CRE

Special Report

Highlights Several malls are likely to fail in 2020 and 2021, but the overall economy will emerge unscathed … : Although lenders will recover a good bit less than par and equity holders will be wiped out, the losses will not create an observable macroeconomic drag. … because no critical element of the financial system has concentrated exposure to them: The amounts involved are not that large and the banking system’s stake is negligible. Malls disrupted the existing retailing footprint during their rise, and now it’s their turn to be disrupted: Creative destruction is natural and healthy. It will be a net positive for the economy if obsolete malls make way for more productive uses of their space. Feature As detailed in the first part of our Mallpocalypse Special Report, enclosed shopping malls are under pressure from a variety of forces. Department stores, which have typically anchored malls, are in the throes of a protracted structural decline; the apparel retailers that fill most of the leasable area between the anchors are in disarray; and e-commerce continues to take share from brick-and-mortar retailers. The pandemic, which forced many malls to close for an extended period and will likely undermine foot traffic until an effective vaccine is available, intensified the pressure. It pushed several national store chains into bankruptcy, emboldened many of their peers to stop paying rent and stymied malls’ pivot to gyms, movie theaters, restaurants and entertainment centers to fill their vacant spaces. Property analysts and investors estimate that the weakest 25% of malls face the possibility of extinction. Their owners’ equity stakes are likely to be wiped out and their lenders will recover considerably less than par. This installment examines the macroeconomic consequences of mall investors’ losses and the obsolescence of a formerly important aspect of the capital stock. Our view is that the malls’ demise does not constitute a macro threat; the mallpocalypse is not the commercial real estate analogue of the subprime crisis. Mall Exposures Are Diffused The sparks generated by the subprime mortgage collapse helped fuel the conflagration of the global financial crisis because they eroded commercial banks’ capital base; hobbled two major investment banks such that counterparties refused to deal with them; brought about declines in the prices of homes, which constitute a meaningful share of the collateral of the US banking system; and crippled the massive multi-line insurer that had been the biggest seller of the credit default swaps that the major banks and broker-dealers were using to hedge some of their residential mortgage exposures. With so many of the biggest players circling the wagons, liquidity dried up, credit spreads blew out and a major financial crisis ensued. No bank or major bank counterparty is sitting on a pile of mall mortgages. Mall failures will not have anything close to the same impact. Retail properties do not undergird the banking system like single-family homes and exposure to them is diffused across owners and creditors that can sustain losses without setting off broad ripple effects. More than half of US malls1 are owned by publicly traded REITs with the remaining ownership scattered among several privately held specialist investors. Developing and owning real estate is a leveraged pursuit and mall owners aren’t shy about borrowing, especially Simon Property Group (SPG), the largest player in the space (Table 1). Like some of its mall REIT peers, and nearly all its shopping center/strip mall counterparts, however, it does the bulk of its borrowing via bond issues. The effect is to reduce the concentration of creditor exposures; instead of borrowing from a bank or a syndicate of banks, SPG and many other publicly traded REITs sell bonds to a range of institutional investors. The mortgages it does take out predominantly wind up being securitized and dispersed across the institutional investor community. Table 1Large US Mall Owners Creditor exposures to mall owners are thereby atomized, making losses a micro issue rather than a macro one. Distributing credit losses across a wide swath of investors neutralizes the systemic risk posed by any given borrower or common group of borrowers. Alan Greenspan was compelled to recant his spectacularly ill-timed praise for securitization’s risk-mitigating properties, but it was conceptually sound. Residential mortgage securitization wasn’t the problem per se, it was that the private-label mortgage market had become a largely closed system in which the banks swapped positions with one another, amplifying counterparty exposures within the banking system without anyone seeming to care, if indeed they were aware. Table 2Top 15 Holders Of SPG Debt The primary owners of SPG’s bonds are the dominant index ETF sponsors, insurers and active mutual fund managers (Table 2). They are unlevered investors whose involvement diversifies exposure to credit losses away from the banks, thereby dissipating systemic risk. Although their losses cause financial conditions to tighten at the margin as spreads widen in response, they don’t disrupt financial intermediation in the way that sizable bank losses do. The worst outcome is a barely observable decline in funds available for consumption or investment and marginal employment declines as defaulting borrowers and their chastened creditors tighten their belts. Institutional investors are agents for the wealthier households that own a disproportionate share of financial instruments. They have a low marginal propensity to consume, which is to say that their consumption patterns are relatively insensitive to one-off income reversals and their investment losses don’t therefore perturb the broad economy. Equity holders in ailing mall REITs may have their stakes wiped out (Chart 1, bottom panel), adding insult to the injuries retail REIT investors have already sustained so far this year (Chart 1, top panel), but no critical intermediaries are shareholders and the overall market cap of retail REITs is not meaningful. Chart 1Trees Falling In Abandoned Mall Courtyards Do Not Make A Sound The Big Short 2.0 Investors who foresaw a future in which e-commerce wipes out department stores and other national chains with sizable mall footprints have sought out ways to bet against malls. Many of them have gravitated to selling the CMBX 6 Index (Box 1). The trade has been talked about so much in credit circles over the last few years that the financial media have labeled it The New Big Short, after the book and movie about investors who anticipated the wreckage of the subprime crisis. The New York Times devoted an article to it last week, and Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and countless credit market blogs have been following it for a while. Box 1: The CMBS Insurance Marketplace Credit default swaps (CDS), developed in the mid-nineties as a tool for hedging lending exposures, have become a wildly popular way for investors to bet on the fate of a given bond issue or security. Bonds can be quite illiquid relative to equities, and CDS vastly ease the process of obtaining exposure to them. They are effectively an insurance contract in which the protection buyer pays the protection seller a flat annual fee to indemnify the buyer against missed or partial interest or principal payments. The CMBX indices provide a reference point for buying and selling protection on a large basket of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS). They are composed of 25 equally weighted CMBS of common vintage, each of which contains at least 40 loans, and they are divided into quality tranches from AAA to BB, based on the level of credit enhancement provided to each tranche. The BB tranche absorbs losses first, then the BBB- tranche, and so on, up to the AAA tranche. The protection seller is said to go long the index while the buyer shorts it. CMBX trades between counterparties are zero-sum. They produce no aggregate increase or decrease in wealth because the longs’ and the shorts’ return profiles are perfect inverses. The weakest mall REITs aren't long for this world, but their ultimate demise will not trigger any broader repercussions. The CMBX 6, consisting of whole loans issued in 2012, became the darling of the retail bears because a comparatively large 44% of the face value of its mortgages backed retail properties (27% non-mall retail, 17% malls). As of late 2019, the index contained loans on 37 malls (Table 3). Publicly traded REITs have a stake in 26 of the 37 malls in the index and account for 70% of the outstanding principal balance. Table 3Mall Mortgages In The CMBX 6 Index Live By Disruption, Die By Disruption Obsolete malls are not likely to hurt the macroeconomy. Their disappearance will reslice the pie, creating micro winners and losers, but it shouldn’t cause it to shrink. Unwanted malls are a drag on the capital stock, because they’re not worth the cost of maintaining them, and converting the sites to better uses should act to boost productivity. Creative destruction is a positive feature of capitalism and a sign of economic health. The macro-economy didn't suffer when malls disrupted traditional downtown shopping districts and there's no reason to think it will now that the malls themselves are being disrupted. To those inclined to think we’re being cavalier about economic shifts and the near-term disruptions they provoke, we would point to the decades when the malls themselves were the disruptors. Mall construction – and branch department stores – thrived amidst the city-to-suburb migration that unfolded across the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s. Population and wealth flooded out of the cities and into the suburbs, leaving some nasty micro-level scars as once-thriving retail quarters in the urban core became derelict. That outmigration did not produce a wave of bank failures, however. Citing Detroit’s experience in the ‘50s through the ‘70s in its Special Report examining the potential commercial real estate impact of a sizable uptake in work-from-home arrangements, our Global Investment Strategy service found no evidence that urban flight imposed undue stress on the financial system.2 Outmigration was also pervasive along the mid-Atlantic I-95 corridor in those decades. Suburbs of New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC all experienced phenomenal growth while their core metropolitan areas shrank (Chart 2, top three panels). Even a growing city like Atlanta (Chart 2, bottom panel) saw its surrounding suburban counties welcome six times as many net new residents over the period. Chart 2City And Suburb Net Population Change By Decade Despite inevitable home price declines in several city neighborhoods and reduced demand for retail and office space, aggregate residential (Chart 3) and commercial mortgage performance (Chart 4) held up quite well and there was no uptick in bank failures (Chart 5). Inflation helped to hold down defaults then in a way it won’t now, but the bottom line is that the shift in consumer preferences toward shopping malls did not feed broader disruptions, even though credit exposures were nearly entirely concentrated within the banking system. With exposure to mall operators’ equity, mortgages and unsecured loans widely dispersed away from the banking system, and retail accounting for only a modest share of commercial property value (Chart 6), the shift away from shopping malls will not have broader macro consequences. Chart 3Urban Flight Didn't Undermine Residential ... Chart 4... Or Commercial Mortgage Performance Chart 5Urban Flight Didn't Promote Bank Stress Of Diamonds And Malls The forces behind the rise and fall of malls closely resemble the forces that drove the postwar waves of stadium construction: population shifts, increased reliance on automobiles and fashion’s impermanence. For the first half of the twentieth century, professional baseball’s sixteen franchises were spread across just ten cities. Its geographic footprint stretched from Boston to Washington on the Atlantic seaboard and along the Ohio River, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi to Chicago and St. Louis. The spread of franchises beyond the northeast and industrial midwest has tracked and foreshadowed the southern and westward movement of the population. Franchise moves, expansion and the mothballing of old city-center stadiums without parking led to a multi-decade boom in stadium construction that roughly coincided with the boom in mall construction. On undeveloped parcels on their outskirts, one city after another erected bland, utilitarian stadiums that were as uniform as the malls that had begun to dot suburban highway interchanges. They were hulking concrete structures with synthetic Astro-turf surfaces that could host baseball in the spring and summer and football in the winter, with capacity for between 50,000 and 70,000 fans and their cars. The early ‘90s witnessed a new stadium construction boom, motivated by franchises’ desire to reconfigure their seating to maximize revenues from businesses who used the games as a vehicle for entertaining clients. Stadiums without luxury boxes and enclosed suites were swiftly seen as obsolete. The popularity of Baltimore’s new park (1992), showcasing a retro design that hearkened back to the days of center city stadiums with brick facades and asymmetric quirks, made the stadiums of the sixties and seventies look hopelessly passé. The stock of dual-sport, artificial turf stadiums with concrete facades was eradicated over the next decade-plus, including Houston’s iconic Astrodome. The first fully enclosed stadium, billed as “the eighth wonder of the world” upon its 1965 opening, was the subject of rapturous national media coverage akin to the attention lavished on Southdale, the first mall, a decade before. The conversion of the stadiums did not bring ruin for any franchise, its municipal host,3 or the syndicate of banks and muni bond buyers that financed it. In cities where the new stadiums have been built closer to the center of town, the new ballparks have been a catalyst for a range of commercial and residential development. The broadly positive impact of scrapping faded stadiums for newer, better designed replacement stock looks like what we might expect from the scrapping of obsolete malls to make way for properties able to make better use of the space. Investment Implications Investors should not fear negative economic or market consequences from the retirement of underperforming malls. Their exit will not produce investment losses on a scale that slows the economy or interrupts banks’ intermediation function. Specialist real estate investors may find several opportunities in an industry in which the three most important factors are location, location and location. Credit and equity analysts and PMs may well find ways to profit from micro distinctions, but the lack of macro impacts means the demise of a meaningful share of the country’s malls does not have asset allocation implications. Investors in US assets will continue to be best served by taking their asset allocation cues from the fiscal and monetary policy backdrop. Mallpocalypse may be a clever phrase, but culling the nation’s underperforming malls from the capital stock won’t have adverse impacts on financial markets or the broad economy. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 There are around 1,300 malls in the US, including outlet malls and lifestyle centers. 2 Please see the August 28, 2020 Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Working From Home, Urban Flight, And Commercial Real Estate Loans: How Bad Can Things Get?" available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The merits of using public funds to subsidize stadium construction for private concerns are hotly contested. Taking the existing level of public subsidies as a given, however, successful facilities upgrades confer an overall economic benefit, even if it involves a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to private entities.

Special Report

Dear Client, I am on vacation this week. Instead of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan explores the risks posed to commercial real estate and the banking system from work from home policies and the potential for urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. I hope you find his report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Despite pronouncements that the “office is dead,” there are several arguments against the idea that working from home policies or urban flight will become broad-based and spell disaster for commercial real estate loans and the economy. However, the reality is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. Within the US, small banks clearly have more commercial real estate loan exposure than large banks. Applying the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) to small US banks highlights that roughly 2/3rds of small banks might need to raise capital in the scenario modeled by the Fed, underscoring that forbearance and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses. Incorporating outsized, Work From Home (WFH)-driven CRE loan losses into our test of small banks highlights that WFH policies may act as a moderate “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur. But it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. To the extent that the “white flight” phenomenon of the 1950s to 1970s is a reasonable historical analogue for large-scale urban flight today, the experience of Michigan in the 1960s suggests that it would not likely cause widespread problems in the housing market and/or systemic stress in the banking system. But even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or health & safety concerns, there are some concerning parallels to the severe decay and decline of the city of Detroit that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities if not prevented by policymakers. This could spur large-scale urban flight for reasons unrelated to WFH policies. The possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. We expect large bank outperformance at some point over the coming year, reinforcing our positive stance towards value over growth. Feature Chart 1Rising CRE Prices And Deteriorating Fundamentals, Even Before The Pandemic Concern had already been growing among investors over the past few years about the potentially systemic implications of a possible crash in sky-high US commercial real estate (CRE) prices. Chart 1 highlights that overall CRE prices have doubled over the past decade, which has occurred alongside falling real rents (and thus deteriorating fundamentals) in most CRE subcategories. But the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new risks for US CRE that many investors view as potentially acute. CMBS delinquency rates surged in May and June (but fell in July), led by accommodation and retail properties. And while multifamily and office delinquencies have so far remained low, many investors have questioned whether this can continue if recently enacted work from home policies become permanent and “urban flight” towards less populated and more affordable areas durably takes hold in major US cities. In this report we focus on the issue of WFH policies, the potential for urban flight, and the risk that these factors may pose to the CRE loans of small domestically-chartered US banks (sometimes informally referred to as “community banks”). There are arguments for and against the idea that work from home policies and/or migration out of city centers will have an extremely negative impact on office properties, but the truth is that it is currently a risk of largely unknown magnitude. It is not likely to be positive for owners of office properties, but it is yet unclear how negative it will be. As a result, we address the question as a “what if?” scenario, by stress testing small bank balance sheets. We conclude that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risks facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. Did COVID-19 Really Kill The Office? Chart 2Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well In mid-to-late March, COVID-19 was spreading rapidly in industrialized economies. Following recommended or mandatory stay at home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to WFH arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay at home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by WFH arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved (Chart 2). These findings led many in the business community to conclude that WFH policies are not, in fact, emergency measures that will ultimately be reversed and instead reflect the “new normal” for work. The arrangement ostensibly appears to be a win-win scenario for workers and firms: Employees save time and money not commuting to the office and gain more control over their work schedules, and businesses save money on the rental or purchase of office space. The conclusion for many in the marketplace has thus been that “the office is dead,” with the focus shifting to the potential investment implications. When thinking about the potential consequences that permanent and widespread WFH options may have, there are two distinct issues that must be considered. The first is the degree to which these policies will push up office property vacancy rates, and the second is whether the availability of WFH policies will cause significant urban flight towards less populated and more affordable areas. On the margin, we agree that both events will occur at least to some degree, and thus are likely to be highly unwelcome developments for owners of prime central business district real estate. This is in line with the conclusions of a recent Special Report by my colleague Garry Evans.1 But there are at least a few arguments against the idea that these trends will occur en masse, or that they will spell economic disaster on their own: While surveys show that many employees expect to continue to work remotely after the pandemic ends, these results likely reflect the desire to retain some flexibility afforded by WFH policies. In terms of office property utilization, there is a large difference between an employee never working from an office again and permanently working from home one day per week, and many surveys that have been conducted on the topic are not structured to distinguish between the two. Surveys that specifically ask how long employees expect it will take for them to return to the office and that include “never” as a possible answer imply a considerably lower impact on office space utilization than other surveys would suggest (Chart 3). If the percentage of never-returning workers shown in Chart 3 (5%-7%) is accurate and maps closely to the expected rise in the office vacancy rate, Chart 4 highlights that the corresponding increase in vacancy would not be unprecedented: It rose from roughly 8% in 2000 to 17% in 2003, without causing a disastrous collapse in office property prices (they fell, but not enormously). Today the vacancy rate would be rising from a much higher level than in 2000, but the point is that very significant changes have occurred in the vacancy rate before without substantially destabilizing the office property market. Chart 3Employers Found That Teleworking Worked Well For offices that reopen before the end of the pandemic, the need for physical distancing will act to at least somewhat restrain a rise in the vacancy rate over the coming several months, as it implies the need for more physical space per employee rather than less. Chart 4Large, Non-Impactful Rises In The Office Vacancy Rate Have Occurred Before Some surveys suggest that Americans are already starting to change their minds about their desire to move out of the city. In April and early-May, upwards of 35%-40% of people responding to a Harris poll said that the pandemic made them want to live either in a rural area more than 21 miles outside of a major city or a suburb within 10 miles of a major city. As of late-July / early-August, that number had fallen to 26% (Chart 5), with only 9% reporting that it is “very likely.” This suggests that the end or reduction of lockdown measures may have returned a sense of normality for many Americans, and that the ultimate degree of urban flight may end up being considerably smaller than some investors expect. Chart 5Few People Say It Is Very Likely They Will Move Due To COVID-19 Finally, the example set by Facebook in May suggests that employees who wish to work from home permanently and relocate to more affordable areas will experience salary reductions, as part of a plan to “localize employees' compensation.”2 If adopted on a widespread basis among firms offering their employees the option to permanently work from home, localized compensation will very likely erode some of the cost advantages of moving to a cheaper area, and thus is likely to result in even fewer employees choosing permanent WFH arrangements. However, even after considering these arguments, the bottom line for investors is that no one truly knows what the office environment will look like as a result of COVID-19, because it hinges both on the evolution/resolution of the pandemic as well as potentially ephemeral human sentiment and behavior – both of which are extraordinarily difficult to predict with high accuracy. It is quite likely to be negative on balance for owners of office properties, but it is not yet clear whether it will be a marginal or catastrophic effect. As such, we agree that the chance of a major and lasting shock to the holders of US commercial real estate loans warrants a thorough investigation, focused on its potential to affect the stability of the US financial system. We first present an overview of CRE exposure for all US banks, and then examine in detail the risk facing small domestically-chartered US banks. Reviewing US Bank CRE Exposure Table 1 presents an overview of CRE loan exposure for domestically-chartered US banks from the Fed’s H.8 data release (Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States), as well as a breakdown in exposure for large and small banks. Investors should note that different definitions of “large banks” exist in the US, and in the H.8 release they are defined as the top 25 domestically-chartered banks ranked by domestic assets. Table 1Most US Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Held By Small Banks Table 1 highlights two points. First, while CRE loans account for approximately 13% of total US domestically-chartered bank assets, exposure is clearly more concentrated for smaller banks than for the largest banks. CRE loans account for a full 1/4th of total assets for small banks, compared to just 6% for the top 25 domestic banks. Given this, the focus of our report will be on small rather than large bank exposure to CRE loans. Second, the table makes it clear that loans backed by nonfarm nonresidential structures account for just 2/3rds of total CRE exposure; the remaining exposure is to apartment buildings, construction and land development loans, and farmland. While not shown in Table 1, bank call reports also highlight that 1-4 family residential construction loans are included in the overall construction and land development category, accounting for up to 20% of those loans for small domestically-chartered banks. Chart 6Office Properties Make Up About 40% Of The Value Of Commercial Structures Unfortunately, it is difficult to break down small bank nonfarm nonresidential structure exposure by property type from a top-down perspective. Chart 6 highlights that office properties (including all financial buildings) make up approximately 37% of the current-cost net stock of US nonresidential commercial and health care structures, whereas office loans make up approximately 30%-40% of those included in US commercial mortgage-backed securities. For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that 40% of small domestically-chartered US banks’ nonfarm nonresidential property loans are secured by office properties. Stress Testing Small US Banks The first step in stress testing small US bank CRE exposure is to simply apply the recent Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) that was focused on large banks to the approximately 5,100 small banks in the US. We use Q1 bank call reports (which we use as a pre-COVID benchmark) sourced from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to test the breadth of the impact on small banks, and include essentially all US banks in our list except the top 25 banks by assets (those designated as “large” in the Fed’s H.8 release). The Federal Reserve recently released the 2020 DFAST results, which examined the impact on capital ratios of 33 large US banks in a “severely adverse” economic scenario. The scenario modeled by the Fed resulted in $553 billion in projected losses on loans and other positions for the banks included in the test over a 2-year period, of which $433 billion were from accrual loan portfolios (Table 2). These projected loan losses corresponded to a 6.3% loan portfolio loss rate; for comparison, Chart 7 highlights that this would represent even higher losses than what occurred during the worst two-year period following the global financial crisis (Q1 2009 – Q4 2010) by roughly one percentage point. Table 2The Fed’s Recent Stress Test Modeled A 6.3% Loan Loss Rate Over 2 Years Chart 7The Fed's Main Loss Scenario Is Meaningfully Worse Than What Occurred After 2008 In combination with additional provisioning, these assumed losses caused a 1.8% projected decline in the aggregate tier 1 capital ratio for the 33 firms participating in the stress test – from 13.6% to 11.8% – and a 1.7% projected decline in the common equity tier 1 capital ratio – from 12% to 10.3% (Table 3). While these declines are not trivial, they are far from a disastrous outcome for the US financial system. The capital ratios shown in Table 3 are relative to risk-weighted assets, and it is important to note that the projected change in capital ratios shown do not match the projected loan losses (plus provisioning) as a percent of risk-weighted assets. This is because projected losses are netted out against the banks’ projected pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”) in the Fed’s exercise. In short, while the banks’ capital ratios declined roughly 2% in the DFAST scenario, simulated loan losses amounted to roughly 4% of risk-weighted assets and about 1/3rd of tier 1 common equity capital. Table 3Large Bank Capital Ratios Fell In The Stress Test, But Not Dramatically SoTo avoid the need to project PPNR for thousands of small US banks, we use these loan loss metrics (4% of risk-weighted assets and 33% of tier 1 common equity capital) from the 2020 DFAST to represent whether any individual small bank would likely have to raise capital. We also use the overall portfolio loan loss rate of 6.3% to stress small bank balance sheets, rather than a set of loan loss rates by loan type. Chart 8In The Fed’s Main Stress Test Scenario, Many Small Banks Would Likely Have To Raise Capital Chart 8 illustrates the number of small US banks that would “fail” the stated tier 1 common equity and risk-weighted asset thresholds given the DFAST assumptions. Roughly 64% of small banks would fail the equity test and 94% would fail the risk-weighted assets test. Weighting these results by bank assets rather than the number of banks does not generate a materially different result; instead, 63% and 97% of small bank assets would be held by banks failing the equity and risk-weighted assets tests, respectively. This exercise clearly highlights how much better capitalized large US banks are relative to smaller banks, and underscores that the existing forbearance programs and fiscal relief are essential to avoid a very widespread erosion in small bank capital. Still, of the nearly 5,100 banks included in our analysis, only 5 would see their equity capital wiped out by the simulated losses – meaning that while widespread capital raising and the accompanying tightening in lending standards would undoubtedly have a major impact on the economy and capital markets, the solvency of the US banking system is not in question in the scenario modeled by the Fed. Stress Testing Outsized CRE Losses As noted above, we employed the same average loan portfolio loss rate across all loan categories when testing the impact of the DFAST scenario on small banks, including commercial real estate loans. In order to gauge the specific risks facing commercial properties if recent WFH trends persist, we perform two additional exercises. First, we raise CRE loan losses beyond what was assumed in the DFAST scenario (see Box 1) while employing the same 6.3% loan loss rate on all other loan types to measure the incremental WFH effect on small bank balance sheets in a very negative economic scenario. Second, we examine a high CRE loan loss scenario alone, in order to isolate the potential impact of sustained WFH policies. Box 1Simulating Outsized CRE Loan Loss Rates The assumptions detailed in Box 1 result in an overall CRE loan loss estimate of 11.1%, versus the 6.3% assumed in the DFAST. Chart 9 replicates the DFAST scenario shown in Chart 8 but with our outsized CRE loss rate, whereas Chart 10 highlights the isolated impact (i.e., without any losses assumed for other loan categories). Chart 9Adding Outsized CRE Loans To The Stress Test Scenario Only Moderately Increases “Failure” Chart 10Big CRE Losses Alone, With No Other Loan Losses, Would Be A Relatively Minor Problem Two important observations emerge from Charts 9 and 10. First, despite the fact that small US banks carry disproportionately higher exposure to commercial real estate loans than large banks, it seems clear that the isolated effect of WFH policies on CRE loans, even in the extreme, do not amount to a major risk for the banking system. 80% of small US banks would pass our equity capital test, and 70% would pass the risk-weighted assets test, with absolutely devastating and unprecedented office and retail property losses but no losses outside of their commercial real estate portfolio. Second, while our outsized CRE losses would raise the number of banks that fail our equity capital test relative to the base DFAST scenario (from 64% to 74%), it is clear that this pales in comparison to the effect of the other loan losses assumed in the Fed’s stress test. The bottom line for investors is that while WFH policies may act as a “kicker” to severe pandemic-related bank loan losses were they to occur, it is clear that the latter is by far the core risk facing both the US economy and its financial system. Outsized Residential Real Estate Losses: The Elephant In The Room As noted above, the results shown in Charts 8 - 10 only include outsized losses on nonresidential CRE loans (excluding multifamily) in order to test the risk to bank balance sheets of widespread and continued use of highly permissive WFH policies and significantly reduced demand for office properties. On top of that, banks also face the risk of additional potential disruptions to residential real estate loans if the WFH phenomenon morphs into full-blown urban flight. In this scenario, migration out of densely-populated urban areas towards considerably cheaper suburbs and exurbs could possibly lead to significant house price declines in richly-valued metro-areas, leading in turn to defaults on underwater mortgages. Table 2 highlighted that the Fed’s base 2020 DFAST scenario assumed a 1.5% loan loss rate on first-lien mortgages, and a 3.1% loss rate on junior liens and HELOCs over a two-year period. Unfortunately for investors, it is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint the magnitude of urban migration that would be necessary to cause loss rates in line with the DFAST scenario or higher, forcing us to rely on an inferential approach based on historical example. Chart 11“White Flight” In The US: An Analogue For Urban Flight Today? The only meaningful historical analogue that we can identify for the idea of WFH-driven urban flight is the “white flight” phenomenon that occurred in the US from the 1950s to 1970s. During this period, many white middle-class Americans moved from increasingly racially mixed city centers to racially homogenous suburban or exurban areas. The city of Detroit is often cited as an example of the "white flight" phenomenon. Chart 11 shows Detroit’s white population over time, and highlights the sharp decline in the number of white residents that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. The white share of Detroit’s population fell earlier, beginning after WWII, but this mostly reflected larger increases of the non-white population. Actual “white flight” occurred during the 50s and 60s, when several episodes of racial violence occurred in the United States. In Detroit, this was most clearly epitomized by the 12th Street Riot in 1967, which involved Federal troop deployment and resulted in over 40 deaths and the damage or destruction of over 2,500 businesses. Did “white flight” cause widespread problems for urban housing markets and/or systemic stress in the banking system? Table 4 and Chart 12 suggest that the answer is no. Table 4 highlights that the median real house price in Michigan rose in the 1960s, grew faster than nationwide house prices, and was modestly higher than the national average in 1970. While it is very likely that this reflects outsized suburban house price gains and that urban center prices fell, Chart 12 highlights that there was no noticeable uptick in US banking failures as a share of total depository institutions in the 1960s. Chart 13 also highlights that the late-1960s did not exhibit any particularly unusual behavior for bank stock prices, after considering interest rates and the state of the business cycle. Table 4Real Michigan Home Prices “Outperformed” The US In The 60s Chart 12No Uptick In Bank Failures In The 1960s Chart 13No Unusual Bank Underperformance In The 1960s     The US economy is very different today than it was in the 1960s, and it is possible that “white flight” serves as an insufficient analogue for potential urban flight today. It is also true that real house prices today are considerably higher than in the 1960s and thus have room to fall further. Nevertheless, based on the Detroit experience, our best inference (for now) is that urban flight does not pose a risk of outsized mortgage loan losses for banks. This is reinforced by the fact that mortgage interest rates have fallen to a record low and have the potential to fall even further based on their spread to 30-year Treasury yields (Chart 14), which may act to boost house prices outright or cushion any potential declines. Chart 14Low And Potentially Lower Mortgage Rates Will Help Cushion Any House Prices Declines Is The Real Risk To Cities Urban Flight, Or Urban Blight? In our view, the city of Detroit is a useful case study for two reasons. First, as noted above, it provides us with some sense of whether urban flight has the potential to pose a systemic threat to the financial system. But, second, it also serves as an example of another potential risk of the COVID-19 pandemic: urban “blight,” or decay. Chart 15Progressive Post-War Deindustrialization Hammered Cities Like Detroit The economic and sociological decay of the city of Detroit has taken place over several decades and has been caused by multiple factors whose relative importance is still debated today. But broadly-speaking, Detroit’s decline can be boiled down to three interacting and self-reinforcing sets of factors: Sociological factors: the general post-WWII trend towards suburbanization, rising levels of violent crime, the “white flight” phenomenon, and the outright decline in Detroit’s population that began in the 1950s; Economic factors: the progressive deindustrialization of the US economy that began in the early 1950s, as well as the debilitating effects of high inflation and energy prices in the 1970s and the double-dip recession of the early-1980s on manufacturing employment (Chart 15); Policy factors: the negative impact on city finances, tax competitiveness, and service quality from the previous two factors, as well as poor governance and outright corruption. Even if large-scale urban flight does not initially occur due to time-saving WFH policies or pandemic-related health & safety concerns, there are some worrying parallels to Detroit’s experience that could play out over the coming few years in America’s cities that could cause similarly self-reinforcing effects if not prevented by policymakers. On the economic front, very acute income and wealth inequality arrayed against stout house price gains over the past decade have made home ownership unaffordable for some, increasing the allure of urban flight even if localized compensation programs apply. In addition, the pandemic has most severely affected small retail businesses, raising the specter of a “hollowed out” or abandoned urban retail landscape which could push consumers to avoid shopping and travelling downtown. On the policy front, there is a clear risk that inadequate state & local government funding could contribute to a potential downward spiral of higher taxes, reduced city services, and economic decay – similar to what occurred in Detroit. Chart 16 highlights that the financial situation of state & local governments following the global financial crisis caused persistent fiscal drag for several years into the expansion that followed. This significant fiscal drag contributed importantly to the subpar nature of the expansion, and the odds that this will occur again without federal funding are high. Chart 16 shows that the contribution to real GDP growth from state & local government spending has again turned negative, and the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is currently forecasting state budget shortfalls of approximately $555 billion over state fiscal years 2020-2022 – in line with the $510 billion cumulative shortfall that occurred from 2009-2011.4 Finally, in this scenario, the sociological factor somewhat mimicking Detroit’s experience could be a significant rise in urban crime (especially if violent). This could cause urban flight for reasons totally unrelated to WFH policies, but if it occurred it would likely reinforce both the failure of urban center businesses and the deterioration in state & local government finances (risking a downward spiral). Chart 17 highlights that murders have already significantly increased this year in major American cities (by mid-year) relative to 2019, although other types of violent crimes have fallen.5 A trend of rising urban crime could also be sparked or accelerated if recent calls to cut police department funding in favor of other social services succeed, and if those newly funded initiatives fail to effectively prevent criminal activity. Chart 16Persistent State & Local Fiscal Drag Must Be Prevented This Time Chart 17Will US Cities Become Unsafe? While this scenario is far from our base case view, it underscores how urban flight and the accompanying second round effects on commercial real estate loans and the banking system could occur following the pandemic even if not triggered by WFH policies. It also underscores the great importance of Federal fiscal relief efforts: not only to households and businesses, but as well to state & local governments. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to three main investment conclusions: First, while there are arguments for and against the idea of significant CRE losses stemming from the widespread adoption of permanent WFH policies and the potential for large-scale urban flight, the uncertainty surrounding the question will likely linger for the coming few months, at a minimum. This suggests that the equity risk premium applied to bank stock prices may remain elevated in the near term. Chart 18Large US Banks Unduly Cheap Second, while large-cap banks may struggle to outperform in the near term due to this elevated risk premium, it is clear that large banks are far less susceptible than small banks to not only potential CRE loan losses, but also to the severely adverse economic scenario modeled in the Fed’s recent stress test. Our calculations suggest that large bank capital ratios would only marginally decline from the ending ratios shown in the DFAST scenario even with the outsized CRE loan loss scenarios that we used to stress test small bank balance sheets, and we highlighted how the Fed’s main stress test scenario involved 2-year loan losses in excess of what occurred in 2009-2010. Consequently, the collapse in large-cap bank valuation ratios seems unwarranted (Chart 18), and we would expect large banks to outperform the broad market at some point over the coming 6-12 months (and possibly even over the coming 0-3 months). This is also consistent with our expectation that value stocks are likely to outperform growth stocks at some point over the coming year.6 Third, while investors are often right to ask what risk they are “missing,” our analysis above highlights that the impact of potential WFH-driven CRE loan losses on the banking system is minor compared with the core risk facing the economy and its capital markets: The deeply negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production and spending, and the risk that fiscal relief will fall short of what is required. This need for relief extends very significantly to state & local governments, and a failure to adequately resolve the substantial state budget shortfalls that will occur due to the pandemic and its aftermath would all but guarantee a repeat of the persistent fiscal drag that contributed to the subpar nature of the recent economic expansion. Our base case view remains that US policymakers will do what is necessary to avoid a very negative economic outcome and that the hiccup in congressional negotiations is temporary, but the possibility of inadequate fiscal support is the chief risk to our positive cyclical stance towards risk assets and must be continually monitored by investors over the next several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1  Please see Global Asset Allocation / Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The World After COVID-19: What Will Change, What Will Not?” dated August 7, 2020. 2 “Facebook employees could receive pay cuts as they continue to work from home,” USA Today, dated May 21, 2020. 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Mallpocalypse, Part 1: An Overnight Collapse Decades In The Making,” dated August 17, 2020 for the first of two reports presenting a detailed analysis of the challenges facing US retail properties. 4 Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman, “States Continue to Face Large Shortfalls Due to COVID-19 Effects,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated July 7, 2020. 5 Jeff Asher and Ben Horwitz, “It’s Been ‘Such a Weird Year.’ That’s Also Reflected in Crime Statistics.,” The New York Times, Updated August 24, 2020. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Return Of Nasdog,” dated August 21, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Special Report

Highlights COVID-19 shutdowns have intensified the pressure on the original “everything stores,” … : A combination of factors has been weighing on department stores since at least the early 2000s. Pandemic store closures have turned up the heat. … and turned an unwelcome spotlight on the future of shopping malls: Bankruptcy filings by anchor tenants pose an existential threat to already struggling malls. Shelter-at-home orders and universal telecommuting have debilitated the fashion industry, further testing malls’ resilience: Apparel retailers account for an estimated 60% of leased mall space, and their struggles are ramping up the pressure on mall operators. City-to-suburb migration may act to accelerate incumbent malls’ decline: Chester County, Pennsylvania has steadily gained wealth and population since the 1970s, but all the legacy malls within a 15-mile radius of the county seat are dead or dying. Feature Dear Client, US Investment Strategy will take its second summer break next week, so there will be no publication on August 24th. We will return on the 31st with Part 2 of the Mallpocalypse series. Best regards, Doug Peta Come On. How Can It Be That Bad? The July 31st episode of BCA’s Friday Conversations webcast series featured a construction executive who expressed the view that a considerable share of America’s enclosed shopping malls has very little value.1 Many malls, he argued, are no longer viable as originally intended and a daunting mix of financial and zoning obstacles stand in the way of repurposing them for other uses. A client in attendance thought we were laying it on a little thick. “Aren’t you being extreme?” he asked. “Why won’t things go back to normal [for enclosed shopping malls] once there’s a vaccine?” Like casinos, malls created a self-contained environment where customers would spend more the longer they stayed, ...  We confess to a weakness for invented mash-up catchphrases that refer to the patently ridiculous (Sharknado) or relentlessly overhyped (the Snowmageddon build up to potential winter storms). It was with tongue in cheek that we titled the webcast “Mallpocalypse,” but this multi-part Special Report is testament to the dire prognosis for much of the stock of US malls. Malls were under pressure well before COVID-19 emerged and they would remain under pressure even if it were already in full retreat. The pandemic has dramatically accelerated weaker malls’ demise, and few of them appear to have a path back to viability. A Brief History Of The Shopping Mall The fully enclosed, temperature controlled Southdale Center in the Twin Cities suburb of Edina, Minnesota was the world’s first shopping mall. Its 1956 opening was front-page news across the national media, which greeted it with rapturous praise. It was designed by Austrian émigré Victor Gruen, who had made his name by reconfiguring New York City’s retail entryways in a way that lured prospective consumers into stores and helped to keep them there. His mall design achieved the same effect on a much greater scale. Southdale positioned 72 stores across two levels joined by escalators and bookended by two branch department store “anchors.” The open floor plan in the body connecting the anchors allowed for unimpeded views of nearly every storefront. “A ‘garden court’ under a skylight, with a fishpond, enormous sculpted trees, a twenty-one-foot cage filled with bright-colored birds, balconies with hanging plants and a café,”2 meant to evoke the feeling of a town square, was set in the center of the mall, inviting visitors to linger. Vast parking lots stood ready to accommodate thousands of their cars (Box 1). Malls revolved around the department store anchors that promised to deliver foot traffic that their rank-and-file tenants wouldn’t find on the high street or in supermarket-anchored shopping centers. Developers couldn’t get bank funding without contractually committed anchors and most mall leases today contain a provision that automatically resets rent lower, or allows tenants to exit their lease without penalty, if multiple anchors close. Per the 2019 10-K for Simon Property Group, the country’s largest mall owner, the rounded average base minimum rent for anchor tenants with leases expiring between 2020 and 2029 ranges from $4 to $8, while the average base minimum rent for inline tenants ranges from $50 to $65. Anchors are the belle of the ball and malls that lose them risk entering a death spiral. Box 1: The ‘70s: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It Other developers faithfully followed Gruen’s initial template during the mall building boom from the mid-fifties to 1990. The three malls within a 15-mile radius of my hometown – Concord Mall (Wilmington, DE, opened 1968), Exton Square Mall (Exton, PA, 1973) and Granite Run Mall (Media, PA, 1974) – had every element but swapped out the bright-colored birds for outsized fountains. Concord Mall meant ICEEs in blue and red cups with a cartoon polar bear, Exton Square was Baskin-Robbins’ mandarin chocolate sherbet and Granite Run was large square floor tiles with a beguiling pattern of cross-sectioned stones, but this elementary schooler’s dominant mall impression was the Niagara-like roar of the fountains, which seemed to fill every cubic foot of the area outside the stores. The Long-Running Department Store Crisis The minimum base rent comparison is not quite apples-to-apples, as anchor tenants often own their own spaces, but anchors are malls’ drawing card. As Simon’s 10-K puts it, “our [properties] rely upon anchor tenants to attract customers.” Ideally, an anchor will comfortably fill the two-level bookend spaces and bring a steady stream of consumers who may spend at the stores they pass on the way. Fit is essential: dollar store customers aren’t likely to pony up for luxury brands or the merchandise on offer at high-end boutiques. Gyms and movie theaters can absorb the space, but shopping may not be on their clientele’s agenda. ... and they counted on department stores to lure them inside it. Before the advent of category-killers in the ‘90s, department stores were an ideal anchor. They were trusted well-known brands that shoppers in their area were conditioned to seek out for a broad range of purchases (Box 2). Despite their struggles, department stores remain the go-to anchors at most malls. High-end brands like Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom or Saks might anchor a mall with luxury tenants, while Dillard’s, JCPenney, Lord & Taylor or the ubiquitous Macy’s might anchor a mall seeking a more general clientele. Box 2: The ‘80s: Best. Purchase. Ever. At 19, I ventured to the massive King of Prussia Mall for a post-Christmas department store sale where I wrote my first check with a comma to purchase a floor model Sony rack system (turntable, amplifier, receiver and dual tape deck) and a CD player. The nearly three-foot-high speakers and cabinet were an early concession to marital comity (reciprocated by the gift of higher-end bookshelf speakers) but the amplifier would keep spreading joy until 2012, when it succumbed just three blocks from BCA’s Montreal office to time and the steady thump of Crazy Horse. Unfortunately for mall operators, department stores have been losing ground for at least 25 years and openly reeling for the last ten. The big-box, category-killer stores, like Home Depot, the late Circuit City, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority and the late Toys ‘R’ Us, reshaped the retail landscape in the ‘90s, ushering in power centers and stealing business from department stores’ more expensive, less specialized and comparatively thinly stocked individual departments. The steady buildup of e-commerce (Chart 1), the shift in popular appeal from suburbia to urban centers and millennials’ celebrated preference for experiences over things contributed to further erosion. Private equity’s foray into the field exacerbated the other pressures. Its modus operandi of levering its portfolio companies up to the gills left the store chains it acquired dangerously unprepared to contend with falling revenues. Chart 1Perpetual Motion Machine A Rotten Time For A Pandemic Many department stores and other retail chains were staggering before a sick bat straggled into a live animal market in Hubei province. The subsequent pandemic has forced a long list of them, including Neiman Marcus, JCPenney and Lord & Taylor, into Chapter 11 to shrink their debt and their cost bases under the protection of the bankruptcy code (Table 1). Several national chains not in bankruptcy are trimming their footprints as well. Nordstrom has announced plans to close a sixth of its locations, and mall stalwart Macy’s (which also owns Bloomingdale’s) wants to shutter 125 of its 850 locations (Table 2). The pandemic has cut a wide swath through apparel retailers, department stores, gyms and restaurants and the toll continues to mount. Table 1Selected Pandemic Retail Bankruptcies Table 2Selected Store Closures Outside Of Bankruptcy Chapter 11 bankruptcy offers struggling businesses a second chance while protecting the interests of senior lenders and secured creditors, but it is cold comfort for unsecured creditors. From a landlord’s perspective at the back of the priority line, the time out that bankruptcy grants an ailing debtor is an excruciating limbo when it is enjoined from initiating eviction proceedings. The landlord collects little, if any, rent and is unable to market the space or spruce it up while the tenant is shielded by the court. The Fashion Industry Was Already A Mess The outlook for department stores is undoubtedly bleak, but the fashion industry, which has relied on department stores’ retail distribution channel, may have it worse. According to a wide-ranging New York Times Magazine cover story,3 the entire fashion ecosystem has been busily devouring itself ever since the financial crisis. Although turmoil in the fashion industry would not typically register with most non-specialist investors, apparel retailers account for around 60% of leased mall space and have become another flash point for mall distress. According to the apparel component of the consumer price index, clothing prices peaked in 1998, rebounded somewhat in 2011 and 2012, and had resumed drifting lower before plunging to 1998 levels in May. The decline in women’s clothing prices has been even more severe, falling 27% from their 1993 peak to slip all the way to 1981 levels (Chart 2). One culprit has been fast fashion. Enabled by social media’s instantaneous dissemination of runway designs, nimble non-luxury retailers like Zara and H&M are able to rush their own versions into production, front-running high-end collections and compelling department stores to discount their own inventory as soon as they receive it. Chart 2Salmon Have It Easier Discounting has been ruinous for the department stores’ apparel margins, as producers’ prices have failed to follow consumer prices lower (Chart 3). Department stores struck back by presenting designers with ridiculously one-sided vendor agreements. Designers reluctantly acquiesced, lest they lose access to the stores’ once-mighty distribution channel and fail to meet their lofty growth targets. Those targets are courtesy of a new breed of investor, eager to discover the next fashion star and ramp his/her operation up to scale immediately. The accelerated timetable pushes fledgling designers to expand well beyond the capacity of their bare-bones organizations and makes an inherently fickle business even more tenuous. Chart 3Rising Production Costs + Falling Prices = A Lot Of Red Ink E-commerce further eroded department stores’ and other brick-and-mortar retailers’ positions, a story with which investors are already familiar. The bottom line is that department stores (Chart 4) and apparel retailers (Chart 5) have been badly lagging the broader market for an extended period. Their relative market performance is consistent with their constituents’ cycling in and out of Chapter 11. Even though they shrink their debt loads and store footprints with every trip to the courthouse, they haven’t been able to do so fast enough to overcome revenue and margin headwinds that show no signs of letting up. Chart 4Gradually, Then Suddenly Chart 5Ex-The Discount Stores, Apparel Retailers Have Gotten Crushed Then the pandemic arrived and nearly the entire white-collar workforce, ex-health care professionals, ceased going to the office or traveling to meet clients in person. For five months and counting, the primary consumers of professional attire have had no reason to wear it, much less buy more. It’s no surprise that Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor, JoS. A. Bank and Men’s Wearhouse have been among the casualties. Overall sales of clothing fell off a cliff in March, April and May (Chart 6, top panel) but clothing stores fared even worse (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Apparelocalypse With department store anchors, who occupy approximately 30% of malls’ leasable area, and apparel retailers under siege, mall operators have few places to turn to fill their space. The new breed of anchor stand-ins – fitness centers, movie theaters and entertainment spaces – are not able to open in every state and haven’t been paying rent. Gold’s Gym, 24 Hour Fitness and Chuck E. Cheese have already filed for bankruptcy and the big movie theater chains’ future is deeply uncertain. There’s Gold In Them Thar Hills, But Someone Else Has Already Staked A Claim Green Street Advisors, the leading commercial real estate research and advisory firm, estimates that half of all mall-based department stores will close by the end of 2021. Estimates of the share of malls that will close in the aftermath range from a quarter to a third. If the US has around 1,200 malls, 300 or 400 may soon disappear. Their owners and the entities that have lent to them will recoup only a fraction of their initial investments. If their losses lead to a reduction in the availability of credit, or trigger a self-reinforcing wave of defaults and bankruptcies, they could have a broader macro impact. We will explore the potential macro effects in the next installment of the series. We close this one by noting the sad fate of the ‘70s-era malls within a 15-mile radius of West Chester, Pennsylvania. Granite Run Mall was razed in 2016 and replaced with an open-air mixed-use facility that retained the original mall’s anchor spaces. Concord Mall was sold to a buyer of distressed malls in January, which has yet to disclose its plans for the site. Exton Square Mall, which underwent an ill-fated 2000 expansion that more than doubled its leasable area, is now owned by the ailing publicly traded Pennsylvania Real Estate Trust (PEI). PEI classifies the property as a non-core asset, along with the other two weakest malls in its portfolio. The Chester County mall experience bears on a client question from the July 31st webcast: “People are fleeing cities for the countryside. Isn’t that the opportunity?” Chester County, which has the highest mean household income in Pennsylvania and the 27th highest in the United States, bucks the state’s broader demographic decline. West Chester, the county seat, added a third public high school in 2006; its university has steadily grown enrollment, increasing its share of students in the 14-school State System of Higher Education consortium from 12.1% in 2010-11 to 18.5% in 2019-20; and new highway arteries and commuter rail stations have made it much more feasible for residents to work in Philadelphia, 25 miles to the east, than it was in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Chester County has been a prime suburban development opportunity for 20 or 30 years and commercial and residential developers have been making the most of it, converting acreage formerly devoted to feed corn into high-end housing, office parks, luxury auto dealerships and other commercial uses. It’s not that the market can’t support retail, it’s that it no longer wants 50-year-old spaces that were built to serve a humbler, less affluent constituency. A range of newer open-air options featuring more upscale retailers and restaurants have supplanted Concord, Exton Square and Granite Run. The area has improved; it’s the old nags that couldn’t keep up.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Webcast "Mallpocalypse", from July 31, 2020, available at bcaresearch.com. 2 Gladwell, Malcolm, "The Terrazzo Jungle," The New Yorker, March 15, 2004. 3 Aleksander, Irina. "Sweatpants Forever," The New York Times Magazine, August 9, 2020, pp. 28-33 and 42-43.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. We remain constructive on the equity market’s prospects on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. While the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index, we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. Relative supply/demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.   Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P real estate trade, today. Table 1 Feature The SPX had a bumper week last week, but failed to pierce through the 200-day moving average. A flare up in the US/China trade war, a barrage of positive coronavirus vaccine news and Jay Powell’s 60 minutes interview brought back some volatility in trading, however, the VIX remains in a steady downturn. Importantly, investors are nowhere near as complacent as during the 2018/19 or early 2020 SPX peaks, judging by VIX futures positioning (net speculative positions shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1Positioning Is Far... In other words, there is still room for equities to rise before sentiment reaches greedy levels. A number of other indicators we track confirm that recent SPX trading is associated more with panic than with euphoria. Namely, Chart 2 shows that our Complacency-Anxiety, Capitulation and Equity Sentiment Indicators, all corroborate that investor confidence is far from previous exuberant peaks, and signal that there is scope for additional equity gains on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon.  Delving deeper into investor psyche, our sense is that there are three distinct camps of investors at the current juncture, two of which are fiercely battling it out in the stock market. Chart 2…From Complacent First there are the pessimists that we call “second wavers” that are more often than not also “Fed non-believers” or “Fed fighters”. They argue that stocks are extremely expensive and if a second wave of the corona virus hits, then stocks are going to plunge anew given the lack of a valuation cushion, as all the money in the world (Fed QE5) cannot cure the virus (top panel, Chart 3). Second, there are the optimists that are hopeful that a vaccine/drug cocktail discovery is looming to effectively eradicate the coronavirus. These investors also believe in the smooth reopening of the economy. But, even if there were a second wave, their thinking goes that our societies/governments/health care systems are all going to be more prepared and effective to deal with a second viral outbreak in the fall. In addition, they are in the “do not fight the Fed” camp. Finally, there are the more moderate investors that lie somewhere in between these two camps. They sat tight and held on to their stock positions during the 36% peak-to-trough SPX drawdown and have likely been on the sidelines lately (bottom panel, Chart 3) awaiting a catalyst to either deploy fresh capital or raise some cash. We are in the more optimistic camp and while a vaccine may be months away, we will have to figure out a way as a society to more effectively protect the elderly that are most at risk from the virus and continue to live on, as we first posited in the March 23rd Weekly Report when we outlined 20 reasons to buy stocks and reprint here: "20. Social-distancing measures in the West will ultimately break the Epidemic Curve first derivative and arrest the panic. Even if COVID-19 comes back in force, the fact is that most of the patients who succumb to it are elderly. In Italy, the average age of death is 80 years old. As such, the final circuit-breaker ahead of a GFC would be desensitization by the population, as selective quarantines – targeting the elderly cohorts – get implemented in order to allow other people to return to work. Furthermore, two “silver bullet” solutions remain as tail risks to the bearish narrative. First, a biotech or pharmaceutical company may make a breakthrough in the fight against COVID-19. Not necessarily a vaccine, but a treatment. Finally, upcoming warm weather in the northern hemisphere may also help the fight against the virus."1 Chart 3Cash Hoarding Is Associated With Market Troughs Chart 4Loose Monetary Policy… Moreover, we definitely refrain from fighting the Fed as we outlined in our recent “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” Weekly Report2 and reiterate that view today (Chart 4). While some investors were surprised by Jay Powell’s 60 Minutes interview remarks on the way the Fed digitally creates money, Ben Bernanke in another 60 Minutes interview in March 20093 made a similar comment that we cited in our March 23 Weekly Report (please refer to reason number 6 to buy equities).4 Importantly, we felt that Jay Powell’s demeanor was more like “please test our resolve Mr. Market if you reckon the FOMC is out of ammunition”. As a reminder, the Fed is in a position of strength: devaluing a currency is easy, revaluing/defending a currency is difficult and at times impossible as FX (and gold) reserves eventually run dry. In sum, the Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy (Chart 5) remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. Eventually, a liquidity handoff to growth will take root, and the SPX will no longer require the immense fiscal and monetary supports. As a result we continue to believe that stocks will be higher in the coming 9-12 months. Chart 5…And Easy Fiscal Policy Are Underpinning Stocks Biotech Delivers We have been overweight the S&P biotech index and adding alpha to our portfolio in the double digits, however we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. While a few technology sectors and subsectors have come close to vaulting to fresh all-time highs, none other than the S&P biotech index has managed such an impressive feat. The stealthy advance in biotech stocks has been earnings driven and is not only confined to the narrow based Big-Pharma lookalike S&P biotech index (Chart 6). The broader-based NASDAQ biotech index comprising 209 stocks has also quietly sprang to uncharted territory. True, relative share prices have yet to make the all-time high leap, but have bested the market roughly by 30% year-to-date irrespective of the biotech index or ETF tracked (Chart 6). Importantly, growth stocks in general and biotech stocks in particular perform exceptionally well in a disinflationary growth environment. Therefore biotech stocks are the primary beneficiaries of the Fed’s QE5 and NIRP policies at a time when inflation is missing in action (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Earnings-Led Advance This goldilocks backdrop is also evident in the US bank credit impulse that has gone parabolic. When there is flushing liquidity and growth is scarce and declining, investors flock to any growth they can get their hands on (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Goldilocks Backdrop US dollar based liquidity, also underpins biotech stocks. In recent research, we have been highlighting that the Fed is indirectly targeting the debasing of the greenback. All this excess US dollar liquidity will eventually boost global growth, and reflate corporate earnings via the export relief valve. Biotech stocks will also get a fillip from a depreciating US dollar (Chart 8). Our overweight thesis in biotech was predicated – among other things – upon Big Pharma taking out biotech players and acquiring their coveted drug pipelines. We continue to side with the potential M&A targets, rather than the acquirers. The number of industry M&A deals has reached fever pitch and deal premia are still averaging over 60% (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Flooding Is A Boon For Biotech Equities Currently, the global race to find a coronavirus vaccine has further propelled biotech stocks. Indeed, investors are voting with their feet and are betting on a vaccine breakthrough. Thus, the allure of biotech stocks has also increased a notch as the possibility of a vaccine makes their earnings streams even more valuable and desirable to Big Pharma. A mega M&A deal in the space would not take us by surprise. Chart 9M&A Activity Will Remain Robust A few words are in order on the earnings, valuation and technical fronts. While relative share price momentum is galloping higher, it is moving in lockstep with rising earnings estimates (second panel, Chart 10). We would be extremely concerned if this were a multiple expansion driven relative share price advance. In fact, the biotech forward P/E trades both below the historical mean and at a 39% discount to the broad market hovering near an all-time low (Chart 10). Even on a dividend yield basis, biotech stocks are cheap sporting a higher (and safer) dividend yield than the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Biotech Stocks Are As Cheap As They Have Ever Been Chart 11Earnings Hurdle Remains Low Finally, relative long-term profit growth euphoria reaching astronomical levels, preceded previous S&P biotech index peaks: three times in the past two decades biotech stocks were projected to surpass SPX profit growth by roughly 10%. The current reading has plunged to negative 1.2% (Chart 11). Netting it all out, the global race for a coronavirus vaccine, robust earnings growth, ample US dollar liquidity and generationally low interest rates suggest that the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index.   Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P biotech index, but put it on downgrade alert and set a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, ALXN, AMGN, BIIB, GILD, INCY, REGN, VRTX. Intra-Real Estate Trade Idea There is an exploitable trade opportunity in the real estate market, preferring residential real estate to commercial real estate (CRE). The cleanest way to play this is via a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade, and we recommend initiating such a market-neutral trade today. Relative performance remains below the upward sloping time trend and at least a mini overshoot phase is in the cards in the coming quarters (Chart 12). One of the key drivers for this pair trade is the ebb and flow of owning versus renting and the current message is positive for homebuilders at the expense of REITs (Chart 13). Chart 12Looming Overshoot Phase Chart 13Own Versus Rent Upswing Is Bullish For The Pair Trade Home ownership has suffered a setback and never reclaimed its pre GFC highs. However, there is pent up demand for single family homes, especially given the recent drubbing of interest rates which should bring first time home buyers back into the market. Millennials up to now have been more of a renter generation, but as household formation increases for the largest cohort in the US, homeownership will make a comeback. One can argue that both real estate segments are interest rate sensitive and that they should benefit from lower rates. However, banks are more willing to lend to consumers in order to buy a home rather than to investors for CRE properties/projects by a factor of 2:1 according to the latest Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer survey.5 Similarly, whereas demand for CRE loans has collapsed according to the same survey in April, demand for residential real estate loans spiked (top panel, Chart 14). In times of coronavirus-induced social distancing there is a lot more risk associated with CRE versus residential properties. Apartment REITs for example have an element of density-related risk versus the allure of a single family home in the suburbs. Likely social distancing will place a premium on single family homes in coming quarters at the expense of living in high rises in the city. This backdrop bodes well for home prices, but ill for CRE prices which according to Green Street Advisors contracted by 9% in April.6 Keep in mind that residential real estate price only very recently surpassed their 2006 zenith whereas CRE price are still hovering at one standard deviation above the previous peak (Chart 14). Debt deflation is a real threat for CRE prices and given that REITs are at the bottom of this levered asset’s capital structure it is last to collect.  Also the long-term ramifications to demand on CRE are grave compared with residential real estate. On the office REIT segment as an example, we deem that corporations will rethink their often expensive downtown office space requirements and likely downsize, as working from home has become mainstream. The unintended consequence of this realization is that demand for (larger) single family homes will also increase as workers opt to set up more comfortable working spaces at suburban homes. Chart 14Homebuilders Have The Upper Hand Shopping mall REITs are under relentless attack from the Amazonification of the economy and now have to contend with social distancing. The retail shopping experience will never be the same again sustaining the threat of extinction for shopping centers. On the construction front, single family housing starts are breaking ground at the historical mean and way below the 2006 peak run-rate, however, multi-family supply has gone parabolic (Chart 15). These diverging supply conditions are a harbinger of rising relative share prices. Finally, with regard to technicals and valuations homebuilders have the upper hand. Our Technical Indicator is in the neutral zone and relative valuations have collapsed near all-time lows offering a compelling entry point to the pair trade (Chart 16). Chart 15Supply Dynamics Favor Homebuilders Chart 16Relative Pessimism Is Contrarily Positive Netting it all out, relative supply and demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.  Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilding and S&P REITs indexes are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, NVR, DHI, and BLBG: S5REITS – AMT, PLD, CCI, EQIX, DLR, SBAC, PSA, AVB, EQR, WELL, ARE, O, SPG, ESS, WY, MAA, VTR, DRE, PEAK, BXP, EXR, UDR, HST, REG, IRM, VNO, FRT, AIV, KIM, SLG, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-bernankes-greatest-challenge/2/ 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-202004.htm 6    https://www.greenstreetadvisors.com/insights/CPPI             Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA  Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

We continue to recommend investors avoid the S&P real estate sector. For investors seeking defensive protection we would recommend hiding in the S&P health care sector instead, as we highlighted in our mid-March report.1 The chart on the right shows a disturbing breakdown in the inverse correlation between the relative share price ratio and the 10-year Treasury yield. While it makes intuitive sense that this fixed income proxy sector (i.e. high dividend yielding) should move in the opposite direction of the competing risk-free yielding asset, at times of tumult this correlation reverts to positive (top panel) as the sector looses its attractiveness thanks to the very illiquid assets that dominate REITs’ holdings. Commercial real estate prices also remain extended and vulnerable to a deflationary shock (bottom panel). Currently there is no real price discovery as no landlord would dare put any properties for sale in this market starved for liquidity. With the exception of distressed sales, we deem that the “mark to model” mantra will make a comeback, eerily reminiscent of the GFC. Bottom Line: Shy away from the S&P real estate sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RLST – CCI, AMT, PLD, EQIX, DLR, PSA, SBAC, AVB, EQR, FRT, SPG, WELL, ARE, CBRE, O, BXP, ESS, EXR, DRE, PEAK, HST, MAA, UDR, VTR, WY, AIV, IRM, PEG, VNO, SLG. For more details please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.     1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Inflection Point” dated March 16, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights Commercial rents have fallen in real terms, revealing that the commercial property price rally has been fueled exclusively by low rates. Limited upside for rents and an upward direction for future rates are two significant headwinds. However, commercial real estate is especially pro-cyclical and inflationary pressures need to work their way into the economy before the risk of a downturn becomes imminent. The good news is that the economy is less vulnerable to slipping commercial property prices. Large banks have shrunk their commercial property loan books and their composition has shifted towards safer categories of commercial loans. While the macroeconomic outlook remains somewhat neutral, CMBS’ risk/reward profile appears reasonably attractive relative to other US bond sectors. Feature Real estate was a bane for markets and the banking system in the last recession, and commercial properties have lately become an increasingly popular source of concern among investors. Average prices have grown by 90% over the past decade, rising well above their pre-Great Financial Crisis peaks. We have made the case that we are heading into the expansion’s last stretch. The study of economic cycles and our relentless quest to identify inflection points ahead of time become more timely as the bull market ages. To this end, current commercial property valuations deserve close scrutiny and we explore whether any underlying excesses could potentially disrupt financial stability or precipitate a recession in the US. We conclude that although commercial property prices have little hope of appreciating significantly from current levels, a reversal is not imminent until inflationary pressure forces rates higher. When prices eventually slip, the impact on the overall economy should be more attenuated than it was in the last recession, as the banking system has become less vulnerable to a downturn in commercial real estate. While the fundamental macro outlook remains neutral, suggesting no imminent pressure on spreads, US bond investors can find relative value in non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS (vs. corporate bonds rated A or higher) and in agency CMBS (vs. agency residential mortgaged-backed securities). A Rate-Driven Rally Chart 1Commercial Rents Have Decoupled From Property Prices Like all financial assets, commercial property prices are derived from discounting future cash flows to their present value. Since the crisis, a low rate environment, supported by a sluggish inflation backdrop and continuously accommodative monetary policy, has depressed the valuation equation’s denominator. Meanwhile, strong economic fundamentals and demographic trends - such as urbanization and the millennials’ tendency to marry and purchase a home at a later age - have helped boost the numerator for commercial and multi-family residential properties in the past decade. However, with the exception of multi-family residential real estate - for which price appreciation has also been the strongest - real rents have fallen (Chart 1), revealing that low rates have propelled commercial properties’ price appreciation over the past decade. The combination of falling real rents and surging property prices has depressed commercial real estate cap rates1 to cyclical low levels, raising the question of a potential unwind. Mathematically, an increase in cap rates could result, on the one hand, from rent growth outpacing inflation growth, translating into an increase in real rents on the numerator. Alternatively, cap rates could rise from falling property prices, reducing the denominator. On a cyclical horizon, the latter outcome seems more likely than the former. Little Upside Left For Rents First, the fact that rents in real terms have decreased in spite of sluggish inflation is a bad omen for the outlook for future real rents. We have made the case that there is more inflationary pressure than meets the eye beneath the surface of the US economy. The combination of an already very tight labor market and a pickup in manufacturing activity point towards further wage growth. Inflation is a lagging indicator that has more scope to rise than roll-over at this stage of the cycle. All else equal, upward inflationary pressure will depress real rents further. Second, nominal rents themselves are also facing significant headwinds. Office buildings’ and retail shopping centers’ vacancies have barely recovered from the hit they took in the last recession, while new inventory is struggling to get absorbed by new demand (Chart 2). A strong labor market generally supports the demand for office spaces but a tight labor market limits its future upside. The latter, though, increases potential wage gains and consumers’ purchasing power, whose fundamentals are already strong. We have shown that US consumers’ increased savings rates and lower debt levels put them in a good position to spend their incremental income. Chart 2Post-Crisis Office And Shopping Center Vacancies Remain Elevated... Chart 3...As These Sectors Face Structural Disruptions However, both sectors are facing structural disruptions. Co-working has introduced a new player in the office segment – a sub-lessor who signs long-term leases on space it rents out in short-term chunks. If a sizable sub-lessor like WeWork were forced to shrink its footprint, a lot of office supply would come back on to the market, while demand is shrinking as businesses attempt to reduce the area each employee occupies. Brick-and-mortar retailers continue to be buffeted as e-commerce captures an increasing share of consumer spending, keeping downward pressure on retail rents (Chart 3). The picture looks slightly brighter in the industrial properties space, where vacancies have recovered to healthier levels, though low vacancies have failed to lift rents as demand for properties is being met by new inventory (Chart 4). The revival in global manufacturing activity that we are expecting to occur this year should support industrial property rents in the near term, but the advanced age of the cycle limits future upside. Chart 4A Brighter Picture For Industrial And Apartment Buildings... Chart 5...Thanks To Rising Renters Income Chart 6Over-Construction Of High-Tier Properties Multi-family residential housing is the only sector that has experienced steady real rent growth, fueled by a combination of rising rentership rates and rising household income amongst renters (Chart 5). Homebuilders’ focus on building higher-end units has led to an oversupply of more expensive properties, and their prices have already started to contract on a year-on-year basis (Chart 6). Multi-family residential properties rents should lose momentum as the alternative cost of owning homes falls, especially as homebuilders attempt to right-size their mix of properties to offer more lower-end supply. Exhausted Demand A commercial real estate rally fueled by perpetually falling rates is unsustainable. Although the market sees the potential for an additional rate cut, we think the Fed is done cutting. Labor market strength and a revival in global manufacturing activity argue that no further accommodation or insurance rate cuts are necessary. From current levels, the path of least resistance for rates is upwards (Chart 7). Strong demand from institutional investors has also contributed to fueling prices. Pension funds and insurance companies’ holdings of mortgages and agency-backed securities have nearly doubled since 2010 (Chart 8, first panel) and their allocation as a percentage of total assets is nearing pre-recession highs (Chart 8, second panel). These levels allow them little flexibility to sustain their demand impulse, as there is only so much they can allocate to real estate and other alternative investments. Chart 7Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Chart 8Saturated Demand From Institutional Investors... Demand from yield-hungry investors may also get exhausted if CMBS yields deflate to the point where they lose competitiveness relative to other income-producing investments. CMBS yields have broadly moved with other bond yields since the crisis, though US high-yield corporates have widened somewhat over the last few years, making them a slightly more appealing alternative to CMBS, all else equal (Chart 9). The steady downward pressure on multi-family cap rates since 2010 (Chart 10) reveals that the collateral underlying multi-family loans has become increasingly ambitiously priced, suggesting that losses given default on multi-family backed CMBS without agency backing may be rising, eroding prospective default-adjusted returns. Chart 9...And From Yield-Hungry Investors? Chart 10Cap Rates Have Reached Cyclical Lows New regulations also have the potential to retract a significant share of demand for commercial mortgages. The severe housing market deterioration during the Great Financial Crisis and the government intervention required to ensure Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s solvency led the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to place these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) under conservatorship in 2014 and to cap their holdings of multi-family mortgages to US$ 100 billion for each GSE. A commercial real estate rally fueled by perpetually falling rates is unsustainable. Current holdings of multi-family residential loans far exceed the stated limits (Table 1). GSEs hold nearly half of all multi-family residential loans outstanding. The post-crisis growth in GSE-guaranteed loans is largely attributable to the exclusion from the cap of certain categories of loans such as green energy loans (Chart 11). The FHFA eliminated these exemptions last year, making the US$ 200 billion cap more binding and applicable to all multi-family loans without exception.2 The impact on mortgage originators and investors is yet to be seen but it would naturally follow that demand for multi-family mortgages to bundle into CMBS would decline if the GSEs are forced to take a step back from the space. Table 1Commercial Real Estate Loans By Holder ($US Mn) Chart 11Multi-Family Mortgage Debt Outstanding By Mortgage Holder Late-Cycle Dynamics Commercial mortgages are typically non-recourse (in case of default, the borrower can only recover the value of the collateralized property) making the loss given default a function of property prices. When times are good and property prices rise, borrowers can easily refinance their loans. The opposite holds in bad times. Therefore, commercial real estate prices are especially pro-cyclical. In spite of the headwinds outlined above, a commercial property downturn does not seem imminent. In spite of the headwinds outlined above, a commercial property downturn does not seem imminent. First, the US economy still has momentum, is supported by highly accommodative monetary policy and should get a boost from a global growth revival. Absent any major exogenous shock to the global economy, we expect that a recession is at least eighteen months away. For as long as the economy keeps expanding, commercial real estate prices can remain elevated. Second, sources of financing remain abundant as the emergence of alternative lenders (Chart 12) has offset the banks’ tighter lending standards for commercial properties (Chart 13). The proliferation of non-bank lenders is typically a late-cycle indicator. Chart 12The Proliferation Of Alternative Lenders… However, when the economy starts contracting, a commercial real estate downturn could have an outsized impact on banks with significant exposure. In the late 1980s, the commercial property downturn induced a recession and the subprime mortgage bust gave rise to the Great Financial Crisis. Healthier Balance Sheets The good news for the economy today is that banks are less vulnerable to a downturn in commercial real estate than they were back then. The good news for the economy today is that banks are less vulnerable to a downturn in commercial real estate. Banks have decreased their overall exposure to commercial property loans to levels below their 2008 and 1989 peaks (Chart 14). It is worth noting, though, that smaller banks have taken an increasingly important role in the commercial property market as they now finance 65% of all commercial property loans. However, a stronger concentration in smaller banks represents a localized rather than systemic risk, as smaller banks tend to have a more concentrated geographic exposure. Conversely, large banks have significantly shrunk their commercial real estate loan books.3 Chart 14Large Banks Have Shrunk Their CRE Books... Chart 15...And Shifted Away From Speculative-Grade Loans Most importantly, the composition of the commercial property loan book has changed drastically since the Great Financial Crisis. Banks have significantly reduced their exposure to more speculative construction and development loans (Chart 15). Risk appetite typically increases in the latter stages of an expansion, yet construction loans remain at relatively depressed levels. The growth in commercial property loans since 2013 has entirely been explained by the rise in relatively less risky multi-family and non-residential non-farm loans. Investment Implications A commercial real estate downturn is probably not a 2020 event. Inflationary pressures need to make their presence felt across a wide swath of the economy before Fed hikes will give rates the scope to move sustainably higher. In the meantime, bond investors with a mandate to remain exposed to CMBS can reap the benefits of attractive risk/reward profiles relative to other segments of the US bond market. US Bond Strategy’s Excess Return Bond Map measures the number of standard deviations of spread widening a sector would need to experience, before losing 100 basis points relative to a duration-matched position in Treasuries4 (Chart 16). Sectors plotting near the top-right of the Map carry both high expected return and low risk. Sectors plotting near the bottom-left carry low expected return and high risk. Chart 16BCA US Bond Strategy’s Excess Return Bond Map Chart 17Tighter Standards And Decelerating Prices This valuation framework currently suggests that CMBS look reasonably attractive. Non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS’ expected return is more promising than Aaa-and Aa-rated corporate bonds and somewhat similar to the expected return on an A-rated corporate bond. Meanwhile, CMBS exhibit a lower risk of losing 100 bps. Similarly, Agency CMBS offer greater expected return than Conventional 30-year Agency-backed residential MBS, along with a similar risk of losses. Although relative valuations appear attractive, the fundamental outlook remains neutral for CMBS spreads, for now. Periods of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and weakening commercial loan demand have historically coincided with decelerating commercial real estate prices and widening CMBS spreads. The Fed’s Q3 2019 Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed only a small net tightening of lending standards and unchanged demand (Chart 17). Overall, the lack of inflationary pressure suggests that neither a commercial real estate downturn nor a meaningful widening of CMBS spreads is an imminent threat.   Jennifer Lacombe Senior Analyst JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A capitalization rate is the ratio of net operating income (rent) to price and measures the expected rate of return on a real estate investment. As such, a property’s price can also be derived by dividing its rent by its cap rate. 2 More information about GSE’s conservatorship can be found on the FHFA’s website (https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/History-of-Fannie-Mae--Freddie-Conservatorships.aspx and https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/New-Multifamily-Caps-9132019.aspx). 3 An analysis of the largest banks’ earnings call we carried out last October also revealed that large banks were unanimously shrinking their commercial real estate books. For more details, please refer to US Investment Strategy Weekly Report from October 28, 2019, "What The Biggest Banks See", available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For more details on the methodology behind our Excess Return Bond Map please see US Bond Strategy October 15, 2019 Weekly Report "A Perspective On Risk And Reward", available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Underweight Similar to utilities, REITs have come to the forefront lately as they have populated the top return sector ranks. Importantly, today several key factors signal that investors should shed public market real estate exposure. Namely, weakening supply/demand dynamics, pricing pressures, macro headwinds and still pricey valuations (primarily rock bottom cap rates) are all firing warning shots. On the demand front, not only our proprietary real estate demand indicator has sunk recently, but also the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey revealed that demand for CRE loans remains feeble (third & bottom panels). Simultaneously, fewer bankers are willing to extend CRE credit according to the same quarterly Fed survey (second panel). This tightening backdrop coupled with decelerating credit growth, will continue to weigh on CRE prices and S&P REITs.  Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight rating in the S&P real estate sector. For more details, please refer to the most recent Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5RLST – AMT, PLD, CCI, SPG, EQIX, WELL, PSA, EQR, AVB, SBAC, O, DLR, WY, VTR, ESS, BXP, CBRE, ARE, PEAK, MAA, UDR, EXR, DRE, HST, REG, VNO, IRM, FRT, KIM, AIV, SLG, MAC. ​​​​​​​

Dear Client, Instead of our regular weekly report next Monday, this Friday November 22, you will receive our flagship publication “The Bank Credit Analyst” with our annual investment outlook. Our regular publication service will resume on December 2  with our high-conviction calls for 2020. Kind regards, Anastasios Avgeriou Highlights Portfolio Strategy Weakening supply/demand dynamics, pricing pressures, macro headwinds and pricey valuations are all warning that REITs are headed south. Global capex blues and the ongoing manufacturing recession, the resilient US dollar and weak operating metrics all confirm that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P communications equipment index. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 made fresh all-time highs again last week, as investors focused on hopes of a US/China trade deal and continued to ignore negative data/news at their own peril. Domestically, unemployment insurance claims jumped to the highest level since June, and none of the major market and industry groups showed a gain in output on a month-over-month basis in October according to the latest Fed industrial production release. Internationally, Korean exports remain in the doldrums, Chinese data releases were weak across the board, and the mighty US dollar is making multi-decade highs versus a slew of EM currencies. Chart 1Disquieting Gap All of this begs the question is global growth going to recover and aid the equity market grow into its lofty valuation? Our indicators suggest that a definitive earnings trough is now pushed out to Q2/2020. Thus, equity market caution is still warranted.   Given all the recent equity market euphoria, we feel more and more like “the lone calf standing on the desolate, dangerous, wolf-patrolled prairie of contrary opinion” as – arguably the greatest trader of all time – Jesse Livermore mused roughly a century ago. Share buybacks have been a key pillar underpinning stocks since the GFC averaging roughly $500bn/annum since 2010. But, last year equity retirement jumped to nearly $1tn/annum. That is clearly unsustainable, warning that there is a disconnect between the S&P 500 and already steeply decelerating share buybacks. Our equity retirement estimate for next year is a return to the 10-year average, signaling that the market may hit a significant air pocket (top panel, Chart 1). Another perplexing recent phenomenon has been the lack of buying on margin that typically confirms SPX breakouts. While this episode may be similar to the 2015/16 episode, if margin debt does not recover soon it will exert downward pull on the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 1). Turning over to earnings, revenues, margins and the forward multiple is instructive. Turning over to earnings, revenues, margins and the forward multiple is instructive. Chart 2 highlights the S&P 500 earnings growth surprise factor. In more detail, this IBES/Refinitiv data show how accurate the sell side analysts’ 12-month forward EPS forecasts have been over time: a reading above zero implies the analyst community was too timid, while a fall below zero signals analysts were too optimistic. Chart 2Unhinged From The EPS Accuracy Signal Equity market momentum moves with the ebb and flow of this factor and given the still downbeat message both from our SPX profit model (please refer to our recent webcast slides) and our simple liquidity indicator (please see Chart 4 from last week’s publication), we doubt 10% profit growth is even plausible for 2020. On the margin front, all four key profit margin drivers are on the brink of turning from tailwinds to headwinds as we recently highlighted in our “Peak Margins?” Special Report. Revenue growth is also at risk of a standstill. Domestic producer prices are deflating, and the ISM prices paid index has been clobbered. German, Japanese, Korean and Chinese wholesale prices are contracting and the OECD’s composite PPI measure is also sinking, suggesting that final demand is anemic at best. Under such a dire global pricing backdrop, it will be challenging for SPX sales to sustain their positive momentum, especially if the greenback remains well bid (Chart 3). Chart 3Top Line Growth Troubles Forward multiples have slingshot higher despite a near 40bps increase in the 10-year yield since Labor Day. When the discount rate rises the multiple should come in and vice versa. Thus, we would lean against the recent spike in the S&P 500 forward P/E (10-year yield shown inverted, Chart 4). This week we are updating our negative views on a niche high-yielding sector and a tech subgroup. Finally, while sifting through market internals, we recently stumbled upon the GICS2 S&P consumer services index. Digging deeper into services was revealing. This relative share price ratio has gapped down of late. One of the reasons is that the services component of the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) data is decelerating (PCE services shown advanced, middle panel, Chart 5). The ISM non-manufacturing survey is also an excellent leading indicator of the S&P consumer services index, and warns that things will likely get worse before they get better (bottom panel, Chart 5).       Chart 4Lofty Valuations Chart 5Market Internals Signal: Sit This One Out This week we are updating our negative views on a niche high-yielding sector and a tech subgroup. Getting Real With Real Estate We would refrain from chasing high yielding real estate stocks higher, and would rather avoid them altogether at the current juncture. Similar to utilities, REITs have come to the forefront lately as they have populated the top return sector ranks. However, real estate stocks, which have split out of the financials sector, are a niche GICS1 sector with a mere 3% market capitalization weight in the SPX, and have not driven the S&P 500 to all-time highs. Instead, tech stocks have, owing to their 23% market capitalization weight, as we have shown in recent research.1 Importantly, several key factors continue to signal that investors should shed public market real estate exposure. Namely, weakening supply/demand dynamics, pricing pressures, macro headwinds and still pricey valuations (primarily rock bottom cap rates) are all firing warning shots. The commercial real estate (CRE) sector is a bubble candidate that exemplifies this cycle’s excesses. As we have highlighted in the past, CRE prices sit at roughly two standard deviations above both the historical time trend and the previous cycle’s peak (not shown).2 Worryingly, CRE demand is waning. Not only our proprietary real estate demand indicator has sunk recently, but also the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey revealed that demand for CRE loans remains feeble (third & bottom panels, Chart 6). Simultaneously, fewer bankers are willing to extend CRE credit according to the same quarterly Fed survey (Chart 7). This tightening backdrop is weighing on CRE credit growth and CRE prices (second panel, Chart 6). In fact, absent credit growth providing the necessary fuel to sustain the CRE price inflation frenzy, there are rising odds that investors pull the plug on REITs (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Demand Ails Chart 7Time To... Already, occupancy rates have crested and there are increasing anecdotes of credit quality deterioration. As a result, CRE rents are also failing to keep up with inflation which eats into relative cash flow growth prospects (Chart 8). The supply side build up tilts this delicate balance further into deficit. Non-residential construction shows no signs of abating, with multi-family housing starts still running at an historically high rate of roughly 400K/annum (Chart 9). Such relentless overbuilding sows the seeds of the eventual felling in CRE prices and rents, which should also dent the S&P real estate sector. Chart 8...Lighten Up On Real Estate Chart 9Supply Build Up Is Deflationary Meanwhile, interest rate related headwinds will also weigh on this high-yielding sector in coming quarters, especially if the selloff in the bond market gains steam as BCA’s fixed income strategists continue to expect. While in the 2000s REITs were positively correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield, since 2010 this relationship has flipped and is now a tight inverse correlation (Chart 10). Chart 10Rising Yields = Sell REITs Finally, our proprietary Valuation Indicator (VI) has enjoyed an impressive run since the 2017 trough and despite the recent relative selloff remains in overvalued territory. Our Technical Indicator (TI) hit a wall of late near one standard deviation above the historical mean and has only partially unwound the overbought reading since the early 2018 bottom. If our thesis pans out, we expect heightened selling pressure to weigh further on our VI and TI (Chart 11). Chart 11Still Too Pricey Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight rating in the S&P real estate sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5RLST – AMT, PLD, CCI, SPG, EQIX, WELL, PSA, EQR, AVB, SBAC, O, DLR, WY, VTR, ESS, BXP, CBRE, ARE, PEAK, MAA, UDR, EXR, DRE, HST, REG, VNO, IRM, FRT, KIM, AIV, SLG, MAC . Lost Signal The communications equipment rally stalled early in the summer and has since morphed into a bear market. We are sticking with our underweight recommendation, especially given a darkening profit outlook for this niche tech sub-group. Bellwether CSCO’s latest guidance was weak and confirmed that this capex-laden tech sub-index is in for a rough ride. Worryingly, CSCO’s key enterprise segment has no pulse. Historically, this data series has been positively correlated with telecom carrier capital outlays and the current message is grim (second panel, Chart 12). Tack on the ongoing manufacturing recession with CEOs canceling/postponing capital spending plans and the outlook dims further for the revenue prospects of communications equipment vendors (third & bottom panels, Chart 12). Chart 12Heed The CSCO Warning Adding insult to injury, the US/China trade war is further complicating the picture. The ongoing tariffs have exacerbated the global growth slowdown and global capex plans have come under intense scrutiny. The IFO’s World Economic Outlook capex intentions survey has plunged, warning that global exports of telecom gear have ample downside (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Capex Blues Chart 14US Dollar The Deflator The greenback’s resilience is also sapping business purchasing power, especially in the emerging markets, denting final-demand. Therefore, the US dollar’s appreciation robs communications equipment manufacturers’ pricing power, makes their goods more expensive in the global market place, and as a consequence forces market share losses on them (Chart 14). The greenback’s resilience is also sapping business purchasing power, especially in the emerging markets, denting final-demand. The implication of weakening pricing power is that profits will likely underwhelm. Currently, the sell-side is penciling in roughly 10% EPS growth for the S&P communications equipment index over and above the SPX in the next twelve months. This is a tall order and we would lean against such extreme analyst optimism (bottom panel, Chart 15). Operating metrics are quickly losing steam, another harbinger of profit ails for this tech sub-group. In more detail, our productivity proxy has taken a steep turn for the worse and industry executives have also put investment projects on hold (middle panel, Chart 15). Moreover, the communication equipment new orders-to-inventories ratio is contracting and industry resource utilization is probing multi-year lows, according to the Fed’s latest industrial production release. Under such a backdrop, relative top line growth is on track to level off and likely flirt with the contraction zone (Chart 16). Chart 15Operating Metric... Chart 16...Dysphoria Netting it all out, global capex blues, the resilient US dollar and weak operating metrics all confirm that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P communications equipment index.    Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P communications equipment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5COMM – CSCO, JNPR, MSI, ANET, FFIV. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Deciphering Sector Returns” dated August 30, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “10 Most FAQs From The Road” dated April 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)