Dollar Environments... Chart 20...The Same Goes For Value Stocks Small caps and value stocks outperformed between 2000 and 2008, a time when the US dollar was generally weakening. That period saw both a commodity boom and a wave of debt-fueled housing booms. The former lifted commodity prices, while the latter buoyed financials. Commodity prices should rise over the next 12 months thanks to a rebound in global growth and copious Chinese stimulus. Chart 21 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is on track to reach the highest levels since the Global Financial Crisis, while the fiscal deficit will probably hit a record 8% of GDP. The Outlook For Financial Stocks Gauging the outlook for financials is trickier. Credit growth has slowed sharply since the Global Financial Crisis, which has weighed on bank profits. The structural decline in bond yields has also been toxic for bank shares (Chart 22). Lower bond yields tend to translate into flatter yield curves, which can depress net interest margins. Chart 21China Has Opened The Spigots Chart 22The Structural Decline In Bond Yields Has Been Negative For Bank And Value Stocks A falling dollar has historically been associated with higher bond yields (Chart 23). As global growth recovers over the next 12 months, bond yields will edge higher. That said, central bank bond purchases, coupled with aggressive forward guidance, will keep bond yields from rising as much as they normally would. And even if nominal yields do rise, inflation expectations will rise even more, implying that real yields will fall further. Falling real yields tend to benefit growth stocks more than they benefit value stocks. Chart 23Bond Yields Tend To Rise When The Dollar Weakens Still, even a modest steepening of the yield curve will be good for bank earnings. A recovery in economic activity should also dampen concerns about a spike in bad loans. Credit spreads normally fall when economic growth is improving and the dollar is weakening (Chart 24). Banks have significantly increased provisions since the start of the year, which has depressed reported earnings. If some of those provisions are reversed, profits will jump. Chart 24Credit Spreads Tend To Fall When Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Chart 25Bank And Value Stocks Are Quite Cheap Moreover, bank stocks in particular, and value stocks in general, are extremely cheap by historic standards (Chart 25). Thus, while the case for favoring value over growth is not as clear-cut as it could be, it is strong enough that long term-oriented investors should consider moving capital from high-flying tech stocks to unloved value stocks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Will Bond Yields Ever Go Up?” dated July 24, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights The use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. We estimate that this restriction could wipe out 10 percent of jobs. Hence, as government lifelines to employers are cut, expect permanent unemployment to rise sharply. 30-year bond prices will soon hit all-time highs. Bank prices will soon hit all-time lows. While the pandemic remains in play, the European stock market will struggle to outperform the US stock market. The biggest risk to our positioning is that the pandemic suddenly ends. But our working assumption is that a credible vaccine will not be available until 2021. Fractal trade: Gold strength and dollar weakness are approaching trend exhaustion. Feature Table I-1Hospitality, Retail, And Transport Employ 25 Percent Of All Workers In many countries, face masks have become compulsory in public places where physical distancing is impractical – such as on public transport or in supermarkets. Physical distancing and face masks create a barrier either of distance or of material between your mouth and nose and other people’s mouths and noses. The worthy objective is to control the pandemic while allowing most aspects of normal life and economic activity to resume. Yet some aspects of normal life and economic activity cannot resume. To state the obvious, the use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. These activities fall under three broad categories: Social eating, drinking, talking, singing, and cheering – a category of activities which economists call ‘social consumption’. Activities that require social communication at close quarters. Such social communication is often reliant on facial expressions, which become impossible to identify at distance or under a face mask. Long-haul travel. After all, who wants to get on an aeroplane if it means wearing a face mask for 10 hours? This raises a crucial question: in an economy which prevents mouths and noses getting in proximity to others, how much activity will be destroyed? Permanent Unemployment Set To Rise Sharply Three sectors that are suffering are hospitality, retail, and transport. ‘Bricks and mortar’ retail is suffering because physical distancing limits footfall, and because discretionary shopping is often regarded as a social activity which becomes pointless with physical distancing and face masks. Using the US as a template, the three sectors sum to around 12 percent of economic activity. If we assume that physical distancing and the use of face masks forces them to operate at two-thirds capacity, then the economy will lose a tolerable 4 percent of activity. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news. The three sectors have a high labour intensity, so they employ 25 percent of all workers (Table I-1). Meaning that even with the optimistic assumption of operating at two-thirds capacity, more than 8 percent of jobs will get wiped out. And on less optimistic assumptions, the job destruction could rise to over 10 percent. The lockdowns were an emergency and temporary response to surging infection rates. They created massive temporary unemployment, as employers put their staff on state-subsidized furlough. As the lockdowns have eased, some of the these temporary unemployed have returned to work (Chart I-1). In contrast, the introduction of physical distancing and face masks forms a longer-term strategy to control the pandemic. As already explained, an economy without mouths and noses in proximity to others will increase the amount of permanent unemployment, which is already rising sharply (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Number Of Temporary Unemployed Down... Chart I-2...But Number Of Permanent Unemployed Sharply Up To make matters worse, state-subsidized furlough schemes are winding down. In France, the scheme will continue into 2021 but with a much-reduced subsidy per worker; in Germany the Kurzarbeit scheme finishes at the end of the year; and in the UK the furlough scheme finishes in October. As government lifelines to employers are cut, expect permanent unemployment to continue its climb. And expect this high level of structural unemployment to keep depressing 30-year bond yields. The good news is that in the coming months, 30-year bond prices will hit all-time highs (Chart I-3). But given the very tight connection between bond yields and bank share prices, the bad news is that bank prices will hit all-time lows (Chart I-4). Chart I-330-Year T-Bond Price Approaches All-Time High Chart I-4Banks Are Tracking The Bond Yield The Pandemic ‘Winners’ Are Not European To understand what has been happening in the stock market this year, you don’t need to think hard. You just need to think about how you spend a typical day in the pandemic era. Here’s a typical day for me, which I hope resonates with many of you. I participate in a series of virtual meetings using Microsoft Teams. My Apple iPhone and iPad have become my most constant and most needed work companions. I do most of my shopping on Amazon. And in the evening, I relax by watching movies on Netflix. All of which constitutes a major change from a typical day in the pre-pandemic era. In the pandemic era, I have a greater dependence on, loyalty to, and usage of Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix products and services. Assuming my experience represents the mass experience, it explains why these companies, and a few others, are the pandemic ‘winners’. In the greatest demand shock since the Depression, the profits of Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have held up well. While the profits of Netflix are up 40 percent1 (Chart I-5). The trouble for the European stock market is that the pandemic winners are all listed in the US, where they make an outsized contribution to stock market profits. This is the main reason why European profits are down 32 percent this year, while US profits are down ‘just’ 18 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-5The Pandemic 'Winners' Are Not European... Chart I-6...So European Profits Have Underperformed US Profits More remarkably, these four stocks explain more than half of Europe’s Stoxx 600 underperformance versus the S&P 500. Stop and reflect on that for a moment. The major European index comprises 600 stocks, and the major US index comprises 500 stocks. Yet pretty much all you need to explain the performance difference this year are four US growth defensive stocks: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Absence Of Pandemic 'Winners' Explains Most Of European Underperformance While the pandemic remains in play, the European stock market will struggle to outperform the US stock market. On Valuations And Risk Premiums What about rich valuations? Since the end of 2018, the forward earnings multiple of growth defensives – defined as global technology plus healthcare – is up from 16 to 23, a surge of almost 50 percent. Stated inversely, the forward earnings yield has collapsed from 6.2 percent to 4.4 percent.  Yet over the same period, the 10-year T-bond yield has collapsed from 3.2 percent to 0.6 percent, so the gap between the growth defensive earnings yield and the bond yield has barely changed. In other words, the huge rally in absolute valuations is entirely due to the collapse in the bond yield. Put simply, if the long-term return on bonds collapses to near-zero, then the prospective returns on competing investments must also collapse to pitiful levels, justifying richer valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Collapsed Bond Yield Entirely Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield Of Growth Defensives In this regard, we strongly dispute the popular narrative that Robinhood day traders are creating a speculative frenzy in growth defensives. Whilst the narrative sounds alluring, the facts strongly contradict it. As the charts show, we can explain all the recent price move in terms of the two fundamentals: resilient profits combined with the collapsed bond yield. One objection is that the gap between the earnings yield and the bond yield – a measure of the equity risk premium – needs to be much higher in the pandemic era. Yet as we have shown, the growth defensives are even more defensive now than they were before the pandemic, raising the reasonable rejoinder: why should the risk premium be higher for this segment of the market during the pandemic compared to before it? Moreover, the pandemic has simply accelerated structural trends that were already underway: for example, the shift to remote working and the demise of bricks and mortar retailers started well before the virus. These major structural trends will continue with or without the pandemic. Nevertheless, the biggest risk to our positioning is that the pandemic suddenly ends. In which case, growth defensives would quickly fall out of favour while old-fashioned cyclicals – like banks – would come roaring back into favour, albeit only briefly. We are closely monitoring this risk. Our working assumption is that it is not a high risk right now because a credible vaccine will not be available until 2021. In which case, structural unemployment is set to rise sharply later this year. This will depress ultra-long bond yields even more, and keep supporting an overweight to growth defensives, at least relative to other parts of the stock market. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Based on 12-month forward earnings per share.   Fractal Trading System* This week we highlight that both the sharp rally in gold and the sell-off in the dollar are approaching a short-term trend exhaustion. A potential catalyst for such a reversal would be Covid-19 infection rates re-accelerating in Europe to create a ‘second wave’. Given our open positions in short silver and short gold versus lead, there are no additional trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 60 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields     Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Special Report

Highlights The Fed’s emergency lending facilities have successfully stabilized markets … : Credit spreads have tightened dramatically since March and liquidity has been restored to the US Treasury market. … at very little cost to the central bank: Just the announcement of Fed lending facilities has been enough to push spreads lower in most cases. The facilities themselves have seen very little actual uptake. The only cost borne by the Fed has been a dramatic expansion of its balance sheet due to purchases of Treasury securities. We still want to “buy what the Fed is buying”: In US fixed income, we want to favor those sectors that are eligible for Fed support. This includes corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, municipal bonds and Aaa-rated securitizations. Keep portfolio duration at neutral: The Fed will be much more cautious about raising interest rates than in the past, and could wait until inflation is above its target before lifting off zero. Feature Back in April, we published a detailed explainer of the extraordinary actions taken by the Federal Reserve to combat the pandemic-induced recession.1 This week, we re-visit that Special Report to assess what the Fed has accomplished during the past three months and to speculate about what lies ahead. Overall, the Fed’s response has been highly effective. Stability was restored to financial markets almost immediately after the most dramatic policy interventions were announced, and it turns out that the announcements themselves did most of the work. The ultimate usage of the Fed’s Section 13(3) emergency lending facilities has been extremely low relative to their stated maximum capacities (Table 1). If you are the Fed, it is apparently enough to marshal overwhelming force and announce your willingness to deploy it. Like the ECB demonstrated in the fraught Eurozone summer of 2012, a bazooka can restore order without being fired.2 Table 1Usage Of The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities The only possible cost borne by the Fed has been an explosion in the size of its balance sheet, mostly attributable to purchases of Treasury securities. The ultimate usage of the Fed’s facilities has been extremely low relative to their stated maximum capacities. This report looks at how the Fed’s actions have influenced (and will influence) interest rates, Treasury market liquidity, the corporate bond market and other fixed income spread products. It also considers the potential impact of the size of the Fed’s balance sheet on the economy and financial markets. Interest Rates The Fed dropped the funds rate to a range of 0% to 0.25% on March 15, and since then it has aggressively signaled that rates will stay pinned at the zero-lower-bound for a long time. Investors quickly took this message on board (Chart 1). The median estimate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants has the funds rate holding steady at least through the end of 2022. Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve isn’t pricing-in a rate hike until 2024. Chart 1The Fed And Market Agree: No Hikes Through 2022 Chart 2Better Signaling From The Fed The market adjusted much more quickly to the Fed’s zero interest rate policy this year than it did during the last zero-lower-bound episode (Chart 2). The MOVE index of Treasury yield volatility has already plunged to below 50. It took several years for it to reach those levels after the Fed cut rates to zero at the end of 2008. Similarly, the yield curve is much flatter today than it was during the last zero-lower-bound episode. This partly reflects the market’s expectation that rates will stay at zero for longer and partly the downward revisions to estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate that have occurred during the past few years. The bottom line is that the Fed has successfully achieved its goal on interest rate policy. The funds rate is at its effective lower bound and the entire term structure is priced for it to stay there for a very long time. There are two main reasons for this success. First, the Fed’s forward guidance has been more dovish this year than at any point during the last zero-lower-bound episode, with many FOMC participants calling for the Fed to target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Second, the market is more skeptical about inflation ever returning to that target, as evidenced by much lower long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 2, bottom panel). What’s Next? The Fed has already made it clear that it won’t pursue negative interest rates. With those off the table, the next step will be for the Fed to make its forward rate guidance more explicit. In all likelihood this will involve the return of some form of the Evans Rule that was in place between 2012 and 2014. The Evans Rule was a commitment to not lift rates at least until the unemployment rate moved below 6.5% or inflation moved above 2.5%.3 The new version of the Evans Rule will be much more dovish. In a recent speech, Governor Lael Brainard favorably cited research suggesting that the Fed should refrain from liftoff until inflation reaches the 2% target.4 That may very well be the rule that ends up becoming official Fed guidance. If the Fed wants to strengthen its commitment to low rates even more, it could follow the Reserve Bank of Australia’s lead and implement a Yield Curve Control policy. This policy would involve setting caps for Treasury yields out to a 2-year or 3-year maturity. The Fed would pledge to buy as many securities as necessary to enforce the caps and would only lift the caps when the criteria of its new Evans Rule are met. While spreads have tightened across all credit tiers, investment grade corporates have become much more expensive than high-yield. For the time being, there is no rush for the Fed to deliver more explicit forward guidance and/or Yield Curve Control. As we noted above, bond yields are already pricing-in an extremely lengthy period of zero rates. But these policies will become more important as the economic recovery progresses and market participants start to speculate about an eventual exit from the zero bound. Explicit forward guidance and/or Yield Curve Control would then prevent a premature rise in bond yields and tightening of financial conditions. With all that in mind, we would not be surprised to see more explicit (Evans Rule-style) forward guidance rolled out at some point this year, but unless bonds sell off significantly beforehand, it probably won’t have an immediate impact on yields. The same is true for Yield Curve Control, though the odds of that being announced this year are lower as it is a tool with which the Fed is less comfortable. Treasury Market Liquidity Chart 3When Treasury Market Liquidity Evaporated As the COVID-19 crisis flared in March, there were several tense days when liquidity in the US Treasury market evaporated. Bond yields jumped even as the equity market plunged (Chart 3). Meanwhile, liquidity markers showed that it had become much more difficult to transact in US Treasuries. Treasury Bid/Ask spreads widened dramatically and the iShares 20+ Year Treasury ETF (TLT) traded at a huge discount to its net asset value (Chart 3, panel 3). During the past four months, researchers have identified hedge fund selling of Treasuries to meet margin calls and foreign bank selling of Treasuries to meet demands for US dollar funding as the proximate causes of March’s Treasury rout. However, it is clearly a failure of market structure that the Treasury market was unable to accommodate that selling pressure without liquidity disappearing. In a recent paper from The Brookings Institution, Darrell Duffie explains why the Treasury market was unable to maintain its liquidity during this tumultuous period.5 Essentially, he argues that it is the combination of rising Treasury supply and post-2008 regulations imposed on dealer banks that has led to an environment where there is a large and growing amount of Treasury supply, but where dealers have less balance sheet capacity to intermediate trading. To illustrate, Chart 4 shows the ratio between the outstanding supply of Treasury securities and the quantity of Treasury inventories for which primary dealers obtained financing. Quite obviously, the dealers’ intermediation activities have not kept pace with the expanding size of the market. Chart 4Primary Dealers Have Not Kept Up With Treasury Issuance What’s Next? Without changes to Treasury market structure or bank capital requirements (Duffie recommends abandoning the system of competing dealer banks altogether and moving all Treasury trades through one central clearinghouse), we are likely to see more episodes like March where a spate of Treasury selling leads to an evaporation of market liquidity. When that happens, the Fed will be forced to step in and buy Treasuries, as it did in March (Chart 3, bottom panel). The goal of that intervention is simply to remove enough supply from the market so that the remaining trading volume can be handled by the dealers. As this pattern repeats itself over time, it will cause the Fed’s presence in the Treasury market to grow. Bottom Line: Unless structural changes are made to the Treasury market or bank capital regulations are rolled back, we should expect more episodes of Treasury market illiquidity like we saw in March. We should also expect the Fed to respond to those episodes with aggressive Treasury purchases, and for the Fed’s presence in the Treasury market to grow over time. Corporate Bonds The Fed’s intervention in the corporate bond market consists of three lending facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) where the Fed purchases investment grade corporate bonds and recent Ba-rated fallen angels in the secondary market. This facility also purchases investment grade and high-yield ETFs. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) where the Fed buys new issuance from investment grade-rated issuers (and recent fallen angels) in the primary market. The Main Street Lending Facility (MSLF) where the Fed purchases loans off of bank balance sheets. The loans must be made to small or medium-sized firms with Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0. Chart 5Corporate Issuance Surged Following The Fed's Announcements As mentioned above, these facilities have barely been tapped. As of July 1, the Fed had purchased $1.5 billion of corporate bonds and just under $8 billion of ETFs through the SMCCF, while the PMCCF had not been used at all. However, the impact of the Fed’s promise to back-stop such a large portion of the corporate debt market has been immense. Corporate bond issuance surged following the announcement of the Fed’s facilities, and set monthly post-2008 records in March, April and May (Chart 5). The effect on corporate bond spreads has been just as dramatic. Spreads peaked on March 23, the day that the SMCCF and PMCCF were announced, and have tightened significantly since then. Further underscoring the importance of the SMCCF, PMCCF and MSLF announcements is that those segments of the corporate bond market most likely to have access to the Fed’s lending facilities have seen the most spread compression. Recall that investment grade issuers and recent fallen angels have access to the SMCCF and PMCCF, while the MSLF will benefit most issuers rated Ba or higher. Some B-rated issuers are able to tap the MSLF, but not the majority. Issuers rated Caa or below are much less likely to benefit from any of the Fed’s programs. Table 2 shows how the impact of the Fed’s facilities has played out across the different corporate credit tiers. It shows each credit tier’s option-adjusted spread and 12-month breakeven spread as of March 23 and today. It also shows the percentile rank of those spreads since 2010 (100% indicating the widest spread since 2010 and 0% indicating the tightest). While spreads have tightened across all credit tiers, investment grade corporates have become much more expensive than high-yield. The B-rated and below credit tiers are particularly cheap, with 12-month breakeven spreads all above their 80th percentiles since 2010. Table 2The Fed's Impact On Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spread Curve Back To Normal The market impact of the Fed’s corporate lending facilities is also apparent across the corporate bond term structure. In March, the investment grade corporate bond spread slope inverted, as 1-5 year maturity corporate bond spreads widened relative to spreads of securities with more than 5 years to maturity (Chart 6).6 The Fed concentrated its lending facilities on securities with less than 5 years to maturity, and it has successfully re-steepened the corporate spread curve. But the Fed’s corporate lending facilities are not all powerful. As Chair Powell likes to say: “the Fed has lending powers, not spending powers”. So while the promise of Fed lending is a big help, it still means that troubled firms will have to increase their debt loads to survive the economic downturn. Those firms that take on debt may still see their credit ratings downgraded as their balance sheet health deteriorates. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened. Ratings downgrades have jumped during the past few months, as have defaults (Chart 7). There has also been a spike in the number of fallen angels – firms downgraded out of investment grade – but not as big a jump as was seen during the last recession (Chart 7, panel 2). The Fed’s emergency lending facilities have likely prevented some downgrades, but not all. Chart 7Fed Can't Prevent Downgrades What’s Next? The Fed’s lending facilities are responsible for a huge portion of the spread compression we’ve seen since late March. That said, it is a potential problem for corporate bonds that those facilities are scheduled to expire at the end of September. Our sense is that the expiry date will be extended, and that the facilities will only be wound down after a significant period of time where they see zero usage. At that point, the Fed should be able to halt the facilities without unduly impacting markets. In terms of investment implications, we think that the Fed’s back-stop will continue to be the most important driver of corporate bond spreads during the next few months. This means we would avoid chasing the attractive valuations in bonds rated B & below, and would continue to focus our corporate bond exposure on bonds rated Ba and above. We make an exception to our “buy what the Fed is buying” rule when it comes to positioning across the corporate bond term structure. Here, we are inclined to grab the extra spread offered by longer-maturity securities even though Fed secondary market purchases are concentrated at the front-end. Our rationale is that the Fed’s secondary market purchases are already low and will likely decline as time goes on. Meanwhile, if firms with long-maturity debt outstanding need help they can still access the PMCCF if needed.  Other Fed Lending Facilities & Fixed Income Sectors Outside of the three programs geared toward the corporate bond market, the Fed also rolled out emergency lending facilities meant to back-stop: money market mutual funds (MMLF), the commercial paper market (CPFF), the asset-backed securities market (TALF), the municipal bond market (MLF) and the federal government’s new Paycheck Protection Program (PPPLF). Once again, the announcement effect did most of the work for all of these facilities and the Fed managed to quickly restore stability to each targeted market without doing much actual lending. For starters, the MMLF successfully halted a flight out of prime money market funds with a relatively modest $53 billion in loans (Chart 8). The CPFF caused the commercial paper/T-bill spread to normalize with only $4 billion of lending, and the LIBOR/OIS spread also tightened soon after the Fed rolled out its facilities (Chart 8, bottom panel). The Fed has dramatically expanded the size of its balance sheet through purchases of Treasury securities and agency MBS. In the asset-backed securities market, the Fed decided that only Aaa-rated securitizations are eligible for TALF. With that in mind, Aaa-rated consumer ABS and CMBS spreads have tightened considerably since TALF’s announcement (Chart 9). Non-Aaa consumer ABS spreads have tightened modestly despite the lack of Fed support. This is because fiscal stimulus has, so far, kept households flush with cash and prevented a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Aaa CMBS, on the other hand, have struggled due to lack of Fed support and a sharp increase in commercial real estate delinquencies. Chart 8Stability Restored Chart 9Consumer ABS & CMBS Spreads Tightened Considerably...   The announcement of the MLF also successfully led to compression in municipal bond spreads (Chart 10), though the Aaa muni curve still trades cheap relative to Treasuries. Like the other facilities, the MLF has seen very low take-up. In this instance, low MLF usage results from its expensive pricing. Municipal governments can access loans through the MLF for a period of up to three years at a cost of 3-year OIS plus a fixed spread that varies depending on the municipality’s credit rating. However, current market pricing is well below the MLF rate for all credit tiers (Chart 10, bottom 2 panels). This means that the MLF provides a nice back-stop in case muni spreads widen again, but it is not currently an effective means of getting cash to struggling state & local governments. Chart 10...As Have Municipal Bond Spreads Finally, the PPPLF is a facility that purchases loans made through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) off of bank balance sheets. Essentially, it is an insurance policy designed to make sure that banks have the necessary balance sheet capacity to deliver all of the PPP loans authorized by Congress. It has achieved this goal with relatively little usage. Banks have doled out more than $500 billon of PPP loans and the Fed has purchased only $68 billion. What’s Next? As with the corporate lending facilities discussed above, there is a risk surrounding the scheduled expiry of these other lending facilities at the end of September. Once again, we see the Fed being very cautious in this regard. All facilities will be extended until they have seen long periods of no usage. In the near-term, we think it’s possible that the Fed will make MLF loans cheaper. They will likely feel intense pressure to do so if Congress fails to pass sufficient stimulus to state & local governments in the next bailout package. In terms of investment strategy, we want to stick with what has worked so far. We are overweight Aaa consumer ABS and Aaa CMBS due to the TALF back-stop. We are also overweight municipal bonds, especially in the Aaa-rated space where yields are attractive versus Treasuries and the risk of default is low. We would also advise taking some extra risk in non-Aaa consumer ABS. These securities have no TALF back-stop, but we expect Congress to deliver enough government stimulus to keep the underlying borrowers solvent. The Size Of The Fed’s Balance Sheet As this report has made clear, the Fed’s emergency lending facilities have accomplished a lot during the past four months with the Fed taking very little actual risk onto its balance sheet. But while its usage of the emergency lending facilities has been low, the Fed has dramatically expanded the size of its balance sheet through purchases of Treasury securities and agency MBS. To restore stability to the Treasury and MBS markets, the Fed avidly bought Treasuries and agency MBS from mid-March to mid-April, ballooning the size of its balance sheet by $2 trillion in just five weeks. Tacked onto the QE programs undertaken to battle the GFC, the Fed’s balance sheet expansion has been massive, and it is roughly six times larger as a share of GDP than it was in the three decades preceding the subprime crisis (Chart 11). Chart 11Massive Expansion Of The Fed's Balance Sheet Investors and citizens may ask what that balance sheet expansion has achieved so far, and what it’s likely to achieve going forward. Are there unintended consequences that haven’t yet made their presence felt? What constitutes a normalized Fed balance sheet, and when will the Fed be able to get back to it? The immediate consequence many investors attribute to the balance sheet expansion is higher stock prices (Chart 12). Fans of the balance sheet/equities link are undeterred by the decoupling after 2015, arguing that standing pat/tapering the balance sheet by 15% helped precipitate its vicious sell-off in the fourth quarter of 2018. It probably has not escaped their notice that the spectacular bounce from March’s lows has occurred alongside a 70% balance sheet expansion. The money supply boost may prove short-lived, though, as it appears that businesses are borrowing to ensure their continued liquidity, rather than to spend or invest. We don’t think there is much to the observed relationship, however. Correlation is not causation and we have a hard time seeing how the Fed’s purchases of Treasuries, agencies and agency MBS flowed into the equity market. While the Fed’s pre-pandemic QE purchases turbo-charged the size of the monetary base, it only gently expanded the money supply, because the banks that sold securities to the Fed largely handed the proceeds right back to it as deposits (Chart 13). The net effect mainly filled the Fed’s vaults with the new money it had conjured up via its open-market operations. Chart 12Fed Balance Sheet & Stock Prices: Correlation Is Not Causation Chart 13Only A Modest Expansion Of Money Supply   Banks were not the only counterparties to the Fed’s QE purchases, of course. Fixed income mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds must also have trimmed their holdings to accommodate the Fed. They were likely obligated by prospectus mandates or regulatory oversight to redeploy the proceeds into other bonds. Surely some unconstrained investors turned QE cash into new equity investments, but the larger QE effect on financial markets was likely to narrow credit spreads as dedicated fixed income investors redeployed their proceeds further out the risk curve. Tighter spreads helped reduce corporations’ cost of servicing newly issued debt, boosting corporate profits at the margin, but we think it’s a stretch to say QE drove the equity rally. What’s Next? Chart 14Wave Of Bank Deposits The picture is slightly different today, with the money supply popping amidst frenzied corporate borrowing. The money supply boost may prove short-lived, though, as it appears that businesses are borrowing to ensure their continued liquidity, rather than to spend or invest. The largest banks were inundated with deposits in the second quarter (Chart 14), possibly driven by corporations stashing their issuance proceeds in cash just as banks previously stashed their QE proceeds in excess reserves. With households actively paying down their debt and businesses having already pre-funded two or three years of cash needs, the deposits may not be lent out, hemming in the money multiplier and limiting the self-reinforcing magic of fractional-reserve banking. Liquidity that is being hoarded is not available to drive up equity multiples, so we don’t expect the Fed’s new balance sheet expansion will directly boost stock prices any more than we think it did post-crisis. Indirectly, we think it does contribute to economic growth and risk asset appreciation because we view QE and other extraordinary easing measures as a signal that zero interest rate policy will remain in place for a long time. The importance of that signal, and the possibility that nineteen months of tapering at the start of Jay Powell’s term as Fed chair did promote volatility and increased equities’ vulnerability to a sharp downdraft, may well keep the Fed from attempting to normalize the balance sheet any time soon. An outsized Fed balance sheet may well be the new normal, and it may well breed unintended consequences, but we don’t think that kiting stock prices will be one of them. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Outright Monetary Transactions facility at the heart of ECB President Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” pledge was never actually used. The ECB did eventually purchase government securities through a separate facility. But this didn’t occur until 2015, after sovereign bond yields had already fallen. 3 This explicit forward guidance was the brainchild of Chicago Fed President Charles Evans. It was official Fed forward guidance between December 2012 and March 2014. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20200714a.htm 5 https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WP62_Duffie_v2.pdf 6 This inversion of the corporate spread curve is typical during default cycles. For more details on this dynamic please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “On The Term Structure Of Credit Spreads”, dated July 10, 2013, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Equities and other risk assets face near-term headwinds from the surge in Covid cases in the US Sun Belt and the looming fiscal cliff. We think these problems will be resolved, but the next few weeks could be rough sledding for markets. Government bond yields have moved sideways-to-down since late March even though inflation expectations have rebounded. The resulting decline in real yields has been an important, if rather overlooked, driver of higher equity prices. The failure of government bond yields to rise in line with higher inflation expectations can be attributed to the ongoing dovish shift in monetary policy. Nominal yields are likely to increase modestly over the next two years as growth recovers. However, inflation expectations should rise even more. Hence, real yields may fall further, justifying an overweight position in TIPS and a generally positive medium-term view on equities. As long as there is spare capacity in the economy, fiscal stimulus will not push up real yields. This is because bigger budget deficits tend to raise overall savings, thus creating the resources with which to finance the deficits. Once economies return to full employment in about three years, the fiscal free lunch will end. At that point, the combination of easy monetary and fiscal policies could cause inflation to accelerate. Central banks will welcome higher inflation initially. However, they will eventually be forced to hike rates aggressively if inflation continues to march upwards. When this happens, bond yields will rise sharply, while stocks will tumble. A Curious Divergence Government bond yields have moved sideways-to-down in most developed economies since stocks bottomed in late March (Chart 1). In contrast, inflation expectations have risen. As a result, real yields have declined. In the US, TIPS yields have fallen into negative territory across all maturities (Chart 2). Chart 1Nominal Yields Have Moved Sideways-To-Down, Inflation Expectations Have Risen, And Real Yields Have Declined Chart 2TIPS Yields Have Fallen Into Negative Territory Across The Board The decline in real yields has been one of the unsung drivers of higher equity prices this year. The forward P/E ratios of the major US indices have moved closely in line with real yields (Chart 3). Gold prices have also risen, as they are often wont to do when real yields go down (Chart 4). Chart 3Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Stock Multiple Chart 4Gold Prices Have Risen On The Back Of Falling Real Yields It is fairly uncommon for inflation expectations to rise without a commensurate increase in nominal bond yields (Chart 5). As a rule of thumb, when the economic data surprise to the upside, as has occurred over the past few months, bond yields go up (Chart 6). Chart 5It Is Unusual For Inflation Expectations To Rise Without A Corresponding Increase In Nominal Bond Yields Chart 6Bond Yields Usually Rise When Economic Data Surprise To The Upside An important exception to this rule occurs when monetary policy is becoming more expansionary. Bond yields tend to follow the path of expected policy rates (Chart 7). When central banks guide rate expectations lower, bond yields can fall, even as the reflationary impulse from lower yields delivers an upward kick to inflation projections. Chart 7ABond Yields Tend To Follow The Path Of Expected Policy Rates Chart 7BBond Yields Tend To Follow The Path Of Expected Policy Rates The last time such a divergence between yields and inflation expectations occurred was in early 2019. The stock market crash in late 2018 forced the Fed to abandon its plans to hike rates. Jay Powell’s dovish pivot occurred just three months after he said that rates were “a long way” from neutral. The Fed would go on to cut rates by 75 bps over the course of 2019. Real Yields Could Fall Further Chart 8Inflation Expectations Are Still Quite Depressed In Most Countries The key question for investors is how much longer the pattern of rising inflation expectations and stable bond yields can persist. Our sense is that nominal bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years as growth recovers. However, inflation expectations are likely to rise even more, justifying an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal bonds. Inflation expectations are still quite depressed in most countries (Chart 8). If global growth rebounds, both actual and expected inflation should edge higher. Chart 9 shows that the US ISM manufacturing index leads core inflation by about 12-to-18 months. Higher oil prices should also lift inflation expectations (Chart 10). Will global growth recover? The answer is “yes” if we are talking about a horizon of 12 months or so. That said, as we discuss below, there are some near-term risks to growth. This implies that equities and other risk assets could trade nervously over the next few weeks.   Chart 9Global Growth Recovery Will Lead To Higher Inflation Down The Line Chart 10Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Move In Lockstep   Near-Term Risks To Global Growth The two biggest threats to global growth over the coming months are the Covid outbreaks in a number of countries and the possibility that fiscal stimulus will be rolled back, especially in the US, where a “fiscal cliff” is looming. Despite progress in suppressing the virus in Europe, Japan, and most of East Asia, the number of reported daily infections continues to rise globally (Chart 11). In the developed world, the US remains a major hotspot. Although the number of cases appears to have peaked in Arizona, it is still rising in the other Sun Belt states (Chart 12). Among emerging markets, the epicenter has moved from Brazil and Russia to India (Chart 13). Chart 11Despite Progress In Europe, Japan, And Most Of East Asia, The Number Of Covid Infections Continues To Rise Globally Chart 12A Second Wave Is A Key Macro Risk Chart 13BRICs: Covid Leaving No Stone Unturned While efforts to contain the virus will boost growth in the long run, they will weigh on economic activity in the near term. Over half of the US population lives in states that have either reversed or suspended reopening plans (Chart 14). Chart 14Not So Fast Google data on visits to shopping malls, recreation centers, public transport facilities, and office destinations have dipped in recent weeks. The decline in visits has occurred alongside a decrease in the New York Fed’s high-frequency economic activity indicator (Chart 15). Initial unemployment claims also rose this week. At this point, it looks likely that the recovery in US consumer spending will stall in July and August. Chart 15Covid Outbreak Is Weighing On Spending While it is difficult to know what will happen starting in September, our guess is that the pandemic will ebb in the southern states, just like it did in the northeast. This is partly because mask-wearing is becoming more widespread. Back in early March, when most mainstream news sources were tweeting out misinformation such as “Oh, and face masks? You can pass on them,” we noted that both logic and evidence suggest that masks are an effective tool against the virus. Increased testing should also help identify asymptomatic people before they have had the chance to spread the virus to many others. Meanwhile, improved medical care should also help reduce the mortality and morbidity rates from the disease. Just this week, scientists presented the results of a double-blind clinical trial showing that the inhalation of interferon beta, a cytokine used to treat multiple sclerosis, reduced the risk of developing severe Covid symptoms by nearly 80%. Fiscal Cliff Ahead? In addition to the pandemic, investors have to grapple with uncertainty over whether fiscal policy will remain sufficiently accommodative to reflate the economy. Unlike the EU, which managed to cobble together a framework for creating a 750 billion euro pandemic relief fund earlier this week, the US Congress remains deadlocked on the size and complexion of a new stimulus bill. Under current law, US households will stop receiving expanded unemployment benefits at the end of July. These benefits were legislated as part of the original CARES Act and currently total over 4% of GDP. The Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses is also nearly drained, while state and local governments are facing a major cash crunch due to evaporating tax revenues and higher pandemic-related spending needs. We estimate that about $2-to-$2.5 trillion in new stimulus will be necessary to keep fiscal policy from turning unduly restrictive. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been floating a number of $1.3 trillion. If McConnell gets his way, risk assets will likely sell off. Our guess is that he will not prevail, however. President Trump favors a larger stimulus bill, as do the Democrats. Critically, more than four out of five voters, both nationwide and in swing states, support extending benefits (Table 1). Thus, there is a high probability that Senate Republicans will agree on a much larger package than what they are currently proposing. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Fiscal Stimulus And Bond Yields Could continued fiscal stimulus deplete national savings, leading to significantly higher real yields? For the next few years, the answer is no. National savings depend not just on how much people spend, but on how much they earn. To the extent that fiscal stimulus raises GDP, it also raises national income. For the global economy as a whole, savings must equal investment. If fiscal stimulus in the major economies prompts firms to undertake more investment spending than they would have otherwise, overall savings will rise. How can that be? The answer is that fiscal stimulus raises private savings by more than it reduces government savings when an economy is operating below its full capacity. From the perspective of the bond market, this means that currently, large budget deficits are self-financing. Bigger budget deficits will produce an even bigger pool of private income, allowing the private sector to buy more government bonds.   Indeed, a premature pullback in fiscal support would almost certainly raise real rates by depressing inflation expectations. If that sounds far-fetched, recall that this is precisely what happened in March. Full Employment And Beyond Chart 16Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic The fiscal free lunch will end only when economies return to full employment. At that point, bigger budget deficits will no longer be able to raise output since everyone who wants to work will already have found a job. Rather, increased government borrowing will crowd out private-sector investment. National savings will decline. If monetary and fiscal policy stay accommodative, inflation could accelerate. Central banks will probably welcome the initial burst of inflation, since they have been lamenting below-target inflation for many years now. However, if inflation continues to march higher, central banks may get spooked and start talking up the prospect of rate hikes. Higher rates would create a lot of problems for debt-saddled governments (Chart 16). It would not be at all surprising if politicians leaned on central banks to keep rates low. Governments could also end up forcing central banks to buy more debt in order to keep long-term yields from rising. In the extreme case, governments could even force central banks to cap yields. While such measures would prevent bond prices from tumbling, this would be cold comfort for bondholders. If central banks were to keep bond yields below their equilibrium level, inflation would rise even further, thus eroding the purchasing power of the bonds. In the end, central banks would still have to raise rates, probably more than they would have had they acted more swiftly to quell inflation. Investment Conclusions To answer the question posed in the title of this report, yes, bond yields will eventually go up. However, they are not likely to rise very much until inflation reaches intolerably high levels. That point is at least three years away. Despite the near-term risks posed by the pandemic and the looming fiscal cliff, investors should remain overweight equities over a 12-month horizon. Given the run-up in some of the large cap US tech names, we suggest shifting equity exposure to other parts of the stock market. The cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio is significantly lower outside the US, implying that international stocks are well placed to outperform their US peers over the coming decade (Chart 17). A weaker dollar should also help non-US stocks as well as the more cyclical equity sectors (Chart 18). Chart 17Non-US Stocks: The Place To Be Over The Coming Decade Chart 18A Weaker Dollar Should Boost Non-US Stocks Along With The More Cyclical Equity Sectors Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores